NC,

Are you taking up boxing as a sport?

You should do alright as you sure do have ducking and weaving skills!!

Loudmouth,
"Everybody should have the right to question other's people's beliefs, especially when so many horrific crimes are committed in the name of those beliefs."

Let us clearly understand, our respective stands on religion. You maintain that you have the right to question other people's belief. Right?

And that you have the right to pursue this, even after the the other person insists that he/she was not interested in this putting or being put on the spot. Right?

This dear Loudmouth is called coercion; right?

This is also called Inquisition. You know what inquisition literally mean? It means; ..investigation, especially one of a ...religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners".
How different is your stand than the approach of Inquisition?.

I also know, you are not even handed in your inquisition, like inquisition by definition is biased. You start cursing other faiths on slightest hint of terror or crime but choose to remain silent on heinous terrorist acts committed in the name of Christianity like; Waco Siege, Branch Dravidians crimes, Timothy McVeigh and his claim of committing terrorism in reaction to Waco Siege. Likes of you cried hoarse on Oklahoma Bombing and immediately blamed it on Muslims but went mute on seeing the truth that the crime had been committed by a Christian. And that is the double standard on all incidents of domestic terror acts by Non Muslims world over, particularly the state terrorism constantly inflicted on Palestinians being kept in the cages of Gaza and West Bank.

Now once again, you are for coercing others for their religious beliefs; right?

And hear ye, I maintain that "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" Quran (2: 256).

You follow, what you please, even though it may be utterly flawed, I will follow my faith and would not be coerced by you to give you uncalled for explanations, on total digressions, ....miles away from the topic, ...such as homosexuality.
. "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." Quran 109:6 (Pickthall Translation)

McAdam/NC,

Pretty obviously, to question any beliefs is not at all necessarily to sit somebody down and grill them, hour after hour, or even to make unexpected or unsolicited or unprovoked demands on anybody to explain their belief and value systems.

Let's be clear: you have the right to raise questions about my beliefs. I have the right to raise questions about yours, particularly if you wish to promote them on forums such as OLO.

It goes hand in hand with freedom of speech and expression, which necessarily include the freedom to inquire - again, particularly if someone has put their beliefs and values out there.

If you wish to assert something, it is up to you to demonstrate it. By asserting something, you open the door to objections, particularly if you make your assertions on a public forum like OLO. If you suggest something, it is not 'coercion' to request that you clarify what you are asserting.

You can't have it both ways: that you can assert something, but nobody is allowed to raise queries or objections. Australia is not yet a theocratic state :)

Now that that is over and done with, back to topic:

'Branch Davidians', by the way, not 'Dravidians'.

I don't recall blaming the Oklahoma bombing on Muslims - after the earlier New York bombings, I certainly may have suspected at first that Muslims may have been involved - let's be honest, there was something in the modus operandi that quite legitimately raised that suspicion - but I don't recall crying or shouting myself hoarse over it. That quickly passed of course, since there was not the slightest evidence of any Muslim involvement in this particular act of terrorism. My memory of it all is that very quickly, white supremacists were implicated, and McVeigh was arrested.

Don't over-egg your pudding, NC/McAdam. Don't accuse people of what they haven't done, and obviously haven't done. As a tactic, it may go down well in primary school, but not in the mature world of OLO.

Joe

Is Mise and McAdam.

Is Mise,

Your message of the 3rd (10: 04 PM):

You are telling me that you don’t plan to answer my three questions that I asked you in my message of the 3rd (3 :59 PM).

Fine.

What is the matter with you guys – Is Mises, Loudmouths et al – You can ask, but can’t face questions?

Know that before I entertain one more question from you, I must have answers to my questions – fair and square.

Till then, goodbye – I wish good for you.

McAdam,

Your patience and grace deserve all credit, and I am not the only one to have said this!

Personally I have tried to restrict myself to Muhammad and Quran as history and documentation makes almost all questions about the two reasonably verifiable in the current state of knowledge.

I have left out the followers because any discussion inevitably takes you to the followers of Judaism, Christianity, atheisms and possibly other faiths (I consider atheism to be a faith and not in any negative sense).

The deeds of the followers are quite hard to handle.

And this crowd of loudmouths we are dealing with keep bringing up the lunatics of Muslim world ONLY because of their false assumption that there are no lunatics in their own societies. The deeds of western lunatics are quite horrifying as well.

The details are many and you have elegantly point out few. My list is huge and I just mentioned the one who brought approval from God for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. But in the final analysis, this is not a sensible topic to dwell on.

The difference is that, unlike loudmouths, you and I do not (as we cannot, for the sake of reason and rationality) question the Christian faith or good values of the western society because of the deeds of the western lunatics.

The indications are that the readers do notice this difference.

Your kind demeanour prompts you to keep answering their questions.

My suggestion to you: please ask them questions as well.

McAdam,

And this is where our dilemma lays. As it is against Islam to question your own belief. This is where the Western mind and fundamentalist Muslim mind differs. No doubt about it. Why are Muslims not allowed to question their faith? And there is your problem (and ours) with your non acceptance of the West’s right of freedom of speech which is being jeopardised with political correct dogma.

“slightest hint of terror” – WOW, that’s some understatement. I hate to think what a real hint of terror is in your eyes.

And who exactly blamed Waco on Muslims?

Oh dear, Gaza, is that all you got? It’s been flogged to death with total disregard for all the Non Muslims being persecuted the world over. All you seem to care about is the Palestinians and nobody else including your very own women. I am still waiting for your explanation on why honour killings occur?

Waco was a cult, not a mainstream religion, unlike Islam. There is a big difference between 1.6 billion followers of Islam and a small group of people in stuck in Texas following an obscure cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Political_views
“In McVeigh's 2002 biography American Terrorist, he stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion.[94][95] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)

These poor examples you have cited weren’t trying to take over the world like your Islamists and wouldn't be classified as Christians.

Protestant propaganda wars on attacks of inquisitions:

Structure of the Courts:
The Church introduced a legal system which provided the accused with more rights and legal representation than the secular courts; this affected the trajectory of Western law, influencing the English Common Law and eventually the American court system.

National Security:
Regarding the (in)famous “Spanish Inquisition,” the Spanish monarchy used it to secure their nation against the ever-aggressive Muslim invaders. Like the protestant countries of England and Germany, the monarchy saw religion as the primary stabilizing agent within the state.

As I remember, O Members of the Ummah, I asked questions first, so will answer your questions when you answer mine.

What you gave were not answers but rambling obfuscations.

So, do you think that homosexuality deserves death?