The nice Mr Reason now wants all debate to cease and no difference of opinion to be expressed. The only question I ask; What is he doing on an Opinion Forum. He finds points of view from others opinions and beliefs offensive and should be kept to onself, as only the true believers know the full extent of their beliefs. To all you who believe in ghosts and faries we will not degrade your genuine belief so we will not offend you.

I would encourage all you atheists to keep your opinions to yourself and stop the criticism of religion! On second thoughts No! We would have nothing to discuss, as you will note opinions on religion on this Forum draw the most comment. It is totally un-reason-able to expect people to keep their opposition to an opinion to themselves. Please show some objectionable - reason.

Quote from Reason, "I simply state – expound the virtues of your own beliefs and leave the criticism out; to those who truly know and understand the meaning."

Fh, bad news...... That email (faraz@tazkiya.net) on the site you recommended is bad. The page is:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
Please indicate another site.

“Loving, peaceful message”? Are you sure? Do you have some private, individualized abridged version? Wow! Are you sure there are no verses there in the Quran that some people may find not to be so “loving” and “peaceful”?

So the Hadiths are “questionable”. Hum, do other Muslims know this? Please give links to Islamic sites that reject the Hadiths and say that they are false or questionable.

By the way, have you considered the implications of that statement? At least that remark means that you recognize the true nature (and problems) with these writings. Do other Muslims reject the Hadiths as integral to the Sunnah? Do you know what it means if you reject the Hadiths? (although you have used them here at OLO in your comments) and other Muslims don’t? Think about this. If you can’t figure it out then ask me and I will explain it to you.

Oops. Not all the references in the email were from the Hadiths. Are you saying you believe Muslims can screw their married female slaves at will? (my paraphrase!). I can only find 4 things that are totally repugnant there, yet you say this (Quran 4:24) is part of Allah’s “loving” and “Peaceful” message. You sure?

So, recapitulating, I have asked that you...
1. provide links to Islamic sites that meet your criteria of “good sources” so I can check them out.
2. give me references to Muslim sites that reject the Hadiths and quality them as unreliable or questionable.
3. Confirm that Allah gives his blessing to slavery, adultery, and rape (verse 4:24).

One thing about you, FH, I may doubt your judgement and moral principles, but nobody can say that you don't try hard or that you are not responsive. Somethimes I think you sit next to your computer all day and all night, just waiting to respond to the next posting. I count on you to help me with these matters!

Kactuz

FH, I want to correct your statement on the Copts: “coptic christians and Muslims fell into the vicious circle... Pope Shenouda had to apologize for the hate preached behind his back in some churches:

That is so distorted it cannot be forgiven. Murder and persecution is unacceptable! Three months ago I mentioned the Coptic problem, and you dismissed it.

Now read these:
http://missmabrouk.blogspot.com/2005/10/stgergis-three-killed-dozens-wounded.html#links
http://egyptianperson.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-opinion-regarding-moharam-bek.html
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=2351
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2005/10/24/religious-harmony-severed-in-egypt/
http://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/10/22/islamic-riot-in-alexandria-againist-christians.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/egypt_religious_conflict
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lord-have-mercy.html
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=14830
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A66F025D-0E21-4863-95BF-F5369F08AA58.htm

Did you think I wouldn’t check the story? Once again Muslims kill and persecute and you pretend it is otherwise. Tell me, do you actually read the news or do you make it up and distort it so that it makes you feel good?

It was not the Coptic Pope that apologized, but someone else (not involved) hoping to calm things. It was not Christians rioting. One Muslim blogger saw the play (done once, two years ago!) and didn’t even find offense. Muslims just wanted an excuse to kill and riot (see events in France)...

It will get worse. I fear for the Copts. One day the followers of the Religion of Peace may kill or expel the rest of them (as they have done to the Jews and half of the Egyptian Coptic community in the last 50 years), instead of just the usual persecution and discrimination (not to mention the murders, rape, and other classic Islamic habits).

So you and other Muslims here at OLO do dozens of postings about minority rights and how Australia discriminates, yet when I mention the plight of minorities in Islamic countries - well, basically your position is “they deserved it for offending Islam”. Muslims riot, destroy and kill and you couldn’t care less! You make excuses, distort the facts and shrug it off as “so what?” How pathetic and cowardly! Reprobates! How about an apology?

Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen to me on the streets of Alexandria, if your fellow Muslims there knew of what I think and say about Islam and Mohammed? Give it your best guess! In fact, what do you think of blasphemy?

kactuz

Scout. Please don't confuse 'passion and confidence' for the more negative concept of 'condescending'. The only comment to you I would apologise for is the one where I said "Trinity dear".... but that was tongue in cheek :) a mood thing I guess.

To all, specially 'Tolerant' Mahatma .. I'm wondering how the parents of those 3 teenage Christian girls beheaded by Muslim radicals in Sulawasi would feel about your views ?

Islam= Mohamed + Quran + Hadith = "Sunnah"

F.H. the way you put it, suggests you believe the Quran exists eternally and by itself, and is the 'abiding word of God for all time'..... (and hence you would justify 23:5-6 as applicable today.)

Scout and Mahatma and Reason .. do you actually 'believe' F.H. on his 'all verses of peace' etc ? if yes, I urge you guys to become informed, if no, then please take the trouble to take him to task over such misrepresentation.

Mahatma, you speak of tolerance, and 'fundamentalist Christians/hate/xenophobes' etc..

It makes me feel that the pointing out of truth/fact is not relevant to you. As I've said repeatedly, "If I'm wrong.. please indicate where"? and I repeat this request.

TOPIC.. Waleed stated "No religion justifies rape" (refer previous post) and I have demonstrated the falsehood of this claim on the basis of the Quran and Hadith.

If Sura 23 which is an outline of 'the Believers' attibutes, and is clearly a lifestyle commended by God and not intended to be of any limited duration, but on-going, then, clearly the sexual use of captive women is 'lawful'. (today/now) I'm afraid this is beyond scary and is contradictory to Waleed's claim.

You only have to ask a muslim 'what are the attributes of a believer in the Quran' ? and the obvious place to refer is the chapter on "The Believers" Sura 23.

So, to Reason, Scout and Mahatma, "do you support sexual use of captive women today" ? If not, why are u condemning me ? (and Kactuz)

I would appreciate deeply a thoughtful response to this.

On the issue of 'Old Testament' and captive women.

Lets look at some important points.

-Sexual use of captive slaves was not allowed.
-Marraige to captive women after a 1 month time of grieving was allowed.
-If the marraige did not work out, she was freed to go/do as she chose.

Given the prevalence of 'plunder and rape' today, (specially during WW2) the immediate and opportunistic ill treatment of women in an orgy of victorious power by all sides during conflicts, it tends to make the Old testament approach seem rather conservative and restrained. It is also a stark contrast to the Islamic practice.

The 2nd point, and most important, is that the New Testament 'fulfills' the Law of Moses. i.e. the concept "Love your neighbour as yourself" is the over-riding proviso for all human behaviour. (and yes, it includes me expecting as good as I give on this forum) So, it is not valid at all to suggest that the Old Testament rules regarding human conflict in the context of Israel's geo-political history can be made into some unchanging "law" of conflict for today.

The Quran is unlike this. It is viewed by various schools in different ways:

http://www.uga.edu/islam/shariah.html

The opening sentence is:

<<Islamic law contains guidelines and rules for all aspects of a Muslim's life, such as how to pray, the proper way to conduct a business transaction, how to bury the dead, as well as crimes and punishments. Traditionally, these laws were based largely upon the Qur'an and the sunnah, which is the practice of the Prophet.>>

I draw your attention to the very last phrase. "practice of the prophet"

Then:
The Hanbali School .. derives its decrees from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which it places above all forms of consensus, opinion or inference. (sunnah=practice (behavior) of Mohamed)

Now you understand John Ks passion and my insistence on evaluating Islam and Waleeds claims on the basis of its foundations.

Thanks Reason - unfortunately subtlety is usually wasted upon the one-eyed, mostly Christian extremists here. I see that our resident evangelists are still going at it hammer and tongs, trying to provoke conflict with the much better-mannered Muslim and secular contingent.

I repeat, mostly for the benefit of Boaz, that the tedious rantings of the Muslim bashers is every bit as irrelevant to those of us who are not religious as are the selective quotes from ancient Islamic texts that they insist on posting here as 'evidence' to back their prejudice - as if their own mythology isn't replete with numerous graphic tales of rape, pillage and destruction. While these might constitute 'truths' to the credulous, their facticity is another question entirely. To us agnostics it's all a matter of strategic interpretation anyway, typically deployed in furtherance of sectarian political projects.

With respect to the most recent horrific incident in the tit-for-tat ethnic/religious conflict in Sulawesi, it might be advisable for the Muslim-bashers to read a little history of the area before apportioning blame solely (or even mostly) to Muslims. Christianity was introduced to the area by Dutch missionaries and colonists just over a century ago in a cynical effort to exert political control over the largely autonomous Malay sultanates who dominated the coastal areas and rivers. This artificial division - deliberately created by a European colonial power - simmered away relatively peacefully until exacerbated by Suharto's 'transmigration' policies from the 1970s. Since then, there have been numerous atrocities perpetrated by Christians and Muslims alike in the name of their religions. A dispassionate analysis may be found at http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit70/Poso1.htm .

Once again I find myself thinking wistfully about a world without religion as a mechanism for the conscription of the gullible in political conflicts... and that's only slightly ironic :)