Iraq war III...???

First topic message reminder :




Iraq is breaking up. The Kurds have taken the northern oil city of Kirkuk that they have long claimed as their capital. Sunni fundamentalist fighters vow to capture Baghdad and the Shia holy cities further south.
Government rule over the Sunni Arab heartlands of north and central Iraq is evaporating as its 900,000-strong army disintegrates. Government aircraft have fired missiles at insurgent targets in Mosul, captured by Isis on Monday, but the Iraqi army has otherwise shown no sign of launching a counter-attack.
The nine-year Shia dominance over Iraq, established after the US, Britain and other allies overthrew Saddam Hussein, may be coming to an end. The Shia may continue to hold the capital and the Shia-majority provinces further south, but they will have great difficulty in re-establishing their authority over Sunni provinces from which their army has fled.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-islamist-militants-warn-battle-will-rage-after-seizing-mosul-and-tikrit-9530899.html



There have been reports that the army have just stripped off uniform dropped weapons and just run away!!!



In Mosul there were supposed to be about 14,000 soldiers and they have run from a couple of thousand militants.




Another thing that gets me, is that when these rebels were in Syria we kept hearing how we should be supporting them, but now they are in Iraq we should be helping fight against them.....!?

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Some extremists are, how many Muslim Governments?

exatly didge

its not currently an OFFICIAL tax like you tried to pretend it was

you're so stupid that you dismantle your own arguments in your enthusiasm to be "right" you don't even realize that you just disproved the "protection argument"

There you go Nicko, no Muslim Government.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Sounds like extortion to me, just like any protection racket.
The only threat to them are Muslims who they then have to pay not to kill them or occupy or demolish their buildings and churches and not to destroy their holy artifacts.

So you think are tax system is extortion now do you.
By the way the Christians did the same

Is that a freudian slip there dodge?
Did you mean 'our'...????

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

exatly didge

its not currently an OFFICIAL tax like you tried to pretend it was

you're so stupid that you dismantle your own arguments in your enthusiasm to be "right" you don't even realize that you just disproved the "protection argument"

There you go Nicko, no Muslim Government.

so its not at present an official tax then is it??

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
So you think are tax system is extortion now do you.
By the way the Christians did the same

Is that a freudian slip there dodge?
Did you mean 'our'...????

Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti, nice try does not make up for you thinking smelly was a Muslim ha ha

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


There you go Nicko, no Muslim Government.

so its not at present an official tax then is it??

At present, means no Government.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

so its not at present an official tax then is it??

At present, means no Government.

oops

i broke didge folks

all he is doing now is obvious avoiding and repeting himself

we will get no sense out of him for the rest of the day

but just to make sure

who were the Muslims protecting the non Muslims from when it was the Muslims themselves who were the invaders

and

if the jizya is not currently an official government tax in some places, do you agree that it is not a legal tax and therefore not paying it should not result in any punishment

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Is that a freudian slip there dodge?
Did you mean 'our'...????

Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti, nice try does not make up for you thinking smelly was a Muslim ha ha

So you are finally admitting that you are a Muslim eh dodge...!?



You've well and truly fucked up now haven't you!!!!!


You'd have to be some sort of Houdini to escape from that one!!!!

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

At present, means no Government.

oops

i broke didge folks

all he is doing now is obvious avoiding and repeting himself

we will get no sense out of him for the rest of the day

but just to make sure

who were the Muslims protecting the non Muslims from when it was the Muslims themselves who were the invaders

and

if the jizya is not currently an official government tax in some places, do you agree that it is not a legal tax and therefore not paying it should not result in any punishment  

Broke, you faile to show any historicity to back your claims and now poorly stick to some lame point today on where extremists use, in fact it further proves my point that you have no case to back your point.

In fact you have moved away from showing history to back your point because we both know you have none

Try again

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Is that a freudian slip there dodge?
Did you mean 'our'...????

Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti, nice try does not make up for you thinking smelly was a Muslim ha ha

So you are finally admitting that you are a Muslim eh dodge...!?



You've well and pptjw fucked up now haven't you!!!!!


You'd have to be some sort of Houdini to escape from that one!!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti, nice try does not make up for you thinking smelly was a Muslim ha ha

So you are finally admitting that you are a Muslim eh dodge...!?

You've well and pptjw fucked up now haven't you!!!!!

You'd have to be some sort of Houdini to escape from that one!!!!

Oh my, someone is desperate, I am athiest Matti, I meant to use the word our, even using are would not mean I was, showing you are a right dummy and I am not the one like you who thinks smelly was


          

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
So you think are tax system is extortion now do you.
By the way the Christians did the same

Is that a freudian slip there dodge?
Did you mean 'our'...????

Then dodge said....
Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti, nice try does not make up for you thinking smelly was a Muslim ha ha
So you are admitting you are a Muslim at last!!!!!
Describing the jizya as 'our tax'!!!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Is that a freudian slip there dodge?
Did you mean 'our'...????

Then dodge said....
Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti, nice try does not make up for you thinking smelly was a Muslim ha ha
So you are admitting you are a Muslim at last!!!!!
Describing the jizya as 'our tax'!!!!!

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Never claimed the Jiyza was our tax, I was right you are an unhinged loon, ha ha

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

oops

i broke didge folks

all he is doing now is obvious avoiding and repeting himself

we will get no sense out of him for the rest of the day

but just to make sure

who were the Muslims protecting the non Muslims from when it was the Muslims themselves who were the invaders

and

if the jizya is not currently an official government tax in some places, do you agree that it is not a legal tax and therefore not paying it should not result in any punishment  

Broke, you faile to show any historicity to back your claims and now poorly stick to some lame point today on where extremists use, in fact it further proves my point that you have no case to back your point.

In fact you have moved away from showing history to back your point because we both know you have none

Try again

there is nothing in history that shows otherwise

whatever bollox you have posted up has no link so that others may look to see the source you're using therefore its fabricated by you

no link = no evidence

i have shown that today's Muslims are in fact acting in the EXACT manner proscribed by the qur'an and following the exact footsteps of Muhammad that is to say that they are extorting a protections tax from non Muslims inn exchange for not killing them

this is exactly what Muhammad did, its exactly what his followers did and its exactly what Muslims are doing today

are you really that stupid?? that you're actually going to try and tell us that Muslims centuries ago who invaded and conquered their neighboring countries were somehow less warlike and violent than today's Muslims??

really, that's your strategy??

good luck with that

FYI you STILL haven't answered the question

who did the non Muslims need protecting from if the Muslims are the invaders??

didge is broken good and proper - look at the number of  ://?roflmao?/: he is using

its his poker tell

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

Broke, you faile to show any historicity to back your claims and now poorly stick to some lame point today on where extremists use, in fact it further proves my point that you have no case to back your point.

In fact you have moved away from showing history to back your point because we both know you have none

Try again

there is nothing in history that shows otherwise

whatever bollox you have posted up has no link so that others may look to see the source you're using therefore its fabricated by you

no link = no evidence

i have shown that today's Muslims are in fact acting in the EXACT manner proscribed by the qur'an and following the exact footsteps of Muhammad that is to say that they are extorting a protections tax from non Muslims inn exchange for not killing them

this is exactly what Muhammad did, its exactly what his followers did and its exactly what Muslims are doing today  

are you really that stupid?? that you're actually going to try and tell us that Muslims centuries ago who invaded and conquered their neighboring countries were somehow less warlike and violent than today's Muslims??

really, that's your strategy??

good luck with that

FYI you STILL haven't answered the question

who did the non Muslims need protecting from if the Muslims are the invaders??

Hilarious, so surely if as you claim this verse meant to kill non-Muslims, then from its very beginnings we would see as you claim, yet in fact we find the opposite, that it was only imposed on able bodied men, proving that you are lying out of your backside.

Historicity, shows you are wrong an you cannot refute that.

I love this, smelly without a prayer or an answer

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

there is nothing in history that shows otherwise

whatever bollox you have posted up has no link so that others may look to see the source you're using therefore its fabricated by you

no link = no evidence

i have shown that today's Muslims are in fact acting in the EXACT manner proscribed by the qur'an and following the exact footsteps of Muhammad that is to say that they are extorting a protections tax from non Muslims inn exchange for not killing them

this is exactly what Muhammad did, its exactly what his followers did and its exactly what Muslims are doing today  

are you really that stupid?? that you're actually going to try and tell us that Muslims centuries ago who invaded and conquered their neighboring countries were somehow less warlike and violent than today's Muslims??

really, that's your strategy??

good luck with that

FYI you STILL haven't answered the question

who did the non Muslims need protecting from if the Muslims are the invaders??

Hilarious, so surely if as you claim this verse meant to kill non-Muslims, then from its very beginnings we would see as you claim, yet in fact we find the opposite, that it was only imposed on able bodied men, proving that you are lying out of your backside.

Historicity, shows you are wrong an you cannot refute that.

I love this, smelly without a prayer or an answer

this verse isn't meant purely to kill non Muslims you fool

i have told you (you ignored it as usual) that Muslims are commanded to fight and kill non Muslims UNTIL (do you understand the meaning of until) they either convert to Islam or submit and pay the extortion tax to avoid being killed by their Muslim invaders

and the jizya was imposed on everyone, there is no evidence that shows it was only levied on men

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Hilarious, so surely if as you claim this verse meant to kill non-Muslims, then from its very beginnings we would see as you claim, yet in fact we find the opposite, that it was only imposed on able bodied men, proving that you are lying out of your backside.

Historicity, shows you are wrong an you cannot refute that.

I love this, smelly without a prayer or an answer

this verse isn't meant purely to kill non Muslims you fool

i have told you (you ignored it as usual) that Muslims are commanded to fight and kill non Muslims UNTIL (do you understand the meaning of until) they either convert to Islam or submit and pay the extortion tax to avoid being killed by their Muslim invaders

and the jizya was imposed on everyone, there is no evidence that shows it was only levied on men

But again you need to back this claim up with historicity from the beginnings of Islam you dummy, something you have avoided at all costs.
As seen the Jiyza was not imposed on everyone, in fact as well as women and children being exempt, those who chose to fight for the Muslims alongside them were also exempt from paying proving even more you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

Try again

We were talking about Muslims enforcing jizya on non Muslims....


I said.....


Sounds like extortion to me, just like any protection racket.
The only threat to them are Muslims who they then have to pay not to kill them or occupy or demolish their buildings and churches and not to destroy their holy artifacts.



Didge said.....


So you think are tax system is extortion now do you.

By the way the Christians did the same



I said.....

Is that a freudian slip there dodge?

Did you mean 'our'...????



To which Didge confirmed....

Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti,








So Didge is admitting he is a Muslim at last!!!!!

Describing the Muslims enforcing jizya as 'our tax'!!!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:We were talking about Muslims enforcing jizya on non Muslims....
I said.....
Sounds like extortion to me, just like any protection racket.
The only threat to them are Muslims who they then have to pay not to kill them or occupy or demolish their buildings and churches and not to destroy their holy artifacts.
Didge said.....

So you think are tax system is extortion now do you.
By the way the Christians did the same
I said.....
Is that a freudian slip there dodge?
Did you mean 'our'...????
To which Didge confirmed....
Then dodge said....
Yes I meant our, so no freudian slip then is it Matti,
So Didge is admitting he is a Muslim at last!!!!!
Describing the Muslims enforcing jizya as 'our tax'!!!!!

Christians did impose the same Tax Matti

Are you this desperate after I made you look a dummy yesterday?

 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  


I used are, I meant to use our, but then even your claim would make no sense as we also have British Muslims here in Britain.


Doh

Oh dear

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

this verse isn't meant purely to kill non Muslims you fool

i have told you (you ignored it as usual) that Muslims are commanded to fight and kill non Muslims UNTIL (do you understand the meaning of until) they either convert to Islam or submit and pay the extortion tax to avoid being killed by their Muslim invaders

and the jizya was imposed on everyone, there is no evidence that shows it was only levied on men

But again you need to back this claim up with historicity from the beginnings of Islam you dummy, something you have avoided at all costs.
As seen the Jiyza was not imposed on everyone, in fact as well as women and children being exempt, those who chose to fight for the Muslims alongside them were also exempt from paying proving even more you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

Try again

incorrect

you are the one arguing and inventing details about what happened

it is a known historical fact that Muslim invaders demanded a tax from non Muslims called the jizya

there is no arguing with this fact

you have invented some additional fairytale story about certain people being exempt from it, you haven't proved it you haven't provided any evidence of this, all we have is something you have written and are now passing off as "history"

presently history is being made in the ME and presently Muslims are demanding jizya from everyone without exception, that is the evidence that i rely on, not your rose tinted pink and fluffy version of make believe

FYI non Muslims were exempt from military duty on the basis that they paid the jizya, so how exactly could the non Muslims choose to avoid the jizya by fighting for the Muslims

you just have no concept of how much of a clown you are do you??

You meant 'our tax' as in Muslims jizya being 'our tax' ie your Muslim tax!!!
as you mentioned Christians tax separately also in the same post.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


But again you need to back this claim up with historicity from the beginnings of Islam you dummy, something you have avoided at all costs.
As seen the Jiyza was not imposed on everyone, in fact as well as women and children being exempt, those who chose to fight for the Muslims alongside them were also exempt from paying proving even more you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

Try again

incorrect

you are the one arguing and inventing details about what happened

it is a known historical fact that Muslim invaders demanded a tax from non Muslims called the jizya

there is no arguing with this fact

you have invented some additional fairytale story about certain people being exempt from it, you haven't proved it you haven't provided any evidence of this, all we have is something you have written and are now passing off as "history"

presently history is being made in the ME and presently Muslims are demanding jizya from everyone without exception, that is the evidence that i rely on, not your rose tinted pink and fluffy version of make believe

FYI non Muslims were exempt from military duty on the basis that they paid the jizya, so how exactly could the non Muslims choose to avoid the jizya by fighting for the Muslims

you just have no concept of how much of a clown you are do you??

Not inventing anything, I am proving easily so your claim is wrong on every level.

All you are doing now is just disagreeing without proving I am wrong.

Only able bodied men were asked to pay a tax less than Muslims paid themselves and was even given back to them when the Muslims could not protect them, showing again you have not the first clue what you are talking about, again men who chose to fight alongside were also exempt. In fact how could children pay such taxes smelly, please explain that one?  

So back up your claims with historicity, it should be easy for you to do so, if as you claim you are right

Try again

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

incorrect

you are the one arguing and inventing details about what happened

it is a known historical fact that Muslim invaders demanded a tax from non Muslims called the jizya

there is no arguing with this fact

you have invented some additional fairytale story about certain people being exempt from it, you haven't proved it you haven't provided any evidence of this, all we have is something you have written and are now passing off as "history"

presently history is being made in the ME and presently Muslims are demanding jizya from everyone without exception, that is the evidence that i rely on, not your rose tinted pink and fluffy version of make believe

FYI non Muslims were exempt from military duty on the basis that they paid the jizya, so how exactly could the non Muslims choose to avoid the jizya by fighting for the Muslims

you just have no concept of how much of a clown you are do you??

Not inventing anything, I am proving easily so your claim is wrong on every level.

All you are doing now is just disagreeing without proving I am wrong.

Only able bodied men were asked to pay a tax less than Muslims paid themselves and was even given back to them when the Muslims could not protect them, showing again you have not the first clue what you are talking about, again men who chose to fight alongside were also exempt. In fact how could children pay such taxes smelly, please explain that one?  

So back up your claims with historicity, it should be easy for you to do so, if as you claim you are right

Try again

how are you proving it didge??

proof requires that you actually prove your point

you keep saying

"Only able bodied men were asked to pay a tax less than Muslims paid themselves and was even given back to them when the Muslims could not protect them, showing again you have not the first clue what you are talking about, again men who chose to fight alongside were also exempt"

and then fail to provide any reliable factual and historical evidence to prove this statement

all you are doing is repeating your own invented claims dodge

there is no evidence to support you

i have asked you several times to provide us with links to your source, and you refuse to do so, this means there is no source, or you have selectively edited what the original source is actually saying and are too sacred to post it up because we will expose you for a fraud

my point is proved by the way modern day Muslims are operating which is in the exact manner proscribed to them in the qur'an and hadiths, there is no evidence or reason to argue that Muslims who lived centuries ago would act in a different manner

all you have is speculation

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not inventing anything, I am proving easily so your claim is wrong on every level.
All you are doing now is just disagreeing without proving I am wrong.

Only able bodied men were asked to pay a tax less than Muslims paid themselves and was even given back to them when the Muslims could not protect them, showing again you have not the first clue what you are talking about, again men who chose to fight alongside were also exempt. In fact how could children pay such taxes smelly, please explain that one?  

So back up your claims with historicity, it should be easy for you to do so, if as you claim you are right

Try again

how are you proving it didge??
proof requires that you actually prove your point
you keep saying
"Only able bodied men were asked to pay a tax less than Muslims paid themselves and was even given back to them when the Muslims could not protect them, showing again you have not the first clue what you are talking about, again men who chose to fight alongside were also exempt"
and then fail to provide any reliable factual and historical evidence to prove this statement
all you are doing is repeating your own invented claims dodge
there is no evidence to support you
i have asked you several times to provide us with links to your source, and you refuse to do so, this means there is no source, or you have selectively edited what the original source is actually saying and are too sacred to post it up because we will expose you for a fraud  
my point is proved by the way modern day Muslims are operating which is in the exact manner proscribed to them in the qur'an and hadiths, there is no evidence or reason to argue that Muslims who lived centuries ago would act in a different manner

all you have is speculation  

Speculation?

 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 



Really, so why is it documented?
Seriously you clutch at straws, because as seen you cannot even answer simple questions, how could children pay this tax?

This is show by the first conquests also and where they also retreated that they paid the ta back, you are saying it is not documented or false then prove otherwise, all you are doing is saying you do not believe this, well that is not proof, that is just smelly clutching at straws as per usual.

Thus I have presented documented history, you nee to do the same to show otherwise from the beginnings of the history of Islam and you want sources, sure, all you had to do was look at the sources at the bottom of the wiki link:

DOH

1.  Shahid Alam, Articulating Group Differences: A Variety of Autocentrisms, Journal of Science and Society, 2003
   
2. ^ Jump up to:^a b Ali (1990), pg. 507
   
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b c John Louis Esposito, Islam the Straight Path, Oxford University Press, Jan 15, 1998, p. 34.
   
4. Jump up^ Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1991). The Holy Quran. Medina: King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex, pg. 507
   
5. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Matthew Long (jizya entry author) (2012). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton University Press. pp. 283–284. ISBN 978-0691134840.
   
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b Werner Ende; Udo Steinbach (2010). Islam in the World Today. Cornell University Press. p. 738. ISBN 978-0801445712.
   
7. Jump up^ لسان العرب، الجزية - Lisan al-Arab (Dictionary)
   
8. Jump up^ Paul L. Heck, "Poll Tax", Encyclopedia of the Qur'an
   
9. Jump up^ Ali (1991), p. 507
   
10. Jump up^ An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane Book 1, p.422, citing al-Nihaya fi Gharib al-Hadith by Majd al-Din ibn Athir (d. 1210), and others.
    
11. Jump up^ Ibn Rushd (2002). Vol. 2, p.464.
    
12. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Cl. Cahen in Encyclopedia of Islam, jizya article
    
13. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Hunter, Malik and Senturk, p. 77
    
14. Jump up^ al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din (1981). "(9:29)". Tafsir al-Kabir. Dar Al-fiker.
    
15. Jump up^ Sunan Abu Dawood Book 37, 4310
    
16. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:23:475
    
17. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:57:50
    
18. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:24:559
    
19. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:34:425
    
20. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:55:657
    
21. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:53:384
    
22. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:53:385
    
23. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:351
    
24. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:76:433
    
25. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:53:386
    
26. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:53:404
    
27. Jump up^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:49
    
28. Jump up^ Sahih Muslim, 1:287
    
29. Jump up^ Sahih Muslim, 1:289
    
30. Jump up^ Sahih Muslim, 19:4294
    
31. Jump up^ Sahih Muslim, 32:6328
    
32. Jump up^ Sahih Muslim, 32:6330
    
33. Jump up^ Sahih Muslim, 42:7065
    
34. Jump up^ Sunan Abu Dawood, 19:2955
    
35. Jump up^ Sunan Abu Dawood, 19:3031
    
36. Jump up^ Sunan Abu Dawood, 37:4310
    
37. Jump up^ Al-Muwatta, 17 24.42
    
38. Jump up^ Al-Muwatta, 17 24.44
    
39. Jump up^ Al-Muwatta, 17 24.45
    
40. Jump up^ Al-Muwatta, 17 24.46
    
41. Jump up^ Le Livre de l’impôt foncier (Kitâb el-Kharâdj). Translated into French and annotated by Edmond Fagnan. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1921. English translation from Bat Ye’or The decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 322.
    
42. Jump up^ 'Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, quoted in Stillman (1979)., pp. 160–161.
    
43. Jump up^ Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Mizan, Chapter: The Islamic Law of Jihad, Dar ul-Ishraq, 2001. OCLC: 52901690 [1]
    
44. Jump up^ Misplaced Directives, Renaissance, Al-Mawrid Institute, Vol. 12, No. 3, March 2002.[2]
    
45. Jump up^ "What is the jizya, or poll-tax, on non-Muslims. [3]". Jihad and the Islamic Law of War. 2009.
    
46. Jump up^ The History of al-Tabari Vol. 12, The Battle of al-Qadisiyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine; SUNY Press (1992); pages 167, see also pages 39 and 138; ISBN 0-7914-0733-0
    
47. Jump up^ Sabet, Amr (2006), The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4, Oxford; page 99–100
    
48. Jump up^ Khadduri, Majid (2010). War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Johns Hopkins University Press; pages 162–224; ISBN 978-1-58477-695-6
    
49. Jump up
    
    

Try again

At least we now know that you consider the jizya as your tax....

Tommy Monk wrote:At least we now know that you consider the jizya as your tax....

Oh dear, no that is you that thinks that my boy.

I found a picture of you and smelly:






http://www.channel4.com/news/britain-first-far-right-anti-Muslim-extremists-mosques

Which one is you dodge....????

 

Tommy Monk wrote:Which one is you dodge....????

This is my one:

Lol didge

Just picked a link at random and it stated "jizya is no longer imposed in the Islamic world"

A lie that has been disproved by the articles I posted

Sorry didge but you have failed to provide reliable factual and historical evidence and instead fabricated a fairytale where invasions by Muslim centuries ago were more humane and less brutal than what we are currently seeing in Iraq, and the jizya was somehow a fun thing to have even though we see today it most certainly is not

as for answering questions didge,you have no grounds to moan when you refuse to answer my question which I have asked several times now

Who are the non Muslims being protected from?

Didge--he's just shit-stirring. He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but he thinks he can get a rise out of you. Abandon him.

Q

Original Quill wrote:Didge--he's just shit-stirring.  He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but he thinks he can get a rise out of you.  Abandon him.

Q

Hi Quill

He is not very good at it, anyway I find it fun to expose his poor knowledge of history. so much so his only claim here is of today by some extremists.

One mans Islamic extremist is another mans proper Muslim.....




Funny how you can't answer smelly's questions but still claim to have 'exposed' him....



And you are not English.

Tommy Monk wrote:One mans Islamic extremist is another mans proper Muslim.....




Funny how you can't answer smelly's questions but still claim to have 'exposed' him....



And you are not English.

First of all, one man's Christian terrorist is another man's proper Christian. Secondly, how dare you say Phil isn't English? Have you even met him? Do you know anything about him except that he continuously shows you up?

Fucking LOW!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:One mans Islamic extremist is another mans proper Muslim.....




Funny how you can't answer smelly's questions but still claim to have 'exposed' him....



And you are not English.

First of all, one man's Christian terrorist is another man's proper Christian. Secondly, how dare you say Phil isn't English? Have you even met him? Do you know anything about him except that he continuously shows you up?

Fucking LOW!

That is because he is an unhinged loon, I have also answered smelly's question many times before.

They are protected from invading armies, not only id this tax exempt them military service, this tax was far less than that which was paid by Muslims themselves, not exactly a hardship now is it, they get better rights than the Muslims with tax, they permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression. Which at this time had been in continual war for the last few centuries between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. So basically these areas had suffered constant devastation by warfare for years, where before they were conscripted into the armies. Of course smelly leaves out all these historical facts, because it goes against his claim on a single verse 9:29, which as seen is only levied on able bodied men, not women, children, the elderly, thus the verse is in regards to who do not pay this tax, just as we fight tax avoidance today. Now this is also how many Muslims see this verse and how it is taught within Islam, as any half brained idiot can see for themselves, but only those like smelly who have not studied Islam, come to a different view of this verse, because it suits their agenda. This is why smelly not only contradicts himself, being as he is an extremist Christian over religion, he excuses the violence from within his own. What I show is that within all religions, that the problem starts with literal, where some take the view they can play out what they perceive as their deities punishment onto other humans. History is full of this, no matter the faith, but more so in the Abrahamic ones. Smelly of course knows this, but as his agenda is to get everyone to hate and go to war with all Muslims, he avoids the truth.

What smelly might want to ask s why for example Jerusalem surrendered without a drop of bloodshed and whether it had been because of the previous harsh rule citizens had lived under, but then he lacks much histoircal knowledge to the point he always embarrasses himself

One man's Englishman is another man's terrorist      

Didge seems much too worldly and educated to be English   

veya_victaous wrote:One man's Englishman is another man's terrorist      

Didge seems much too worldly and educated to be English   

 :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: :-:cawg:-: 

Should add, Didge, a Google Image Search of smelly's avatar will tell you what he's been reading as far as Islam goes. Not exactly the most objective POV ...

veya_victaous wrote:One man's Englishman is another man's terrorist      

Didge seems much too worldly and educated to be English   

Well it's definitely not his first language...

The Puzzler wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:One man's Englishman is another man's terrorist      

Didge seems much too worldly and educated to be English   

Well it's definitely not his first language...

Oh dear another fuckwit with nothing to add but his utter ignorance, run along there little boy, adults are debating, time you went back to class.

Didge wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
Well it's definitely not his first language...

Oh dear another fuckwit with nothing to add but his utter ignorance, run along there little boy, adults are debating, time you went back to class.

Yeah, adults throwing around racist statements about English people...LOLOLOL.   

The Puzzler wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh dear another fuckwit with nothing to add but his utter ignorance, run along there little boy, adults are debating, time you went back to class.

Yeah, adults throwing around racist statements about English people...LOLOLOL.   

Well you fail to see the irony, maybe because sad fucks like you make xenophobic and racist statements about other groups, but I guess that is way above your infantile intelligence.

Didge wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
Yeah, adults throwing around racist statements about English people...LOLOLOL.   

Well you fail to see the irony, maybe because sad fucks like you make xenophobic and racist statements about other groups, but I guess that is way above your infantile intelligence.

But you are one of only two self-confessed RACISTS here Didge.

And today you added thug to that confession.

You are also publicly threatening others.

I try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there is no place for violence in day-to-day society.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well you fail to see the irony, maybe because sad fucks like you make xenophobic and racist statements about other groups, but I guess that is way above your infantile intelligence.

But you are one of only two self-confessed RACISTS here Didge.

And today you added thug to that confession.

You are also publicly threatening others.

I try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there is no place for violence in day-to-day society.

You dummy, you fail to see what was intended, was to expose Hugh and it was easily done, now run along before I kick the crap out of your sorry little arse.

 ::D::

Didge wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
Yeah, adults throwing around racist statements about English people...LOLOLOL.   

Well you fail to see the irony, maybe because sad fucks like you make xenophobic and racist statements about other groups, but I guess that is way above your infantile intelligence.

Well, that's a lie for a start. Try again Dodge.

The Puzzler wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well you fail to see the irony, maybe because sad fucks like you make xenophobic and racist statements about other groups, but I guess that is way above your infantile intelligence.

Well, that's a lie for a start. Try again Dodge.

No lie, you are a sad little racist xenophobic fuckwit, they are easy to spot

Didge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


But you are one of only two self-confessed RACISTS here Didge.

And today you added thug to that confession.

You are also publicly threatening others.

I try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there is no place for violence in day-to-day society.

You dummy, you fail to see what was intended, was to expose Hugh and it was easily done, now run along before I kick the crap out of your sorry little arse.

 ::D::

Oh, another of those, where, once exposed you claim it was all a very clever ruse to trick the unintelligent.

And yet again they fell for it right, because they are stupid and you're on a different level?

Amazing.

Didge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


But you are one of only two self-confessed RACISTS here Didge.

And today you added thug to that confession.

You are also publicly threatening others.

I try to avoid that kind of behaviour, there is no place for violence in day-to-day society.

You dummy, you fail to see what was intended, was to expose Hugh and it was easily done, now run along before I kick the crap out of your sorry little arse.

 ::D::

Hugh? When you asked me if I was Hugh ages ago, I thought you meant high due to your lack of English skills. So who's Hugh then?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Didge wrote:


You dummy, you fail to see what was intended, was to expose Hugh and it was easily done, now run along before I kick the crap out of your sorry little arse.

 ::D::

Oh, another of those, where, once exposed you claim it was all a very clever ruse to trick the unintelligent.

And yet again they fell for it right, because they are stupid and you're on a different level?

Amazing.

Yep a tad like you dummy, but hey, is always fun

The Puzzler wrote:

Didge wrote:


You dummy, you fail to see what was intended, was to expose Hugh and it was easily done, now run along before I kick the crap out of your sorry little arse.

 ::D::

Hugh? When you asked me if I was Hugh ages ago, I thought you meant high due to your lack of English skills. So who's Hugh then?

Well that shows you English skills are bad then ha ha, what a fuckwit