I didn't ask you to discuss the entirety of it. I also have scholarship in Islamic Studies and am curious what doctrines.

Surely you can cite one? As I haven't come across any that call for unrestricted violence against Jewish people.

Or any people, for that matter.

▲

nailer 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I imagine it’s the same ones perpetrators of Islamic violence everywhere else cite. I imagine you may also know.

▲

handfuloflight 10 hours ago | parent [-]

You say you 'imagine' there are Islamic doctrines calling for violence against Jews that 'perpetrators cite.'

Stop imagining. Cite them.

What specific verses or doctrines are you referring to? Give us the exact citations.

Because once you do, I have a very simple question for you: If those verses mean what you think they mean, why didn't Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam and Muhammad's direct companion, know about them?

When Umar took Jerusalem from the Byzantines in 638 CE, instead of slaughtering Jews, he invited them back to a city they'd been banned from for 500 years under Christian rule. He protected their religious practices and established legal frameworks for their protection.

So either:

These verses don't exist or don't mean what you think, OR the second Caliph, who learned Islam directly from Muhammad, somehow didn't understand basic Islamic doctrine.

Which is it?

Put up or shut up. Cite the specific verses you're claiming exist, then explain why Muhammad's direct successor acted in the exact opposite way.

▲

nailer 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No I am saying that Islamic doctrine is used to support Islamic violence against many people globally. I’m not sure why anyone would think that would be limited to Jewish people. I think the reason you limited the discussion in this way is because you are not arguing in good faith.

I have lived the last 44 years in Australia, the United Kingdom and now the United States, each of which have been victims of Islamic violence in different ways.

I understand you want me to cite specific hadiths, as I said earlier I think any Islamic scholar would already know which ones, so you’re not arguing in good faith. I want you to know I am familiar with the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy and feel you will employ it. You have no right to demand anything from me.

As an Islamic scholar you are also familiar with the concept of dhimmis. I think the reason you didn’t mention them here is because you know Islam creating laws to treat others as second class citizens is shameful, and you did now acknowledge these because you are not arguing in good faith.

I won’t stop talking about Islamic violence because you demand I do so, you have no right to demand this of anyone and your personal beliefs deserve no special respect.

	▲	handfuloflight 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You just proved my entire point while thinking you were making yours. First, you claimed there are Islamic doctrines calling for violence against Jews. When I asked for citations, you suddenly can't provide any because "any Islamic scholar would already know." This is the academic equivalent of "my girlfriend goes to another school." If these doctrines are so obvious and pervasive, citing them should take you thirty seconds, not paragraphs of deflection. Second, you accuse me of limiting the discussion when the exact opposite happened. You made a specific claim about anti-Jewish doctrines, I challenged it, and when you couldn't defend it, YOU tried to escape by broadening it to "Islamic violence globally." I actually expanded my challenge by saying I haven't found doctrines calling for unrestricted violence against Jewish people "or any people, for that matter." You're now misrepresenting the exchange because you can't handle either version of the challenge. Third, you preemptively accuse me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but you're the one committing it. You claim "perpetrators of Islamic violence" cite these doctrines, but when pressed for specifics, you can't name them. That's you implying that anyone who doesn't commit violence isn't following "real" Islam, which is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy you're projecting onto me. Fourth, you brought up dhimmis thinking it was devastating, but you just wrecked your own position. The dhimmi system was a legal framework for protection and coexistence, revolutionary for its time when other civilizations were practicing actual genocide. If Islam mandated killing Jews, why would it simultaneously create detailed legal protections for them? You literally cited evidence that contradicts your entire premise. Fifth, your appeal to personal geography is irrelevant. Living in three countries doesn't make you knowledgable in Islam any more than living near hospitals makes you qualified to comment on surgery. You're using personal experience to avoid rigor, the exact opposite of truthful discourse. Sixth, you claim I have "no right to demand" citations from you. In discussions in pursuit of truth, when you make factual claims, providing evidence isn't a courtesy, it's basic intellectual honesty. You don't get to make assertions about Islamic doctrine then hide behind wounded feelings when asked to support them. Finally, you still haven't addressed Umar ibn al-Khattab. This isn't some minor historical figure, he's the second Caliph, Muhammad's direct companion, who conquered Jerusalem and immediately invited Jews back after 500 years of Christian expulsion. If Islamic doctrine mandates violence against Jews, then either: a) these doctrines don't exist or don't mean what you claim, OR b) Muhammad's own companion fundamentally misunderstood basic Islamic teaching (which you seem to be more privvy to, despite your lack of citation) You cannot escape this logical knot you've tied around yourself. Every byte of text you write avoiding this question proves you know your position is indefensible. This isn't about silencing you, it's about holding you accountable for claims you cannot substantiate.

▲

inglor_cz 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am not a scholar of Islam, but I am pretty sure that no core doctrine calls for the mere existence, much less outright political rule, of people called ayatollahs either. And yet here we are.

Regardless of the above, the Islamic Republic of Iran calls itself Islamic and takes the velayat-e-faqih system, developed by Khomeini, as divinely inspired.

▲

handfuloflight 10 hours ago | parent [-]

You now've just demolished your original argument, and here's the proof using your own words:

You just admitted that the specific system of ayatollah rule has 'no core doctrine' supporting it. You acknowledged that this particular form of clerical authority is an innovation that doesn't exist in foundational Islamic teachings. Then you say Khomeini 'developed' velayat-e-faqih as a new system.

So by your own admission: core Islamic doctrine doesn't support this specific form of clerical rule by ayatollahs; and that Khomeini had to 'develop' (i.e., invent) the velayat-e-faqih framework. So, Iran's system is based on this modern Shia innovation, not established Islamic governance models.

But your original claim was that Iran's hostility toward Israel stems from 'Islamic' ideological doctrine. You can't have it both ways, either Iran's policies flow from broadly accepted Islamic teachings, or they flow from Khomeini's specific 20th-century innovation that most Muslims reject.

You've just proven that Iran's system represents one minority sect's modern political invention, not mainstream Islamic doctrine.

You don't need to be an Islamic scholar to know there are two major branches: Sunni and Shia. If you don't know this basic distinction, you shouldn't be making claims about 'Islam' generally. If you do know it, then you're being disingenuous trying to pass off one minority Shia innovation as representative of all Islam.

▲

inglor_cz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I demolished nothing. The Islamic Republic of Iran

a) considers itself Islamic, b) it is indeed ruled by scholars of Islam, c) bases its policy and politics on Islam.

You say that they are basically heretics and that the majority of Muslims don't agree with them. So what. I haven't said that all Muslims want to destroy Israel for religious reasons.

If I want to be extra precise, the Islamic Republic of Iran is compelled by Islam as of its own understanding to destroy Israel.

And given that there is no central authority in Islam that would issue binding declarations on what is Islam and what is Heresy, this is basically the norm in the Islamic world. Every nation and community practices Islam as it understands it, which means quite a lot of internal diversity.

▲

handfuloflight 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Your original claim: Iran's hostility stems from 'Islamic' ideological doctrine.

Your new claim: Iran follows 'Islam as of its own understanding' and there's no central authority to define what's Islamic.

So you've just admitted that Iran's version isn't representative of Islam generally and that there's no authoritative way to call their interpretation 'Islamic'. That every community 'practices Islam as it understands it'.

This demolishes your original point even further. If anyone can interpret Islam however they want with no central authority, then Iran's actions tell us nothing about 'Islamic' doctrine, they only tell us about Iran's political choices wrapped in religious language.

By your own logic, I could point to: Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, which is democratic and has peaceful relations with Israel. Or the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, who've normalized relations with Israel. Jordan, Egypt: these have peace treaties with Israel.

I could point to these and say they represent 'Islam as of their own understanding' just as validly as Iran does.

You've essentially argued that Iran's interpretation is just one of many possible interpretations with no special claim to authenticity. That's the opposite of your original claim that Iran's hostility flows from Islamic doctrine.

You started by claiming Iran represents Islamic teaching. Now you're saying every Muslim community makes up their own version. Pick one: you can't have both.

And you still haven't provided a single citation of actual Islamic doctrine supporting violence against Jews, which was the original challenge.

▲

inglor_cz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no version of Islam that would be "representative of Islam generally", this is a trivial observation that you are trying to use as a cudgel.

You are engaging in an elaborate No True Scotsman fallacy.

For me, if if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and I will consider the Islamic Republic of Iran to be Islamic. I don't particularly care about sectarian squabbles what is geniunely Islamic or not.

	▲	handfuloflight 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Your arguments collapsed under scrutiny. You claimed Iran's hostility stems from "Islamic doctrine" but couldn't cite a single supporting text. You've retreated to "if it calls itself Islamic, it's Islamic," like claiming North Korea represents democracy because "Democratic" is in its name. When you stated "There is no version of Islam that would be representative of Islam generally," you contradict Islamic tradition itself. The Prophet Muhammad, the FOUNDER of the religion said: "My community will never agree upon error" and "Allah's hand is with the congregation" (Source: Tirmidhi). This hadith establishes that consensus (ijma) of the Muslim community is authoritative in Islam. Look, these facts remain: you admitted Iran's system is Khomeini's modern innovation. Most Muslim nations have peaceful relations with Israel. And you've cited zero Islamic doctrines supporting your claim. This isn't about religion: it's politics in religious clothing. If Iran's position were truly Islamic, 1.8 billion Muslims would share it. They don't. Stop conflating one country's politics with an entire faith.