FH,

Are you clutching at the last straw?
It's obvious Ahmed Deedat cunningly twisted words to suit his argument and setup strawmen for what they are worth. He came across as just another dishonest Muslim academic. Certainly he was no intellect (as there is NO such thing as a Muslim intellect).

Here's one direct response to Deedat's dishonesty:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Gilchrist/muhammad.html

The Jews and Christians have their religions and so Muhammad wanted to also establish a religion for the Arabs, the arch-enemy of Jews. There were untold personal benefits for Muhammad to so do.

So he started telling people he met Angel Gabriel and then the hoax grew and took on a life of it's own... Today this hoax has a respectable name - Islam.

It is laughable Muslims' claim that Muhammad's illiteracy is proof Allah must had put words in his mouth. I am sure Muhammad, illerate he might be, must'd been a very communicative person. You won't expect someone who could successfully command an army to be any less than being cunning, manipulative and communicative (and violent, too).

Too much is at stake for you to ever concede that Muslims are believing in a hoax- Your Arab culture, wishes of your father, forefathers and dignity of fellow Muslims. Is this not why Muslims will steadfastly clutching their straws?

Dear F.H. I'm glad ur hanging in here.. please spend some time on Muslim village and tell them they can also come here and defend their faith among critics who cannot be banned :) and surprise surprise they will also not banned from here for defending Islam. But I've been banned from that forum twice.

AHMED DEEDAT.. I rarely waste my time on him, as his arguments are so poverty stricken as pointed out above by another poster.

THE ONLY thing of value in Deedats theories is that in trying to show Mohammad was the fulfillment of "one like Moses" he also admits to Jesus divine origin :) I don't know if he was on medication that day and it was a slippup...but his testimony of the Divine origin of Jesus (Not having an earthly father) is the very demolition of his enture argument. He just does not see it.

I want to see Muslim academics disprove my own connection between Surah 9:29 and Hadith Bhukari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

Further supporting evidence is found in Hadith Muslim book 1 numbers 31, 32, and 33.

Convincing in my view.

Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the clear understanding in Mohammads mind as per the hadith about how he understood his Quran ?

(Let me guess "Anything in the Hadith which contradicts the Quran is not acceptable" :

Boaz, you noted:

>>... Muslim village ... I've been banned from that forum twice<<

If your posts there are as objectionable as those you post here, then you should expect to be muzzled occasionally.

OLO is not dedicated to a particular topic, so you can expect a little leeway here.

However, if I posted to a "Christian Village Forum", continually telling them that they are barbaric child molesters and murderers, I'd expect to be sidelined too.

Unlike you, I believe that all - that is, 100% - of the acts of violence that occur in the name of religion are perpetrated by fanatics.

To me, this simply means that we should find a way to eliminate activities that create religious fanatics.

Waging war on a religion is not such a way. In fact, it has the opposite effect, as we have seen in Iraq.

Marching up and down carrying inflammatory placards is also going to make it easier, rather than more difficult, for these fanatics to recruit and inflame even more of their kind.

Constantly writing hate-mail to Islam, in the form of persistent denigration of their leader, their beliefs and their actions, is yet another way to ensure that the cycle of hatred continues to heat up, until it explodes in violence and bloodshed.

At which point, I have no doubt, you will declare victory.

"I told you so", Boaz will say, "Didn't I warn you it would end in violence and bloodshed?"

I'd like to introduce you to a concept that would appear to be completely alien to you.

Tolerance.

John Gray, a British philosopher, wrote recently:

"In any imagineable society we will have to put up with many things we reject as false or bad. When society is as plural as it is today, nearly everyone will find much in it that is distasteful and even hateful. In these circumstances, tolerance is needed more than ever.”

Learn to tolerate, not exaggerate, differences.

I know it is against your religion to do so, but please try anyway.

Have a great day.

Dear Pericles.
my understanding of tolerance is that it is more related to real world behavior and attitude. In that context I'm probably more tolerant than many.

But...THIS.. is a debate and opinion forum. As Irfy said "If you can't stand the heat in the Abrahamic Kitchen, then get out of it"

In this context we can discuss and promote or dispute ideas. There is probably no better place to do so, because Irf calling me an armchair nazi has pretty much zero effect on me, but the possibility of a visit at night from some muslim brothers does tend to focus the mind, thats where it crosses from 'debate' world to real close to home world.

I find you are still grinding that 'hate' axe.. when will you stop ?
When will you see that exposing, and discussing ideas is not hate, it's advancing dialogue and opening minds. That such debate contributes to ill feeling in the mind of those less mature is unquestionable. But the simple solution for the mature is to grasp the nettle and actually debate 'the issue'.

The example you may wish to persue in this regard is the hadith I referred to in the previous post. Can you dispute that Mohammed clearly understood and applied the Quranic teaching on 'fight them till Allah's religion rules' sentiments in aggressive and violent terms ?

If you can find information which disproves this conclusion then you have contibuted to the debate rather than simply blamed me for world poverty, global warming and the lousy sleep you had the other night.... and the such like. (you know what I mean)

If shining the light of truth on people and cherished ideas is contributing to violence, then I suggest it tells you more about the ideas and the people than the shiner of the light.

If however, the shiner uses the torch in a mocking, childish and deliberately insulting way (as opposed to stating the facts) for the purposes of personal ego gratification, then you may have a point.

Boaz, it is simple.

>>I find you are still grinding that 'hate' axe.. when will you stop ?<<

The millisecond after you stop your constant stream of hate-speak against Islam, I will stop pointing it out to you.

>>When will you see that exposing, and discussing ideas is not hate, it's advancing dialogue and opening minds<<

If you were indeed "exposing, and discussing ideas" I would have absolutely no problem at all in engaging with them. Instead, all that you present is a procession of uncontexted sound-bites that portray a religion to which you are opposed as primitive, vicious and depraved.

You are playing exactly the same game as every other rabble-rouser in history, picking minor factoids and blowing them up into a world conspiracy.

>>tolerance is... more related to real world behavior and attitude. In that context I'm probably more tolerant than many<<

Only in your own opinion, Boaz.

Tolerance in this context is the ability to live with people with whom you disagree, without taking every opportunity to i) denigrate their way of life, noisily and objectionably and ii) try to convince them that your way of life is infinitely superior.

The former is rude, the latter is tiresome. Together, they are the hallmark of an intolerant - and very smug - person.

>>If shining the light of truth on people and cherished ideas is contributing to violence, then I suggest it tells you more about the ideas and the people than the shiner of the light<<

Wrong. The simple fact that you believe you are "shining the light of truth" tells us everything we need to know about your smugness and your intolerance.

Also, since your "shining the light of truth" is nothing more than a one-sided rant against someone else's belief system, it is certain to generate antagonism, which, if carefully fostered, can be turned to fanaticism.

Yet you still deny that you are a rabble-rouser.

Pericles: "I know it is against your religion to do so..."

Your above sweeping statement tells me you didn't know what you're talking about. So spare us your smug presumptuousness on tolerance.

Firstly, the concept of peace (as Islam pretends to espouse) is not even a virtue. It is merely a desirable outcome with a selfish undertone.

Tolerance is more of a virtue. But even so, tolerance in itself needs not be a desirable quality. One can be tolerant of evil doers and that does not make tolerance a good thing. Above all tolerance is almost always a 'two-way street' with a tint of selfishness on both sides.

If you must rely on definitions and quotes provided by some famous narrators, then by all means gather more of those and then come and dispute what I have just said.