May I add this reference to the Saana palimpsets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana%27a_palimpsest

The significance of this is that it proves that the Koran has a history, and is not the perfect word of some deity but, like all other religions of the time, it has indeed evolved.

Sort of blows a big hole in some of the underpinnings.

Thank do for the internet and libraries and scholrly reseach inteh western tradition of Enlightenment

oops...sorry

I meant.

Thank God for the internet, libaries and scholarly research in western Enlightenment traditions

Killarney

" And their horribleness has been going on for centuries and centuries. It's been going on for so long, nobody really knows how all that horribleness got started. "

Nonsense, actually we know very well how the "horribleness" started, it started with Moslem attacks on Europe and the NE and continued for over 1000 years until the West was too technologically advanced to attack. It's simply a matter of relative power.

Moslem pirates also enslaved over one million Europeans.

So do you want to appeal to history or would you prefer to compare and contrast modern Islamic societies and liberal democracies?

I certainly don't support Western attacks on Moslem countries or Israel's colonial war, however let's not romanticise a very oppressive, expansionist and inhuman ideology.

Moslem nations should be left alone to continue their 1000 year torpor

It looks like some here do not understand the ad-hominem fallacy.

Nobody learns anything from claims like 'the author is prejudiced because he is Muslim, he is therefore not credible and therefore his arguments must be unsound'. This is the ad-hominem fallacy because it does not distinguish between the argument itself and the author and his (supposed) purposes for writing the article.

Why is bringing in the author's background a fallacy when analysing the argument he makes? Because if we allow this, then any argument would be without value: the argument remains unexamined: "he only says that because he is a Christian" says the Muslim,"she only says that because she is a Christian" retorts the Muslim." Can you detect any progress? What about the content of what they say?

A scientist says that humans have been to the moon. "of course she would say that. She is a scientist. She wants us to believe this so scientists get more tax-payer funding." Maybe it is true that this scientist has that objective, but does that mean that we haven't been on the moon?

Making unsubstantiated claims as a way to rebut an argument demonstrates inferiority in reasoning. As a result the author of the original article comes out on top, because he at least makes proper arguments. Whether these arguments are sound or not is for you to demonstrate. Such demonstration requires more than making claims.

If any comment is to have an impact it should convince people who are not already similarly prejudiced. For that you do need solid argumentation (and feel free to add emotional hooks to it, as long as you make sure the argument itself stands up to critical analysis).

Solid argumentation lists the propositions and conclusions of the argument and then shows that either at least one proposition is false or the logic used to arrive to the conclusion is unsound.

It looks like some people here are unable to comprehend that it is useless getting into an argument or debate unless you can figure out where your opponent is really coming from.

Thinking that your opponent has no self interest Mitch@T4R and is a completely impartial person who can be swayed by logic and fair debate is a naive position to take. Some people already know that you are right, but they will oppose you anyway because it is in their interests, or their demographic groups interest, to do so.

They will happily dispute the most self evident fact and make Himalayan premises on mole hill assumptions. They will toss red herrings everywhere, and argue that black is somehow white. They will make the most outrageous claims and then pretend that their claim is reasonable, demanding that you explain why it is not reasonable. They will ask you Dorothy Dixer questions, questions that are very hard to answer, and they will demand that you answer them.

The purpose, my dear Mitch@T4R, is not to debate, but to prevent debate. It is to shut you up. To confuse you and make you respond to their initiatives while they sit back and laugh at you.

If you want to go down that track, then you are an easy mark.

Now, look again at the post by Uthman Badar. Basically, he is regurgitating the very same arguments which anti Muslims routinely (and validly) toss at Muslims and simply saying "Two can play at that game."

His first assertion, that the Koran does not authorise violence towards non believers is not credible to any person who has read the Koran. He tries to equate two violent acts against Muslims with the killing of the British soldier. That doesn't wash. He attacks the western media as biased towards Muslims, but with the sexual assaults and beheadings of western reporters and the editor of the Danish newspaper Aftonbladet under police protection, what does he expect? Only space prevents me from a full analysis.

If you want to take this bloke seriously, go right ahead

"If you want to take this bloke seriously, go right ahead"

I take him very seriously.

He must be pleased at the ratio of "useful idiots" he has lured out.

Any debate about rights and accommodation of alternative values must be based on reciprocation; with islam there is none.

It is a gold-platted, take to the bank certainty that islam will not accommodate Western values if islam was in control; given that fact why do Western citizens feel compelled to extend tolerance to islam to the extent that the very system which enables islam to co-exist with Western values will be dismantled by islam if it gets the chance.

I have already given a list of measures aimed at ensuring islam conforms to the values of our society; inevitably it is a losing battle because as soon as islamic numbers reach a certain threshold confrontation and conflict will escalate; and with a craven leadership and political class in the West I can only see capitulation in the future.

Planet islam; your future.