Rants? Narrowminded? Stuck? Well, excuse me for thinking that evil is bad. I gave been wearisome bringing these issues up again and again. How terribly inconsiderate of me to inconvenience you folks with talk of suffering and death.

Fodem-se! It will be a cold day in hell before I turn my backl on evil.

FH - Let it not be said I didn’t cooperate with you. I have written an email to Sidi Faraz Rabbani (www.themodernreligion.com) at faraz@tazkiya.net. I am sure he will clear up this terrible delusion I have asked about the character of the man you admire. Here is the text:

Mr. Rabanni,

I was referred to your site by a Muslim known as Fellow Human at the Online Opinion forum (OLO) in Australia. Nice site yours, but you omitted some details…

The issue is the hate, anger, and brutality so characteristic of Islam. I attribute it to Mohammed – a man that is not and never was an example for anybody. He was a murderer, torturer, slaver and even a wife-beater. I believe his life explains the violence that is the essence of Islam.

I would like you to explain or justify these five actions listed below.

Here are the references:

[Here I put quotes and references to five events from the life of Islam's great prophet]

1. Brutal torture of thieves, Bukhari 52:261 (Mohammed, torturer}.
2. Mohammed beating his 9-year old wife Aisha, Muslim 4:2127. (the wife-beater)
3. Tabari's count of raids conducted by Mohammed. Tabari IX:118 and IX:115 (bandit, plunderer, slaver)
4. Mohammed saying that shagging married slave women is fine. (Rapist, slaver, adulterer)
5. Murders of Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan and her 5 children by the prophet's men. (petty vile murder)

[I am not putting the complete text because of the word limitation]

I notice on your site that you use and refer to other events from these same sources. You have my permission to post these questions in the “debate” section of your site. This email and your replay will be posted at OLO at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3830

Cordially,

John Arthur (AKA Kactuz)

Well, that was easy!

Now all we have to do is wait a day or so and I'm sure that Old Rabbani will answer my email and clear everything up. He says he has 2000 articles on his website (www.themodernreligion.com) so I am sure he has very precise and easy answers that will fully explain these "misunderstood" events from the life of Islam great and noble prophet.

I am sure that the explanations for these events are all there on the website, I just wasn't able to find them in the dozens of pages praising that shining example of virtue known as Mohammed. I am so stupid - thinking that Muslims may be avoiding certain issues! How silly of me.

Maybe he will surprise us all and post directly to OLO! He has the link. Wow, that would be an honor!

Then maybe he can explain those "misunderstandings" (mentioned above) that happened Indonesia, India and Egypt. Maybe the real culpits were Zionists, or who knows, a narrow-minded, stuck, prickly old man living in the boondocks, surrounded by cactus.

I can hardly wait. I just tingle with anticipation to finally, after almost 5 months, have a Muslim explain these things to little old me. Gosh, gee-whiz, whippee doo! FH, thank you so much for providing me with this site reference.

Kactuz

Agora vamos falar seriamente. Chega de brincadeira! So quero ver se este cara vai responder - afinal de contas estamos falando de vida e morte, dor e lagrimas, liberdade e escravidao.

Kaktuz,

Glad you got it off your chest, let me try another way, I am sure you are listening but I can’t explain:

Islam = Quran = God’s revealed message = Written and documented during the life of the prophet. Loving, peaceful message of 6,226 verses that preach humanity, creation, worship, women rights, social rights, neighbour and animals rights (there is even a section about bees rights!).

Hadith as a source is a questionable ‘hear say stories’ that was collected 2-4 centuries after the prophet’s death. Credible hadith should be a) narrated and b) does not conflict with the Quran. Plane and simple to all Muslims.

Aisha, first hadith when asked about prophet Mohamed (PBUH) manners she said “his manners were the Quran”. The Quran is as sharp as blaming the prophet for not smiling to a blind man (as I am sure you read it).

Let me take another statistical impossibility: Jesus (PBUH) from the age of 12 till 33, have about 300-400 stories documented about him including in the banned bibles (Gospel of Barnabos). All the history of the Israelites prophets, kings teachings and biographies over thousands of years are 31,000 verses approximately.

Now Prophet Mohamed lived 23 years of the revelation time receiving the Quran, teaching and interpreting it (6,226). In addition to his responsibility as a prophet king (like Moses, David). Where would he get the time for all the narrated and non-narrated hadith (57,000 to 65,000 including the Israelites tribes input!).

If this arguments (logic and numeric) does not help you nothing will.
I hope I am making some sense, ..to anybody…

Scout,

Was wondering what happened to Trinity (re-incarnated as Scout)..
Glad you are still around, we missed your insights. It is amazing to see the spectrum from Kaktuz, BD and Philo in one end to Trinity and Reason on the other.

Peace,

F_H: let me concur with Scout, from the perspective of a tolerant, agnostic Anglo-Aussie male. On the basis of the content and tenor of the comments posted in this forum, a dispassionate observer would have to conclude that by far the most vitriolic and hateful ideas and sentiments emanate from the anti-Islamic camp, which consists mainly of Christian fundamentalists and secular xenophobes.

In contrast, posts from those who identify as Muslim are invariably reasonable, patient and accommodating - particularly given the degree of provocation that is often evident.

My opinion is that religious fundamentalists of any persuasion share with racists and xenophobes a projection of their own alienation onto the objects of their hatred and intolerance. On reading many of their comments, it appears that some commentators relish conflict and have no other way of dealing with it than to exacerbate it. My namesake once said something like "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", which I think is quite pertinent to what passes for debate in this forum sometimes.

Despite my generally tolerant disposition, I'm beginning to have wistful moments where I imagine that it could be possible for all public religious observance of any description to be banned. Surely that would be possible under a general climate of increasingly authoritarian legislatures, such as we seem to have now in Australia?

Mahatma Duck wrote:

"Despite my generally tolerant disposition, I'm beginning to have wistful moments where I imagine that it could be possible for all public religious observance of any description to be banned. Surely that would be possible under a general climate of increasingly authoritarian legislatures, such as we seem to have now in Australia?"

Well, the singing of the Kiwi and English national anthems would be banned. All the state law courts would have to have their crests removed, because they contain, in translation, the words "God and my right".

Would you also ban the use of the word'God' in public? Would mean that nearly TV and movies would receive far different ratings.

And anyway, the banning of public religious observance would be of itself a public religious act.

If experience has shown us anything over the last 5,000 years or so, the one sure way to encourage the growth of any religion is to persecute it.

The only way, that works, to truly repress any religion is to either kill all of that religions adherents and destroy all its texts and monuments, or to exile its members in such a way that their children may be removed from them and used to the state's advantage, in the way that the Turks used the Janissaries, the pre-teen sons of Christian families drafted into the Turkish army as elite troops.

And I don't think anyone wants to see that particular experiment happen again.

On Topic:
Philo, the justification given by the lawyer for MSK is not a defence based on their cultural practices and beliefs – they are using it as an excuse for their excesses to minimise their punishment.

Criminal law creates the defence of ‘honest but mistaken belief’. That is - could it be held that the belief in the defendant’s mind was reasonable and real? If their culture were as they claim, then the defence would be a real option. As this is not the case, the lawyer raised their cultural understanding, flawed though it is, should be a mitigating circumstance. This is not the same as a defence.

I simply do not think the claim by the defendants was a direct instruction from them to their lawyer but more likely a tactic employed (in my opinion unethically) by the lawyer, to attempt to minimise the punishment of the offenders, via a shorter sentence.

Off Topic:
I state that anyone not of the belief system they argue regarding is incapable of understanding the true depths and meanings of that belief.

It is fine to be able to read – I can read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations – but could put whatever interpretation I wished into it until a person conversant in economic theory set me straight. Now if two or more experts in the field had differing opinions, well, they have a right to argue.

Outsiders should simply listen and learn – not judge from a perspective that precludes true understanding. Particularly those of a doctrinaire, superior view towards other beliefs.

I simply state – expound the virtues of your own beliefs and leave the criticism of others to those who truly know and understand the meaning.

By the way, I am not a Muslim and do not wish to be. If they choose to attempt to create a theocracy here, I would fight them as vehemently as I would a fundamental Christian theocracy.

Hamlet,
I think the Duck was being ironic…