Scout and Robert,

To defend FH’s right or reasons to lie is ill, get a grip. We all get attacked on here, its no big deal. Scout, you say I attack FH for lies constantly, I have called him a liar once, and that was because he made up a war atrocity.

FH,
You ask what I wanted to prove, in this discussion/debate, you have proven it for me both with the atrocity lie and your reaction on been called on it. You asked my position, it’s always clear, I’m against islam in Western civilization. I’m also against PC, as it tries to enable minorities to evade answerability, here Robert and Scout have proved that.


The PC is thankfully dying out, as the above PC antics are unacceptable, and people in general are sick of it. It's good to see the topic’s of a lot of social debate lifting out of the narrow confines of PC dogma and up into more realistic uncensored terms.

Yabby and Philo,
It comes to personal taste, we have a choice between a “secular xtian society” and a ”non-secular muslim society”. Considering the population growth, lifestyles and rights available under each, I’d naturally choose the xtian one.

As much as PC tries to force us to think we have no right to discriminate between the two, under our secular laws we have every right to.

FH, Sorry not to answer your post sooner explaing the hate in the Quran. I hate to leave challenges unanswered. OK, Lets take Pickthalls translation, as you suggested and include more of the text:

1 Quote: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning). And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:38-39)

My explanation: Remember the words between parenthesis are the translators guess. What it is saying is that a person not believing is reason enough to fight - this is clear from the three preceding verses. The only "persecution" in the preceding verses is that Mohammud is offended by people not accepting him and not doing what he says. Can you suggest a better explanation of what this 'persecution' is about? Read the verses. So not accepting Islam and living your life your way is reason for a Muslim to kill you? Pathetic!

2. Quote: Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you… Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them… bla bla bla (9:4-5)

My explanation: So not having a treaty OR not accepting Islams right to rule (abated rights) is also an acceptable reason to kill people? What kind of god is this? So he declares hunting season on unbelievers? What, no limitation on time or place? No restriction on which unbelievers? Does that include infidel children? How poorly written! How vague! And this is from a book you believe to be 'perfect'! Obviously Allah is very careless with human life -but we know that.

See, FH, there is nothing to fear. As I said, Islam is about anger, hate and murder. Have you noticed that your dear prophet spends a lot of time looking for excuses to kill people?

John Kactuz

FH, so you say: "Only the Quran was written during his (Mohammud's) time". Well I think most Muslims think otherwise. Supossedly it was memorized (by 'gifted' individuals) and put down later after Mo's death - at least that is the 'oficial' line on most Islamic sites.

About the hadiths - either you should have the 100,000 or so Muslim sites on the Internet remove the text saying the hadiths are divinely inspired, or you should stop associating with people that think that it is OK that Mohammud tortured and murdered a bunch of people, when he was not beating his favorite 9 year old wife. Those are in the hadiths and 99.9% of Muslims accept them. You are wrong. Period.

Speaking of the Quran being written. As we all know, your dear prophet was illiterate. How stupid of your Allah not to send him to school - that is why Mohammud didn't write the Quran himself, he couldn't. The Archbishop of Canterbury was once fiercely criticized for saying this fact. How unsensitive! How un-PC! But it is a fact.AT least Old Joseph Smith wrote his own revelation.

Would anybody here care to hear my theory about Joseph (the Mormon) Smith being a later day incarnation of Mohammud? Actually the similarities are fascinating.

Kactuz

Mr P Pig, I'm probably wasting keystrokes - it looks as though you read what you want to read rather than what is said. I gave an honest answer with some explaination because of your apparent preference to trap and misunderstand. I don't want to be a tool in your ongoing attacks on FH. I again I don't believe the reported attrocity occurred in the same way I don't believe in anything else I am unsure of. Read agnostic rather than athiest. Your persistance in the use of insult and rudeness sends a fairly clear message.

Merideth, I don't believe FH is lying and in no way am interested in defending liers. I think that FH believes that particular attrocity ocurred. I don't know and have seen nothing that says it did not happen.

What I am very tired of is those who continue to fill these pages with their hate, their determination to undermine any attempt to get dialog between moderate muslims and other parts of the community going. The issue of proof of the previously mentioned attrocity is a trivial point in the Australian context.

What I want to know is what I can do to help a situation which may be developing in Australia. All of this focus on attacking FH and anybody who tries to talk to him in friendly terms suggests that some really want division and hatred, that they are scared that without their efforts a wound in multiculturalism might be healed thus invalidating the "proof" that it does not work.

R0bert

Meredith & MPP,

1. In my response above 1st December 6pm, I articulated an argument of 5 points, which was in response to people who assumed Terrorism is committed only by the name of Islam.
2. I provided weblinks to the assumptions, whether you believe them or not is your choice.
3. Back to the topic of the article, your comment on terrorism on Algeria, you provided a website link which proved you & MPP wrong:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr90/falgeria1992.htm
Obviousley it was a truth that you wanted to conceal but clicked on send by mistake otherwise why would you provide a link that proves you wrong?

Are you sure its me who is telling lies?

4. MPP: I checked your earlier postings: you are a new member who posted less than 10 postings and all responding to me. It is flattering but I don’t have an ego. Its not a good thing to have in my beliefs.

5. Meredith: I could have guessed your agenda anyway. Seems you see a moderate Muslim is an ‘ex-Muslim’.

I like the word ‘secular’ in your comment but you made another minor error.
Secular means no religion at all but ‘secular Xtian’ implies that the Church founded secularism and it can take it back whenever they please.

Kaktuz,

1. “Remember the words between parenthesis are the translators guess”

Wrong, it means closest match to meaning translation, if you check with Boaz on Arabic script, it says ‘and you will be free to practice your religion’. (Al deen Khalessan and in other verse, AL deen Lillah).

2.Hadith divinity: It is a myth you want to believe. My argument above was clear:
Can you be a Muslim and not believe in Hadith? Yes.
Does any human have any divinity in Islam? No

No Muslims can answer differently to those two questions cause it he will conflict with the Quran. Simple.

Mind you, you can insist on hadith divinity because it serves your writing purposes. Anyway, it’s a free world, chose what makes sense to you.

FH,
I posted the link, I know muslims kill muslims, x-muslims and non-muslims, and the whole lot sucks. I did try and talk to you about protection for people trying to leave islam on another conversation we had pre the atrocity lie… you told me fatwas were publicity stunts.

In this thread I am concerned about you not been able to provide evidence for your fantasy atrocity and even more so at your reaction and that of your supporters on being held to account.

Robert,
Your saying some very strange stuff now:
FH believes the atrocity in the face of no evidence, and that’s okay. It may be okay in lala land, but on a serious debate forum, no it’s wrong.

You refuse to discount the atrocity cuz there is no evidence to say it didn’t happen… Prove to me 30 people weren’t shot in central station Sydney today by an article that says 30 people were not shot at central lol get a grip man that’s sad logic.

Proof is a trivial point in the Aust’ context…… are you mad? Surely you’re not suggesting that because the lie is placed over-seas it’s irrelevant?
Lies are lies

I don’t give a stuff if you call me names like hateful, go for it all you like get it off your chest.