| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
AhmadJoyia 
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 08 February 2016 at 10:45am |
 Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Your logic implies opportunity based model in which all and everyone involved has proportional, if not equal, opportunity to score a goal (through highway robbery). Thus implying chaos of such a nature and magnitude, which is obviously not suitable for a sustainable community living; and is in stark contrast to the reality existed at those times. Thus, not a valid hypothesis. |
Well, the "national sport" model was suggested by Karen Armstrong, not me, so if you think it is in "stark contrast to the reality", then it seems that you don't have much faith in her assessment. Which is fine, except that I think you ought to at least present some evidence of this stark contrast before you dismiss her expert opinion. To me, Armstrong's portrayal of the ethos at the time sounds about right. There were stable communities within each tribe, but the inter-tribal rivalries and occasional outright warfare do indeed sound like chaos to me. I wouldn't want to be travelling the highways at that time and in that region without an armed escort. |
Good to know your �faith� in Karen�s �expert opinion�, though your extrapolations are too off the track. Even your expert, on page 127 (ch 4), clearly writes that Even though the Emigrants desperately needed an income, plunder was not his primary objective. The raiders may have come back empty handed, but they had at least brought the Muslims to the attention of Mecca. Obviously her writing style is such to suit your mood, nevertheless her own confession on this issue is very clear.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Again your suggested sport model does not hold ground simply because if it was, then Prophet could have easily sent the helpers to do the job well within this sport and never have exited the wrath of Meccans. Their chances of winning could have easily increased many fold with the type of info, you suggested the migrants had about the caravans, without even violating the rules of your sport. Isn�t it? Since this didn't happen, thus, your sport theory doesn�t hold ground at all. |
"Sent the helpers"? As easy as that? "Hey guys, I wonder if you'd mind just popping down to the ravine for me, and attacking and robbing a caravan on my behalf? Oh, and bring me back any jewels or other valuables you collect, eh?"
The whole point of these raids was to provide employment and a source of income for the Muslims. The helpers presumably had their own jobs, providing their own sources of income. Surely it was enough that they allowed the Muslims to stay in their city. On top of that, you want them to commit armed robbery for the Muslims as well? And then hand over the proceeds to Muhammad? |
The helpers took an oath of allegiance before inviting the Prophet to Medina. So, if a strategy needed for their help, surely they would not have hesitated in it. But since, it was never required, therefore your hypothesis is nothing but baseless assumption through extrapolating maneuvers.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Repeating yet again, Quraysh was declared a common enemy thus legitimizing raids on their caravan. |
Okay, so following your logic above, if they were a common enemy then why didn't the helpers also join in raiding the caravans? |
Good to know that you are apt in reflecting my evidences to justify your illogic but only through circular reasoning. Quraysh was a declared a common enemy (not only for the Muslims of Mecca & Medina, but also for all the non Muslim participating tribes) as per the constitution. If you have any evidence to refute this claim, please show us or else get convinced. No �circular logic� or �delaying tactic� would suffice.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Again repeating, the presence of rich Jewish tribes negates your hypothesis. |
And again repeating, did these rich Jewish tribes actually operate caravans? And did Muhammad know enough about those caravans to know their defenses, their travel routes and schedules, the commodities or valuables they might be carrying, etc.? |
How do you suppose, they didn�t? Any logic? Any evidence to support your hypothesis?
|
 |
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 February 2016 at 8:06pm |
airmano wrote:
Airmano:
As you can see, truly great men don't go just out and rob, even if they are treated unjustly. So why did your prophet not behave this way ?
Ahmad:
Again your analogy is all messed up. While Abdus Salam had to leave due to few fanatics against an individual or in some isolated cases and is in contrast to en mass killing and then forcefully eviction of Muslims by the Quresh as a threat of genocide. |
This is not how I understood it. Could you show me some proof/sources that show that:
...en mass killing and then forcefully eviction of Muslims by the Quresh [from Mecca] as a threat of genocide
really happened ?
Airmano |
Do you know why the two migrations of Muslims to Ethiopia took place before the final migration to Medina? Similarly, do you know why the Muslims at Mecca were pushed en mass to starvation and deprivation into the secluded place called Shib Abi Talib or Shib Abi Hashim where they suffered hunger? Just because of their difference over the faith and faith alone.
Para for Ron Webb: For your eyes only, the above example of economic blockade against their own clan/tribe was initiated by the Meccans against the Muslims while the Muslims were still in Mecca. This is just in case you thought it was Mohammad who started doing it against his own people and which surprised the other tribes. Hence, one another example to refute your misunderstanding of Karen's writings.
Edited by AhmadJoyia - 08 February 2016 at 8:20pm
|
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2016 at 2:04am |
airmano wrote:
Ahmad:
Only 'high moral ground' enabled the Muslims to take head on with the superpower |
You keep on repeating the term "Superpower" when talking of a certainly rich but nevertheless unimportant town on a global level of the time. Is it to make your prophet appear more "heroic" than he really was ?
As a reminder: True superpowers of the time were: China, Byzantium, Persia and the rising empire of the Franks - but certainly not Mecca.
Airmano |
I used the word 'superpower' as a comparative superlative to emphasize on the word 'Mighty' used by Karen in her book for describing the strength of the Meccans as against the fragile and beleaguered Muslims at the start of the community building in Medina. So, the word used is only in relative context and not in absolute terms, that you might be confused with.
|
|
airmano
Senior Member
Joined: 31 March 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 884
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2016 at 2:23am |
Ahmad:
I used the word 'superpower' as a comparative superlative to emphasize on the word 'Mighty' used by Karen |
Since we all know the context I'd suggest "Local Power" for future use.
Agreed ?
Airmano
|
|
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male
atheist
Joined: 30 January 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2467
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 February 2016 at 9:09am |
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Good to know your �faith� in Karen�s �expert opinion�, though your extrapolations are too off the track. Even your expert, on page 127 (ch 4), clearly writes that Even though the Emigrants desperately needed an income, plunder was not his primary objective. The raiders may have come back empty handed, but they had at least brought the Muslims to the attention of Mecca. Obviously her writing style is such to suit your mood, nevertheless her own confession on this issue is very clear. |
Reminding you again that Karen Armstrong was your expert, not mine. Your quote does not appear to be from Islam: A Short History. Is it from Muhammad Prophet For Our Time? If so, I'll see if I can pick up a copy next time I'm at my local library. It looks to me that she was referring to a tactical objective for that particular raid, not an overall purpose for ghazu in general; but I'd have to read the context to know for sure.
| The helpers took an oath of allegiance before inviting the Prophet to Medina. So, if a strategy needed for their help, surely they would not have hesitated in it. But since, it was never required, therefore your hypothesis is nothing but baseless assumption through extrapolating maneuvers. |
If you are referring to the Constitution of Medina, I see nothing there that would obligate them to engage in an unprovoked attack against a Quraysh caravan. It says only that the various tribes must defend each other, not attack others. And that's assuming the other tribes even consented to the Constitution, for which I still don't see any evidence.
| Good to know that you are apt in reflecting my evidences to justify your illogic but only through circular reasoning. Quraysh was a declared a common enemy (not only for the Muslims of Mecca & Medina, but also for all the non Muslim participating tribes) as per the constitution. If you have any evidence to refute this claim, please show us or else get convinced. No �circular logic� or �delaying tactic� would suffice. |
Okay, let's assume that the other tribes ratified the Constitution of Medina and agreed that the Quraysh were a common enemy. (I don't think I ever denied that.) It doesn't say that either side had declared war. Even if it did, does that legitimize raids on private Quraysh caravans? And even assuming all that to be true -- if the raids were a legitimate part of an active war against the Muslims, whom the helpers had sworn to defend -- then why didn't the helpers participate?
| And again repeating, did these rich Jewish tribes actually operate caravans? And did Muhammad know enough about those caravans to know their defenses, their travel routes and schedules, the commodities or valuables they might be carrying, etc.? |
How do you suppose, they didn�t? Any logic? Any evidence to support your hypothesis? |
My hypothesis?
Let's review. We both agree (I think) that one reason the Muslims took to raiding Quraysh caravans was that they needed the income to survive. You are arguing that this was not the main reason, however; you claim that they have some "high moral ground" (not clearly explained) that justified the raids.
To support this theory, you claim that he restricted his attacks to Quraysh caravans (over whom he occupied this alleged "high moral ground"), as opposed to others. Okay, it's up to you to show that there were others, and that they would have been preferred targets except for this "high moral ground" thing. It's your hypothesis, not mine. I'm just asking if you have any evidence or logic to support it.
If you can't support your hypothesis with evidence, and I can't refute it either, then the bottom line is that we don't know whether Muhammad had any better targets for his raids than the Quraysh. That is often the case with ancient history; but to use our ignorance as a premise in your "moral high ground" argument is classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, a.k.a. the fallacy of "argument from ignorance".
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Para for Ron Webb: For your eyes only, the above example of economic blockade against their own clan/tribe was initiated by the Meccans against the Muslims while the Muslims were still in Mecca. This is just in case you thought it was Mohammad who started doing it against his own people and which surprised the other tribes. Hence, one another example to refute your misunderstanding of Karen's writings. |
No, this is an example of a boycott, not a blockade. My goodness, even the title of the article is "Meccan boycott of the Hashemites"! A boycott is a voluntary refusal to do business with another party. If there was any attempt to militarily enforce a blockade against them, it isn't mentioned in the article. And even if it were a blockade, do you see any mention of stealing trade goods? Raiding the Meccan caravans was neither a boycott, nor a blockade. It was theft.
|
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 February 2016 at 11:18am |
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Good to know your �faith� in Karen�s �expert opinion�, though your extrapolations are too off the track. Even your expert, on page 127 (ch 4), clearly writes that Even though the Emigrants desperately needed an income, plunder was not his primary objective. The raiders may have come back empty handed, but they had at least brought the Muslims to the attention of Mecca. Obviously her writing style is such to suit your mood, nevertheless her own confession on this issue is very clear. |
Reminding you again that Karen Armstrong was your expert, not mine. Your quote does not appear to be from Islam: A Short History. Is it from Muhammad Prophet For Our Time? If so, I'll see if I can pick up a copy next time I'm at my local library. It looks to me that she was referring to a tactical objective for that particular raid, not an overall purpose for ghazu in general; but I'd have to read the context to know for sure. |
I just referred her as a source of my information that could be acceptable to you, but it was you who called her in as an �expert� to put credence your extrapolated opinion. Your guess work is weak; so, yes please go ahead and read her again lest you spell out something more fanciful than before.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
The helpers took an oath of allegiance before inviting the Prophet to Medina. So, if a strategy needed for their help, surely they would not have hesitated in it. But since, it was never required, therefore your hypothesis is nothing but baseless assumption through extrapolating maneuvers. |
If you are referring to the Constitution of Medina, I see nothing there that would obligate them to engage in an unprovoked attack against a Quraysh caravan. It says only that the various tribes must defend each other, not attack others. And that's assuming the other tribes even consented to the Constitution, for which I still don't see any evidence. |
No! Oath of Allegiance was before the arrival of Meccan Muslims in Medina whereas the constitution was framed after their arrival.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Good to know that you are apt in reflecting my evidences to justify your illogic but only through circular reasoning. Quraysh was a declared a common enemy (not only for the Muslims of Mecca & Medina, but also for all the non Muslim participating tribes) as per the constitution. If you have any evidence to refute this claim, please show us or else get convinced. No �circular logic� or �delaying tactic� would suffice. |
Okay, let's assume that the other tribes ratified the Constitution of Medina and agreed that the Quraysh were a common enemy. (I don't think I ever denied that.) It doesn't say that either side had declared war. Even if it did, does that legitimize raids on private Quraysh caravans? And even assuming all that to be true -- if the raids were a legitimate part of an active war against the Muslims, whom the helpers had sworn to defend -- then why didn't the helpers participate? |
Who (Karen or any other scholar) says they didn�t participate? Any evidence to support your yet another hypothesis?
| And again repeating, did these rich Jewish tribes actually operate caravans? And did Muhammad know enough about those caravans to know their defenses, their travel routes and schedules, the commodities or valuables they might be carrying, etc.? |
How do you suppose, they didn�t? Any logic? Any evidence to support your hypothesis? |
My hypothesis?
Let's review. We both agree (I think) that one reason the Muslims took to raiding Quraysh caravans was that they needed the income to survive. You are arguing that this was not the main reason, however; you claim that they have some "high moral ground" (not clearly explained) that justified the raids.
To support this theory, you claim that he restricted his attacks to Quraysh caravans (over whom he occupied this alleged "high moral ground"), as opposed to others. Okay, it's up to you to show that there were others, and that they would have been preferred targets except for this "high moral ground" thing. It's your hypothesis, not mine. I'm just asking if you have any evidence or logic to support it.
If you can't support your hypothesis with evidence, and I can't refute it either, then the bottom line is that we don't know whether Muhammad had any better targets for his raids than the Quraysh. That is often the case with ancient history; but to use our ignorance as a premise in your "moral high ground" argument is classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, a.k.a. the fallacy of "argument from ignorance". |
Wait a minute before you shift onus of proof. It was you who alleged that Muslims took to high way robbery by attacking the Caravans without any proof. Yet, to refute your proofless allegation, I only referred you to the historical data clearly showing that all such raids were against the Qureysh or their allied tribes. Now, its� up to you to either accept this fact or provide a counter proof to show your point. Its� so simple. Not just this proof, I also provided you with the historical document (the constitution of Median) which clearly shows that the Meccans were declared the common enemy, thereby legitimizing their actions as a war tactic.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Para for Ron Webb: For your eyes only, the above example of economic blockade against their own clan/tribe was initiated by the Meccans against the Muslims while the Muslims were still in Mecca. This is just in case you thought it was Mohammad who started doing it against his own people and which surprised the other tribes. Hence, one another example to refute your misunderstanding of Karen's writings. |
No, this is an example of a boycott, not a blockade. My goodness, even the title of the article is "Meccan boycott of the Hashemites"! A boycott is a voluntary refusal to do business with another party. If there was any attempt to militarily enforce a blockade against them, it isn't mentioned in the article. And even if it were a blockade, do you see any mention of stealing trade goods? Raiding the Meccan caravans was neither a boycott, nor a blockade. It was theft. |
Now here is classical example of what I call it a double standards. Without going into the sematic, if we look at these events of the past more objectively and rationally than through only one eye, we can clearly distinguish who was the weaker/stronger party and who was standing on high/low moral grounds through their demands being just/unjust. In both the cases, the Muslims were the weaker party bearing the atrocities of the stronger Meccans and the only differences between two groups (i.e Muslims and the Meccans) was solely the �Faith�. Counting the expulsion of the weaker party as an extreme measure of cruelty adopted by the stronger Meccans, why should it surprise our brothers in modern age to view the weaker party as �thief� if the weaker party showed some �temerity� to stand up against the �superpower�? This is really amazing and beyond rational imagination!!
|
|
Ron Webb
Senior Member
Male
atheist
Joined: 30 January 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2467
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 February 2016 at 4:29pm |
AhmadJoyia wrote:
I just referred her as a source of my information that could be acceptable to you, but it was you who called her in as an �expert� to put credence your extrapolated opinion. Your guess work is weak; so, yes please go ahead and read her again lest you spell out something more fanciful than before. |
How about just telling me where you got your latest quote from? Page 127, Chapter 4 of which book?
| No! Oath of Allegiance was before the arrival of Meccan Muslims in Medina whereas the constitution was framed after their arrival. |
The Oath of Allegiance says "I will war against them that war against you." It doesn't say "I will war against peaceful travellers on an open highway." I still don't see how it obligates them to participate in unprovoked attacks against Quraysh citizens.
| Who (Karen or any other scholar) says they didn�t participate? Any evidence to support your yet another hypothesis? |
I assumed that's what you meant when you said that Muhammad could have sent the helpers (implying that he didn't). Okay, maybe some of them did participate -- but if Muhammad and his Quraysh Muslims were leading the attacks, I don't think that would change the "serious breach in precedent" that Armstrong referred to.
| Wait a minute before you shift onus of proof. It was you who alleged that Muslims took to high way robbery by attacking the Caravans without any proof. |
Sorry, I assumed this was already established. Merriam-Webster defines " highway robbery as "robbery committed on or near a public highway usually against travelers." Which part of this definition is in dispute?
| Yet, to refute your proofless allegation, I only referred you to the historical data clearly showing that all such raids were against the Qureysh or their allied tribes. |
I didn't realize you were trying refute the definition. I thought the fact that the raids were limited to Quraysh caravans was supposed to be evidence of some "moral high ground" that justified the robbery, not to disprove it.
| Now, its� up to you to either accept this fact or provide a counter proof to show your point. Its� so simple. Not just this proof, I also provided you with the historical document (the constitution of Median) which clearly shows that the Meccans were declared the common enemy, thereby legitimizing their actions as a war tactic. |
I still don't understand why it becomes okay to rob private caravans just because you regard the caravan's tribe as an enemy. Is that how Islam works? If I take a dislike to your country and declare it my "enemy", does that legitimize my robbing you on a lonely road in the middle of nowhere?
| Now here is classical example of what I call it a double standards. Without going into the sematic, if we look at these events of the past more objectively and rationally than through only one eye, we can clearly distinguish who was the weaker/stronger party and who was standing on high/low moral grounds through their demands being just/unjust. In both the cases, the Muslims were the weaker party bearing the atrocities of the stronger Meccans and the only differences between two groups (i.e Muslims and the Meccans) was solely the �Faith�. Counting the expulsion of the weaker party as an extreme measure of cruelty adopted by the stronger Meccans, why should it surprise our brothers in modern age to view the weaker party as �thief� if the weaker party showed some �temerity� to stand up against the �superpower�? This is really amazing and beyond rational imagination!! |
Is the weaker party automatically right, and the stronger party always wrong? If that is so, then I don't see how any law can be legitimately enforced. Ultimately, the state is (almost) always the stronger party -- God help us if the criminals are stronger!
Here is a thought experiment that might help. Suppose I went to a modern Muslim country and started preaching my own religion (or maybe atheism). Suppose further that I called Muslims "the worst of creatures", said they were all going to Hell, that they were unclean, liars, made insulting references to them as apes and pigs, etc. That would certainly show some "temerity" against the superpower, eh? How long do you think it would take before I was expelled? Or do you think that perhaps expulsion would be the least of my worries?
|
|
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2016 at 1:02am |
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
I just referred her as a source of my information that could be acceptable to you, but it was you who called her in as an �expert� to put credence your extrapolated opinion. Your guess work is weak; so, yes please go ahead and read her again lest you spell out something more fanciful than before. |
How about just telling me where you got your latest quote from? Page 127, Chapter 4 of which book? |
Its �Muhammad Prophet of our Time�.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
]No! Oath of Allegiance was before the arrival of Meccan Muslims in Medina whereas the constitution was framed after their arrival. |
The Oath of Allegiance says "I will war against them that war against you." It doesn't say "I will war against peaceful travellers on an open highway." I still don't see how it obligates them to participate in unprovoked attacks against Quraysh citizens. |
You are not getting the point here. Those among the Medinites, who became Muslims took �oath� to obey the Prophet in all thick and thin situations. However, after migration, the Prophet established a harmonious and peace loving society at Medina and invited all, including the non Muslim tribes of neighborhood, to join the cause. Those who came willingly, entered into the bond through the �Constitution�. It was this �constitution� that I am referring you, where Quraysh was clearly shown as the common enemy. Although, the constitution didn�t obligate them (non Muslim tribes) to take offensive against the Quraysh, but they would not take side or become partner of Quraysh against Muslims. Thus bringing stability in the society. Now as far as Muslims were concerned, they earned a legitimate excuse to make raids on the Quryash�s economic interests and lure them into making silly mistakes.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Who (Karen or any other scholar) says they didn�t participate? Any evidence to support your yet another hypothesis? |
I assumed that's what you meant when you said that Muhammad could have sent the helpers (implying that he didn't). Okay, maybe some of them did participate -- but if Muhammad and his Quraysh Muslims were leading the attacks, I don't think that would change the "serious breach in precedent" that Armstrong referred to. |
�Serious breach in precedent� was �temerity� against the superpower which is an undeniable fact. All other explanations are, till now, only weak at best.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Wait a minute before you shift onus of proof. It was you who alleged that Muslims took to high way robbery by attacking the Caravans without any proof. |
Sorry, I assumed this was already established. Merriam-Webster defines "highway robbery as "robbery committed on or near a public highway usually against travelers." Which part of this definition is in dispute? |
Ok if you think semantic is an issue, then lets devour the definition that you refer. There are two definitions given by Merri-Web: 1: robbery committed on or near a public highway usually against travelers
2: excessive profit or advantage derived from a business transaction
So, if I am correct, the �2� is not relevant and most probably its �1� that you seems to imply, here. This �1� by definition imply that there are some �public� highways used by the travellers and robbed by the robbers thus this action is called �high robbery�. But can you show or name any of such �Public� highways on which Muslims operated on those times? Secondly, the word �Public� implies it is �Owned� or �governed� by a some sort of democratic government (from the collection of all public�s money) and travellers on it are robbed by some of their outlawed citizens. This definition is clearly not suitable to define the geo-political map of those times as there were no such �public� highways nor there were any sort government/tribe who would claim it to be �owned� by them or built with �their money�. Now that since there was no �republic�, nor any �public highway�. Therefore, by your own definition, the actions of the Muslims can�t be termed as �highway robbery�. So, on what moral authority one can assert for such a claim that the actions of Muslims must be seen as equivalent to modern day �highway robbery�?
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Yet, to refute your proofless allegation, I only referred you to the historical data clearly showing that all such raids were against the Qureysh or their allied tribes. |
I didn't realize you were trying refute the definition. I thought the fact that the raids were limited to Quraysh caravans was supposed to be evidence of some "moral high ground" that justified the robbery, not to disprove it. |
Raids on Quraysh (declared enemy) caravans was a tactic in the form of economic blockade and nothing more.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Now, its� up to you to either accept this fact or provide a counter proof to show your point. Its� so simple. Not just this proof, I also provided you with the historical document (the constitution of Median) which clearly shows that the Meccans were declared the common enemy, thereby legitimizing their actions as a war tactic. |
I still don't understand why it becomes okay to rob private caravans just because you regard the caravan's tribe as an enemy. |
How can you show those were private caravans and not the Meccan caravans owned by some of the decision makers of the city or the tribe? Any one example?
Ron Webb wrote:
Is that how Islam works? If I take a dislike to your country and declare it my "enemy", does that legitimize my robbing you on a lonely road in the middle of nowhere? |
You are confused between the conditions of today with those of the old. Hence your logic is anachronously false.
Ron Webb wrote:
AhmadJoyia wrote:
Now here is classical example of what I call it a double standards. Without going into the sematic, if we look at these events of the past more objectively and rationally than through only one eye, we can clearly distinguish who was the weaker/stronger party and who was standing on high/low moral grounds through their demands being just/unjust. In both the cases, the Muslims were the weaker party bearing the atrocities of the stronger Meccans and the only differences between two groups (i.e Muslims and the Meccans) was solely the �Faith�. Counting the expulsion of the weaker party as an extreme measure of cruelty adopted by the stronger Meccans, why should it surprise our brothers in modern age to view the weaker party as �thief� if the weaker party showed some �temerity� to stand up against the �superpower�? This is really amazing and beyond rational imagination!! |
Is the weaker party automatically right, and the stronger party always wrong? |
Again you have missed the key word �atrocities� committed by the stronger party. How can you justify them morally?
Ron Webb wrote:
If that is so, then I don't see how any law can be legitimately enforced. Ultimately, the state is (almost) always the stronger party -- God help us if the criminals are stronger! |
High moral grounds are not because of being weaker party but bearing the brunt of the atrocities committed the stronger party. Do you want to exonerate Hitler of his actions? I don't think so, until you do have �double standards�!
Ron Webb wrote:
Here is a thought experiment that might help. Suppose I went to a modern Muslim country and started preaching my own religion (or maybe atheism). Suppose further that I called Muslims "the worst of creatures", said they were all going to Hell, that they were unclean, liars, made insulting references to them as apes and pigs, etc. That would certainly show some "temerity" against the superpower, eh? How long do you think it would take before I was expelled? Or do you think that perhaps expulsion would be the least of my worries?
|
In this �thought experiment�, what is your �Null hypothesis�? What are your boundary and initial conditions? What are your dependent and independent variables? In the absence of these defining parameters, I don�t think it is a thought experiment, at all. However, to answer your vague and anachronously poor �thought experiment� as it could be, I would say if you have not broken any of the laws of the country, then you should not be worried about any consequences resulting from your actions. On a very side note, it also appears that you don�t seem to be very happy with the �freedom of speech� laws of your so called �modern� times! Is it so?
Edited by AhmadJoyia - 14 February 2016 at 1:09am
|
|
Tweet
