Keysar, the question is not whether or not you should have the right to put your point of view. That is not in dispute. The question is whether it is remotely appropriate to attempt to curtail someone else's academic freedom. This is an issue that should concern us as Muslims, particularly at a time when there is talk of setting up a US-style campus watch on Australian universities. Muslim academics and academics who are sympathetic to Muslims will be first in the firing line if/when that eventuates. We will look a lot more convincing arguing for our own intellectual freedom if we have shown a bit of respect for the intellectual freedom of others.

Keysar Trad: supporter of the lunatic Halali, has the cheek to refer to “misunderstandings being generated in the media”. We have all heard enough of this man’s propaganda from his own mouth to know that there is no misunderstanding of Islam, in the media or elsewhere.

The “different standards” he talks about in relation to what is said about Islam and what Muslims can say in response, is just another example of his inability to see or tell the truth. Australians have been browbeaten into being ‘nice’ to Muslims: vilification laws have been enacted, particularly in Victoria, where one is not allowed to quote something from the Koran without facing a jail sentence.

Trad’s points about what he should be able to do in a secular society are exactly what he CAN DO in Australia – what he is doing now! The strange thing is that secularism is a red rag to Muslims, whose religion is more important than the state!

By claiming to be “…not seeking to dismantle secularism”, but “…attempting to be constructive in approaching its application”, Trad has really put his foot in his mouth.

The very fact that Muslims in Australia allow the likes of Trad and Halali to go around mouthing off is enough evidence that Muslims are definitely a threat. These ‘moderate’ Muslims we are always hearing about (but not from) seem content to allow them to get our backs up, and the fact that secularism and Islam don’t go together – but will be used by Muslims to meet their own ends – says it all.

Keysar Trad

What is it with you Muslims who feel qualified to comment on topics clearly way out of your depth? When YOU get a Ph.D - or even a bachelor's degree for that matter - in ANYTHING, let alone medieval history and literature, perhaps THEN you might have an opinion that justifies sullying OLO.

Until then, back in your box. When are you people EVER going to stop your non-stop whingeing and "poor me" victim shtick? No wonder the Arab world continues to slink back to the 5th century.

Dear Kaysar...

this is a 2 edged sword.

Yes... we must have the freedom to defend our faith.

and..

Others must have the freedom to criticize it.(Including mine)

I've watched you, you scallywag.... on either Current Affair or Today 2night.. 4get which, debating with Katie McKullock about the Islamic school proposal for Camden.

I noted also the 5000+objections to the Anangrove 'prayer hall' which were 'sensitively' BULLDOZED by a coalition of Abbas Aly and Jeremy Bingham, and now..they seem to be doing the same to Camden.
What HAPPENED to 'democracy' there?

But you? grrr.. you sat there with a big cheezy grin on your face and said.. (with a straight face) "I feel sorry for them that they are so misinformed about Islam as a religion"
then you said: (quote)

ISLAM and DEMOCRACY

"Islam encourages full participation in decision making, and that's what democracy is all about"

Actually.... that's either an outright lie or.. you don't follow the Islam of the Quran and Mohammad, or..you are just trying to hoodwink us.

1/ Participation by WHOM? (dhimmis, Jews, Christians and polytheists?)

I cannot imagine that if the Quran says (regarding idolators/polytheists) "Kill them wherever you find them" that such ideological vermin (as 'Islam' views them) (such as CJ Morgan, Pericles, Vanilla, Ginx, TRTL, Robert... to name but a few of our own 'polytheists' (atheists=Idolators/polytheists in Islam) would be offered a part in the 'decision' making process in an Islamic state...can you?

2/ Full Participation WHERE? err in an Islamic state? in a 'Western democracy where Muslims are a minority status'? aah..probably more like it.

3/ Under WHAT system of Government?

IF...you believe "Islam" allows FULL participation from ALL members of a pluralist community, then.. ARGUE it...from Islamic scriptures. DO NOT try to argue it from "places" (like Turkey, Malaysia or Indonesia.)

BUT.. don't pick and choose abrogated verses which have been replaced by other later ones and..DON'T use Hadith traditions unless you are quite happy for them to be used to criticize Mohammad and Islam

Keyser, your problem, from where I sit anyway, seems to be that your actions do not agree with your words. If I read the Koran, I find a comparatively benign exposition of how Moslems should engage with unbelievers with respect and adhere to the principles of democracy. However, when I hear the rants of some of your clerical friends, I find the opposite.

Mind you, there are also some who would call themselves Christians, about whom I could make the same complaint, so from that you make take some solace.

David

I was approached by Keysar to publish a response to Bronwyn Winter's article, and I was happy to do so. Whatever anyone's personal views of him are, he has gone to the trouble to engage in this debate, and I think deserves to be treated on the merits of his arguments. If you want to insult him, that says more about you than it does about him.

It gets difficult to convince people to write for OLO if posters are just going to call them names. If this thread doesn't pick-up its act we will start deleting any responses that are even vaguely a flame. Some of the above are perilously close to being just that, and perhaps cross the line - we have that under consideration at the moment.

Whatever else you might say about Keysar Trad, he always puts his case eloquently and soundly. Some of the comments above rather neatly prove his point that many people in our society just want Muslims to cop whatever is dished out to them, and that they should just keep quiet and 'get back in their box', as John Greenfield puts it. I hope OLO editors let Greenfield's disgraceful comment stand, since there is no reason why anybody should be denied the right to make a fool of themself in public, as Greenfield so often does.

And the bozo who calls upon Keysar to get an academic qualification before he can speak in public - what an elitist pile of tosh! It's apparent from Mr Trad's writing that he is well-read and has a nuanced, critical and informed understanding of many different forms of literature.

Two of the main actors in this debate - Keysar Trad and Bronwyn Winter - have both consistently made lively and constructive contributions to Australia's intellectual culture over many years. Which is more than can be said for many of their detractors in the comments thread.

Dear Graham..... we note with interest that Kaysar approached you.

Yes..some posts seem a bit insulting, but I surely hope that a detailed examination of some underlying issues of Islam as a faith are not considered in that category.

Kaysar has one interest. 'Islamic apologetic' and as such he must be open to serious criticism of a detailed and technical nature. If he is allowed to make claims which cannot be substantiated from the foundation documents he stands on, then.. we are then witnessing pure unadulterated propoganda.

His 'job' is to give Islam a clean slate, and claim we all misunderstand it.. well... I would challenge Kaysar or anyone to dispute the information I placed here, and surely don't consider that out of order here or anywhere else.

My hope is that other posters who have gone for the slur rather than the doctrine will read up on the appropriate issues and return, better equipped and more knowledgable about that faith and its history.

We must never EVER forget, that 9:29 of the Quran is a 'command' to 'fight' those who do not believe in Allah.. its not an 'option'... but a command. He will try to baffle you with 'It means fight BACK' but I can absolutely prove this NOT to be the case, from the lips of Mohammad and his companions.

-In context.
-Properly understood.

The difficulty with doing so, is that Islamists always try to push the issue of violent conflict such that it is inevitably the 'other' side at fault.
Al Mughira (one of the companions) said to the Persians Caliph Omar was invading "We have been commanded to fight you" "invading" is 'his' (the narrator) word...not mine.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
<<Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.">>

<--note the word used. "Invade"

This event is based on 9:29 as it is quoted by Al Mughira further down.

They are old books. Will all the fundamentalists of all stripes give the rest of us a break from it just for 24 hours?

It's getting to be like the deluded Israel story. The story of poor little Israel fighting off the mighty arab armies, that didn't happen and never will while Israel has 200 nukes but they like to claim victimhood in Israel even while they massacre the neighbours.

Muslim, christian, hindu, jews. Who cares. Keep it to yourselves.

Thank you Mercurius, I could not have said it better myself.

To Anarkali, posting a view that highlights the obscurity of a course text to the topic is not curtailing academic freedom, it is rather pointing that the academic in question is teaching a topic under the wrong heading as there are plenty of material as I indicated which should comfortably fit into this heading. When we talk about academia, we normally expect learned impartial objective approaches to the topic. It is an injustice to find something so remote as the perfumed garden and teach it under this pretext.

Mr. Right and John Greenfield, I would like to thank you both for proving my argument.

Boaz, consider this question before I answer your contextual error. Christ said as reported in Luke 19:27: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." (NIV). Does this statement define Christ? I say it does not. Christ, like Muhammad, peace be upon them both, is defined by statements such as "love your enemies" (Matt 5:44), and Muhammad: "Repel evil with goodness" Qur'an 23:96 and 41:34 and in the Hadith “none of you is a true believer until you love for others that which you love for yourself” and the Hadith “you are not true believers until you love others”. You are quoting Sura 9 out of context. This is a Sura referring to a particular event where a raiding party slaughtered a group of unarmed Muslims despite being party to a peace treaty. Chapter 9 is a historical narrative about that event and the appropriate response. The cited Persian conflict is far more complex than your attempt to describe it. You totally ignore the historical context of that struggle and threat that the Christian Romans couldn’t neutralise which the under-manned Muslims took on to save the known world at that time, including the Christian Romans from the threats of the Persians who had been in constant war with the Romans ... word limit forces me to stop here.

i'm no fan of keysar trad, but reading the hysterical responses to his article, i might change my mind.

Unbelievable. Now we are being told that the Muslim world saved the Roman Empire from being invaded by the Persians! The truth is rather more unpalatable for westerners- the Islamic hordes picked up great swathes of territory from both empires, at the fringes where defence was difficult. A new empire was "on the block", the Islamic.

It was really touching to read Trad's description of the high esteem in which women in general, and the prophet's wives in particular are held. The fate of an early critic of the prophet's, Asma bint Marwan, is instructional- murdered while nursing one of her several children. The age, number and manner of collection of his wives is also illuminating. The treatment of women in the "modern" Islamic world is hardly grounds for celebration, either.

I'm no Christian, but to see the lives and works of Jesus and the Islamic prophet compared on an equal footing is astonishing. To my knowledge, Jesus engaged in no slavery, murder, ethnic cleansing, rape or caravan raiding, and took no child brides.

I agree with anarkali when they say:

"The question is whether it is remotely appropriate to attempt to curtail someone else's academic freedom." They answer in the negative.

I think the course should run. Keysar wants to say it is not an appropriate title for the course (or that the content is not suitable for such a course and then presents a narrow conservative alternative to the course.) Academic freedom means not just accepting other views being put but analysing them and seeing if they are worthy of debate and then debating them.

Unfortunately some of the posters with their stereotypical responses - from Christian fundamentalism to overt racism and xenophobia - give weight to Keysar's arguments. Let's discuss the issue rationally and defend academic freedom.

To paraphrase Keysar :

"A genuinely tolerant Muslim should not be so insecure"

The course is Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature. The lecturer has a Ph D in “expressions of female sexuality and homo-erotic desire in 9th-13th century Arabic literature”.

A course on female Arabic erotica is no threat. It adds to the knowledge of our society and so should be cherished. And it appears to step outside the bounds of the conservative analysis Keysar presents. Different voices are to be welcomed by adding to our knoweldge.

Interestingly Keysar does not take up the homo-erotic issue. Perhaps that is because like conservative Christians such a concept is anathema to thsoe who take life's lessons from texts written tens of hundreds of years ago in a particular historical, social and economic context.

I don't have a problem with Keysar defending his religion. I do have a problem when that defence is aimed at defending his own particular view at the expense of alternative voices.

But I guess I am a relativist. Islam is no threat to Australia or the West.The West is the threat to most of humanity. How many dead Iraqis are their as a consequence of the sanctions and then the invasion. Something well over a million people. i fear fundamentalist Christian George Bush more than i fear any Muslim.

Kayser, you are being disingenuous and it does you no credit. The ANIC letter does not just put a point of view - it seeks "a reassessment of this course, its content, and the manner in which it is taught." We would be rightly outraged if religious or political lobby groups attempted to make a similar intervention regarding other courses on Islam. And of course there are plenty of people out there who would be perfectly happy to do just that, and who would also claim that they were only seeking "objectivity". University students are adults who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds regarding Dr Habib's course content, as a university environment entitles them to do.

Dear Keysar Trad
I am not a religious person but I can not deny my Christian roots.
1. There are not first and second class religious, there are not first and second class citizens. It is your right to express freely your thoughts, believes and it is our duty as democratic citizens to protect your rights and encourage you to express your thoughts, believes, as every one else.
2. Although I come from Christian environment,( my grandfather was priest, my nephew is priest) I can not imagine that Muslim religion has won the hearts and minds of 1 billion 300 million people or more without to offer to them something useful, something very important. While I disagree with sharia law I suspect that there are other things which I ignore that make Muslim religious attractive to so many believers. Probably we know only some sides of Muslim religion and even then not as they are really.
3. While I am not interested at all for any religion I have found that last years the relations between Christians and Muslims are not very good and if we do not use our brain they could become worst. I understand the worries and hate against al-Qaeda but I am afraid that some extreme Christians use it as an excuse to attack all Muslims, that some immature, irresponsible persons promote the war between the two main religions on our planet.
4. I think it is time to promote the open discussions between people from different religious, to promote the understanding and cooperation between people from different religious and civilizations, forour common future, for mutual benefits.
5. people from both sides must understand that extremists from any side are a very small minority and stop to see them as powerful and dangerous to drive us in dangerous paths.
6. I am sure soon humanity will overpass this problem and will become stronger and more experiencedAntonios Symeonakis
Adelaide.

Mr. Trad,

Your claim that my post and John Greenfield’s post prove your argument is absurd. I firmly believe that you are using the tolerance and secularism of Australia to state your case, while complaining when others use it to say anything about Islam you don’t like.

You like to give it, but you can’t take it.

If you felt insulted about anything I said, I’m sorry for that. But I don’t see how you can ask to have your negative views about Australia and Australians published and not expect a sharp reaction. You have the advantage of regular media coverage, but most Australians never have the opportunity to reply to you.

Perhaps you should spend more time contributing to OLO or some similar site where you can receive immediate feedback from average Australians.

If you have truth on your side, surely you don’t need to hide behind the media where you are never challenged - just reported to stir people up.

Well said, Mercurious.

A few comments -

Boaz stated: "We must never EVER forget, that 9:29 of the Quran is a 'command' to 'fight' those who do not believe in Allah.. its not an 'option'... but a command. He will try to baffle you with 'It means fight BACK' but I can absolutely prove this NOT to be the case, from the lips of Mohammad and his companions.
-In context.
-Properly understood."

What rot. Boaz, you can't control how people interpret a faith. As Trad pointed out, some aspects of the bible sound ugly. Some might follow the verses in Leviticus and yes, I've heard your winding explanations for all the commands to put people to death.
My point is, there are no firm rules in any religion, only the way people interpret it. The Christianity of today, is not the Christianity before the enlightenment.

I take it, your Christianity, is not that of the Salem witchhunters, nor that of the hatemongering Westboro fanatics.

You can claim they got it 'wrong'. Fact is, there's no 'right' answer, only interpretations, be they malign or benign. So your statement you can 'prove' Islam intends this, I say, what absolute rubbish. Don't condescendingly preach at another religion as to what they really must mean.

Mr. Right:

Stated: "Your claim that my post and John Greenfield’s post prove your argument is absurd. I firmly believe that you are using the tolerance and secularism of Australia to state your case, while complaining when others use it to say anything about Islam you don’t like. You like to give it, but you can’t take it."

More rot. Of course he's using tolerance and secularism to state his case. You are too. He has the right to verbally respond to criticism. In this thread, nobody is calling for censorship of anything but defamatory trolling, therefore, he can 'take' it.

When any muslim has the temerity to speak out and defend their religion, they're accused of not being able to 'take it.'

So what? They're supposed to not even respond verbally/written? Just take abuse and stay silent?

Cont'd.

Secularism is indeed something that must be defended. Bronwyn Winter's article summed up my thoughts on the issue better than this does.

I've heard many times, on these forums, some conservative christians lamenting the fact that the 'Left' as it were, sticks up for Muslims, while enjoying harpooning conservative Christians.

From where I'm sitting, there's not defence of radical Islam from anyone but those on the fringe of political movements.

In fact, defending civil rights also means freedom of religion. Whatever religion, so long as you're not hurting anyone. Civil rights, a cornerstone of most left-leaning belief systems, means it makes sense to defend others. Especially when they are being oppressed.

And yes, the responses to this piece do prove a level of oppression.

In fact, the arguments made against Islam only apply when people are determined to only see extremists, and treat all people in that manner. The whole idea that 'leftists' are aligning themselves with abhorrent regimes is nonsense, which only makes sense when you view everyone as an extremist.

It's merely the rejection of any one faith over another. Put simply, it sickens me that somebody who makes a fairly benign article as this, is subjected to such a response.

I know on these forums I've lampooned more Christians than muslims. Well guess what? I haven't seen any muslims in here, making comments such as Greenfield's.

Respond to each as they warrant. This piece doesn't doesn't call for such vitriol.

Thank you Turnrightthenleft, I am grateful that you have contributed to the discussion, God bless you.

Anarkali, I had nothing to do with the ANIC petition, I did not write it and was not consulted on it, I did not sign it either. I wrote this article for the simple reason that Bronwyn Winter dragged me into this debate, that necessitated a response. I was minding my own business, I did not seek to defend or criticise the ANIC petition, but I do appreciate their right to protest and as an independent body, ANIC are entitled to express their concerns, I am not a member of ANIC, but that is not the issue at all. I have not complained about teaching the book in question, my concern is that placing it under the heading of "women in Arabic and Islamic literature" is misleading and in my view a misrepresentation of the course in question. If they want to teach it, it should be taught under a course on erotica and not Islamic studies, in which case, we would not be buying into the debate, but may rather helpfully suggest additional similar titles to help the academics broaden their horizons.
For the information of those concerned about my media role, I step into the media in order to answer your pressing questions whose priority and relevance is determined by a news producer or chief of staff. The media does not report every opinion and certainly does not report everything a person wishes to say, it reports what it thinks its consumers want to hear, if I fit into a story, they approach me for comment, if I don't, then they don't, it is very simple. I am not hard to find, easy to do a search and find an email address for me.

TRTL, brilliant posts.

Keyser Trad,

The argument isn’t about whether you have a right to defend your religion. You clearly have, as your regular appearances on TV and in print show. But you are arguing for the right to tell the university what they can and can’t teach, that isn't appropriate.

Did you say “The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and...the descendents of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.” Or is that just a misunderstanding?

Is it true that amongst other points, Sheik Shadi called for an Islamic court to be set up which would give the power to stone Gays/Lesbians to death. And that you rejected the concept of Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Vilification legislation and urged Muslims to defy these laws.

Did you post this “The Hadith is clear about this issue, apart from the Hadith that states that both parties must be killed, it also states that a Muslim man is not even permitted to sodomise a woman, for sodomy is sinful.” http://www.well.com/user/queerjhd/cmnov9.htm

Do you believe in Polygamy? http://www.speednet.com.au/~keysar/polyg.htm
“In the circumstances, when a Muslim man takes on an additional wife, he does so out of a sense of social responsibility to ensure that these women have a provider not only financially, but also a husband that provides them with emotional and physical support.:”

Do you receive low income support for your family?

Do you believe that Sharia law has a place in this country?

Did you say “yet, from the Muslim viewpoint, our ideology is the best salvation for the people of Australia, and the people of the world in general. Yes, we are a threat to the culture of drunkenness, paedophilia”

Or this (regarding assimilation) “They do not film a fat Australian woman in tight bicycle shorts …or an Australian drunk … or an Australian welfare cheat. NO!! They show a Muslim woman wearing a Hijab, she is not assimilating”

I notice that you suggest that Boaz’s interpretation of surah 9 is a misunderstanding. Is that the type of misunderstanding that Hilali was always suffering from?

TBC

Keyser

Are these your words? “In a way, they feel safe because of the quantity of water which surrounds this country, so they feel fortified behind this great body, it gives them a feeling of security. But the reality is, the land belongs to God, not to them, and if those foreigners, whom they fear as migrants are not permitted to enter as migrants, they will come as settlers, in numbers so large that they will not be able to process them, hold them, or stop them. What will they do then? If these foreigners who are restraining themselves, because they see a legal hope, that they can come to this vast mainly uninhabited land for whatever reason, are told that there is no longer a legal way to come here, what will they do?”

Did you preface it with this surah “see they not how many generation We destroyed before them, whom We had established in the earth more firmly that We have established you, and We shed on them abundant showers from the sky, and made the rivers flow beneath them. Yet We destroyed them for their sins and created after them another generation."

Is this moderate islam?

Keyser in a secular society you certainly do have the freedom to share your views without fear of persecution but in such a society there will also be open criticism and debate.

I can understand the frustration felt by Muslims where 'Islam' is used to desribe a particular national, ethnic or cultural entity. Many forget that Muslims have emigrated from various countries as diverse in culture, language and religion from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe.

There is a tendency by some to ‘lump’ Muslims together as one group and literal interpretations of the Koran to futher a particular bias. One unintentional byproduct of the “War on Terror” was to reinforce the view somewhat that Muslims are the enemy rather than one particular nation eg. Iraq when they invaded Kuwait (also an Arab Islamic nation which the West defended).

From what I understand most Australian Muslims are Sunni with some minority groups such as Shiite Muslims and even smaller numbers of Bektashis, Ahmadias, Alawis and Druze. Some of these groups have more in common with other religions than fellow Muslims and some Arabic immigrants are Christian (particularly from Lebanon).

In a tolerant, secular society, integration and participation of Islam into Australia society assumes responsibilities on both sides to ensure that dogma and racism do not interfere with that common goal.

Muslim immigration is relatively new to Australia, other countries are into the third and fourth generations. Muslim and non-Muslim Australians must find it in their hearts to accept the differences and take a harder line on militant groups within their own communities (such as Hizb-ut-Tahir who speak about a global Islamic state and overthrowing Western democracies). The same goes for fundamentalist Christian groups like white pride or the Klu Klux clan.

It will be up to moderate Christians and Muslims to reduce the divide. This is already happening to some extent with interfaith youth conferences and activities. Muslims groups are also now included in talks with governments on policy whether it be education, national security or migrant resources. These are all steps in the right direction

Dear Kaysar.....

it is already abundantly clear that you are being brought to account for your own words in times past (well done Paul L)...where you have vilified Australians in general, and non muslims everywhere.

So, in the light of these expressions of your own mind, it makes it rather difficult to 'gently' treat the religion you espouse.

You have many questions from Paul L to answer, I have a couple more if you don't mind.

1/ Does Islam permit the systematic mass slaughter of surrendered prisoners by victorious soldiers? you know..like Srebriniza etc?

2/ Does Islam condone the beating of a wife as a last resort when she does not comply with your wishes? (bearing in mind that there is ample instruction from Saudi and other Muslim majority places on Youtube explaining just how to do this)

Regarding Surah 9 :) don't get me started. I know the history and the context and what I brought to you is NOT 'out' of context.

There is an absolute direct connection between surah 9:29 and the decision of Abu Bakr to invade the Persians, sending Omar to do this.
The decision was based further on a report from one Muthana who explained that HIS raids on the borders of Persian territory met little resistance, thus, an invasion was viable. Yes it was 'complex'... but not overly so and not such that my post was in any way 'out' of context.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/12_abu_bakr.htm

Here is the sequence.

A) Mohamad died.
B) Some who had been intimidated and coerced into Islam, left it.
C) Abu bakr decided to 'teach them a lesson' and attacked them.
D) It was claimed that the Persians supported the free thinkers (apostates) Thus, invasion of the Persians was justified.

E) The Persians had NOT invaded....nor were they CAPABLE of invading.
F) Omar is despatched to invade them, and Al Mughira then uses 9:29 to justify the invasion to the Persian envoy.

Thus, you cannot claim that 9:29 was just a 'historical situation' which cannot be applied to all time.(including_now)

'In' context... 'Correctly' interpeted, based on 'facts'.

Am I missing something? Surely the fact this article exists proves that this secular democracy is able to hear Keyser Trad's objections? The objections to the University of Western Sydney have got wide coverage. Others have objected to Mr Trads objections. Mr Trad has now objected to the objections to his objections. Viva democracy. Where's Wally?

Yes the Islamists are defintely given untold media space. The problem is their contribution to debates on the universities is woefully misinformed. There is an alarming amount of either ignorance or denial here about the insidious influence the Islamists are having on our universities.

We have the appalling situation at Griffith University where the Vice Chancellor is prepared not only to plagiarise from Wikipedia, but to print the academic nonsense of so-called "Islmaic Science" "scholars." Come on! What on earth would Griffith University know about medieval history, or Theology of any religion, let alone Islam? http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/queenslands-professors-of-terror-or.html

Now, we have Islamists interfering in university Literature courses. http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/radical-imans-pressure-uws-for-control.html

And finally, we have Islamic imams - with barely any academic peer-reviewed publishing record being held out as a "leading scholar."
http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/griffith-unis-professor-of-unity-needs.html

Wake up people!

Paul L, most of your questions have been asked to me by John Stanley (2ue), Alan Jones (2gb), the late Stan Zamanek (2ue)and Richard Fidler (ABC, conversation Hour). The question that was not asked is about past societies that had been destroyed, the Bible as well as the Qur`an talk about the destruction of past societies, how God destroyed these societies because their elites oppressed the weak and killed the weak. They were not destroyed at the hands of people, but through abnormal "natural disasters". Your knowledge of history should suffice to understand.
Boaz, your source of information is historically wrong, the fight between Abu Bakr and some of the states was because they refused to pay their taxes, it were called the "Ridda" battle because they refused to return their taxes, these people did not apostate because they still declared that there was only One God and that Muhammad was His final messenger.
The Persians were a superpower equal to the Romans at that time, this is why victory alternated between them as outlined in the opening of Sura ArRum (30). If you recheck your facts, the Muslims were always vastly outnumbered in these conflicts.
Finally, I want to illustrate the obvious, if as you say Boaz that Sura 9 is a general order that applies even today, then why are 1.5 or 1.3 billion Muslims or whatever number are not following your interpretation. Is it so difficult for you to understand the simple fact that the vast majority of this one point something billion Muslims are advocates of love, peace, respect and mutual understanding proves that your fears are unwarranted and that your interpretation is wrong. As for Griffith Uni, I think the whole episode is a shemozzle, but try to understand this: the uni received a donation of 100,000, yet Saudi students bring in excess of 300 million to our universities in fees. Their money along with fees paid by Malaysian and Chinese students are compensating our universities for the reduced government funding so that your children and mine can still find a place in university.

"Dear Graham..... we note with interest that Kaysar approached you."

'WE' BOZO? The point of your comment is noted;-but speak for yourself, not others.

How very very, sad this all is. Nothing but intense dislike for one belief system (anything Islam is now a mantra, there is nothing else to hate;...and to defend. It has gone on and on AND ON for over seven years now).

And the greatest criticism comes from another belief system-the Christian. So the Muslim WILL defend him/herself, WILL circle the wagons' and become more defensive; more devout,......and the Christian lines up with the racist (yes the RACIST!); the bigot; the straight out hater- and they ALL become more intensive; more devout in their desire to prove that they are right.

You ALL of you; every last one of you, are a pathetic and sad lot who are NOT blind to how you exacerbate the situation. You thrive on that, it gives you grist for your mill.

And the rest of us are inexorably and unwillingly dragged into this and its inherent evil.

And we are the lucky ones because we are likely to survive, but so many innocent people have died, and will continue to die while we impose on each other that our way is the right way.

So damn sad.

Spare me your usual guff of 'any that oppose my view do not understand the situation'. I have heard it all before so many times.

I am tired, and I am sad, and I think frankly that OLO is becoming too evangelistic.

How many have and will die, because of your wretched religions or your just plain nastiness.

Kayser,why did Philip Clarke ban you from his program a few yrs ago?Was it because you suggested that women who dress inappropiately were inviting rape?

Do you still support Sheik Hilali and the bile that sprouts from his mouth or have you undergone some sort of metamorphisis that will make you more palitable to us Kaffirs?

Dear Ginx....
I've raised certain issues with Kaysar and..(did you see this?) he then answered them from his point of view. He didn't attack 'me'... or call me names (as you did).
*point to Kaysar* and 2 points deducted from the 'Socialist'...you.

He claims 'media generated misunderstanding' This is an attempt to clarify the truth.(however unpalatable to him or you this might be)

Dear_KAYSAR...
good try:) but.. no_cigar. Interesting perspective though. "They were attacked because they didn't pay their taxes"?

You can (to quote naive Mercurious) 'nuance' this to your hearts content..the facts remain.

Now..lets move from 'your' apologetic to something more reliable.. the Hadith tradition itself.

Muslim Book 001, Number 0029:(partial)

..when the Messenger of Allah(died) ...and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor, those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became APOSTATES.

'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared:

"I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah,... and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property"

DISCUSSION.

1/ Some Arabs rejected the Zakat Tax.
2/ Making them 'apostates'.(=non muslims)
3/ Omar wonders why they should be attacked (and quotes 9:29 to affirm that peoples property is safe IF they are Muslims)
4/ Abu Bakr affirms they are NOT Muslims, but apostates.
5/ Umar now agrees.(they must be attacked)
6/ Umar later(through Al Mughira) uses 9:29 to justify invading Persia.

PERSIA.. being a superpower does not mean "come and invade me". The clear fact is. The Islamic state invaded Persia, and used Surah_9:29 to justify it.

"Why don't Muslims today use it and invade?" :) They TRIED but were stopped at Tours in 732 and 11/Sep/1683 Vienna...'thats' why mate, "power balance", plain and simple.

Haven't you seen that leb video with the Lebanese flag over a map of Australia ? and 'Under new management'.......clearly there are some very violent Muslims who are closer to Abu_Bakr and Omar than you.

Ginx, unfortunately, what you say is right on the money. Particularly while we have people like George Bush and his cohorts in the white house, a situation that is unlikely to change very much in the future.

Keyser, "the vast majority of this one point something billion Muslims are advocates of love,"
That may well be true, but the minority of people like your mate Sheik Halali and the ones who are on trial in Melbourne are the ones who seem to be making the agenda.

Until we see a bit of common sense on both sides we will continue to have this conflict.

A few years ago, at our local University, a group representing all the different faiths got together to get a common prayer room. The move was unsuccessful because the Moslems were the one group would not agree to any compromises. It had to be done their way, or not at all.
That sort of attitude does not help to foster love of our Moslem brothers.

David

Yeah. What bushbasher said.

keysar wrote..."I am not seeking to dismantle secularism, but attempting to be constructive in approaching its application."...I think related to statement...'A genuine secular democracy should not be so insecure'...

and that probably the heart of situation leading you to write, and form islamic friendship association of Australia.For in terms of social development, from stone age to current to 'future age'...countries where muslims predominant have religion as administrative tool ie koran...using it as a guide but 'good administration principles' always allowed to predominates is where it should be...then with time these countries administration will look similar to western ones...hopefully without power groups acting in their interests while keeping image of 'balanced interests of all' that we have eg bush/american government et al...

so starting from person, individuality is given status of fundamental right(eg like american constitution), then 'group of people' as interacting social unit_sharing of common space in sustainable harmony and development as absolute prerequisite..., and at country level_good laws that protect and promote these...so it does not matter what religion a person is...looking at each other first as the person we are...then conducting ourselves with appropriate care to 'keep the balance' with each other, and ensuring the 'government' we create has individuals who so same is what proper 'secular democracy' is about...and with it goes the power to prevent individuals/groups acting to disrupt to destroy this for self benefit...as we know such people will exist as long as the 'system' fails checks/balances in continuing good administrative conduct...hope that makes sense...

and so as member of a decent society each individual is expected to watch their acts, and watch other members of society, and act to remove/isolate any imbalancing acts/forces...sounds so much like what religion asks us to do isnt it...so being muslim jew seikh is now an 'interest among individuals' than an issue for war like we have now...

Sam
Ps~so a change might be women in muslim countries given full individual rights to live as they chose under above rules...while preventing them acting as a group to obtain privileged rights/rules over children/men like we see here in western countries...

Boaz,

If you wish to study any religion you need look at third party histories of the time. Mohammed was uniting the Arabs against the Perians and the Christians. Jesus re-establishing a Davanic house on earth. These are the political realities. Both The Bible and The Koran are religious books, not history, at least not "tight" history.
Relio-politicians and peole wishing to establish churches or dynasties are guilty of atrociities on both sides.

Personally, I like to identify with the very human psychologist, Carl Rogers, who "we must have unconditional positive regard towards our fellows". Who can argue with?

David_VK3... mate.. you pretty much_said it all.

Kaysar gives the sugar_coated soft 'public' face which he seeks to promote..and you..without any Christian axe to grind.. provide the "on the ground reality".

If only Ginxy would have a litte reflection on that predicament, she might sleep better 2night. The 'nature' of Islam, at least 'serious' Islam, or..'devout' Islam, or..'Quranic' Islam is exactly as you described.. there can be no compromise on some issues. Those issues may be many, in fact..if you can help us out a bit regarding the specific points the Muslims didn't want to compromise on, it would help us all in this matter.

I see no point in any of this 'interfaith' stuff to be honest. Have a look at how they turn out on Youtube :) its comical but also tragic.
The Muslims generally use them to rant against Israel, and the others end up just listening.

It is for reasons of the 'nature' of true Islam, that many young girls at a Saudi school were incinerated because if they were let out, they would have not been in 'correct Islamic clothing'..so the religious police let them become toast.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/03/15/saudia3801.htm

"Eyewitnesses, including civil defense officers, reported that several members of the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (mutawwa'in, in Arabic) interfered with rescue efforts because the fleeing students were not wearing the obligatory public attire"

Now..Ginx... you really need to unwind a bit and get some perspective.
Learn the meaning of 'passionate discussion' and please don't assume that because people robustly put forward a dissenting position, it has to mean they HATE the other party.
Perhaps you are telling us more about yourself....? You do tend to go on a bit emotionally at times. Do you HATE capitalists or.."Non Socialists"? I suspect there is another issue at work here in you.

Ginxy...if you want to live under the type of government which exists in the home of Islams prophet.. feel free to migrate anytime. But me? I'd rather die first.(humanly speaking)

Oly, Jesus came as "He" said..not as 'you' said :)

Trad writes:

"A genuine secular democracy should not be so insecure: I should be able to present arguments in defence of my faith and also my point of view, even if either of these is unpopular."

But you just did defend your faith old son. No one has censored you. So what are you whining about?

I think your faith is equine fertiliser but neither I nor anyone else I know of is seeking to stop you having your say.

BENNIE... stick at it, we will get there.

SECULAR DEMOCRACY and ISLAMIST POWER.

A classic example of how 'minorities impact majorities' is illustrated abundantly clearly in the US state of Michigan.

Senator Conyers proposed a resolution on 'Religious Tolerance' which was basically a "Protect Islam, the Quran, and Muslims from any and all criticism" bill

He did NOT mention the protection of either Jews or Christians from 'Islamic' intolerance. He does mention "Abrahamic faiths including Judaism_and_Christianity should be respected"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers#Ban_bigotry_against_Islam

He proposed "House Resolution 288"

At first glance it might seem that he is just a 'concerned politician'
but then... looking at his constituency we find:

http://www.johnconyers.com/district

It includes about half of Detroit,and both Dearborn and Hamtrmack, all with very large Muslim populations. Hamtramck being in the news about the Islamic call to prayer being forced on residents!

Now..for those who say "This is just democracy in action" fine... it is.. but is it more? Is it not teaching us that small minorities exercising power through elected representatives can have greatly over-proportional influence on the whole country?

Absolutely it is!

So... it is in the interests of all citizens to be active in fighting this disproportionate influence by all lawful means. (for those annoyed by Christian influence..I say 'you go 4 it' All I ask is don't try to make laws preventing us practicing our faith, which includes the right to share it, and declare what scripture teaches.)

Our scriptures do not teach us to make war on any other faith apart from with the 'heavenly' weapons of faith and reason and the Gospel.

Other scriptures, particlarly those of Islam specifically command them to make WAR against Christians and Jews by name, and infidels in general until they are militarily subjugated.

If Mohammad systematically slaughtered a surrendered tribe of Jewish males, democracy says I can declare that historic truth. Just as others can cite the crusades.
Resolutions such as 288 are just a tiny step away from 'Truth is no defense' in so called hate crime legislation.

At that point, we are back2theFuture with 1984 and the Ministry of Truth.

While I certainly don't share the rabidly Islamophobic sentiments of Boazy et al, I think that Keysar Trad's article is a bit precious:

<< I should be able to present arguments in defence of my faith and also my point of view, even if either of these is unpopular >>

As has been pointed out - albeit in needlessly bellicose terms - there is no question in Australian society that Muslims can't express their points of view. Obviously, the publication of Trad's article argues against this notion, as does the presentation of a petition against the content of a particular university subject.

Of course, there is no equivalent presumption that Trad's point of view should prevail, nor that a petition to a university on religious grounds should succeed. In this case, I hope sincerely that the university upheld the academic freedom of the lecturer. Those who object to the subject for whatever reason can of course enrol in something else.

The objections of Muslim fundamentalists to a university subject should be accorded exactly the same status as objections from, say, a fundamentalist Christian or radical feminist group - i.e. zilch.

Hear, hear CJ MORGAN!

Very well put.

excellent posts, Morgan and meyer. i would suggest that at times howling down someone effectively negates any right given to them to speak. and, though like you i'm hugely protective of academic freedom, there are real situations which test the waters.

but here it seems to me you're spot on: trad is being a little too precious, and some of those who have responded to him have been a little too ... "bellicose"? i'd say they've been a little too rabid.

"I see no point in any of this 'interfaith' stuff to be honest." Boazy

What about inter-Christian faiths. Many Christians take the Eucharist in churches of different denominations. Said Christiams are happy but the Church leaders dislike the practise owing to the underlying positions of doctrine.

Do you think it is correct that the Australian Chief od State, presently, The Queen, must take a Coronation that there is no such valid doctrine as transubstantiation? Should a Catholic or a Jew or a Muslim be allowed to ascend to the Throne? If not, why not?

Best regards.

Ginx, I agree with most of what you said, but I blame bigotry and not religion, it can be non-religious bigotry as in the case of Hitler or Stalin or those who incited the Rwandan conflict and other riots. These bigots may belong to any religion, including unfortunately Islam, this is why religions have periods in their history that are aberrations from the message.
Arjay, I never called David Clarke to comment on anything, his producer would call me and plead with me for an interview, that day, he took offence to me saying that the killing of a wounded unarmed civilian inside a place of worship was as callous as the killing of a female aid worker who had been kidnapped. The next morning, as if to apologise for what Clarke did, Alan Jones invited me for an interview which I did inside his studio, there was no apology from them though and Clarke did get carried away with his comment about me.
Boaz, Abu Bakr said: if they would stop paying me even the rope (used to tie a) beast that they used to pay in zakat to the prophet, I would fight them for it. They were tax wars, pure and simple. The Persians were a threat to the Holy-land which they kept invading and also to their neighbours. I want to again thank turnrightehnleft and refer you Boaz to: http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/38133-mccain-s-spiritual-guide-wants-america-to-destroy-islam?utm_source=rgemail it shows anyone can abuse and misuse any religion.
VK3AUU, let us not forget that Hilali is the same man who risked his life to go to Iraq outside the protected green zone to save a non-Muslim fellow Australian, he was character assassinated for comments that were not translatable in the same light as they were delivered or intended. He has repeatedly apologised and explained that he was only addressing Muslim women with ideas to support modesty and to discourage sex outside of marriage. He continues to say that all he is doing is giving advice and people can dress as they chose as for the students, I am sorry that you had that experience.

CJ Morgan says:

"The objections of Muslim fundamentalists to a university subject should be accorded exactly the same status as objections from, say, a fundamentalist Christian or radical feminist group - i.e. zilch."

While I agree, I think there may be limits. I would not want a course on say creationism in the science faculty. It might be OK in the English department under fiction. Similarly I would oppose any course giving a platform to holocaust deniers pushing their filth for genocidal and fascist reasons.

But I digress. I was going to say i think you should add Liberal students to the bunch of those attempting to control academic freedom. Evidently these free speech advocates (not!) want to attack left wing courses. Apart from the fact that it highlights their irrelevancy, it does show that the bully boy tactics of Howard are being passed on to the next generation. As a left winger who hopes to return to a academia, I personally find the Liberal students attack on free speech more confronting than a petition against a Uni course on female eroticism under Islam. But there does seem to be a symmetry of thought and approach between thsoe who oppose certain courses on Islam and those who oppose left wing teachers and left wing courses.

Indeed I think the Liberal Students' attacks should be opposed as strenuously if not much more strenuously than any attempt to change the Islam and Women course in question on this post.

As for the nonsense from The Australian about Griffith Uni taking $100,000 from Saudi Arabia - big deal. Go for more I say.

The Australian is just pandering to the racist thread within Australian society. Interestingly Saudi interests own about 6 per cent of news corp (publisher of the Australian.) Why don' they publish that and rail against that "evil" attempt to control News Corp? Funny that.

I am just one person with many commitments and deadlines and I really cannot keep up with all this negativity, so I hope that most of us can move on to other articles after this response.

I wrote my article because of two injustices, the first by the UWS teaching erotica under the heading of Islamic Studies, I gave my reasons with better examples of women as accomplished teachers and leaders who should not be sexually objectified as erotica normally does, but hey, as long as Muslims are concerned, many forget about the message and shoot the messenger and the entire religion.

The second injustice is what the writer of the earlier article said about me and others and her claim that the alert raised by Muslims was somehow a threat to secularism as quoted. Many who posted comments could not see the forest for the trees. And Boaz, as he does elsewhere jumped on this to attack Islam ignoring historical injustices from his biblical faith against Muslims, including the injustices that are presently taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. I am not going to call his quotes selective because I do not expect him to have an in depth knowledge of Islam, I would just say that he is quoting from biased sources.

Having said that, let me be the first to acknowledge my own personal imperfections, both intellectual and physical (smile) and apologise to any person who may have been offended by anything that I wrote. My aim is pure but my abilities are only human with the commensurate limitations (c).

Everybody, it would be my pleasure to meet over a coffee or tea and explore your questions over the course of the year. Email me, it is searchable.

With my love and best wishes.

K Trad: Negativity on OLO. Surely you jest?

<< as long as Muslims are concerned, many forget about the message and shoot the messenger and the entire religion.>>

The message: interference in Australian institutions by minority interests, failure to show respect for the intellectual freedom of others. Courtesy of a fellow Muslim in the very first post.

<< And Boaz, as he does elsewhere jumped on this to attack Islam>>

No. BD, myself, and others are CRITICAL of Bronwyn Winter’s article, her revisionism and her conclusions.

<<…I do not expect (BD) to have an in depth knowledge of Islam, I would just say that he is quoting from biased sources.>>

Anyone can undertake the due diligence on this. The sources are none other than the Qu’ran, the Haddiths, and Muslim interpretation of these in light of the historical record.

Biased? That looks like rigorous scholarship to me. As BD pointed out in the post on Winter’s article, you would think that Mohammed was the final authority on all things Islam. Now, who is biased?

<<My aim is pure but my abilities are only human with the commensurate limitations (c).>>

Human. Flawed. In the likeness of …. ?

<<With my love and best wishes.>>

That’s an interesting mojo, the type that you see on Christmas cards – in the spirit of the season and that kind of thing.

BTW: what does the “enemy” have to say about Jesus?

“Ha! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are – the Holy One of God!” (Luke 4: 34)

ah yes, the holier than thou christians come to preach. it would be more convincing if one of them wasn't busy defending torture on a different thread.

Bushy.... I was making observations of fact, not defending torture per se.

Kaysar... ur a slippery one :) "My love and best wishes" :) ummm...ok, if u say so. We can interpret that comment in the light of another quote of yours about 'human scum/dregs' ie.. being those who were sent out here as convicts.

BIAS? well.. as KatieO said.. my sources are.. none other than the Quran, Hadith and biographies of Mohammad.
In 'my' interpretation of Surah 9, I actually gave the 'Muslim' interpretation FROM those Islamic sources.

So..ur judging your own camp there mate.

PROPOGANDA.. Notice all, how Krafty Kaysar tries to link 'Christianity' with:
-Injustice against Muslims historically (Victimhood further promoted)
-Injustice today in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestinian territories.
(Does he mention the horrific violence of Arab on Arab IN those territories..nope..its "alllll about we evil 'Christians'"

I've never denied historic fact Kaysar and 'ChristenDOM'..not 'our Biblical faith' was responsible, not just for injustice against Muslims, but injustice to MANY diverse groups, including indigenous Australians.

But please..PUH-lease..don't try to connect this with the Word or Work of Christ, because that cannot and should not be done.

Only one with a malicious or..uninformed position would do that.

So, please avoid telling everyone how much you love them, and in the previous breath you have maligned Christ and the Gospel of Gods grace and wrongly vilified the Christian community in general!

OLIVER.. your point about the Eucharist and the Queen.. excellent observations. It becomes messy when "The Faith" is given or seeks, or defends royal or political power. The problem is, Jesus did NOT come to set up a 'Christian State' so...when people try it, it all goes horribly wrong.
This should be abundantly clear from the Shia Sunni Ahmadiya divides on the Islamic side. But their problem is MUCH worse.. Islam IS.. a "State". (in making or in waiting, or both)

My love and best wishes to you Kaysar :)

"Love" has to tell patients 'You have cancer' at times, yours appears to be terminal at this point.

The problem is not secularism, the problem is Islam. Its a religion of discrimination and violence.

Notice that Mr.Tradis is very selective. Quote: "The Koran has numerous references to women, some by name. Actually the Quran few references to individual women, about 6, and only Mary is named (and no, she is not part of the Trinity). Yes, the Quran has a chapter named "Women" and it also has a chapter named "The cow."
He fails to mention the "women are worth 1/2 of men" and "beat your wives" verses and many others that have led to the sorry situation of women in Islamic societies. He mentions Aisha but fails to mention that Mohammad beat her ("he hit me and caused pain") and the consequences of her life (including the verse that Muslims still use to whip and kill victims of rape) or even the hadith in which she said "I have never seen women suffer so much as the wives of the believers." He mentions Omar but the life of the second Caliph reveals a deterioration in the status of women (lookup "41 initiatives of Umar"!). He mentions women and poets but fails to include Asma bint Marwan in your list (A poetess killed while nursing a baby, on the orders of Mohammad).

His facts are selective. His motive is suspect.

Be aware that the so-called "misunderstandings" in the media are mostly just reporting what Muslim do and say. It is so much easier to put the blame on others (as Muslims always do) than to change things. It is not that we have different standards, but that Islam wants to be exempt from all standards and criticism.

He mentions 'Islamic literature'(The hadith) to support his arguments, so I will remind him that this same "Islamic literature" is filled with violence against non-Muslims and women, as herein:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348
With that one incident I think it is fair to say that anybody that says "Praise be unto him" after the name of Mohammad loses all credibility.

Once again, this is about Muslims wanting to end our freedoms, again.

Kactuz

This one is so funny on so many levels I don't know where to begin

Sahi Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

PRAISE BE TO GOD THE GREAT COMEDIAN IN THE SKY THAT YOU HAVE CAUSED ONE QUARTER OF HUMANITY TO TAKE THIS SORT OF HOLY CLAPTRAP SERIOUSLY.

GrahamY: As K Trad is finding it too difficult to follow HIS post, perhaps next time you could limit his rebuttal to 350-word allotments, with no more than 2 posts in any given 24 hour period, without creating a new thread. I see the equal opportunity thingy just flies out the window when it is a Muslim voice. But to what end?

Mr Trad: <<(Dr Winter) goes further to drag several names into this including mine, Hanan Dover, Sheik Shady and others, based on allegations and without initially acknowledging my published rebuttal of these allegations.>>

Ms Winter actually writes:

<<Keysar Trad, her co-speaker at the forum, was reported by gay rights activists present at the talk to have suggested that Australian anti-discrimination laws were not valid for Muslims, who should defy them. Trad has since denied having said this.>>

There's the acknowledgement, right there.

Mr Trad continues on: << She then makes the claim, without any substantiation, that a certain event at which I spoke was organised by a “fundamentalist” student association. This is simply untrue, it is not factual and is not relevant to the debate.>>

Ms Winter writes:

<<Ms Dover was suspended under the University’s Equal Opportunity policy. On June 28, 2002, she had joined Sheikh Hilali’s right-hand man, Keysar Trad, in a talk at UWS’s Bankstown campus, organised by an Islamic fundamentalist student association.>>

Mr Trad’s issue is the fundamentalist tag. And I agree that “fundamentalist” is totally redundant. “Islamic” nails it.

However, with this unique and privileged opportunity to set the record straight, Mr Trad claims that this is not even relevant. We still don't know what was said at that talk (as far as I can see, there WAS a talk, Mr Trad spoke, and the Sheik Hilali connection still stands).

Mr Trad, did you, or did you not, call on Muslims to disobey the laws of Australia (sedition), while at the same time encouraging Muslims to treat homosexuals under sharia (murder)?

Spare us the Hanan Dover and Sheik Shady responses. Please.

Well put katieO

But don't expect a response.

Dear Emeritus Professor Trad

Are you trying to tell us that the literature being taught in this course is not, er, er, Arabic? We all await your sticking up for our secular democracy by declaring a jihad on the ludicrously titled "Islamic Science" being tuaght at the Griffith Madrasas.

Perhaps Abu Trad will take over the teaching of Arabic Literature and teach only the Classics, including this famous extract taught across the Arab world.

"Oh boo hoo, it was the Jews of Medina! Oh boo hoo, it was the Byzantines! Oh boo hoo, it was the Persians! Oh boo hoo, it was the Mongols! Oh boo hoo, it was the Seljuks! Oh boo hoo, it was the Ossmans! Oh boo hoo, it was the Malmuks! Oh boo hoo it was the French and British! Oh boo hoo it was the Jews! Oh boo hoo, it was the UN! Oh boo hoo it was the Russians! Oh boo hoo, it was the Zionists! Oh boo hoo, it was the Americans! Oh boo hoo, it was the Shia! Oh boo hoo it was Hamas! Oh boo hoo it’s the Persians again! Ohh boo hoo, it’s the Danish! Oh, boo hoo it’s the Dutch, Oh boo hoo, did we mention the Jews! Oh boo hoo, its the Skippies! Oh boo, its the Islamophobes!”

Latest edition update!! "Oh boo hoo, it was the lesbians!"

I’m sure we get the picture.

What a surprise! Who would have thought the usual airhead Luvvie Leftists would be allying with Islamofascism? Yeah, huge surprise. NOT! Tragically, there's one born every minute. The Luvvie Left has never encountered an illiberal, authoritarian fascist it hasn't embraced.

"Love" has to tell patients 'You have cancer' at times, yours appears to be terminal at this point.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 5:22:14 AM

NASTY. BLOODY NASTY.

What a turd you are! Week after week, month after month of incessant lecturing to others on THEIR 'faults'. As Bushy has indicated,-yet again the greatest hatred and intolerance is coming from the pathetically pious,(ktO also at her best). Sleazefield adding his usual touch of venom. And of course KTrad espousing HIS view.(KT; I don't care HOW this hate is categorized;-it is a killer).

I may as well have nissed into the pind.

At least this writer had the backbone to involve himself in his own thread, and has even offered to talk personally to any of you.

Wassup? No spine? What an opportunity to engage. I can tell you Keysar that if you were in SA, I WOULD meet with you (not that jackass BOZO;-I'm fully aware of my latent trend to violence. I'd like to keep it that way. But I would truly like to find out what makes you religious/cultural-whatever you want to call it;-believers tick).

Where are the lions when you need them?

I said: "In fact, the arguments made against Islam only apply when people are determined to only see extremists, and treat all people in that manner. The whole idea that 'leftists' are aligning themselves with abhorrent regimes is nonsense, which only makes sense when you view everyone as an extremist."

Allow me to present: Exhibit A.

"What a surprise! Who would have thought the usual airhead Luvvie Leftists would be allying with Islamofascism? Yeah, huge surprise. NOT! Tragically, there's one born every minute. The Luvvie Left has never encountered an illiberal, authoritarian fascist it hasn't embraced."

oh, so sorry, boazy. you weren't defending torture PER SE. my mistake.

stevenlmeyer, kactuz, boazy, and you others who love to pick nasty lines from the koran: could you please just stop that infantile cherry-picking game? you are just making fools of yourselves.

you know full well that the same silly game can be played with the bible, and with any centuries old religious text. and it says nothing of modern practitioners of that religion, unless those practitioners ascribe an absolute and literal truth to the text.

yes, there are loony muslims who treat the koran this way. yes, there are loony christians who treat the bible this way. but they needn't, and many do not.

it astonishes me that christians, who are in the glassiest of houses when it comes to questionable religious passages, are so willing to cast stone after stone after stone.

Bushbasher,

I'm not religious, but I've read both the Bible and the Koran. There is little doubt that the Koran contains a LOT more passages which are violent and misogynistic. Passy and many others seem not to have read the Koran themselves, or have read the "toned down" version.

The Christian haters out there seem to be saying, "the Bible has some ugly passages, the Koran has some ugly passages," ergo they are both the same. That's infantile.

I agree with you that many, if not most, western Muslims don't take the Koran literally, however they are commanded to do so by the text. Christianity, from my understanding doesn't dictate every aspect of how you should live your life, and therefore interpretation is expected. The Koran and the hadith on the other hand seek to define all aspects of the followers life, and denies independent interpretation

The problem we face is those people who do take the book literally. Because there are a number of highly unpleasant ramifications when this is_done. The literalist strains of Islam are on the rise and they are fighting for domination of their co religionists. It is pointless to suggest that it is racist to recognise the threat the literalist/fundamentalist aka Islamists, pose to our societies.

Multiculturalism has dumbed down cultural understanding to the point that most lefties have no idea about what other cultures entail. They are instead mollified by the warm feeling of accepting anyone, no matter what their point of view. Its a feel good exercise, not any kind of cross cultural understanding.

At the same time our own culture is derided, the left write off our ancestors as bigots, thieves and murderers. They never of course turn their critical focus to other cultures. Is it any wonder that young people of all backgrounds feel that they lack a sense of belonging. It sends many young Aussies on the trails to Gallipoli and Beersheba. Likewise young muslims search out the strength and honour they think they see in fundamentalist Islam.

We need to drop the whole black armband view of our history

It was a luminous day. In the small hours of the morning I had heard Boutros Boutros Ghali interviewed by a BBC journalist.

Now going for 86, he perseveres in doing his bit for Justice and Peace.

Tuned into his optimism, I went about my chores with renewed hope in the possibility of a world ahead of us.

But, by the time the articles of Keysar Trad , Bronwyn Winter, Natalie O’Brien and the 96 Forum participants got into me, I was again in the depths of despair.

I have not seen the inside of a University and have always imagined them as places where people go to search for virtue and knowledge.

I associate Universities with people like Galileo who suffered for his findings, Newton who had to battle the many prejudices of his times, Copernicus, the cleric that put knowledge before credulity, Machiavelli who showed that Popes and Princes share the same lust for power and the many, many other persons who have done and do without touching mass religions.

I thought that University-educated people were able to manage their own religiosity and needed not buy ‘packages of ready made beliefs’ at Church’s, Mosque’s and Temple’s doors or from assorted faith-merchants.

Crusades and counter crusades between religious power-packs have been and continue to scourge humanity, not counting the cruelties occurring within their own brethrens.

But whatever I thought is insignificant.

What counts is that humanity needs hope in the future and that hope can only spring out of justice and moderation.

Albert Trianni

I get the impression that I am talking to myself, no matter what explanation I give, some posters just harp on as if they have been projecting their own imagination.

Boaz, you are exercising Kitman and Taqia, you should read your bible less selectively. All of it, read the Old Testament and the New Testament. I have heard this before, Jehovah’s Witnesses and born again Christians always told me that their version of Christianity is not part of Christendom.

Are you in denial? I really do not wish to throw references at you, however, have a look:

Jesus said: I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. Luke 12:49-51

Jesus was tempted by Satan for 40 days MARK 1:13

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. NUMBERS 31:17-18

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. Deuteronomy 20:16-18

They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. JOSHUA 6:21

It is not strange that you do this Boaz, after all, Paul said:

But be Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery! 2 CORINTHIANS 12:16

There is a lot more of this in the Bible, but I come to preach Love and not a divisive debate.

Gynx, email me, would love to hear from you.

Kindly pardon my lapse in the third paragraph from the end of my Post. Please read:

Crusades and counter crusades between religious power-packs have been and continue scourging humanity and mention must be made of the cruelties meted to those in the midst of a pack who slightly depart from ‘party lines’.(I was thinking of Gerolamo Savanarola and Giordano Bruno who certainly have their counterparts in any religion

I love the smell of religious napalm in the late evening.

"Those who claim that these are men’s teachings are wrong and they are denying the femininity of these great women."
Sura 24: Women receive the order to veil themselves.
Women should cover their “adornment” (v. 31). Contrary to what Keysar Trad claims, this is not a matter of choice, but a divine commandment [by an alpha-male deity]. Ibn Kathir explains: “This is a command from Allah to the believing women, and jealousy on His part over the wives of His believing servants. It is also to distinguish the believing women from the women of the Jahiliyyah [kafirs/pre-Islam] and the deeds of the pagan women.”
What should they cover? In a hadith, Aisha recounts that Mohammed said that “when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.” Even today some Muslims use this hadith to justify mandating the hijab, or headscarf, for women. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn agrees that v. 31 means that when in public women should cover “all that is other than the face and the hands.

One man's perversity is another man's ideology.
Talking of Aisha......
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old [he was 50ish] and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
This was not a dynastic marriage, that of Mohammed and Aisha. He had his eye on her since she was six, and when she picked up her toys and moved to his house, the intent was clear. Don't just take my word for it - read the Ahadith and the Sira. They make no bones about it.
The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. He called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” Misogynistic? Sure looks that way.
Mohammed in his Quran promises sensuous, "virgin-rich" Gardens for [male] martyrs dying in military holy war against kafirs (Suras 44:51-56, 52:17-29, 55:46-78, 61:10, 4:74, 9:111). Female martyrs, however, have to make do with being 'attended to by dwarfs' in Paradise. So the men get wine, hot chicks and yummy snacks for dying in the cause of Allah, but women get..... dwarfs?! Misogynistic? You tell me.
Mohammed took for granted that his [male] followers would be having sex with the women that they captured in battle — the wives of the pagan warriors and the wives of the Jewish tribes that they had killed. In the Qur'an it says that a Muslim may marry up to four wives and have sex with the captives that his right hand possesses, which refers to slave girls captured in battle....
So, to sum up - Men in Islam get multiple sex-partners and really good perks and women get the 'freedom sack', loads of kids and most of the housework. Misogynistic? Doh!

Dear_Bushbasher

I welcome your contribution, but

POINT OF DISAGREEMENT.

<<the same silly game can be played with the bible,
and
with any centuries old religious text.
and
it says nothing of modern practitioners of that religion,
unless
those practitioners ascribe an absolute and literal truth to the text.>>

Your primary difficulty is the issue of "literalness" and "modern practitioners".

Bear with me here, as it will take a bit to develop this.

MARX. I doubt that practioners of Marxism/Communism do not take quite literally much of what Marx said about Economic and Social ideas.

JESUS. There were things Jesus said...which clearly were not mean't to be taken "literally" based on context, reason and culture.

EXAMPLE 1. "if your eye sins against you, GOUGE it out" etc. (Symbolic)
MEANING: "Sin is extremely serious, treat it as you would a gangrenous hand.. remove it from your life"

EXAMPLE 2. "If any man would follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily and come after me"
MEANING: 'Self denial, self sacrifice are essential for true discipleship- Christ must be first in our lives.

PAUL: When Paul says pastorally "men, treat the younger women as sisters in all purity" he means exactly that...literally.

When he says "Christ died" he is stating a historical fact. But when he adds "for our sins" he is applying the theological/Gospel truth to that indisputable event.

"Christianity" as a faith, is about 'relationship' rather than "regulation and rules". It is based on the idea "If we walk with Christ, we will not 'want' to do immoral or illegal things"

ISLAM="Sharia LAW"
and contains both the relational (more about 'submission' to law than love)and the regulational in the legal/social/state sense.
If you commit adultery, you will be stoned (if married) or lashed 100 times (if ur single)
'proscribed punishments'.

DIVORCE. is based "literally" on surah 4 and Surah 65 and some hadiths.

It's all about 'context' and intent at 'ground zero' until now.

The following is the text of an email I've sent Keysar Trad. I have sent the same email to a number of Islamic Institutes and university-based scholars of Islam.

I await their replies if any.

Dear Mr. Trad,

For many years, in fact for many decades, Muslims have been telling me about what they call "scientific miracles" in the Koran. They assert that the Koran contains scientifically accurate statements that were not known to science until many centuries later.

Prominent among these are Koran 23:12-14 which, so I am told, contains details about the development of the human embryo that were not discovered by "Western*" science until the invention of the microscope in the seventeenth century. One Dr. Keith L. Moore is prominently associated with this point of view.

Another commonly quoted example of a scientific miracle is Koran 51:47. This Aya apparently describes the expansion of the universe 13 centuries before Edwin Hubble discovered (re-discovered?) this fact.

Numerous websites now devote themselves to publicising what the authors believe are scientific miracles in the Koran. It seems to have become a sort of global cottage industry.

With that background, a simple question:

--Are the scientific miracles of the Koran part of mainstream Islamic scholarship?

--Or are the proponents of the scientific miracles a fringe group?

To put it another way, are the Koran's alleged scientific miracles a generally accepted truth among Muslim scholars; or are they ideas espoused by the Muslim equivalents of Pat Robertson and John Hagee?

Yours sincerely,

paul l, you address your last post to me.

1) you refer to "christian haters". does this refer to me? if so, on what basis?

2) in reference to an "ugly passages in both" quote, you conclude the message is "ergo [the bible and the koran] are both the same". you declare that this is infantile. have i suggested that the bible and koran are the same in any substantive manner?

it seems to me that what is infantile is to label your opponents haters, and to manufacture your opponents' non-existent stance in order to attack it.

what i wrote, which seems to me uncontestable, is that the bible and the koran both contain absurduties, contain nasty bits that any modern moral and intelligent person would reject. what i wrote was that many modern christians and many modern muslims do so reject this, and that it is infantile to pretend otherwise.

does the koran have more nasty bits than the bible? maybe. who cares? you saying i can't find a truckload of nasty cherries in the bible? if you have two truckloads and i have one, you think that negates my argument?

why do you write such nonsense? you later write "The problem we face is those people who do take the book literally." and this is correct. this is exactly the point.

if you want to argue that today fundamentalist islam is more of a problem than fundamentalist christianity, i would agree. you may even argue that it is in the nature of islam that it is more prone to fundamentalism, and i may even agree to that. the overwhelming majority of muslims (and christians) i have met have been admirable, loving people, but i don't deny the nastiness of fundamentalist islam.

what you cannot do in good conscience is argue that islam is defined totally by what the koran says, rather than by how modern islamic practitioners behave and how they view their own text.

and to do this in bad faith, by cherry-picking the silliest and the nastiest lines, that IS infantile, and it is really nasty.

"He who hath ears to hear, let him hear"

Wise words indeed, from whoever it was who wrote Matthew 11:15

But words that you persistently choose to ignore, Boaz, proving rather neatly the accusations against you concerning you ability to cherry-pick only those parts of the Bible or Qur'an that suit your specific beliefs.

Your own arguments add to the evidence. Most people use arguments to defend their position, not to undermine it:

>>EXAMPLE 1. "if your eye sins against you, GOUGE it out" etc. (Symbolic)...
...PAUL: When Paul says pastorally "men, treat the younger women as sisters in all purity" he means exactly that...literally.<<

What you fail to explain is the basis for your determination of the interpretation.

It is entirely insufficient to say that they are "based on context, reason and culture."

Specifically, because it is you who determines the context.

It is your reason that is applied.

And - the big give-away - that it is measured solely against the culture of your specific religious affiliation and leanings.

That, I'm afraid, is not only illogically shaky turf, it is appallingly arrogant of you to assume that the world has to see things exactly the way that you do.

All this would be nothing more than a mildly amusing quirk, if it weren't for the fact that you use this method to constantly vilify and insult Muslims.

You do this by choosing quotations from the Qur'an that portray their religion in the most violent manner possible, applying your personal "this is literal" label to everything that denigrates Islam.

You cannot claim "I didn't realise that's the way it is perceived", because you are regularly reminded of it on this forum.

>>Your primary difficulty is the issue of "literalness" and "modern practitioners". Bear with me here, as it will take a bit to develop this.<<

You don't "develop", Boaz.

You spin.

BB: contestable.

Methodological relativism is the best tool to apply here. Suspend your own ethnocentrism and open a window into the ancient world. Let the stale air of historical revisionism blow out. Substantiate what you see by peer review, cross-referencing with other ancient texts.

A Christian can be relativist to a certain degree, however, no Christian will argue that the distance of time or place renders the experiences of Israel before and after Christ as irrelevant to the modern experience. Sure there are non-universal traits, that were specific to the time and culture and that are alien to life as we know it. However, Christians are absolutist in their core belief: the bible is the Word of God which transcends time and place.

When a Christian calls for context to be wrapped around a biblical quote, it is more than a call for historical or cultural context. It is a call to understand scripture in its entirety. The bible cannot be accused of inconsistency, even though certain passages seem to jar with others. When God says “I am the Alpha and the Omega”, it applies to the beginning, the end, and everything in between.

As the scriptures have been scruitinized by scholars for millennia, do your views hold up to cross-examination? Are you wiser/smarter/more informed than the legions of scholars and detractors who came before you? Is your criticism original? Is there a danger that you are not getting it due to some deficiency in your understanding?

Living life by biblical principles is only possible once you have accepted the bible as the word of God. For each and every bible passage, ask “What does this teach me about God’s character, God’s plan or God’s purpose?” and then, “How does this apply to me?”

Pericles, your persistent attack on BD personally, his methodology, his logic, his bias, his beliefs, masks an inability to mount an argument against his basic premise. MIA: an insightful critique on K Trad.

KT: Thank you for your continued presence. As you are still here, please answer the questions that have been addressed to you.

GrahamY: <<It gets difficult to convince people to write for OLO if posters are just going to call them names. If this thread doesn't pick-up its act we will start deleting any responses that are even vaguely a flame. Some of the above are perilously close to being just that, and perhaps cross the line - we have that under consideration at the moment.>>
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 9 May 2008 12:12:14 PM

"Perilously close" and "Under consideration"

Is your concern driven over an inability to attract writers? What about that old "glass houses" saying, doesn't that apply anymore? Check Ruby Soho's article as a good example.

Or, has legal action been threatened?

I agree that many can lift their game in regard to name-calling and personal attacks. However, your choice of language is more alarmist than mere "sticks and stones" stuff or justifying the choice of K Trad as a contributor. Are there deeper issues?

I can't help but notice that you don't seem to have trouble attracting the advertisors... or IS that the problem?

What the...?

katieO, fair enough. i don't want to distract from the main point of my post, so let's change the reference to absurdity/nastiness in whichever book. please read my post as referring to "prima facie absurdity" or "absurdity if taken literally", and so forth. will that suffice? If you do so, i think the point i am making still stands.

the point is, as a non-adherent, i simply don't care about either apparent or actual absurdity/nastiness in religious texts. all i care about is what the current believers make of it.

let's take biblical references to slavery. you may interpet and contextualize, treat as metaphor, or just say god was having a bad day, and i don't care. i may be impressed by your scholarship or bemused, but i really don't care.

what do i care about? i care that you are not actually enslaving people, and that you are not arguing it is o.k. to do so. that's it. how you get there, i simply don't care.

may you judge muslims and muslim beliefs? of course! all i am saying is that the same fairness be accorded to muslims and their actual beliefs, that it is to be judged by what muslims say and do, not by a literal reading of the koran. and it is most definitely not done by cherry-picking.

and here is an important point: you are to play fair, even if muslims make some general claim about koranic truth.

for example, you wrote "... Christians are absolutist in their core belief: the bible is the Word of God which transcends time and place."

i very much doubt that all proclaimed christians agree with you, but never mind. i also doubt that you can consistently treat the bible in this way, but that doesn't matter either.

what matters is that, even though you are making a strong universal statement about the bible being the word of god, i still have no right to cherry-pick in order to accuse you of defending slavery.

katieO, play fair and in good faith. cherry-picking is the furthest reaches from this.

Dear Pericles.

once again we find ourselves up against the problem of your lack of knowledge and understanding about how faith communities work.

I'll try to limit this post to just "1" main point, which we might just be able to thrash out to a reasonable conclusion.

You made all manner of wild claim about:

<<Specifically, because it is YOU who determines the context.
It is YOUR reason that is applied.>>

Now..lets take just ONE example..and not wander around the bush like we usually do.

QURAN surah 9:29
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau9.html (for the historical background ala Maududi)

HADITH BUKHARI
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:

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

Please read these passages. Now..if you want to get really technical, and go deeper, you can also search out who is 'Jubair bin Haiya' and see his connection to Mohammad.

One way of gaining more insight is:
a) do a Wiki search.
b) Use the Quran/hadith search engine in the site linked, using that name, and see what is said in other places about him.

Gradually, you build up a picture of where it all fits together.

I've done this. Have you?

SOURCES. Another thing you must realize is that the 2 above mentioned sources (Quran/Hadith) are the primary and secondary ones that all Muslims refer to. There is nothing earlier. While there is dispute about some hadith for political reasons, related to the Abbasid/Umayyad split, the hadith mentioned above is not in any dispute to my knowledge.

QUESTIONs.

1/ As you read the hadith, and particularly what Al-Mughira says to the Persian envoy.. can you retain even a shred of intellectual honesty by repeating the baseless claims about 'MY' interpretaion? (of 9:29)I was simply relating Al Mughira's interpretation!

2/ IF....you disagree with Al Mughira, why, on what grounds?

KAYSAR.. coffee? why not, I'll raise you a "video'd interview":) and we can offer it to TT and ACA. For a PRICE of course, proceeds to homeless shelters.

Bushbasher,

1) No I wasn’t referring to you. That’s why I didn’t say “you Christian haters”
2) The inference from the statement that there are ugly passages in both texts is that there is no point in suggesting one is any more violence provoking or cruel, than the other.

I have not argued that all Muslims take a literalist approach to the Koran. I specifically made the point that many, if not most, don’t. What I am saying is that the radical Islamists are not twisting the words of the Koran in order to further their aims. They actually are practicing a version of Islam entirely compatible with a literal reading of the Koran.

In this thread I have attempted to question Keyser Trad’s role as a so called “moderate” muslim spokesperson. I don’t deny that moderates exist; it just seems to me Keyser Trad isn’t one of them.

You say >> “if you want to argue that today fundamentalist islam is more of a problem than fundamentalist christianity, i would agree. you may even argue that it is in the nature of islam that it is more prone to fundamentalism, and i may even agree to that. the overwhelming majority of muslims (and christians) i have met have been admirable, loving people, but i don't deny the nastiness of fundamentalist islam.”

I entirely agree with this.

All I am trying to highlight is the growing influence of the literalists, specifically among the younger generation; and the obvious incompatibility of fundamentalism with western democracies. I find myself regularly having to face soft-lefties who think WE are the problem, not the fundamentalists. I admit that this kind of black armband thinking leaves me impatient and snarky at times.

I have your e-address now KT. I will be in touch.

(Ooooooooooohhhh! The shame of it, I am going over to the dark side!!)

Sheesh.

As I mentioned in another post, Boaz, you still haven't grasped the blindingly obvious.

>>once again we find ourselves up against the problem of your lack of knowledge and understanding about how faith communities work.<<

"Faith communities"? Good grief.

I have no interest in "faith communities", Boaz, I am concerned about real life, not in the world of "faith communities".

What exactly is a "faith community" anyway? Is it another word for a bunch of religionists who agree on a specific definition of ancient texts?

How many, exactly of these "faith communities" exist? Or even roughly.

How many of them believe that they have reached a "correct" definition of those ancient texts?

How many of the actually have reached a correct definition?

Religion is just another method by which human beings have chosen to exert power over others. And where there is power, so often is there also fear and hate.

Faith communities? A pox on the lot of them.

KatyO, I have been away interstate for a while. I just had a look and the question that I could find was in your post of 10:40 am on 13 May. The answer is no, I have never called on anyone to breach the (sedition) law. Bronwyn's article initially did not state that I had denied the allegation publicly. Someone later changed it after my protest, and no, I did not call on anyone to penalise homosexual activities, in fact I made it clear that penal religious law cannot be applied in the modern world. The article says "activists" reported it, as far as I am aware, it was only one activist from a theater full of people, none of whom seems to have this misunderstanding.

Boaz, I am not accorded enough space to answer all your questions. Because of OLO policy I could only post one comment on Tuesday before I had to fly off . I only just had a window of opportunity now. However, I have given you a broad answer hoping that your own knowledge would fill in the gaps in a fair manner. You have not done that and I am afraid that I may have given you too much benefit of the doubt.

Whoever raised the issue of Aisha, you should read the book about her by Prof. Mumtaz Moin (a woman) which puts her age at approximately 18 at the time of marriage. I have answered this elsewhere in more detail. She was engaged to someone else who dumped her because she had become Muslim along with most of her family. The prophet Muhammad, as the kindest of human hearts consoled her by proposing to marry her, when her parents decided that she was ready the marriage took place according to the customs of the day. She survived the prophet by over forty years and was one of the greatest teachers of Islam.

Boaz, if you can convince ACA or TT to provide their own crew, I will consider it, you are not editing me with your biases!

With love

Well that's a somewhat different interpretation of the venerable text than Boazy's 'Muslims are paedophiles because of Sura XX bla bla', isn't it?

Of course the Islamophobes will now go into another feeding frenzy, but for me, Keysar Trad's response seems to be a polite exposition of the kind of rationalisation of ancient texts that allow them to maintain meaning and relevance to so many members of what I suppose Boazy would call "faith communities" in the contemporary world. Indeed, that is precisely the same intellectual game that Christians play with themselves - not to mention all the other communities of the credulous.

The Islamophobes might do well to follow the examples of those exemplary Muslims like those who are brave enough to publish their ideas and make comments in mainstream forums like OLO. To those of us who aren't paranoid about Islam nor antagonistic to Muslims, it seems like the poor buggers are damned if they articulate themselves reasonably and politely, and damned if they don't.

And it's nothing to do with being 'Left' or 'Right' that prompts that observation. It's about a 'fair go' - which I understood was a central Aussie value.

To the Anti-Muslim fundies out there:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Matthew 7:3

The Holy Bible (KJV) says (some paraphrased for brevity):

Ruth COHABITS with Boaz in the barn. RUTH 3&4 (If you have a bible, please read both of these short chapters, you can get them online at:
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Ruth+3&book_id=8&version1=9&tp=4&c=3
and
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Ruth+4&book_id=8&version1=9&tp=4&c=4)

Birth of females a DOUBLE pollution LEVITICUS 12:1,2,5

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. DEUTRONOMY 23:2

And I (God) will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back parts EXODUS 33:23

I make peace, and CREATE EVIL ISAIAH 45:7

But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and AN EVIL SPIRIT from the Lord troubled him. I SAMUEL 16:14

And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should BELIEVE A LIE. 2 THESSALONIANS 2:11

all these things are done in parables. That seeing they may see, and NOT perceive; and hearing they may hear, and NOT understand, LEST at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven MARK 4: 12

Can any of the Anti-Muslim fundies tell the readers who said the following, about whom and why?

Ye hypocrites MATTHEW 23:13
Ye wicked and adulterous generation MATTHEW 12:39
Ye whited sepulchres MATTHEW 23: 27
Ye generation of vipers MATTHEW 23:33

I am not writing any of this to denigrate the Bible, on the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for the Bible. The purpose in these quotes is to illustrate to the readers that for every criticism the fundies can make of Islam, I can give them similar if not more damning quotes from the Bible itself. In a sense, I am agreeing with Pericles and Bushbasher and assisting the argument with real quotes in context from the Bible.

Stay tuned because there is more, much more, but for later posts.

Love and best wishes

*smile*

gooood GRIEF..

GINXy.. ur 1st... mate.. the Dark side already had you in its clutches longgg ago :) "I confess my latent violence" wasn't it?

PERICLES you next.. wellll.. of all the cowardly retreats I've seen, that was a classic. I hope ALL who read your escapist, fleeing last post will observe what you did... er..what you did NOT do!
I raised a specific issue.. "Surah 9:29 and Hadith Bukhari which uses that verse to justify/explain an invasion"

All you did is attack 'me' rather than look at the issue itself. Shame.

Yet you have the incredible lack of integrity to just do an ad hominem and blame me for the 'blindingly obvious' ?
It will take you quite a while to recover any creditibilty on this one P.
You do notice don't you, that Kaysar has responded with 'chapter and verse' ad infinitum....do u?

KAYSAR.. on Ayesha :) ooohh u are inDEED a rascal.... you KNOW that your explanation is a result of convoluted and indirect reasoning, rather than the following DIRECTLY from your hadith.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 235:

Narrated 'Aisha:

That the Prophet said to her, "You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me). 'This is your wife.' When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If this is from Allah, it will be done."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha:

<<that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).>>

Readers can decide for themselves here who is giving 'spin' and the truth :) err..Notice it is..none other than...AISHA herself who is saying this. I think they call that 'from the horses mouth'....

PS..I didn't MENtion Aisha, but Al-Mughira.

Love to you all:)

Wow, you are some piece of work, Boaz.

The bare-faced cheek!

>>I raised a specific issue.. "Surah 9:29 and Hadith Bukhari which uses that verse to justify/explain an invasion" All you did is attack 'me' rather than look at the issue itself. Shame... you have the incredible lack of integrity to just do an ad hominem and blame me for the 'blindingly obvious' ? <<

The issue with which I took issue (as it were) was your dig at my "lack of knowledge and understanding about how faith communities work."

And far, far from being an attack on you personally, I asked a couple of quite reasonable and rational questions - which in the best Boaz tradition I notice, you sidestepped by attacking me!!

What cheek indeed!!

About your famous Surah, I have no comment. I have never accepted that you are in a position to interpret any of the Qur'an in a credible manner, since you are a Christian, with a Christian axe to grind. You will therefore never find me engaging in a discussion about it, or any of the other verses you so carefully select.

>>of all the cowardly retreats I've seen, that was a classic<<

Of all your attempts to divert attention to your own shortcomings, yours was a classic.

It is good to see someone engaging with you on the detail of your selection and interpretation blindness. But as I said, I am unable and unwilling to argue the finer (?) points of interpretation and misinterpretation with you, or anyone.

But what I can and will do is continue to point out two things about your posts.

One, that your interpretations are inconsistent, one moment deeming this a metaphor, the next deeming that a historical fact.

Two, that you proceed to use those idiosyncratic interpretations to vilify another's religion, and to stir up fear and hatred against it.

Dear Pericles

I guess this says it all:

<<About your famous Surah, I have no comment. I have never accepted that you are in a position to interpret any of the Qur'an in a credible manner, since you are a Christian, with a Christian axe to grind.>>

Now, did you not notice in my 'questions' post, that I simply asked if you noticed it was not MYYYYYYYY (sorry but ur not getting this) 'Interpretation'..but that of a companion of Mohammad!

It has nothing to do with 'Christian axe to grind' whatsoever.

It has everything to do with what an astute observer of the plain language and context of the text will see......

I think you should by now, realize that what I am REPORTING (as opposed to 'saying') from a Muslim, in an Islamic source, is in fact.. true.

Now.. just in case you had not noticed, when Kaysar tried to rebutt/refute my assertion about the invasion, he avaded the charge with: and I quote:

<<The Persians were a threat to the Holy-land which they kept invading and also to their neighbours.>>

Yet the Islamic sources tell us UMAR was invading them. (based on Inteligence from Muthana who had already made raids himself)

BIASED SOURCES Kaysar? :) Sheikh Fehmi will growl at you mate as my sources are ONLY Quran and Hadith..in case you had not noticed.

PROBLEM.
1/ Kaysar is admitting here that the Persians were attacked/invaded because they were a threat, NOT because they invaded the Muslims.

2/ The justification for the attack however, was said to be specifically Surah 9:29 as quoted by Al Mughira in the hadith I mentioned.

OUTCOME. Thus, based on this thinking, ANY nation or person which is considered 'a threat' by the Muslim community can jusifiably be attacked or murdered .(Theo Van Gogh is a modern Example)If it was the 7th century in Medina it was Ka'b bin al Ashraf. Murdered at night on Mohammad's orders.

SKID..welcome back:)
CJ.. you are TOOOOOOooooo gullible:) read for your'self' mate.
Love to all:)

K Trad: Thank you. That took just 132 words to clear up.

Graham Y: Is it true that Bronwyn Winter’s article was changed?

Querying the Qu’ran does not an “anti-muslim fundi” make. It is the realm of the NON-muslim:

"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith." (Surah 5:101-102).

"The Holy Prophet himself forbade people to ask questions ...so do not try to probe into such things." (The Meaning of the Qur'an, Maududi, vol. III, pgs. 76-77)

"The prophet was asked about things which he did not like, and when the questioner insisted, the Prophet got angry. (vol. 1, no. 92) The Prophet got angry and his cheeks or his face became red. (vol. 1, no. 91) "Allah has hated you...[for] asking too many questions." (vol. 2, no. 555; and vol. 3, no. 591, Bukhari's Hadith commenting on Muhammad’s reaction to hostile questioners.)

The intention here is not to tread on Muslim sensibilities. However, the Christian tradition encourages scrutiny, observation, debate and discussion and allows for the freedom to NOT believe.

Nevertheless, I’m prepared to be labeled an “Anti-Muslim Fundi” just by attempting to respond to KT.

There is no concept of abrogation in the work of Christ. All the verses you mentioned do not contradict, any of the gospel from Matthew:

5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them to but fulfill them. “

22.37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

22.38. This is the first and greatest commandment.

22.39. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself”.

22.40. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

A Christian has no need to justify or deflect the criticism by attacking their opponents.

In understanding the motivation of questioning the Qu’ran, you need look no further than this.

It's a wonder you can look yourself in the mirror, Boaz.

>>It has nothing to do with 'Christian axe to grind' whatsoever.<<

How on earth can you say this with a straight face?

Or perhaps you didn't, you were so convulsed with laughter at your ability to say that black is white and white is black, time after time.

You choose your quotes. You choose your translation. You choose your interpretation.

You ensure that the quote, translation and interpretation all meet your strict selection criteria...

- does it make Islam look bad

- does it make Islam look dangerous

- does it encourage people to fear and hate Islam

At the same time, you blithely bat away any similar approach to the Bible with "ah, you just don't understand that either"

And you have the gall to tell me "It has nothing to do with 'Christian axe to grind' whatsoever"

If it doesn't have anything to do with your incessant promotion of Christianity, and your equally incessant denigration of Islam, what on earth IS it all about?

Sad.

katie0, yes the article was adjusted in a minor way. Keysar objected to something being stated as a fact. I asked Bronwyn what her source was, and she suggested that it be changed in the way that it was. It was minor editing and I did not feel the need to note it. That's why you should note the time at which you have accessed a website, if you are going to cite it.

That's my editorial position.

Can I say as an individual that while I don't endorse Boaz_David's comments, the difference between the Christian bible and the Koran is that while the Old Testament has a lot in common with the Koran, the New has very little. It is the New Testament that Christians believe in. It is the new convenant. We study the Old Testament, the old covenant, because it gives context to the new. We do not follow the old.

I'd like to know from Keysar where the Moslem equivalent of the New Testament is. Where is the corresponding body of work which says that you should observe the spirit, not the letter, of the law, and which says that God is love? I think that is a crucial difference between Christianity and Islam, and Christianity and Judaism.

Graham: the internet introduces some new rules to the journalistic game. Some should be “sacrosanct”:

(1) the protection of sources
(2) retractions to be cited

BB: One of the non-negotiable aspects of the Christian life is centrality of the bible. If it is not the Word of God, then we are all fools, believing in lies. It is therefore sad and pathetic to be Christian if you don’t believe the bible to be the very Word of God.

The non-believer expects the Christian to have a more compelling argument than “I’m not a total idiot” for believing. Having lost the audience completely with the first belief statement, any further clarifications are just as unpalatable. I’ll take a shot at it (it’s probably at this point that I lose any credibility – however small – that I may have had….so that risk not withstanding): the bible is the word of God, revealed by his Holy Spirit through prayer and belief. It’s a bit circular as far as logical arguments go, the original “chicken and egg” statement: I believe because God tells me to believe, therefore I believe.

So those in the category of “Christian who doesn’t believe in the divine inspiration of the bible” are ….not.

Edifying? I hope this shows that the bible has NOTHING in common with the Qu’ran.

(GrahamY: It is the new covenant which makes sense of the old - it was ALWAYS about Christ, but I think that is what you meant by “context” anyway).

On the face of it, it is not with levity that BD engages in a book that (if the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth) is well outside the Christian tradition. I think that shows enormous respect. There is nothing selective about quoting, muslim-defined “key” tracts, by muslims, with the full weight of muslim scholarship brought to bear in the analysis. And until this becomes a muslim state, it is a great privilege to be able to examine the Qu’ran and ask some pertinent questions (and expect some answers).

of course, you religious guys are free to argue over the value of your books - implicitly over the value of your gods. heaven knows why you think you'll resolve anything, but it's your argument and i hope you have fun.

but, on the off chance you care what others might think, i'll just reiterate my view as a non-adherent: i couldn't care less about your books. i couldn't care less how you contextualise them, rank them, interpret them, excuse them, metaphorize them or anything else them.

i care only about the practical moral stances you hold and the morality of your actions.

Wonderful discussion, robust.

BushBasher. Hang in mate, it's in your interests socially and politically. See THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZNx0xHe0p0

WHICH AXE?

To Pericles (in the 'Bunker of Blindness')... how can I say 'that' with a straight face? Very simply,- if you look back over the history of say Skid Marx or.. Stevenlmeyer or even Paul L a more recent contributor.. you will see that Christian, Jew and Atheist (Don't get the Hindu's started) are ALL saying the same thing... criticizing the violence inherent in Islamic sources, linked directly to Mohammad, which is applied by Muslims to their own actions in periods later than Mohammad, and while today there are Salafists, Wahabists and “moderates” all who variously justify or rationalize or make total claim to, those teachings... it is not an exclusively 'Christian' axe.

Dar_Ul_Harb/Darul_Islam(land of war/Islam) search this out, and you will find it rests on Surah 9:29

The only issue which should concern you, is... “is this information true and correct..or not”

As to the issue “Does Islam contain specific commands to embark on war against non Muslims, and have the early (and many modern) Muslims themselves interpreted 9:29 to this effect”, the answer is a resounding YES”

I don't suppose you would know this from your 'Bunker of Blindness' Pericles, but Caliph Omar is considered by all Muslims to be one of the 4 'rightly guided' Caliphs. He was a personal companion of Mohammad, as was Al Mughira.

So.. I'm sorry to dissappoint you, the facts are on the side of the position I am asserting. They are on the side of the Atheist, Jew,Hindu and Christian, in asserting this.

As for you, you simply dive into your bunker of blindness, make claims about “I don't consider YOU capable of interpreting these texts because you have a 'Christian' axe to grind”

From KatieO (a fellow warrior in the faith :)

“The non-believer expects the Christian to have a more compelling argument than “I’m not a total idiot”

... how beautifully said!

Bushbasher, you should care about the books, because they are the foundation myths that will give you some of the explanations for why people act the way they do, and also give you an idea of the limits on their actions.

It's also a little more complicated than that, in that most Christian denominations have theology that has grown up as explanations of the books, and some of that theology, particularly in Roman Catholic practice, tends to be accorded status approaching that of the book, or even, in the case of papal encyclicals, I would argue above the book.

I think you can tell a lot about Australia by looking at our legal system. The same applies to religions and their books.

yes, graham, you are right. the books give some sense of the boundaries, and obviously a strong sense our cultural and legal backgrounds. and to that extent i am interested in your books.

but, the underlying reality is that you guys are playing a game of "my god is nicer than your god", and to play this game on the basis of the texts is just incredibly silly. again, that's up to you, but the point is it gives no useful information to a non-believer such as me.

it is blatantly obvious that different "christians" take dramatically different messages from the bible, with dramatically different emphases on love and/or fear and/or moral prescription/proscription. ditto "muslims".

for me, the proof is in, and only in, the pudding. are you telling me how to live my life because god says so? are you promoting eye for an eye barbarism? are you promoting a message that we must love one another, or do you simply think that god is on your side? do you think seriously about abortion, or homosexuality, or capital punishment, or are you simply reading from a script?

if you are thinking seriously on an issue then i will deal with your serious thoughts directly. if those serious thoughts originate from a religious text that's fine: extract them. but the text itself does not and cannot carry any authoritative weight.

you and i must argue on common moral ground. for that, your books are fundamentally irrelevant.

Any person who does not have an education in at least Introductory Comparative Religion is really all at sea in debates such as this one. It is not possible for a Westerner to think of him/herself as "educated" if s/he has not been educated in The Bible and in particular the history of Christianity.

If I had my way, I would make Comparative Religion and World History compulsory in all schools from Kindergarten onwards. But never to be taught by clergy, only historians, linguists, fine arts types.

At the moment we have the totally unacceptable situation where at the Griffith Madrasas of Unitarianism, the Head of the "Islamic Research Unit" is not a scholar but a Wahhabist imam.

This is a disgrace that we must all campaign to rectify.

BB... you said:

"are you promoting eye for an eye barbarism? are you promoting a message that we must love one another, or do you simply think that god is on your side?"

The point about becoming familiar with the 'books' of various religions, is so that you can yourself determine what the religion teaches.

From that starting/reference point, you can then see also, who is talking twaddle and who is speaking truth.

Christianity is quite different from Islam. Islam is a religion which involves the establishment of a 'State'..and this is clear from just about every syllable in the Quran and Hadith and the unfolding history of the Muslim world.

Now..it would be easy to simply conclude (due to lack of knowledge) that Christianity says the same. NO.. (sorry.. emphAsis needed :)
It does not. If you look at the Gospels and Letters (NT) you will see that these major themes exist.

1/ 'PROCLAIM' the Gospel of forgiveness....
2/ 'CALL' men and women to repentance... (call..invite, encourage, persuade)
3/ 'WAIT' for the return of Christ, while doing the above 2 things.

4/ 'BE' faithful, diligent, active, pure, generous, hospitable, loving, etc.... while doing all of the above.

5/ ESTABLISH a theocracy and FORCE everyone else to do what God says:)

GOTCHA..no..that last point is 'opposites day' speak. There is NOTHING even remotely suggesting that Christians are to establish any kind of 'Christian' State..

IF....there is no 'Christian State' there can be no 'Christian' foreign policy.
So, there can never NEVER be a 'Christian' doctrine of invasion in the name of God. A point I have been laboring about Islam, which DOES have exactly that.

I speak here from the Protestant perspective, feel free to sus out any differences in the RC version,but as Graham Y says..the answer to 'who is right' is found in the scriptures themselves.

boaz and greenfield, you're missing my point. when it comes to comparing your books, i don't care what's "true" or "good". i pointed out the obvious nastiness and bad faith and silliness of cherry-picking, but otherwise i took no part and will take no part. i am unskilled to do so and am uninterested in doing so.

but, to the extent that you guys are really discussing moral codes, i have a stake. and, to the extent that you guys are discussing moral codes, i just don't care less about the origins of such codes.

i don't care what a real "christian" or a real "muslim" is. as i said, the majority of self-proclaimed christians, and the majority of self-proclaimed muslims, that i have met have been admirable and loving people. and i certainly read about "christians" and "muslims" who are much less admirable and much less loving, and occasionally i meet some such fellows.

so, if i meet a "christian" or a "muslim", or pretty much anyone, i will presume that they are admirable and loving, unless they provide evidence otherwise. if there is evidence otherwise, i am going to give no weight to any scholarly backing. what else do i need?

look, i know you guys wished i cared more about your books and your gods. but i don't. i don't believe in your gods, and (for moral questions) i don't care about your books. sorry, but you'll have to get used to it.

i don't claim to speak for other non-believers. and it's your argument. but you might consider the relevance or irrelevance of your argument for non-believers.

i think i've given whatever it is i have to offer here, so i intend this to be my last post. good bye and, as dave allen used to say, may your god go with you.

Bushbasher, I don't think I have once used scripture as a way of proving things. If I've referenced it it would be in the context of what a Christian might believe, not in terms of trying to convince someone of the rightness of an argument.

I think one of the strengths of Jesus' approach was that, more often than not, like Socrates, he'd ask a question rather than provide an answer, and he'd again frequently do it via stories - parables.

Thomas Aquinas said that God wrote two great books - the Bible and the book of nature. Christianity has a faith basis, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't engage with the world of logic, but it does that while asking at the same time, What is right? What would please God? And those are not straightforward questions with straightforward answers.

You can actually view the Christian book not as a handbook of rules of what to do, but an account of man's struggle to understand the fundamentals of the universe and his relationship with it and everything else in it.

I haven't seen Keysar on the thread for a while, but I think that this idea of continuing revelation is one that Christianity has, but Islam doesn't. He might like to comment.

Hi Bushy....

mate..I do appreciate your position, and sorry for being a bit of a nag, but there is something ur missing also.

Whether you believe in our books or not is actually not the most important question.

You make a lot of fuss about 'morality' and how it (as the rubber) meets the road (of your life)..and this IS most important.

'Truth' or falsehood of the books is not the question you need answered....but 'what' do those books actually teach and HOW can this effect 'you'? right? Unless I've misunderstood you, this appears to be your primary concern. (Book content/teaching translates into behavior)

Ok.. if that is a safe assumption, I've not been trying to prove 'this' "book" or..'that' "book" is true, but (now please, look closely at the development of my ealier posts in this thread)

...I've been looking at how one particular command IN the book of Islam,

a)has been used by its own prophet..
b)How it has been used and applied by those AFTER that prophet to different historical circumstances.
c)How that can effect......YOU. (and me and we)

My assertion, has been "Mohammad claimed Allah told him "I have been commanded to fight those who do not believe in Allah (etc) until they are subjected"

Then..I showed how 'post Mohammad' Muslims (but those who knew him personally) applied and understood that very same command (9:29) which according to our dear friend Kaysar was 'only for one historical situation'(which Mohammad himself faced).. but which is clearly NOT the case on the basis of the evidence.

I've tried also to develop:"Christian foundational documents do NOT have a 'we will rule the world' agenda" whereas in the other case..they do...

BB, unless ur living in some twighlight zone, that... effects...you.

You don't 'see' the evidence right now, but did you look at that Vid of London cops surrounded?

Here it is again:
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1341&Itemid=63
scroll to the Glen Jenvey youtube vid image.

If 'any'one outrageously infringes on our police..they infringe on us!
(If not now...then eventually)

foolish me, thinking i was going to get out of here so easily.

graham, i'm not sure i accused you of proof by scripture: if i did, i'm sorry and i retract. my various uses of "you" above was meant to reflect a generality of views that i feel have been expressed in this thread. i did not mean to imply that every such view was held by every such religious poster.

i like very much your description of "the Christian book not as a handbook of rules of what to do, but an account of man's struggle to understand the fundamentals of the universe". i do appreciate this, and i feel one of my great educational failings is my limited knowledge and understanding of religious traditions. to this extent, i agree with both you and greenfield.

but:

1) there is no shortage of "christians" who do regard the bible as a handbook of rules. ditto koran/"muslims".

2) as a non-believer, my take is coloured by the feeling that resorting to a god is not "struggling". rather, i see it as an understandable but regrettable reaction to the fear of the rather awful truths that such struggle heightens: death, and ultimate meaningless.

(no, boaz or anybody, i'm not going to defend item (2) ).

but truly, honestly i take your point. even with my limited reading, i have read beautiful, meaningful truths, in both the bible and the koran. and it seems to me fair and meaningful to compare the intellectual traditions of differing religions (if done in good faith!).

my argument above is:

A) no religious text has, for me, one iota of moral authority.

B) the koran and the bible are extremely poor predictors of the practical morality of the purported adherents.

and B) is critical, and comes mostly from my personal experience of the people i have met.

boaz, to quote groucho, who am i going to believe, you or my own eyes?

Clearly Keysar Trad is not alone among Muslims who wish religious dogma to trump scholarship in Australia's universities. A chain petition is currently doing the rounds as a complaint to the Australian Press Council trying to silence our media!

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/islamists-complain-to-press-council.html

Boaz, I have no interest in attacking you at all. I would hate to see you so deluding yourself.

Yes, I have been away for a while.

As a matter of fact Boaz, you keep going in circles, I do not engage in circular debates. I have answered both your questions succinctly, I have no intention of elaborating further through this forum, I am happy for the other readers to make up their own minds on the basis of what had already been said on the topic. If readers including you wish to take this topic further, a private email may be more appropriate, this I may answer in my own good time.

Quite frankly, looking at the material today, I could not read all of it, I find it far too boring.

I will answer Graham's question though.

Graham, from our perspective, Christ is part and parcel of the Muslim tradition. You are correct that Christ came to return the focus on the spirit and not just the letter, though the quote from KatieO Matt 5:17 means that the law which is the O/T still applied, but rather the Israelites should look at the spirit and not just the letter, that is, do not look for loopholes in the law, if the spirit is to forbid gambling, prostitution, Usury, do not reintroduce those under other names such as "Bingo/meat raffles/lotto", "Sex Industry" or "Interest". The early church fathers kept the O/T because that was the law. Paul’s comment about circumcision etc being less important should not be interpreted as an abrogation of the law (O/T), but rather a prioritising of issues, i.e., you explore the intricacies of the beliefs using logic and reason before you consider the detail of what God requires of you (such as prayer, fasting, etc [inc. male circumcision]). In other words, we see Christ as much a preacher of Islam as we do Noah, Abraham, Moses and Muhammad, peace and blessings upon them all. We agree with the immaculate conception of Christ but differ on points such as the crucifixion, original sin and monasticism.

Love

Thanks Keysar, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I don't think you'll find a mainstream Christian denomination that will agree with you on your interpretation of Christ's attitude to the law. We obviously observe the 10 commandments, although even here some things have been shaved a little - sabbath observance for example. But the whole set of laws set down in Deuteronomy are not part of Christian practice, and the issue of whether they should be was dealt with right at the very beginning of Christianity in an argument between Peter and Paul.

But the issue I was interested in was that of continuing revelation. What is Islam's position on that. Do you see Allah revealing more to man after Mohammed, or is that the point at which revelation ends?

My second comment for this 24 hour cycle.

BB and Pericles, well done. BB, please do not allow our human frailties to reflect on God or His book. The crux of divine messages is to teach us the best means of getting along without stepping on each other’s toes.

Boaz, like I say, you know too little about Islam, read Sura 60 verses 8 & 9. These define the relationship between Muslims and non Muslims. Darul Islam is majority Muslim countries, Darul Harb are nations that wage wars against Muslims where Muslims are not allowed to live and not permitted to practice their faith freely. For example, if I was to migrate to a nation that would qualify as Darul Harb, I would be killed there.

There is also Darul 'Ahd, meaning, the nations with a treaty with the Muslims, sometimes also loosely included as Darul Sulh, meaning nations that are at peace with Muslims.

JGreenfield, look up the GIRU, its head is educated at Griffith only, he does not hold any qualifications from a Muslim seminary. I am not defending him, just a correction.

Boaz, apart from the Vatican, large sections of Christendom support the Israeli state because this in their view will hasten the second coming of the Messiah who will supposedly rule the world. So please stop this Taqiya and Kitman.

Graham, on Continuing revelation, the final is the Qur`an, after the Qur`an, people may be inspired to explain but not to bring a new message from God. However, humanity has witnessed more than 124000 prophets and messengers from God, some with revelations and some without whose role was to continue to teach earlier revealed messages. A new message usually comes when the old one is lost by humanity or is distorted to such an extent that a fresh revelation is needed. In our view, whilst confirming the mission of Christ, the Qur`an summed up the moral messages of all previous revelations and addressed humanity in an eternal tone that continues to inspire and educate to this very day and will continue well beyond.

Love

Keysar

I am being serious when I ask you this. Why is it that every time I read an Islamist post here they always make claims about others that simply are not true? Is it part of a strategy to continually "poison the well" or is it just comprehension skills? Nowhere did I say or even suggest that Muhammad Abdullah was not educated at Griifith University. Oh, and GU that renowned centre of medieval history and Islamic scholarship! NOT!

Are you denying that Abullah is an imam?

Dear_Kaysar.....

you_said:

"the Qur`an summed up the MORAL messages of all previous revelations and addressed humanity in an eternal tone that continues to inspire and educate to this very day and will continue well beyond."

'Surah 23:5-6'

The believers are those who.....

023.005
YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,

023.006
YUSUFALI: Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.

So, Kaysar.. r u telling us that this is the 'moral tone' that educates and inspires us? "sexual abuse of captive women"

Do you honestly feel comfortable about Mohammad, the so called 'beloved prophet' allowing his soldiers to go 'all the way' in unrestrained intercourse (rape) of captive women who the soldiers have just widowed?

(PS. Deuteronomy 21:10-13 speaks only about marriage, after a month of mourning. NOT ad hoc sexual abuse.)

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

(i.e. if you unleash your sperm into them, Allah decides if a child is conceived)

just a bit further Mohamamad says this:

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 435:

Narrated Zaid bin Khalid and Abu Huraira:

that Allah's Apostle was asked about an unmarried slave-girl who committed illegal sexual intercourse. They heard him saying, "Flog her, and if she commits illegal sexual intercourse after that, flog her again, and on the third (or the fourth) offense, sell her."

Sooooo...... Muslim soldiers raping newly widowed mothers, is not 'illegal' but a slave girl having sex with someone she actually cares about (as opposed to master who abuses her regularly) is a floggable offense?

Love, is_hat shows you the true road you are on Kaysar.

"the Qur`an summed up the MORAL messages of all previous revelations and addressed humanity in an eternal tone that continues to inspire and educate to this very day and will continue well beyond."

Really?

Kaysar.. mate, you are in need of serious help.

65:4 permits the:

-Marraige
-Sexual consumation
-Divorce

of PRE-Pubescent female children!

My opinion?

nope.. that is the opinion of Maulana Maududi and Ibn Kathir

Look up Tafheem Al Quran (Maududi) on 64:4

http://www.tafheem.net/main.html

click on At Talaaq then scroll to Paragraph *13 about verse 4 where you find THIS!

"Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also pemssible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible."

(This understanding is supported in Bukhari's hadith also.)

Now Kaysar.. you can spin this as much as you like mate.. (even call on Pericles to tell us I am not qualified to 'interpret' these things, but Pericles has yet to argue that Maududi or Ibn Kathir are not qualified)

-talk about everything under the sun...but can you deny that this high ranking Islamic scholar knows what he is talking about?
You have only two options "condemn Maududi" or.. 'agree' that what he says is correct.

If you don't condemn him, then you are faced with the truth that the Quran permits sexual relations with pre-pubescent children by old men!

It is futile to argue that 'Oh..but Mohammad is our example and he only had sex with Aisha when she was 9 (as if that's not bad enough)'

because as you well know..the Quran is above Mohammad in authority.

So.. when I read your closing little "love" messages.. I'm afraid my feeling is that you are just trying to sugar coat a very unpalatable message.

The only thing of importance here is..'TRUTH'.....

and whether u are prepared to face it, and speak it.

Boaz, as usual your selectiveness distorts the truth. Islam does not permit any sexual activity with a pre-pubescent. Here is what the Bible says about slavery:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. LEVITICUS 25:44-46

Sorry, I forgot, you only believe in that part of the Bible that suits you.

The Muslim leader Mohammad II abolished all forms of slavery, he did so because he reached a situation where he could negotiate with his opponents a better treatment for war prisoners. He was inspired by Islam’s aim to gradually eliminate slavery as Islam led the way throughout history in seeking to end that disgusting practice. Rape is rape Boaz, regardless of your relationship with the victim. Your spin is not going to convince anyone.

Anzac Harmony, I was not talking to you, I was talking to John Greenfield, unless you are one and the same, then you are mistaken. If you did not already know, Mohamad Abdalla is a lay preacher and not a qualified Imam. To my knowledge, he was one of several lay volunteers who used to speak at the Kurraby mosque in QLD. As far as I am aware, these have now been replaced by a qualified Aussie-born Imam. As I said, I am not defending him, he can look after himself.

Muhammad, the messenger of God, peace and blessings upon him, said: “None of you is a true believer until you love one another, to love another, you must spread peace.”

Love and peace.

Boazy: << The only thing of importance here is..'TRUTH'..... >>

Seeing Boazy feigning indignation over being truthful is nearly as droll as when he criticises other posters on the basis of their spelling.

The bible says in the book of Numbers:

31:17-Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18-But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:32-And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
31:33-And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
31:34-And threescore and one thousand asses,
31:35-And THIRTY AND TWO THOUSAND PERSONS IN ALL, OF WOMEN THAT HAD NOT KNOWN MAN BY LYING WITH HIM.

What did they do with these 32,000 young virgin slaves?

BOAZ, Maududi and Ibn Kathir are not primary sources of Qur`an or Hadith, they were commentators.

Objective readers know that actions are compared to prevalent social standards in their own time. Yesterday’s norms and social mores are not today’s and vice versa. The fair person would compare historical actions with their historical era.

People resist sudden change, gradual change is longer-lasting. Islamic teachings brought gradual change that eliminated slavery and reinforced the finer institutions, when Muslims lived through the golden-age, the sciences triumphed, refer:

http://www.1001inventions.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.viewSection&intSectionID=309

Later, we went through a process of technological stagnation, however, on the spiritual and human level, the vast majority of Muslims continued to develop great love and respect for humanity. As to the handful of Muslims that have been involved in heretical terror, the vast body of Muslims have condemned their actions, and yet, those who claim a “superior” Christian heritage, rather than showing us the love they claim to have, sent in the troops to what has become the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan and they gave us Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I do not blame Christianity for that, I blame the individuals responsible.

Islam has made me appreciate that it is people like you who give a great deal of purpose to my life and work, because through lovingly and patiently educating you, I grow spiritually and march closer to my Creator.

Love and best wishes.

It is when I view threads like this that I repeat my little prayer. I say:

"Thank you God for making me an atheist and keeping me away from this madness."

Keysar,

thanks for the informative article.
Most importantly I appreciate your patience in moderating your own thread on a wide spectrum of questions raised.

Boaz,

We started intearcting on OLO May 05.
Looking at the thread is like reliving our last 3 years of discussions. I have to say I am surprised that years later many of us developed new learnings about each other while you are still at the point you started.

I feel sorry for you isolating urself. Seems in your belief system you can't survive and be happy without an imaginary enemy.

Peace,

Dear FH.. :) who_I_miss! Who's company I enjoyed, and still fondly reflect on....who's heart I treasure, and who's sincerity I don't question.

One difficulty in understanding a debate like this is 'where each person stands'...

Now..you for example have a strong Sufi inclination.

Kaysar on the other hand, appears to be a Sunni. And that means his approach is different from yours. (he can correct me on this if he wishes.)

1/ He did not refute my claim, he simply denied it. He then attacked the Bible.

2/ His denial of the assertion of 'permission to marry, consumate, divorce pre-pubescent female children, was a simple blanket counter assertion “Islam”....does not allow such.

I'm wondering where his sources for 'Islam' are? I pointed to the Quran, and the Hadith, and 2 major scholars of Islam, all which support that assertion. (can you deny this?)

You see, 65:4 mentions 3 classes of females.

1/Those who have despaired of menstruation. (past the age or have never had it to maturity)
2/ Those who are pregnant.
3/ and of those too “who have not had” their courses; (Shakir translation)

The key phrase here is 'not had'... the question is, does this mean 'because they are too young' or.. 'because for some medical reason they just don't have menstruation?. Contextually it cannot be those who have 'despaired' of it, and doubtful that it's medically related which is covered by point 1 because they have been mentioned. Thus, it leaves . 'age/maturity related'.

For the answer to this, we should look not to Kaysar's propaganda machine, (or your sincere heart) but to Bukhari's hadith.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.063

<<The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse)>>

That's straight from the search results, so, based on the evidence, it appears quite conclusive.

Continued...

First..Biblical material. I pre-empted that little spray by Kaysar in an earlier post. Law of Moses prevails.

A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.

I used the Quran and Hadith..then Scholars (not_lightweights_either)

Kaysar says "Mohammad_2 disbanded slavery"

Presumably we are talking here of this bloke:

<< (Mehmed the Conqueror) (1432–81), Ottoman sultan, born in Adrianople (now Edirne); during rule (1444–46 and 1451–81), captured Constantinople and thus completed the Ottoman destruction of the Byzantine Empire; fourth son of Murad II; restored and repopulated Constantinople after capture in 1453;>>

Hmmmm that means according to Kaysar it took from the 7th century to the 15th to eliminate slavery. But did it ?
A quick look at the Barbary wars shows it did not. (White American Sailors enslaved)

BUT... more importantly.. the issue is not what "Some sultan did" 700 years after Mohammad, the REAL issue is did that person have the authority to countermand the clear instructions of the QURAN?

Answer...NO...he did not.

Kaysar cannot have it both ways. He says I cannot use Ibn Kathir or Maududi as scholarly opinions because "They are not the final authority for Islam"...duh.. but then I am supposed to believe a 14th century SultaN IS?

Now...boys..that defies logic reason and common sense.

There is only one way to deflect the assertion I made..and that would be by showing that the Quran and Hadith themselves did NOT mean what I have conclusively shown they DO mean.

In order to achieve this, you would need to bring scholarly opinion which takes the clear meaning of the text into account and does not simply 'construct' an interpretation which knows it will have a western audience.

I rather feel that both Maududi and Ibn Kathir knew Arabic and the background to the hadith 'quite well' :)

FINAL WORD.
24To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.Jude 24-25

Fellow Human, Thank you.

StevenImeyer, you have just articulated exactly what I have been telling BOAZ, I admit, I equally deserve the criticism.

Boaz, Sufism is part of the Sunni tradition, some claim that is also part of the Shia tradition, for example, former Mufti Alhilali prides himself on his Sufi tradition.

65:4 is talking about married women, there are many married woman who never have their courses, this has nothing to do with puberty. I have personally met women who in their late teens still said that they never had their periods. There are women who have irregular periods or who may never ever in their lives have a period, the verse is talking about their period of waiting after divorce. I have searched for your so called Hadith in the three copies that I have of Sahih Bukhari, both the abridged and full versions and I could not find it. I also did an online search of the Arabic index, on islamweb.net and could not find it. I found opinions but no Hadith like the one you quoted. All I can surmise is that the USC offering is not of an authentic Hadith, that is a Hadith that was at some point found by scholars not to be a true statement of the prophet. Like I said, the verse speaks about the period of waiting after divorce and not about the age of marriage. Any talk about the age of marriage is an opinion by the person speaking and not the verse itself. There is no statement by the prophet like the one you have quoted. However, assuming there was, words in brackets are the translator’s opinion and not part of the original text.

I keep reminding you Boaz, you do not know enough about Islam to make these assertions, Nadwi and Nursi are far more highly regarded for their scholarship than Maududi and like I said, Ibn Kathir has been criticised by scholars for some of his views, both contemporary and ancient scholars, but this is not to say that all his work is discounted.

Love&best wishes

Boaz,

Here is the flaw in your argument from your own comments (& Graham Y):

You claimed that the Old Testament contains similar violent references and that the New T is peaceful, tolerant, etc..

How do you (or GrahamY) explain this:

1. Jewish or followers of Judaism believe in the OT and not the new. So how come for the last 1700 years or so the followers of the NewT (peaceful tolerant), have been persecuting and butchering the followers of the OldT (the allegedly more violent)?. I didn’t see a single historical reference where the followers of the OT(Violent teaching) transgressed on the most peaceful version. Yet history is full for the opposite.

2. While at it, shouldn't you be dedicating equal energy to criticize the OT? I mean, why do you bother so much with the Quran if you believe it’s a fake message anyway? Should the OT be more worthy of becoming your white whale Captain Ahap :-)?

And yes, I 'kind of' miss you too. We will do lunch next time I am in Melbourne.

Peace as always,

I made a grammatical mistake in the previous post, non authentic Hadith means that the prophet never said it.

There goes my two posts for today, now I cannot post again till after 5:30 PM tomorrow because of OLO's 24 hour two posts policy.

I will revisit something I said before, Islam means peace and wilful submission to God. This is reflected in our declaration of faith which states in Arabic: I bear witness that there is no god except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the (final) messenger of Allah.

To bear witness is to give evidence and you can only do that out of a conviction of its truth, so by necessity this witness can only be wilful and cannot be through compulsion.

Muslims do not turn our backs on Christ, we love Christ, we also love all the biblical men and women of God. There is a statement of the prophet which roughly translates as: People are all dependent on (some translate it as family or children of) God, the best in the sight of God is the one who is best to His (that is, God’s) dependents.

In that sense, Islam teaches me that in order to be a good Muslim, I have to be good to all of God’s creation, a Christian may say, all of “God’s children”, these semantics should not confuse us.

As I bear witness that Muhammad is the final messenger of God, I also bear witness that Christ, Moses, Abraham, Noah and a myriad of biblical figures were also messengers or prophets of God. Some Muslim scholars, having studied the lives of Buddha and Hindu greats who preceded Muhammad also believe that these were great men of God, even though they are not mentioned by name in Muslim scriptures. Not being mentioned by name does not negate their mission or their status.

I repeat other words of the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings upon him: None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.

With my love and best wishes

Keysar,

thanks for the informative article.
Most importantly I appreciate your patience in moderating your own thread on a wide spectrum of questions raised.

Boaz,

"We started intearcting on OLO May 05.
Looking at the thread is like reliving our last 3 years of discussions. I have to say I am surprised that years later many of us developed new learnings about each other while you are still at the point you started.

I feel sorry for you isolating urself. Seems in your belief system you can't survive and be happy without an imaginary enemy.

Peace,"
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 11:11:04 PM
__________________________________

Thank-you so very much for this Fellow_Human.

What gives it such value is that I know you two have met.
I know that you appear here intermittently.
THUS;- it gives your observation more depth and credence.

THAT is why I thank you.

It has not as you can see, made one bit of difference.

KTrad: your description of dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) and dar al-harb (House of War) is an attempt to water down an expansionist doctrine of war. As we harbis (non-submissive residents) try to process the “Islam as a peaceful religion” claim against the facts of Islamic terrorist acts and the woeful state of the dar al-Islam countries, the white anting of our democracy is in an advanced state.

We need to ignore the well documented facts of history and the institutionalized process of the normative religious obligation for Muslims to carry out the military conquest of dar al-harb countries.

In the west, the majority of the Muslim community might be at peace with the rest of the host country, however jihad fighters are waging war on non-Muslims. This is an immutable fixture of Islam and continues until dar al-Islam is established globally.

Your platitudes about the third category, a truce or a treaty state, are included above to puzzle those who are inclined to give Islam the “benefit of the doubt”. Such a state (dar ul-Ahd) can only be negotiated for a maximum of 10 years, although it will be rescinded when the Muslim offensive sees an advantage to conquer outright.

Within these three states, peace is excluded. So even if Australian Muslims wish to preserve our nationhood, the rest of the Muslim world will not rest until Australia is subdued into dar al-Islam. Denying this is denying Qu’ranic teaching, Islamic traditions, history and current events.

By your misleading definition of dar al-harb, please provide examples of countries where Muslims are being persecuted which would be thus categorized, and show how those countries differ to Australia.

For the west, it is dar al-Islam countries, where Christian, Jewish and members of minority religions are persecuted relentlessly, which are the threat to peaceful coexistence.

I know you sincerely believe that this struggle will result in the installation of dar aSalam (the House of Peace). Categorizing nations into “for” or “against” Islam, is not the language of love. It is a declaration of war. The spiritual backdrop of “peace” is an illusion.

APOLOGIES to all non_'technical' readers... this_might_hurt.

Dear Kaysar and F.H. "Ali and Khalid" :)

KT first.. mate.. I fail to see why you cannot find what comes up immediately on the link.

MuslimAccess and WitnessPioneer gets it (word for word)

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/062.htm

(scroll to number 63)

He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/062.html
(Scroll to number 63)

So.. 3 separate sources have very easily revealed the actual wording of this Hadith. (but you can't find it? then you blame USC for fudging?)

Now..according to your statement "The words in brackets are those of the translator not the original"

OK.. what is in the brackets?

"i.e. they are still immature"and
"In the above verse"

NOW..what is NOT in the brackets? "The iddat for girls before puberty is 3 months"

(Note "Iddat" is waiting period for evidence of PREGnancy)

Let me repeat that with some emphasis "BEFORE PUBERTY" (Ginx, r u following here?)

Now.. thus far it appears that this is BUKHARI's recollection, not any translators opinion. Bukhari is said to have a photographic memory and he compiled some 300,000 hadiths, of which he retained only 2000+ due to proof and evidence.

Given that this is in his work(according to the sources liste) one can only assume that because of his personal contact and interviews with those much closer to the events than you, I or any other modern commentator, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that I was correct from the beginning in my assertion.

F.H.. the reason I've not shifted from day one, is that I'm still a committed (but stumbling and imperfect) follower of Christ. Why would I shift?
The issues you raised were not relevant to the point under discussion, but you can save them for next coffee :)

Where is KACTUZ when we need him..he has the hadith also.

"APOLOGIES to all non_'technical' readers... this_might_hurt."

Well, it's not so much non-technical readers who struggle through a Boaz post. It's more the non-UFO-conspiracy-pamphlet-and-website readers who have trouble with the misplaced capitalisation for emphasis, posting your own inner dialogue as a form of punctuation, the use of new paragraphs where all you need is a full stop, and the routine non sequiturs in which you go from a subject marginally related to the discussion topic into bible quotation.

A Boaz post usually scores highly on the Crackpot Index (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) in several categories, including:

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

Boaz,

" F.H.. the reason I've not shifted from day one, is that I'm still a committed follower of Christ"

Many of my friends of your faith have a problem seeing you as 'committed follower of Christ'.

On topic, my point above is clear as day: Its not scripture or what is written but how do people / individual interpret it or contextualize it. From your own words regarding the Bible and the OT vs NT, history proves that the followers of the peaceful/passive version persecuted the followers of the violent version which does not make any sense. If it is about scripture, then we should look no further than the OT.

Can I ask you to be true follower of Christ and Aussie manners and don't force a religious debate on fellow Aussies on this forum? you can either use the general comments section or private emails.

Will do lunch next time in Melbourne, this way I can guarantee you won't have the 'mouth' to talk about my faith :-)

KatieO,

I am unable to see how we can get together and co-exist by digging in the 10th century books (either by Muslims, Christian missionaries or Pope Urban II).

Islam is a faith not a nationality. Australian Muslims are proud Australians. We work hard, pay our taxes, raise our children and contribute to the economic success of our country. Even the militant Boaz will confirm to you that I break my back assisting Australian companies exporting products to the Middle East. A leading bank in Australia has a Muslim CEO who managed to turn it into a global AUSTRALIAN competitive bank.

On the same token, American Muslims are also proud Americans and established a large community charity project to assist the homeless (which is a bigger problem in the US):
www.projectdowntown.org. The examples are endless.

Ginx, Sancho and Pericles,

Thank you for being true Aussie samaritans and standing up for a fair go. Its your comments that encourages me to keep coming back to OLO.

Peace as always,

KatyO, are you sure that you are living in the same world as rest of us? I do not see Muslim countries invading and occupying their neighbours, but I do see the Secular/Christian US invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, I see the poor Palestinian people being squeezed or interned into the biggest open air prison in the world known as “Gaza” and then not even permitted access to the most basic necessities and their democratically elected government having all its revenues blocked by the Israelis.

I see Muslim Somalia invaded a second time, this time using Ethiopian troops and you say that Muslims are expansionist? I see Russia occupying Chechnya, I see India occupying Kashmir, I see the US operating Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I see US misadventures making you and me paying 50% more for our petrol than we did before their invasion of Iraq, as a result of this, I see the cost of all foods skyrocketing, I see our interest rates rising, I see so much suffering in this world, brought on by the powerful countries against the less powerful, after that, I see them saturating the media with selective access to information, all this at the same time that they trumpet freedom of the media, they run the most deceptive propaganda known in history, just read some of Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein’s work, so I do not know which world you are observing.

KatyO, I cannot convert you and am not even trying. God said: You cannot guide whom you love, God Guides those who sincerely wish to be guided. (often translated as God guides whom He wills, but I have explained in my writings that the Arabic has both meanings). Like I said, I was minding my own business until my name was brought into this debate.

Boaz, what I said was that this is not in the original Arabic, I did not say that it was not on your link, so I am suggesting that this is a fabricated Hadith, in translations, words in bracket are the translator's opinion.

Love &Best wishes

I wanted to use my second post for this 24 hours on another red herring posted by KatyO, that relating to the verse: Believers, do not ask about things, that if they were revealed to you, would displease you” and the Hadith she quoted on this.

This verse is about hypotheticals on what is lawful and what is unlawful. It is supported by another Hadith that KatyO did not bother to quote that says that God had left some matters without mentioning their legality because He wanted to make life as easy for you as possible, (because the seriousness of these matters is not as grave as the ones mentioned). So God is angered when someone makes incessant questions in order to create prohibitions. Neither the verse nor the Hadith quoted by Boaz have anything to do with science, but rather all to do with religious dos and don’ts. So basically, Islam was discouraging the creation of further unnecessary rules and small detail so that life does not become too onerous for people.

In fact Islam encourages scientific observation, experimentation and discovery, our ancestors took the pre-Christian Greek scientific theories into the lab and built on that body of knowledge.

The first word revealed from the Qur`an was “Iqra”, a word that carries the three meanings: read, recite, or repeat (as in repeat after me). There are frequent calls in the Qur`an for people to reflect, contemplate, think and ponder. God in fact says that He raises those with knowledge in degrees. He also says that those with knowledge are more in awe of Him because science and knowledge does lead sincere people to reflect on the Greater Power that makes order in this chaos, the Greater Power that makes everything work, the Greater Power that distinguishes a living body with a soul and a dead body without a soul, knowledge is given to us as a gift from God Almighty. Ignorance is of the Devil. Our parable of the tree is unrelated to knowledge, in fact, God taught Adam the names of all things.

Love and best wishes.

"I see Muslim Somalia invaded a second time"
because it's a haven for warlords and Islamists, as well as being a failed state. Or is that west's fault too?

"I see India occupying Kashmir"

Kashmir is part of India. How can it occupy itself?

"I see the US operating Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."

As unfortunate as those places are, they pale into insignificance against the numbers of Ba'hai, Zoroastrians and Christians thrown into gaol (if not murdered) in just one Islamic country. Plus of course gays, apostates and "adulterers" murdered as well.

"I see US misadventures making you and me paying 50% more for our petrol than we did before their invasion of Iraq, as a result of this, I see the cost of all foods skyrocketing, I see our interest rates rising" You're an economist now? And the state of the world economy is all the US's fault? If Al Qaeda stopped blowing up Iraqi oil pipelines, oil might be a bit cheaper, might it not?

Dear FH... your last post is one of the reasons I didn't get too doctrinally 'pushy at our last meeting:)

If one compared your understanding of Islam, with say, that of those attending IISNA, there would be a very clear difference.

Salafist and Wahabist Islam is to me, very very much closer to the Islam of Mohammad, but.. your understanding is more a 'situational ethics' approach.. as you mention "how people interpret and understand"... but the problem with that approach, is that it makes the documents almost meaningless in themselves.

Let me give you an example.

Assertion 1/ "Mohammad is the best of all mankind"

Assertion 2/ "MOhammad is our beloved prophet and our glorious example"

Now.. you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that any one with even half a brain would want to know
- "What did Mohammad DO"? (that we may emulate him)
-"What did Mohammad SAY"? (that we may obey him)

For me, that is the starting point, and the beginning of understanding.

What 'you' do is present a whole lot of philosophy about 'The nature of God' as you did at our Macca's meeting.. what you said seemed more like a romanticization of how 'you' want God (and Mohammad) to be like, which you then read/projected back on the textual foundations of the faith.

Now.. I'm not like the German Missionary on our orientation course who , when a Muslim professor confessed "I don't know all the answers" said "Yes..that is because your god is DEAD" (Germans have a rather hmmm.. 'jarring' idea about communication:)

No, I listened, thought, and reflected. Now.. my reflections are confirmed :) and as I have said on many occasions.. "If my war is with the salafists and wahabists, then why do you concern yourself with my war" ? It is not 'your' Islam that I am attacking, but theirs. If anything, you should join me in that 'war'.....

..continued.

KTRAD,

We see Muslim extremists killing innocents in the Sudan, Iraq, Israel, Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Britain, Spain, America, Egypt, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Uzbekistan. On virtually every continent there are head hackers and human bombs looking for innocent victims. Talk about think globally, act locally. The islmaic extremists have got that figured.

You speak of the invasion of Somalia, but you ignore the Islamic Courts Organistation and Al-Shabaab aka PRM, and their terror activities. The mission has been bolstered by the UN and the African union as a peace mission. The insurgency against the Government of Somalia by Islamic terrorists is typical of the behaviour of Islamic terror groups. It should be no surprise that few Somalis want Taliban style Islamic rule.

You see Abu Ghraib?. I see the beheading of Daniel Pearl. I see the mutilation and burning of the bodies of US contractors. I see the deliberate and targeted killing of 3000 innocent civillians on 9/11. By comparison with our enemies we are remarkably restrained when it comes to prisoners and captured civilians. As for Guantanomo, I have no doubt you are better off there, than in a jail in an Islamic country. You are much more likely to be flogged, have your limbs amputated or be beheaded, certainly you would expect to be tortured.

Fuel prices? Viking 13 is correct. The sabotage of oil installations by the terrorists is undoubtedly a huge problem.

Noam Chomsky’s stuff is grist for the far left mill. It resonates most with those who see conspiracies involving imperialists/capitalist pigs around every corner. I suggest you read Mark Steyns “America Alone”.

You, of course, never linked your answers to the questions I put. So I’ll ask once again. What are your views on Polygamy for Muslims in Australia? Do you think that homosexuality is an abomination and should be made illegal? Is there a role for Sharia Law in this country?

Did-you-say “yet, from-the-Muslim-viewpoint, our-ideology-is-the-best-salvation-for-the people-of-Australia, and-the-people-of-the-world-in-general. Yes, we are a threat to the culture of drunkenness, paedophilia”

Or-this (regarding-assimilation) “They-do-not-film-a-fat-Australian-woman-in-tight bicycle-shorts …an-Australian-drunk … or-an-Australian-welfare-cheat. NO!! They show-a-Muslim-woman-wearing-a-Hijab, she-is-not-assimilating”

"What 'you' do is present a whole lot of philosophy about 'The nature of God.. what you said seemed more like a romanticization of how 'you' want God to be like, which you then read/projected back on the textual foundations of the faith."

That, in a nutshell, is at the core of most criticism of your own posts, boaz, be they about Islam (their team) or Christianity (yours).

(apologies again to those who have seen this post originally posted to the wrong thread).

Fellow_Human:We don’t call it the lucky country for nothing! Any young son of a migrant, educated in the Australian catholic education system, and LatrobeUni should have the chance to raise a $34 million paypacket regardless of race or religion! Ahmed Fahour wasn’t hired because he was a muslim and he can’t claim his success because of it.

I indicated that muslims living in Dar al-Harb, a country of predominately non-Muslims, were not a threat, and I know enough muslims to substantiate this from my own experience.

The underlying suggestion of Keyser was that Australia was at peace with Islam, when by the Islamic definition, it is not. Islam’s unilateral pursuit of dar al-Islam is mapped out in the holy book and there is no muslim voice to have this expurgated from the Qu’ran.

Conclusion: Behind the muslim greeting of peace is the paradox of sustained warfare and violence.

Keyser: while you condemn me and do not consider me worthy of salvation, my holy book says that God wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). He does not want any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). And most importantly, that the blood of Jesus Christ has purchased people from every tribe, lanugage, people and nation (Revelation 5:9).

For "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21)

And "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16).

My only desire is for your acceptance of the Gospel. Why else do I bother?

No worries katie0 - clearly an honest mistake :)

However, I'll repeat what I said in the other thread:

Don't you just love it when intelligent and polite Muslims come into a forum like this to explain their points of view, and the resident fundy Christians presume to correct them on their understanding of their religion?

<snip>

While I'm aware that (their) faith and fear apparently permeate every aspect of (their) apparently miserable existences, could (the Christian fundies) please be aware that this is not the case for normal people?

Dear_CJ.. you would do well to reflect on KatieO's words there..

CJ.. one challenge I find is that you seem to be on the outer looking in, and thus, you seldom tackle the issues under discussion, and end up just criticizing we critics :) Now.. I'm feeling more mellow towards you as of today, after the convo I mentioned in another thread with a lady at my gym. She could have been any of you 'anti GB' mob, but her reasoning was circular in the end, and I went no further as I realized she was in a rather sorry philosophical state.

You say we are wrong to criticize Kaysar about his own faith....right?

But consider this.. really.. would you ask Benny Hinn about "How much money should a Christian give"? Would you ask Jim Bakker about "Biblical Church financial policy and morality"?

Regarding Kaysar himself, I suggest you do a Wiki on him and find out what is there before critizing us too much about attacking his position.

The thing is, my own assertion is based on what their documents say, not so much on how they are interpreted. The documents themselves interpret them.
I went out today, and found a 'Bukhari' interlinear Arabic/English but the relevant volume was not there as it was abridged. The full set is like the Britannica in size (many volumes) I'll follow this up.
Kaysar says "It does not exist in the Arabic"
3 Islamic web sites show "It exists and they all have it word for word"

So.. this HAS to raise some questions in your mind about what is going on and what Kaysars agenda really is.

As Jesus said "a kingdom divided against itself will fall"
I cannot imagine various Muslim web sites publishing non existent hadiths under Bukhari's name. They would be found out immediately.

Once I establish the finality of the matter, then..... you are welcome to make your criticism.

I'm more sympathetic (but sad) to your position now, as it indicates a spiritual state which only Christ will satisfy and fix, (same for FH and Kaysar)
-blessings.

Viking13, being a failed state according to somebody’s judgement is not sufficient grounds for invasion, otherwise, everybody can nitpick and invade at will and steal another country’s resources and then blame then propagandise and we must swallow the popular media. Why not treat the entire subcontinent as part of India, historically, you can say that Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as Kashmir were parts of India. In fact this was the argument of Muslim scholars before the separation, but the Brits insisted on splitting India and creating these artificial borders, therefore, conflicts, but that is another digression from the main point and I won’t say more on it.

PaulL, I see non-religious extremists committing murder and other crimes in every country, when this happens in a Western country, I do not blame their religion for it, I do not call them Christian extremist. Even when I see unreasonable opposition to a Muslim school and Islamophobic attacks on Muslims, I do not blame the perpetrator’s culture or religion, but you don’t seem to wish to apply the same standard. The major wrong in your comment, mate, is that you picked on a response that I made to another person and treated it as a blanket statement. She accused Muslim countries of trying to expand through violence against the West, I gave her facts to disprove her accusations. You on the other hand have taken aberrations in these societies, aberrations that are condemned by Islam and you tarnish Islam with them.

The murderers who killed Daniel Pearl were not a state, they were not a nation, they were simply murderers, you cannot compare them to the state-run Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. You see the problem is that by saying what you are saying, you are playing the man and not the ball. If you say that killing Daniel Pearl is a contemptible crime, I am fully in agreement with you, if you say the killers are criminals, I am also in agreement with you, but when you blame it on Islam, then we part ways.

To Be Continued

Love and Best wishes.

KatyO, I never condemned you, I pray to God to help you see the light, for if you love God as you say, then eventually you will find the humility to stop judging others through a myopic interpretation of their scriptures whilst making every possible and impossible or implausible excuse for yours.

PaulL, I told you that I have answered all your questions on the forums quoted, I will not waste my word/post limit on OlO to elaborate, look them up.

Boaz, I am happy to show you my Arabic copies, bring your own interpreter if you wish. However, having said that, I told you that even if we assume that the Hadith is authentic, the fact that the translation shows those words in brackets means that this is the translator’s opinion and not part of the Hadith, please read carefully.

Boaz, As much as I love Christ, I do not turn to him but to God directly, for my faith empowers me to appeal directly to God, I do not need any intermediaries whose purported teachings have such a tremendous internal conflict, as I have previously discussed with you in our private emails, but, you have failed to answer my questions and came back to the forum. Suit yourself.

As for Wikipedia, any person can edit Wikipedia, I have complained to them countless times about fallacies that they have presented about me, every time they fix it, some ill-intentioned person seems to get on there and change the entry on me. Wikipedia has very little credibility when it comes to researching people, as my computer magazine asked on the front cover: Is Wikipedia broken beyond repair? My view, judging on their entries on me: Yes, most likely.

I have to leave you with the words of my most beloved messenger of Allah, Muhammad, the light of the hearts and their remedy, a man who has taught me to love you as much as myself, peace and blessings upon him: O Allah, bring guidance to my people(persecutors) for they known not what they are doing(saying).

Love & best wishes

Yeah well Boazy - at this time on a Friday night it looks very much like a Carlton vs Collingwood rivalry, when I've just watched St George just edge out Manly in proper football.

:P

CJ: Well, I'm guessing your premise is that if a point is worth making, it’s worth making twice! One question: where does all this “miserable existence” stuff come from? Apart from a pre-occupation with OLO ;), I have a great life, the type that most people are striving for. When I converted to Christianity, I was at worst, “contented”. I have a wonderful husband, beautiful children, and generally can’t complain (apart from a ski injury that needs some attention). Just four years ago I would have agreed with everything you say about Christians which proves (to me) the transformative power of the gospel….and gives me hope for you too CJ :)

K Trad: I used to say that I had a respect for the bible too. That was until I really came to grips with Christ’s abiding love for us. The bible doesn’t engender respect for the believer, it brings us to our knees.

Muslims do not follow either the Torah or the gospel but the Qu’ran, which claims to be the corrected version of a text corrupted and perverted by the Jew and the Christian. (Surah 5:49) A theological construct which understandably blocks muslims from accepting biblical authority.

However, I can state unequivocally (based on the scriptures) that your Christ is not my Christ. Jesus Christ, the son of God, a member of the Holy Trinity, fully human and fully God, was not a preacher of Islam.

Loving Christ means embracing the real Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for all of our sins and rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures, and desiring to walk in his ways. The Christ that is “part and parcel of the Muslim tradition” is not the Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

But you know this already, so you can’t take offense at my “interpretation” of Islam, else how would you be able to write to a believer of Christ <<then eventually you will find the humility to stop judging others through a myopic interpretation of their scriptures whilst making every possible and impossible or implausible excuse for yours>>.

MY God's bigger'n YOUR God.

So there!

Dear_Kayser.. you are on a fine edge here. You seem to be telling half truths.

Regarding the words in 'brackets'.. I totally agreed that they are the comments of a translator. I didn't argue for that. So.. to 'that' extent your saying ["It" is not in the Arabic] remains true.

PROBLEM is.. the bit NOT in brackets, (I've said this once already, it concerns me that you have ignored this)

states: "And the 'Iddat for the girl BEFORE PUBERTY is three months"

BRACKETED NOTES:

(i.e. they are still immature).

(65.4) (in the above Verse).

So, even leaving aside ALL the bracketed translators notes, we are STILL left with the undeniable fact that a girl before puberty is what is understood by Bukhari himself.

Now.. to quote the late Ahmad Deedat when mocking Christians about our supposed many Bible versions "What Games are you Muslims playing"?

So.. let me ask you again...

DOES your Arabic copy include the reference to "the iddat for those before puberty is 3 months"

as part of Bukhari's hadith Vol 7 book 62 number 63?

I'll persue this to the bitter end.. even if I have to download arabic and get 3 separate Arabic speaking translators to translate without knowing why or what for.

Just yesterday, at a certain place in Melbourne, when enquiring about this matter, the Muslim woman assisting me (when she heard which Quran verse I was researching) said "Oh.. do you know what age Romeo and Juliet were"? to which I replied "No, maybe 14?" a search just now shows Romeo approx 17 and Juliet almost 14.

Note.. ROMEO WAS NOT FIFTY THREE! I cannot comprehend how can describe a 53 yr old man who daily visited a girl playing with dolls and her playmates, and who, by her own confession had sexual relations with her at 9 as:

"my most beloved messenger of Allah, Muhammad, the light of the hearts and their remedy,"

That you promote that man, and that we yet still speak to you in civil terms, is where you will find divine grace, patience and love.

KatyO, as God is my witness, I have too much love for you to see you tormenting so. Even though I do not know you, I feel a love for you that transcends your misunderstandings. I felt joy for you as you expressed your finding of happiness, but, you are not truly happy, your writings exhibit pain and torment, you would certainly be better served corresponding with me privately rather than projecting this torment publicly.

God, the Only God, spoke the Holy Qur`an. He vouched for the chastity of Mary and the prophethood and miracles of Christ, I need nothing else to convince me. But when I read the Bible, I see Christ attacked with so many slurs and when I converse with people like yourself, I ask you, who these days fall on their faces and pray to God like Christ did in the Garden? Certainly not Christians, we Muslims put our faces on the ground, in total humility, as a community before God and pray as Christ did in the Garden.

But a literal reading of the Bible shows that Christ was not a willing sacrificial lamb, because in that garden prayer he asked God to remove that cup from him. And on the cross, your bible claims that he said: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? The New Testament claims that he was crucified, and the Old Testament says: Cursed is he who is hanged on a tree. You portray a Christ who is rude to his mother saying: Woman, what have I to do with thee. Yet in the Holy Qur`an, God Himself declares the innocence of Christ saying that Christ was: Kind, gentle and loyal to his mother. Then, after your depictions of Christ and allegations that he came to separate son from father and calls for his enemies to be brought so that he can slay them, you crucify him and declare him the god whose flesh and blood must be consumed in churches.

This proves that Islam has honoured Christ more than the Bible.

My heart bleeds for you.

Love

Boaz, obviously you are not reading my responses properly. I said to you, if the statement was authentic, it would be a reference to the Qur`an verse. This verse speaking about those who have not menstruated, this is a safety measure so that women who never menstruate or have irregular periods can still have their period of waiting. The verse says nothing about puberty, it simply says: Those who do not have their courses. I told you, my three Arabic copies do not have this alleged Hadith, come and inspect the pages for yourself. However, despite that, I told you that even if there was such a Hadith, I would be certain that the Arabic would be different to the English translation, that is an educated guess, this is why I would like to get the Arabic on which your translations are based, regardless of whether or not that Arabic is authentic. There is no suggestion in the Qur`an at all of underage sex, anybody that makes such a suggestion is speaking with a limited knowledge of women and their courses, this person may have never heard of a case of a woman not menstruating. That is not my problem, it seems to be your problem though, enough of a problem that you throw wild accusations, perhaps a sense of guilt over the topical paedophilia in the Church.

No Boaz, there is no love in your comments, just blind hatred and a closed-minded approach.

You just ignore all the great work of the messenger of Allah, peace and blessings upon him, for some obscure accusations and weak translations.

Again, Boaz, I will leave you with more words of this wonderful messenger of God, peace and blessings upon him, no one is compelling you to read my words or comment on them, but embracing him will liberate you from your own self-consuming hatred.

Muhammad, the messenger of God, peace and blessings upon him said: Paradise is under the feet of the mother.

He also said: The best of people are those who are most helpful to others.

My love and prayers.

BOAZ, K. TRAD and OTHER religios please read carefully.

I do not know whether there exists an entity that could be described as the creator of the universe. In that sense I am agnostic.

If a creator exists I do not know whether IT had anything we would recognise as a purpose in creating the universe.

If the creator had a purpose it is possible that we humans are as incidental to that purpose as were the rats on Columbus' ships to Columbus' purpose.

The actual reasons, if any, for the creation of the universe could lie beyond our event horizon so we may never know.

So much for what I do not know.

This I do know.

None of you can produce a shred of evidence that your holy books (so-called) are the "word" of the creator of the universe.

Looking at the koran and bible there is much evidence they are NOT the "word" of the creator. For one, neither book is consistent with what we now know about the nature of the world.

Muslim, Jewish and Christian scholars do make heroic attempts to reconcile their texts with science. They offer elaborate and misleading re-interpretations of scientific findings. They produce convoluted interpretations of their texts.

The interpretations are often 20 to 50 times as long as the text they are attempting to explain!

The net result is some of the most comical writing I have ever seen.

Monty Python could not have come up with anything funnier.

I'll leave you all with this thought. If your holy book rejects evolution – including the common ancestry of humans, chimps and other primates with cats, rats and dogs – then your holy book is wrong and CANNOT be the "word" of the creator of the universe.

Unless, of course, aforementioned creator has a really wicked sense of humour.

If there is a creator I believe it is GOD THE DIVINE COMEDIAN. Only a truly SUBLIME HUMORIST could create intelligent beings capable of producing this thread

Hear hear steven...

I have been diligently following this thread, hoping in vain for something remotely enlightening. It has of course degenerated into the usual "my god's better than yours" p*ssing match, dressed up as genuine concern for the spiritual well being of the poor misguided adherent of the "other" god.

I really feel sorry for you all.

As Sam Harris says so eloquently in "The End of Faith"

"If, as I contend throughout this book, all that is good in religion can be had elsewhere - if, for instance, ethical and spiritual experience can be cultivated and talked about without our claiming to know things we manifestly do not know - then all the rest of our religious activity represents, at best, a massive waste of time and energy. Think of all the good things human beings will not do in this world tomorrow because they believe that their most pressing task is to build another church or mosque, or to enforce some ancient dietary practice, or to print volumes of exegesis on the disordered thinking of ignorant men. How many hours of human labour will be devoured, today, by an imaginary God? Think of it: if a computer virus shuts down a nation's phone system for five minutes, the loss in human productivity is measured in billions of dollars. Religous faith has crashed our lines daily, for millennia. ... (But) we should still recognize what a fathomless sink for human resources (both financial and attentional) organized religion is."

Quite.

KTRAD,

You say “I see non-religious extremists committing murder and other crimes in every country, when this happens in a Western country, I do not blame their religion for it, I do not call them Christian extremist.”

You make my point for me. The non-religious extremists (what few there are) are not acting in the name of Christianity. The insurgencies across the globe are, so they say, acting in the name of Islam.

You say >> “The murderers who killed Daniel Pearl were not a state, they were not a nation, they were simply murderers, you cannot compare them to the state-run Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib”

What about the theocratic regime in Tehran, state sponsors of terrorist group Hezbollah? Or the Taliban, protectors of Al Qaeda. How about Hamas? Treatment meted out to prisoners in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia is regularly far more brutal than the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Beheadings, limb amputations and floggings are common place. In Iran they stone people to death, how barbaric can they get?

I find it surprising that you refuse to answer simple questions, or at the very least post a link to your answers. I have tried to find your supposed responses to these questions and I cannot do so. But why would I go to a website, where there is every possibility that someone has altered your responses. If you don't wish to participate in an open debate thats OK, thats your right, but it is beginning to seem to me that you are just hiding and that you are worried your answers will alienate your new found devotees from our soft-left.

SO! What are your views on Polygamy for Muslims in Australia? Do you think that homosexuality is an abomination and should be made illegal? Is there a role for Sharia Law in this country?

Did you say “yet, from the Muslim viewpoint, our ideology is the best salvation for the people of Australia, and the people of the world in general. Yes, we are a threat to the culture of drunkenness, pedophilia”

cont,

con't

Did you say this “They do not film a fat Australian woman in tight bicycle shorts …an Australian drunk … or an Australian welfare cheat. NO!! They show a Muslim woman wearing a Hijab, she is not assimilating”

Your boss Hilali, said, in 2004

Sons of Islam, there is a war on infidels taking place everywhere. The true man is the boy who opposes Israeli tanks with strength and faith. The boy who, despite his mother's objections, goes out to war to become a martyr like his elder brother. The boy who tells his mother: 'Oh mother, don't cry for me if I die. Oh mother, Jihad has been imposed on me and I want to become a martyr'."
SEPTEMBER 11 IS GOD'S WORK AGAINST OPPRESSORS. Some of the things that happen in the world cannot be explained; a civilian airplane whose secrets cannot be explained if we ask its pilot who reached his objective without error, who led your steps? Or if we ask the giant that fell, who humiliated you? Or if we ask the President, who made you cry? God is the answer.

Your comment to the suggestion that Hilali had done damage to the cause of Islam in this country

KTrad >>” I don’t accept that allegation. I have worked with Imam Hilali for a long time. I’ve been closely associated with him for five years and I’ve known him for nearly 20 years, and Imam HILALI IS, IN MY VIEW, THE VOICE OF MODERATION IN THIS COUNTRY, and he’s recognised as a voice of moderation throughout the world…. because he’s such an eloquent speaker in Arabic, IT CAN BECOME A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO EXPRESS THE BEAUTIFUL CONCEPTS AND IDEAS THAT HE HAS IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE.” (my capitals)

Regarding Darulfatwa Islamic High Council “They are fully entitled to exist, provided they do it in an open and clear manner. …I would say, ‘Good luck to you, but JUST DON’T COME INTO OUR TERRITORY AND CONFUSE OUR PEOPLE’.

Dear_Kaysar

I hope you are noting, that those most critical of your position here are atheists.

One very perceptive "stickman" said:

<<dressed up as genuine concern for the spiritual well being of the poor misguided adherent of the "other" god.>>

Could this be with reference to?

<<My heart _leeds_for_you.

Love

KatyO, as God is my witness, I have too much love for you to see you tormenting so>>

Kaysar.. "speaking the truth in love" is what Jesus commanded.

and my sister KatieO has actually read Matthew 4:1-11 and knows from whence you come.

I don't know how in this wide world you can enter into my own mind and heart and know what is going on there just from what I post here.
FH found me totally different in person than here.. so, I suggest you liase with him about how much 'hate' I dwell on :)

I detect a difference though between you and he. His position seems to be based on a genuine struggle to make sense of the world, religion, and Islam. He said things during our meeting which indicated this, and on that account, I can understand him better, and hold him close to my heart till this day.

I'm not sure if I could do the same for you, because you approach is too educated, scripted,- too much like one who deliberately adopts a very questionable approach, which includes outright denial of things I believe you know to be huge problems.

STEVEN.. you are right on the money.. as is Sticky... we cannot 'prove' our foundation documents. We can only 'proclaim' the Gospel of Grace and peace and love, of the Son of God, Final Revelation from the Father, and trust that the Holy Spirit will reach into hearts and bring about new lives.

Please bear in mind though, that even though we cannot 'prove' our documents, those same 'unprovable' documents form the basis of actions, and government policies in Sharia states, so to that extent, it is very important to appreciate what the documents (and founders) actually said and did 'according' to those documents.

StevenImeyer, who offended you to come out swinging? Please do not lump the Qur`an, which contains only words from the Creator with other writings that may quote some of the Creator’s words and much of the words of people. The theory of evolution does not impact on my faith? Part of its package that leads to a reinforcement of the notion of “survival of the fittest” concerns me! My belief system seeks to also help the fit along with the not-so-fit who may otherwise be trampled by the fittest. Yet, the saddest irony is that religion is depicted falsely as the cause of violence when it is the cause of love, respect and appreciation of others.

Stickman, I tend to partly agree with you that this thread is degenerating, I cannot deny some of the responsibility, however, I am bombarded with offensive aspersions and accusations, should I ignore them or attempt to answer them? I chose to answer as much as I could, perhaps against my own better judgement, but definitely motivated by a sense of love for everybody. I wanted to extract myself out of this debate a week ago when I saw that it was starting to become circular, one just needs to look at PaulL, I have directed him to the answers to his questions, but he continues, unabated, like a badly broken record. I am not seeking sympathy. Perhaps I should ignore the posts from people who are appearing more on the offensive every time they write.

I think perhaps I should take a different tack. I will continue to post every time someone responds, if no one responds or OlO choose to close this particular article, then obviously that would be the end.

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, NY: Hart Publishing 1978, p33

So Boaz, am I supposed to leave my mind at the door and just believe your apologetics ignoring the words in your scriptures and their meanings and in the process, take the worst view of Islam, without any scriptural justification. Is this your way of Lording yourself on others?

"Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty, he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.

"Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God's word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded "Read." So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one God."

"In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumours of God's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, "An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being." "At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: "If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever." James A. Michener, "ISLAM: THE MISUNDERSTOOD RELIGION," in READER'S DIGEST (American edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70.
From: http://www.islam101.com/dawah/what_muhammad.html

Disclaimer: quoting from a website is not an endorsement for everything on the site.

With My love and Best wishes.

Thank you to OLO for hosting Mr Trad since he has been black banned from talk back radio.

This has been very instructional. I am now hoping for the Trivial Pursuit question, Who was the first recorded toy boy?

Dear Kaysar

I should assist you in understanding why debates of this nature do indeed degenerate into a kind of 'back and forth' of an increasingly callous nature.

FIRST.. you make 2 regular assertions which cause others to be most concerned (to us the mildest euphemism I can think of)

such as

1/ "God said" and then, you attach this phrase to the Quran.

then

2/ "Mohammad my beloved prophet"

Now.. on both counts you are in fact declaring other faiths, particularly Christianity "invalid".. but worse, the Quran describes the Christians as those with whom Allah: (9:30)

-Curses (Pikthal)
-fights against (Pikthal)
-May Allah destroy them (Shakir)

The situation is worse for the 'pagans and idolators'

The Christians(and Jews...Steven) are described as:

"deluded, away from truth (Yusuf Ali)"
"How perverse they are" (Pikthal)
"Turned away" (Shakir)

(This is hate speech and religious vilification)

All I've done is show how I, and my faith are specifically described by name in 'your' holy book which you describe as "God said"

In the case of Christians, the REASON they are described thus in the verse in Question is:

"the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah"

Notice now we are NOT condemned for any particular 'act' against Muslims....nope..its for ONE reason.. "The Messiah is the Son of Allah"

Well.. Kaysar.. we STILL say that, as does all mainstream Christianity.. even the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses say that, (with different meaning though)

So, thus far, I've said nothing except what 'your' holy book says...about us.

Now..given such a harrowing indictment of 2 segements of humanity, I'm surprised that YOU are surprised that 'we' (Jews and Christians) take extreme exception to the suggestion that:

a)The Quran is 'God said'
b)Mohammad is a prophet.

Both those assertions will be attacked 'as if a matter of life and death' because in an Islamic state under a Caliph who would stone homosexuals, and punish 'shirk' that's what they would be.
You see, to 'be' Christian is the PROCLAIM publically, the Sonship of Christ.

Well K.TRAD,

I HAVE TO SIDE WITH BOAZ ON THIS ONE.

He at least is prepared to concede that he has NO EVIDENCE that his holy book (so-called) is the "word" of the creator of the universe.

You, on the other hand, seem to be labouring under the ILLUSION that you have evidence that your so-called holy book, the koran, really is the "word" of the creator of the universe.

Now who is being more reasonable?

--One who knows he has NO EVIDENCE for his unfounded beliefs and admits it freely?

--Or one who pretends, or perhaps FOOLS HIMSELF into thinking, that he has evidence for his unfounded beliefs?

The reality is almost certainly that neither "holy book" is the "word" of the creator of the universe.

Not unless the creator is the great divine comedian that is.

WHY CAN'T EITHER OF YOU LEAVE YOUR DELUSIONS BEHIND?

Thanks for your support STICKMAN

Boazy, Boazy.. my comment was aimed as much at you as at Keysar.. and if you are going to talk directly to Keysar, at least do him the courtesy of spelling his name correctly!

Likewise Keysar, I was not having a go at you specifically, just the general tone of this thread. Alas, I fear any such thread is doomed to a similar outcome.

I find all organised religion basically thoroughly distasteful. I find all of your texts abhorrent, in part at least. You can rationalise it away as much as you want, with talk of "context" but there is hateful sentiment in the Qu'ran and the Bible.

Another Sam Harris quote to leave you with. After listing a full four pages of quotes from the Qu'ran, lambasting infidels like myself and describing in detail the corner of hell reserved for me, he says:

"I cannot judge the quality of the Arabic perhaps it is sublime. But its contents are not. On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can read passages like those quoted above and still not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist."

And yes, Keysar, I know the bible (especially OT) contains similar.

You talked about Danny Pearl earlier in the thread, stating his murderers were merely that - murderers. But like it or not, that crime was committed in the name of Islam. As was 9/11. Whenever "faith" is held to be a virtue, you will find people willing to take that faith to its nth degree and committ heinous crimes in its name.

If we take faith to be a strongly held belief without need of any evidence, then the above are inevitable consequences, as it is that some Christians will find it acceptable to murder abortionists to prevent greater evil (in their worldview).

K.TRAD writes:

"Please do not lump the Qur`an, which contains only words from the Creator with other writings…"

But that's the whole point K.TRAD old son. You are, as the lawyers are fond of saying, assuming facts not in evidence.

FIRST you have to demonstrate that the koran contains any words from the creator. THEN I'll accord it the respect you think it deserves.

But you cannot prove the koran "contains only words from the Creator." There is no EVIDENCE.

On the other hand there is quite a bit of evidence that the koran is NOT the word of the creator. At the very least I would expect the creator to get the basic facts of biology, geology and cosmology right in an UNAMBIGUOUS fashion. By "unambiguous" I mean something that does not require 20 – 50 words of interpretation for every word in the aya. Nor should it require assumptions about uncertainties in the tenses of Arabic verbs.

I certainly expect the creator to be able to do better than paraphrase the second century anatomist, Galen, on the development of the embryo. (Dr. Keith Moore's preposterous claims notwithstanding.)

When you read the koran you may see the words of the creator. When I read the koran all I see is poppycock. Perhaps it is poppycock that is beautifully expressed in Arabic; but it is still poppycock.

You may find my language offensive K.TRAD. But here's the thing. You may demand that I respect your right to believe what you want. And I do.

But that's different from respecting the beliefs themselves. That you cannot demand of me.

You may believe that the koran is the uncorrupted word of a creator. You may try to propagate that belief. That is your right.

I on the other hand have the right to attack, ridicule and satirise that point of view. I even have the right to lampoon your prophet (so-called) in cartoons.

That's the way this freedom of speech thing works old son.

Keyser: I won’t take you up on the invitation to correspond privately, thank you, as I am not afraid to risk your public condemnation, of my motives or the state of my soul.

I agree with you that the Qu’ranic Jesus and the biblical Jesus are not the same, and you are no longer being duplicitous about that.

As the gospels are a record of Jesus’ life and ministry, based on eyewitness accounts written in living memory, I will continue believing in the original Jesus. The bible is the source of my confidence:

Hebrews 12
2. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sad down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

2 Corinthians 5
14. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation:
20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Well, we’ve seen what the Qu’ran says about Jesus Christ, but what does the bible say about Mohammed?

Did the bible prophecy the coming of Mohammed?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deuteronomy_deductions.htm

*I was particularly interested in the “Principle of Embarrassment” as it applies to the Satanic Verses.*

In a democracy there is a cacophony of voices: and we LOVE it that way: mine, Keyser Trad’s, Ginx’s …. People with passion and conviction expressing opinions, or just people who want to air grievances or debate a point. The enemy of this is suppression. So,

Stevenlmeyer, you can’t argue for the principle of free speech on one hand, but implore

<<WHY CAN'T EITHER OF YOU LEAVE YOUR DELUSIONS BEHIND?>>

on the other, and hope to protect this basic freedom.

Stickman & Ginx: it’s not really a case of my God’s BETTER than yours. Thanks for following the thread but I think you’ve missed the subtext (ie. that the Qu’ran and the bible are mutually exclusive).

Stickman: just what do you do with your blessing of abundant, unburdened time? Cure for cancer? Well it’s a new argument for atheism – to be better time managers, although totally 1990s. It’s quality not quantity these days: just get your work done – it doesn’t matter what time you clock on or clock off. At least that’s what we tell ourselves, us mums trying to juggle all the pressures that modern day society demands of us. Building churches? I wish….

Dear Sticky :) yes.. I fully realized that your comments were also directed towards me. I welcome them.

Regarding 'evidence'.. the most we (Christians) can say is that we offer a 'compelling case' to reason.

The Gospel..the 'euangellion' in greek, the 'good news' is as KatieO so aptly pointed out:

That "He who knew no sin, became sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God"...

Repentance from sin, and faith in Christ/The Gospel is what we offer, and make known, how people react to that is entirely their decision.

The historical facts this relies on, are contentious, yes, but usually for 'theological' reasons :) In Keysars case, he cannot (as with Mohammad his founder) accept any kind of Christ who 'rises' from the dead as this is a threat to the whole notion of Mohammad's self understanding and the subsquent self understanding/religious position of Muslims.

Hence..the Islamic perspective involves a revision of real history to fit an 'Islamic/Mohammad friendly' mould.

For the atheist... the denial of Christ's resurrection is probably partly 'moral' (I don't 'want' to believe such a thing) and partly scientific/Empirical "People don't rise from the dead today, thus, Jesus could not have"

My Original Assertion/Keysars response.

Both the PRIMARY source (Quran)and the SECONDARY source (Bukharis' hadith) and the TERTIARY source (Ibn Kathir/Maududi/others) of Islamic knowledge, confirm my assertion to be true.

The idea Keysar wants us to believe that the Translator of Bukhari, Muhsin Khan 'invented' the hadith in question is absurd. Khan spent his final years in MEDINA and had he added or invented, he probably would have been stoned to death.
So, on every level, "Islam" has an implied permission for the marriage to, sexual use of and divorce of pre-pubescent female children.

Khans work is connected to "Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" or the most valued Sunni commentary of Sahih Bukhari, written by Ibn Hajr Asqalani in 18 volumes.

"invented/non_authentic"? Keysar..thats a joke...right?

May God guide in Christ.

KatieO said "
Stickman: just what do you do with your blessing of abundant, unburdened time? Cure for cancer? "

Yeah maybe Katie.. I am currently in my 4th year of a 5 year medical degree.. ;)

Whatever it is that I do with that blessing of abundant, unburdened time that I have left after studying/working and looking after my 9 month old son though, it won't involve arguing the merits of man-made thousand year old texts and their interpretations.

Peace :)

Boazy.. you are welcome to your interpretation of my denial of Christ's resurrection.. but I fear you overestimate markedly my interest in your myths. I was raised Catholic and spent about 16 years of my life in church pews, wondering if I was the only one in there that didn't really feel that there was much in the way of truth being spoken.

My life is wonderful and awe-inspiring enough... and I just don't need what you are selling, thanks!

Dear Sticky...

being raised in a Catholic environment, helps me to understand some of your skepticism.

I was raised in 'nothing' and my first adult encounters with 'The Church' involved going from one to the other and trying to get a feel for what was real and what was not. (In my 20s)..

First..I tried 'Anglican' but I had big issues with the "liturgy"..
Then I tried 'Methodist' (which at the time was still going separately from the Uniting)... found that better but still... not quite right..
Tried the Catholics.. hmmm lots more people, but still.. the liturgy and do this, then that..then the other thing.. sit down stand up kneel... etc.. hmm too much for me.

All I wanted was to meet people who had a living faith in their hearts... finally I did, they happened to be Baptists, but the 'brand' was not the issue..it was Christ in them.

I'm not selling :) anything.. I can understand your 'interesting' life etc.. been there..done that.. and how so!...

While not 'selling'..I am offering something priceless, as Jesus said
"the kingdom of God is like a man who discovered a treasure in a field, then went and sold everything he had and bought that field"

Did you know that Jesus mentions YOU in one of his parables? :) yess.. its true..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=13&version=31

Check that out and see which 'soil' are you? Parable of the sower.

blessings

CowboyJoe, for your information, talkback radio still call me for interviews, I do not call them unless I am returning a call.

Boaz, I have already shown you that for every out of context quote you make from the Qur`an, I can give you real quotes of a worse nature from your own Scriptures, wake up. In one post, you refer to my approach as “educated”, then fearing the truth, you call it “scripted”, whether either, it is a contradiction for you to come in your later post and claim your slanted views to be based on “compelling reason”. There is no reason in your arguments, just blind-following, blind clinging to something that is totally unreasonable. Instead of wasting your time here Boaz, have a look at this and argue with these people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y&feature=related

StevenImeyer, like I said, I am not on the forum to win converts, merely to educate with fact as opposed to the misinformation peddled by people like Boaz. Plenty of evidence for the Qur`an, but a public forum with a word limit does not give me enough space, read my book Islam for your information, the second edition is available online free. Doctor Keith Moore is an expert in his field? For those who wish to read what he said about the Qur`an, click on the link rather than just taking StevenImeyer’s word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egDYF_oQ4yc
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73EfykhtXsE&feature=related
&
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

Stickman, read “why I don’t believe in atheists” by Chris Hedges, a New York Times journalist for a few concerns about people like Sam Harris.

KatieO, whatever makes you happy. These Youtube Docos may be interesting for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji2Y8DddaU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXKTGYyx1vg&feature=related
Former Christian missionary Gary Miller has this to say about the Qur`an:
http://www.jannah.org/articles/amzquran.html
and for those who prefer video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grrD6V38Nuo&feature=related

"I have studied him - the wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ he must be called the saviour of humanity. " George Bernard Shaw in "The Genuine Islam"

Love and best wishes

K Trad wrote: "...I am...merely to educate with fact as opposed to the misinformation peddled by people... Plenty of evidence for the Qur'an,..."

Let's see...

I put it to you that Mohammad never met an Angel from God. Mohammad simply lied, lied and told more lies. This led to a false religion called Islam...

Keysar, based on your brave words above, can you point to me evidence that Mohammad had met with an Angel ??

GZ,

Of course there was no angel dictating the koran to Muhammad!

Do you really think a messenger from the creator of the universe would get the science so wrong?

K.TRAD,

I think I'll give your book a miss old son. At my age I've had my fill of books by true believers seeking to persuade me that their brand of self-deception happens to be true.

You cite KEITH MOORE as an "expert." He may or may not be an expert on embryology but his statement shows woeful ignorance of scientific history.

When Keith Moore publishes his findings in a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL such as Nature, Science, PNAS, Cell, or one of similar ranking I'll pay attention. Till then he's just another pseudo-academic on the make.

Come to think of it I am not aware of ANY articles in PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS that demonstrate any scientific foreknowledge in the koran.

Why do you suppose that is?

Dear Keysar...

You are quite free to counter my assertions, by insulting Christianity, and by posting Youtube links....which portray
"Christianity" in a very poor light. No one will ban you from here like I'd get (and have been) banned from 'Muslim village'...

Now.. It took me 1m 17s into one of your 'Christianity is evil' youtube links to see that.. I AGREE with you :).. yes..I do.. as soon as I saw 'Benny Hinn'... I said.. "This" version of Christianity is awful, evil, deceptive etc and..is NOT Biblical.

THE REAL ISSUE... (as I've been laboring on this forum for many years now).. is NOT 'how contemporary religion X is manifest' in a particular place or time.......BUT.. and please understand this... (as I think others are beginning to tweak to it)

The issue is..WHAT do the foundation documents, and the founder of religion X 'say'... and.. is what they said applicable to 'today'?

Now.. it doesn't take much biblical understanding to be able to write Benny Hinn off as a loony (albeit a smart one) and DEFinitely NOT a person who exemplifies anything remotely resembling our Lord Jesus.

But..it takes just 2 things to realize that Islam is a different kettle of fish.

1/ Your statements in this very thread "God said" in reference to the Quran.

2/ This story of HOW 'what God said' was applied in this modern outworking of that thing which "God said"

Quran 4:34 "Finally, you may BEAT them" (wives)

GERMANY:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,487238,00.html

Now.. you cannot claim we are 'taking the verse out of context' as it specifically teaches and outlines how to treat wives.. I mean.. that IS the meaning of the verse IN context.

Applying this:
-The Moroccan born Muslim husband beat his wife.
-The Wife wanted divorce.
-The German judge denied it on the grounds that the Quran allows wife beating.

"Game over" :)

May God (the True God) Guide you and all Muslims to faith in God in Christ as He 'really' is. Son of God, Savior, Redeemer.

Boazy: << You are quite free to counter my assertions, by insulting Christianity, and by posting Youtube links....which portray
"Christianity" in a very poor light. No one will ban you from here like I'd get (and have been) banned from 'Muslim village'...
>>

Boazy, despite your tedious practice of treating it as if it is, OLO isn't 'Christian village'. Your point is irrelevant.

<< please understand this... (as I think others are beginning to tweak to it) >>

You're having a lend of yourself, mate. But what else is new?

CJ,

Mate you don't have to participate in this debate if you don't like its direction.

Are you arguing for Boaz to be censored just because you don't like what he says? Because if you are, I'm asking Graham for you to be next.

KTRAD,

you say "wanted to extract myself out of this debate a week ago when I saw that it was starting to become circular, one just needs to look at PaulL, I have directed him to the answers to his questions, but he continues, unabated, like a badly broken record. I am not seeking sympathy"

Well it must be soo tough to be you. Take some cement with your breakfast and harden up.

The reason it is circular is because you insist on not answering the questions I posed. No one gets away with that on OLO, except, it seems, you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the first place, and am still willing to listen, but it reflects very poorly on you that you do not have the courage to stand up and either defend, or deny the things you are reported as saying.

There is no transcript for your conversations with Jones etc. You are a gutless wonder. You just refuse to answer the hard questions. Arguing the scriptures with christians is of little relevance to most of us. But keep on pretending that you are fully engaging if you wish.

Paul.L, I think you must be Boaz's alter ego. Same bigotry. Slightly better spelling. Fewer capital letters.

>>The reason it is circular is because you insist on not answering the questions I posed.<<

This, I'm afraid, is a trait not confined to K Trad.

Christians also run a mile when asked to explain why they continue to have this irrational addiction to the words written a couple of millenia ago by a handful of religious publicists.

The reason has nothing to do with the brand of religion, I have observed, merely its existence.

To the unbiased observer these arcane arguments as meaningful as two crows squabbling over the remains of a dead mouse, as relevant as yesterday's weather forecast and as edifying as Windows Solitaire.

>>Arguing the scriptures with christians is of little relevance to most of us.<<

I wish you would take Boaz aside, and let him know that precisely the same applies to his arguments over the Qur'an.

Pericles,

I think you have misunderstood. I’m not criticizing the Koran. In the end I could care less what Ktrad and Boaz believe about why we are here and who made us. My interest is in how these beliefs affect the rest of us.

I feel that KTrad has been significantly less than forthcoming on a whole host of non-koranic issues. His support for Hilali and Islamic influence in Australia has been totally off limits. He refuses to discuss it. I find that kind of behaviour, from someone who is claiming to be open and honest, incredibly patronising and immensely hypocritical.

An important point regarding Islam and muslims in general, is that the general public knows very little about them, On the one hand you have people like Boaz who point out, perhaps correctly, that the Koran contains quite a few unpleasant passages. (So does the bible). This becomes relevant when you are dealing with Muslims who are literalists. But just because the Koran says something unpleasant doesn’t mean all muslims interpret it in a manner which is dangerous or detrimental to the rest of us.

On the other hand you have the apologists from the left who repeat ad-nauseam that Islam is a religion of peace. For some mulims this might be true. For the new generation of literalist and pan-Islamists this is not. A recent survey of Muslim schoolchildren in Britain found that 34% supported the death penalty for apostasy.

How the numbers break down, in terms of who's a moderate and who's not, is almost impossible to tell. However there is little doubt of the growing influence of pan-Islamic and literalist strains among younger muslims, particularly in the west.

Regarding Boaz, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be allowed to argue scriptures with KTrad. However I do think at times that he places too great an emphasis on the scriptures when trying to explain people’s behaviour. It might explain the behaviour of fundamentalists, but not everyone is a fundamentalist.

I wonder how you can label me a bigot? Produce some evidence or take it back.

GJ, Treating you as fair-dinkum, this is my response:

1 – He said that he met the angel Gabriel

2 – He said that the angel revealed words from God to him.

3 – These words of God say: “If you think that they are from other than God, then try to emulate them”, if you cannot, try to emulate ten chapters, if you cannot, try one chapter” etc. The words also say: “Had it been from other than God, you would have found therein much contradiction.”

For 1400 years, people have tried to disprove the Qur’an through emulating some of its words. The closest they have come was to plagiarise some chapters and change a few words around. This is not emulation, it is plagiarism. My evidence for the veracity of the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, is found in the Qur`an, which is the living miracle and in the life of the prophet who was always referred to as “the honest one” or “the trustworthy one”, until he began to proclaim the message of God publicly, this is when they started to slander him.

StevenImeyer, it may be worthwhile for you to read up more about Prof. Keith Moore before making these incorrect statements.

Boaz, I am not insulting Christianity, merely telling you that you are failing one of the key Christian teachings: “Judge not lest ye be judged”. And the one I keep quoting, “don’t look for the sawdust in my eye and ignore the plank in yours.” Why is it when I quote the bible, you call it “insulting Christianity”? Is Christianity based on the Bible or not? Or are we going back to the dark ages when priests told worshippers not to read the bible, just to believe them? I will answer your other question in another post as I am running out of word-space.

PaulL, so you call it courage when you anonymously insult me and cast aspersions on me? I am not here to promote myself, I have directed you to the answers, purchase the recordings from Media Monitors.

Pericles, Paul.L is most definitely NOT A BIGOT. I only know this because I just read it - prior to that I also laboured under that apparent misapprehension. I must have been led astray by all the Islamophobic, prudish and generally intolerant far-right comments that he posts here.

Paul.L: << Are you arguing for Boaz to be censored just because you don't like what he says? Because if you are, I'm asking Graham for you to be next. >>

Why would you think that I'm arguing for Boazy to be censored? Are you arguing that I should be censored for arguing against the repetitive, bigoted tripe that he posts here that "insults Islam", not to mention the endless idiotic YouTube links?

Boazy hoist himself on his own petard so often that the last thing I'd want is for him to be censored.

Given Paul.L's predilection for spitting out insults and innuendo at those with whom he disagrees, perhaps he should have a good look at himself before issuing silly threats - which are, of course, fair indication that he's reached the limit of whatever capacity he has to mount an argument.

Those who want non-BOAZ non-K.TRAD expositions on the koran may consider two "blogging the koran" sites.

The first blogger is Ziauddin Sardar. The Guardian publishes his blog. As you might expect of anything appearing in the Guardian, this is the "politically correct" version. It is the koran as Leftie westerners want it to be.

See:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/

Ziauddin Sardar also writes for the New Statesman. Here is a link to a recent article titled "The racism behind integration"

See:

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/05/european-muslims-integration

Quote:

"They[the Left] may be liberal about immigration but, when it comes to Muslims, they fall prey to an Islamophobia that is "nourished by a mixture of feminism and secularism"

By his own admission Sardar is not a koranic scholar. At least one scholar is unhappy with Sardar's efforts. See:

Abdullah al-Hasan v Ziauddin Sardar: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/abdullah_alhasan/profile.html

One wonders why the Guardian did not ask a recognised Islamic scholar to blog the koran. Perhaps because an actual scholar might have interpreted the koran in way that Guardian readers would find unappealing.

The second blogger is Robert Spencer. His blog appears in the decidedly downmarket web pages of JihadWatch.

See:

http://jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

I think his interpretation of the koran is probably closer to that held by most Muslims throughout the world.

These two blogs represent the extremes. The one tells apologists for Islam what they want to hear. The other tells those who have nothing but contempt for Islam (like me) what we allegedly want to hear.

Why not read both and decide for yourselves which interpretation of the koran most closely matches the text TAKEN AS A WHOLE.

If you absolutely cannot bring yourself to condemn the koran for the trash that it is without also taking a pot shot at the bible you may salve your conscience by reading this site:

http://www.evilbible.com/

K.TRAD

YOU ARE EVADING THE POINT. If Moore is correct, if the koran really does contain scientific knowledge, this is a finding of the utmost importance. Why does Moore's work not appear in a quality peer-reviewed journal like Nature?

Keysar,

You did not provide a single proof or evidence that Mohammad had met angel Gabriel.

Keysar: "1 He said that he met the angel Gabriel"

This is not evidence at all, just Mohammad's words.
Many murderers insist they are innocent. If your reasoning is acceptable, then all those murderers would be out of jail.

Keysar: "2 He said that the angel revealed words from God to him."

This is same as (1). Mohammad simply lied and was not able to provide a proof.

Keysar: "3 These words of God say..."

Those are not God's words. They were just Mohammad's words.
They are completely irrelevant as evidence that Mohammad had met angel Gabriel. Mohammad simply told lies after lies.

Come on, as a spokesman of your faith, you have to do better than this.

My charge remains - Mohammad never met an angel from God. Mohammad simply lied, lied and told more lies. This led to a false religion called Islam... that is based on nothingness.

Islam's foundation is based on Mohammad's lies.

GZ, what's your point? that some religions are allowed implausible beliefs, but others are not?
why not pick on the many fine christians on this thread in exactly the same manner?

Dear Keysar.... I wish to draw your attention to just 2 points this time.

1/ You said in an earlier post as follows:

"God, the Only God, spoke the Holy Qur`an."

Now.. maybe I'm missing something here, but.. that sounds rather 'fundamentalist' to me :).. if you believe they are the 'very words of Allah'... then.. I find myself rather amazed that you then repudiate those words which I quote to you such as: (9:30 variously translated by Muslims)

"they are deluded, perverse, away from truth, Allah fights against them, May Allah destroy them" (Jews and Christians.. 9:30)

The difficulty here is.. that even IN context, the 'Christians' who Allah is at war with are..."THOSE WHO BELIEVE CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD"....now..sorry for all the caps ... but this point is being lost on you. I.. ME.. my family, my Church, my fellow evangelical Christians,all Catholics.. do, as true Christians have done since the Lord Himself delcared it..believe absolutely, utterly, finally and completely in the Sonship of Christ....and your holy book condemns us..for that!

I hope you gain a tiny insight there.. as to just how FAR apart are Islam and Christianity..and WHY we are so adamant that Islam is a false religion, given that it not only denies the Sonship of Christ but also declares WAR on those to believe it.

2/ Planks and Specks.

In context...

a) Who spoke those words?
b) To whom did he speak them?
c) What was he alluding to?

He was referring to those coming into the Kingdom of God!
Jesus was the speaker..addressing those he called into the kingdom.
He was referring to interpersonal relationships IN...that kingdom.
He was saying "If you are my family, you must not judge each other in a petty way.. you all have faults"

That same Lord Jesus also condemned false teachers and those who rejected the Gospel(after undeniable proof) .. was He playing 'planks and specks' ? NO! he was 'judging' religious falsehood and carnality.

So, His example I follow.
I don't feel this is 'self consuming hate'...rather obedience to my Lord.

Boaz,

You said:

FH found me totally different in person than here.. so, I suggest you liase with him about how much 'hate' I dwell on :)

Honestly you are a puzzle: I agree that in person you seem like a nice tolerant person. I am not sure why you become a 'different person in here'. You also seem to be self aware that you have 2 personalities one 'in here' and the other is 'in person'.

Over the last 3 years, I can summarize the issues of communicating with you in the following 2 points:

- Even though you say you read a lot, you seem incapable of acquiring any new learning. The sole purpose of reading is learning, unlearning, re-learning. Makes me wonder why do you bother reading anything about theology at all if all you do is parroting and re-parroting what you were taught as a young missionary.

Here is a challenge:
Can you name a single 'thing' tha you managed to relearn about Islam from interacing with me and few other Muslims on OLO?

I can list tens of learnings.

- I will assume that you want to be a good missionary and want followers. Using what you did on OLO for the last years, you are not doing a good job. Why don't you practice what you preach by telling other how beautiful your faith is without throwing mud on others? Do you see any other faith follower on this forum doing that?

Regarding your comments re the prophet of Islam, any Muslim knows by heart that prophet Mohammed was subject to vicious and malicious character assassination attempts throughout history. Cheer growth of Islam and Muslims proves its failure.
Like any other religion, Islam is here to stay Boaz. Live with it instead of aggravating yourself and others.

Peace,

FH

Boaz, you overwhelm us with monotonous repetitiveness, surely you can learn and move on. I already advised you, the Mufti describes the entirety of Sura 9 as a historic record relating to a certain breach of treaty by the non-Muslims. As for the verse that deals with domestic violence, its purpose is to stop domestic violence by telling the man that he has to seek counselling first. This gives the wife plenty of opportunity to leave or get support if she feels that her husband is going down the path of violence.

Boaz, If God is saying that He is offended by the allegation of begetting a child, who are we to challenge Him? Then I ask, which child is more begotten than Christ? The Bible attributes many sons to God as follows:
Luke 3:38 names Adam as a son of god, Exodus 4:22 names Jacob, Jeremiah 41:9 names Ephraim, Psalms 2:7 names David, and Genesis 6: 2 & 4 names all men as sons of god.
Romans 8:14 names all who are led by the spirit as “sons of god”.

God is perfect, independent of gender, does not beget and is not begotten.

StevenImeyer, I was hoping that you would google Keith Moore yourself, here are two of many links that should hopefully answer your questions, one indicates that he published 50 academic papers, his name comes up under some journals, but I could not establish whether he is being quoted by others or had his own paper:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1552-6909.1974.tb00577.x?prevSearch=authorsfield%3A%28keith+moore%29
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Clinically-Oriented-Anatomy-Keith-Moore/dp/0683061410
http://www.thisistruth.org/

Thank you CJMorgan, BB and FH.

I am going to leave you with the words of Goethe, an intellectual giant who I am told embraced Islam:

Quoted in T.P. Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 526:
"However often we turn to it [the Qur'an] at first disgusting us each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence...Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand, terrible – ever and anon truly sublime – Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence."

Love and best wishes.

Keysar,

You have not provided a shred of evidence that Mohammad had met angel Gabriel.
Are you trying still ?? It shouldn't take this long.

It is quite alright to tell us:
(1) No, Mohammad never proved that he met with an angel from God.
(2) You are not able to provide an evidence of such a meeting.

Do you have the courage to admit this ??

Don't you worry about Boaz, stevenmeyer or anyone. You have a far bigger problem in your face:

<< Islam's foundation is based on Mohammad's lies >>

Bushbasher,
There is no requirement that if I challange Islam then I must also challenge all other religions.

GZ, that is true. you don't HAVE to attack other religions for similarly implausible beliefs. but can't you see that it appears very strange that you don't? you don't think mine is a natural question to ask?

you repeatedly bombard K trad with questions, in the most aggressive manner, presumably expecting him to respond. i politely ask you one question and you think it reasonable to dismiss my question out of hand?

G Z, you are entirely missing the point. Which, I suspect, is a deliberate act on your part.

>>There is no requirement that if I challange Islam then I must also challenge all other religions<<

Surely it must occur to you - even you - that your last attempt at points-scoring is in fact an own goal?

>>You have not provided a shred of evidence that Mohammad had met angel Gabriel<<

And your justification for this?

>>You did not provide a single proof or evidence that Mohammad had met angel Gabriel.

Keysar: "1 He said that he met the angel Gabriel"

This is not evidence at all, just Mohammad's words.<<

If you do not regard this particular scripture as "proof or evidence", on what basis do you consider the christian scriptures to be different?

Are they not also in the same category?

All of it eventually comes down to the single phrase, "he said".

On what basis do you permit yourself to believe the words of one ancient scribe over another?

In logic, that is.

If it is simply faith, that's fine.

But in admitting this, you should be able to allow others the same licence to believe whatever their religion tells them is the scripture to be trusted.

I'm genuinely looking forward to your response on this.

Preferably answering the question without peppering it with extraneous quotes from other sources - this is merely a question about how you, G Z, go about choosing to determine what constitutes "proof or evidence"..

GZ: << I put it to you that Mohammad never met an Angel from God. Mohammad simply lied, lied and told more lies. This led to a false religion called Islam...

Keysar, based on your brave words above, can you point to me evidence that Mohammad had met with an Angel ?? >>

I put it to you that Jesus was not the son of God, was not born from a virgin mother, and never rose from the dead. Jesus simply lied, lied and his followers wrote those lies down. This led to a false religion called Christianity.

GZ, based on your brave words above, can you point me to to empirical evidence (not from the bible, which is simply more lies)) that Jesus was the son of God, had a virgin mother, or rose from the dead?

CJ,

I’ve got to say, you calling me a bigot, islamophobic and a far-right winger I take with some amusement.

What it really means is that I’m not one of your soft-left, grievance mongering armchair socialists. I thank the Gods for this. You call me intolerant, yet your support for the truly intolerant regimes of the world is well known.

For you to suggest that I spit out “insults and innuendo” makes it very clear that you are a hypocrite of the highest order. Further, I suggest you harden up a bit, petal. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it as well.

You say>> “Why would you think that I'm arguing for Boazy to be censored?

Yet you say >>”Boazy, despite your tedious practice of treating it as if it is, OLO isn't 'Christian village'.”

Who do you think you are to tell others what they can and can’t post. That’s called censorship in my book. I don’t believe OLO stands for Soft-Left Village either, yet you treat it as such. No one has pulled you up for consistently taking the politically correct position on every issue.

So, if you believe you have the right to tell others you don’t want to hear their opinion, then I have to say that yours should be next in line to go.
BTW This isn’t a threat you sad pathetic little man, merely a preference. That you struggle to see this doesn’t surprise me. You’re a perfect example of the old saying “I only see what I believe.”

Your unwillingness to question some of the offensive things that KTrad has been reported to have said, shows that you believe Muslims should be treated differently to other OLO respondents. That is bigotry. Your, sometimes quite nasty, attacks on the Christian fundis are conspicuous by their absence when it comes to Muslims

K.TRAD,

Keith Moore has published and co-authored a number of papers in his field. These have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. That's what your Google search turned up. I was already aware of the links you posted; and many more.

However K.TRAD, here is the point. PLEASE TAKE NOTE.

NONE of the articles he has published in peer-reviewed scientific journals has anything to do with scientific miracles (so called) in the koran.

Now get this K.TRAD

The discovery that a document 14 centuries old was a reliable source of scientifically accurate information would literally change the way we think about science and the nature of the universe. IT WOULD BE BIGGER THAN GENERAL RELATIVITY. The best scientific journals would be falling over themselves to be the ones to publish such a monumentally important paper. Scientists would be scrambling to become fluent in Arabic and poring over the koran word by word to discover more scientific secrets.

This one discovery, if it could be substantiated, would have made Moore more famous than Einstein. It would far outweigh in importance anything Moore has in fact published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

And yet,. So far as I am aware, Moore has never submitted a paper on this amazing "discovery," to a QUALITY PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. Until he does he is, as I said, a pseudo-academic on the make.

Just to be clear K.TRAD, the koran contains over 5,000 aya on diverse topics. By sheer fluke SOME of them may turn out to be right – especially if you exercise creativity in interpreting them. However that does not mean there are scientific miracles in the koran.

Can you demonstrate that the koran is a CONSISTENTLY RELIABLE source of scientifically accurate information written down before that information became known to western science? If you can I would consider that a miracle.

But of course you can't. In Moore's case the koran seems to be paraphrasing the works of Galen who lived 4 centuries before Muhammad was born.

You have nothing K.TRAD and Moore is a charlatan.

Dear_dear_Keysar.....

How I smiled reading_this:

<<Boaz, If GOD is SAYING that He is offended by the allegation of begetting a child, who are we to challenge Him?>>

So, how does one resolve the matter?

One way would be to examine if Mohammad ever restored sight to the Blind..or if there are claims such as this. In one account, he was asked to restore an eye, and he admitted he could not do it. Jesus did..many many times, and many many other signs.. as did His apostles. Did Abu Bakr restore a cripple? blindness? deafness?

Game over.

Getting back to my 'smile' just now. those words are soooo reminiscent of THIS:

Tafheem_Al_Quran_Surah_65:4

Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also pemissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her.

<<Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.>>!

Notice how Maududi uses exactly the same kind of language you do?

"If God says..therefore we accept" But this gets back to my original assertion about marriage, sexual consumation and divorce of pre-pubescent female children.

Ibn Kathir (who is the FIRST person referred to by many other Australian Muslims), irrespective of you're 'he has been criticized' distancing says

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54196

<<The same for the young, who have NOT reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;>>

This is a widespread understanding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6HOI1VD_U4&feature=related

"they are still immature"

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

Another GIANT of Islamic scholarship. Ibn Abbass
and another Wahidi...same....thing.

It could not be clearer to any thinking honest man.

Besides..I can dig you.. "why, after all this time (and knowing this) have 'you' not changed and come to Christ?" :) He never EVER harmed children.

K.TRAD

Let's discuss the angel who allegedly transmitted the koran to Muhammad.

But first a few words to BUSHBRED, CJ MORGAN and others.

My stance on the bible is this:

--I see no evidence that the bible is the "word of God."

--Jesus, if he existed, did not rise from the dead.

--God did not dictate the ten commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai

--The creation story in Genesis is poppycock.

Etc, etc

I hope that satisfies your sensibilities about attacking the tenets of Islam without simultaneously attacking the tenets of other beliefs.

With that out of the way let's return to the angel. In what follows I am using the term angel as Muslims understand it – a messenger from God. I do not mean a white figure with wings.

Muslims believe Muhammad received the koran as it exists today verbatim from an angel called Gibril.

There are three possibilities.

(1) The claim is true

(2) Muhammad lied

(3) Muhammad was delusional

(1) Is wildly improbable. Without some evidence other than the word of Muhammad and his supporters we can dismiss the angel story in the same way we dismiss the claims of the early Christians to have seen Jesus alive after he had supposedly been crucified.

That leaves (2) and (3). I suspect (3); but it may be a mixture of both. Muhammad may have come to believe his own lies.

K.TRAD, let's cut out the evasions and get to the point.

Claims of angels transmitting messages are extraordinary and demand an extraordinary level of proof. The reported words of true believers alone won't cut it.

Do you have any evidence OTHER THAN THE UNSUPPORTED WORDS OF MUHAMMAD AND HIS FOLLOWERS to support the story that an angel transmitted the koran verbatim to Muhammad?

If you cannot offer extraordinary evidence to back up this extraordinary claim then a rational man or woman is forced to conclude that Islam, like many other belief systems, was founded on lies, or delusions, or both.

Keysar,

I'm still waiting for your evidence and proof of Mohammad's meeting(s) with an angel.

In the meantime, CJ has a challenge on Jesus and virgin Mary.
Mohammad believed in virgin Mary, didn't he ?? You should be able to answer CJ's challenge then.
You may quote verses from the Bible like you have done so far, as a cover for deficency in Islam.
.

Bushbasher,
I was from an Islamic country.
Islam is the biggest threat to freedom and democracy. Worst, Islam is steeped in deception of a brain-washing nature. Is this not enough reason to challenge Islam?

This is an "emperor without his clothes" scenario.
Islam == the emperor
The cheering crowd == brain-washed Muslims.

I simply point out something that Islamic crowd will not mention, pose questions that even some non-Muslims don't bother asking.
.

Pericles,
This is NOT a question of allowing everyone the same licence to believe whatever their religion tells them. Such a "license" is always inherent in a free society.
IT IS a matter of dealing with an ideology that arose from lies and deception, that threatens the very freedom which facilitates such a "license" in the first place.
Don't be disingenuous by asking what constitutes proof and evidence. You should know.
.

CJ,
You need some serious introspection. I think your learning ability ceased a couple of years back. Not that you have a lot in your head.
Do I need to defend Jesus ?? Oh why, can you tell me ??
Your challenge is more approriately passed to Keysar above.

I think we might be touching a nerve, given the increasingly hysterical tones of some of our in-house evangelists.

>>Can you demonstrate that the koran is a CONSISTENTLY RELIABLE source of scientifically accurate information written down before that information became known to western science? If you can I would consider that a miracle.<<

Given that the Bible is in a similarly parlous position, science-wise, I wonder why these Christian greenhouse-dwellers insist on throwing these stones?

>>Your unwillingness to question some of the offensive things that KTrad has been reported to have said, shows that you believe Muslims should be treated differently to other OLO respondents<<

In terms of offensiveness, the Christian evangelist team seems to pretty much have the running here.

>>Did Abu Bakr restore a cripple? blindness? deafness?<<

Did anybody? The evidence for these events proffered by Boaz et al is inevitably self-referential, being simply more quotations from the Bible. And since there is not a shred of independent evidence of any of these "miracles", how can you guys sit there at your computers and accuse someone who has exactly the same faith as you (only in a slightly different version) of being wrong?

If you stopped slinging insults, and simply accepted that not everybody believes the same things that you do, life would be considerably less dangerous. As it is, all your arguments do is to make you look silly, simply because you fail to hold yourselves to the same standards of proof as you do others.

Your sources are no more reliable than any other. The fact that you choose to interpret otherwise simply reflects poorly on your intelligence.

GZ, you may have good reasons for attacking islam, but that doesn't mean that the way you are attacking islam is reasonable.

you claim that islam is a great threat to freedom and democracy, but you're giving no argument for that. all you are doing is claiming (yelling, actually) that islam is based upon lies. if that makes islam a threat, the same is still just as true for any other religion.

stevenlmeyer, no, for what it's worth your "bible is silly too" statement doesn't satisfy me. if you are arguing in terms of veracity, then why go on and on about one particular religion?

it seems for both you and GZ, the question of literal truth is just a proxy for beating up on islam or K Trad, or both. my point is simply, why bother with the proxy? why not just say what really bugs you, argue for what distinguishes islam as a particular source of concern?

Paul L, you seem to wish to hold K Trad to account for statements he has made elsewhere. I guess i have mixed feelings about that, to what extent the thread should be about the original article. but i see your point.

however, others have, i think reasonably, decided to try to stay within this thread. that's not excusing any statements or stance of K Trad's elsewhere, and it's not saying the questions aren't worth asking. it's simply not considering them the topic here.

in brief, i think it's trying to ensure we can have discussion of a specific islamic issue, without it turning every time into a religion-wide battle. you may want that, and may enjoy that. but i, and i think others, can't see that it gets much discussion anywhere.

and, within this thread, wouldn't it be reasonable to acknowledge who has been supplying the majority of fuel for the nastiness and belligerence? within this thread, wouldn't you say islam is coming off much more the religion of peace and charity?

GZ, a message is endorsed by its sender. He said he met the angel, his contemporary followers also witnessed the same and other angels. Then, the message he brought bears the stamp of God and the message itself says that it was delivered through the angel. I bear witness to that so do all believers. Like I said, I do not have video evidence, but I do not need it because the miraculous nature of the message itself is my proof. It is your imperative whether you accept this or not, you are the one who seems to have the problem not me. The onus is on you to disprove me, you can try and do this by trying to disprove that the Qur`an is the words of God.

PaulL, it is rare to find anyone who resorts to as much bullying as you, I wonder whether you are the same in person. Insulting people with whom you disagree does not prove your point. By asking me repeatedly the same personal questions, about myself or my past, you are playing the man and not the ball. The ball is my present argument, deal with it if you have the wit, slandering me and others is an admission that you have no logical counter-argument to put forward. I am not going to humour you by answering personal questions that I have already answered elsewhere, if you do not like it, well, tough, mate.

StevenImeyer, name calling does you as much credit as it does PaulL. To prove your argument, you have to show me where a scientific message in the Qur`an is wrong bearing in mind that the Qur`an is not a science book, it is a spiritual book with scientific facts interspersed to support the spiritual message.

BOAZ, in an objective world, you would laugh at your own reasoning, perhaps you are secretly laughing like some of the televangelists. If God is offended, the matter is in His holy hands, not ours. You are throwing interpretations at me which are contradicted by other scholars and common practice.

Love &best wishes

Bushy

you said:

<<in brief, i think it's trying to ensure we can have discussion of a specific islamic issue>>

The issue I selected is an important one "Does Islam (by its foundation documents, primary and secondary and by its scholars of high repute, permit the marriage to, consumation of and divorce of pre-pubescent female children"?

I have conclusively shown that this is so. Keysar is playing the 'distancing/downplaying' game for western readership.

I suggest you follow the line of reasoning, and the documentation I've provided, but before you just accept them, I highly recommend you personally ring some major Islamic centres and ask them (someone knowledgable) and mention the names of the scholars I listed... THEN.. check out what those well established and widely accepted scholars said about the meaning of Quran 65:4

You will quickly see that Keysar not being as upfront as he could be.

Ibn Kathir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir

Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maududi

Ibn Abbas (Mohammads COUSIN)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Abd_Allah_ibn_%60Abbas#Works

What Keysar is not telling you, is that Muslims in Muslim majority countries are very different in attitude to how they portray themselves on these matters in Australia. Keysar is the offspring of a polygamous family, and he views such issues differently to most of us.
Do some googling on that.

Eventually we might wake up to this...but if not, we have only ourselves to blame.
blessings.

PERICLES.. said:
"And since there is not a shred of independent evidence of any of these "miracles"...

well I've shared on a number of occasions that I experienced that miraculous healing. Nothing more to say on that.

Such a lovely thread, this one.

One thing I have to say for Keysar Trad and Fellow Human - they have much better manners than their Christian, Jewish and Wingnut antagonists.

Pericles: << I think we might be touching a nerve, given the increasingly hysterical tones of some of our in-house evangelists. >>

It's not just the evangelists, old chap :)

I'm not going to respond to the recent sprays from Paul.L and GZ, beyond observing that they are clearly bereft of sensible argument when they have to resort to such boofheaded insults.

This thread seems to be suffering from an excess of what Stephen Colbert (the American comedian) labelled as "Truthiness":

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that’s not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. …What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...

Truthiness is “What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possible be true.” It’s not only that I FEEL it to be true, but that I (emphasis) feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality”.

The complaint of "rudeness" levelled at BD, Paul L and stevenlmeyer - is this not really a complaint of "logical rudeness", while KT meanwhile employs every logical fallacious device to AVOID answering and to distort and misinterpret the Qu'ran rather than speak the truth?

If you would like to ponder the way forward in this debate, here is an article which poses exactly the dilemma before us:

"(This) whimsical case is an easy way to raise a serious question: in the name of cooperative truth-seeking, can we expect believers to put aside their beliefs or compromise their loyalty?"

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

"Rudeness insulates the believer from expounded criticism. The rude believer need not answer criticism, but may deflect or explain it away. In legal terms, the rude believer's refusal to answer his opponent is a refusal to recognize a burden of going forward created by the critic's criticism."

"rudeness follows from unobjectionable, even praiseworthy, features of believers and their beliefs. True as well as false theories, if believed true with good faith, will be applied to all relevant contexts and will not be compromised to salve the feelings of dissenters or to serve their ideas of inquiry."

The whole essay which ends with an appeal to courtesy, to "create the ethics of argument" in debate is worth a read.

Keysar: "The onus is on you to disprove me... disprove that the Qur'an is the words of God."

Based on your argument, I have a written statement jointly signed by you and me, that your Islamic association borrowed A$1,000,000 from me. If you disbelieve, the onus is on you to disprove me. Pay back if you fail to disprove me.
After you successfully disprove this claim, there's another written statement that you owe me A$5,000,000. Again the onus is on you to disprove me or pay up smart. And wait... a heap more written statements for you to disprove, even after this.

The point is, requirement that I disprove you is stupid. It tantamounts to a "sin" in reasoning, a fallacy, a failure to think logically.

Your intellectualism...is in tatters...is out the window. Your statement confirms what I've said about intellectualism in Islam:

"There is no such thing as a Muslim intellect, which is a contradiction in terms. Muslims are at best pseudo-intellect, something that's proven again and again."

( Stevenlmeyer, Here is a clue. Islamic intellectualism was never up to scratch in science.)

Keysar, Not to worry though, you're doing a fine job of a spokesman of Islam, just what I expect. Still you compare favourably to CJMorgan who cowardly ran away with tail between his wobbly legs, saying "I'm not going to respond to....GZ".

But still you have not provide clear evidence that Mohammad had met with an angel.
The onus was on Mohammad (and hence Muslims) to prove such a claim. Not for me to disprove.
Failure to provide an evidence tantamounts to conceding that such angel claims are null and void.

Games over... << Islam's foundation is based on Mohammad's lies>>.

Bushbasher,
Islam's threat to freedom and democracy is, well... as clear as the day sky is blue.
I assume you don't wear rose-tinted glasses and is capable of discovering Islamic threats for yourself.
Islam is a threat not simply because it's based upon lies.
A lie is only a temporary threat. What is truly threatening is lies that are "self-replicating", which Islam is.

well, that was a productive little exchange. i must try it again sometime.

yes, GZ, game is over. and yes, you won. unfortunately, you've been playing solitaire. i've gently tried to indicate to you why, but you are clearly too busy with your game to take notice. enjoy yourself.

katieO, i'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. if you're suggesting that a polite manner doesn't imply correctness or honesty or logical integrity, then of course you're right. if you're suggesting that "logical rudeness" (if i understand the term - bluntness?) can be confronting but nonetheless logical and reasonable and fair, then of course you're right.

but if you're suggesting the only "rudeness" on this thread is in the form of "logical rudeness", i think you must be kidding. and if you're suggesting that K trad is alone in using rhetorical tricks to avoid answering questions in a meaningful way, i think again you must be kidding.

early on in this thread, i tried to indicate why i thought the text-based attacks on islam here were in bad faith, and probably meaningless (certainly for a non-believer such as myself). you took me up on a point, and i clarified it. as i far as i can tell, you didn't respond again. so, i don't know whether that left you agreeing with me or not.

but i think what i said has been demonstrated ad nauseum. what we're not getting here is strong but fair backing of K trad into a logical corner. what we're getting is simply a bad faith badgering, of an intensity and an absurdity that disgraces everyone involved.

as i said in my very first post, i'm no fan of k trad. but when it comes to this kind of shameful and pointless bullying, i know whose side i'm on.

KTRAD,

You are just plain gutless. You can avoid personal questions about your family, that’s reasonable, although only one of the questions I asked could be considered personal. But the things you say in public spheres, perhaps where you didn’t expect to be reported, are overwhelmingly our business. Your attempt to suggest that these are somehow personal is patently ridiculous and a further sign of your unwillingness to be open and honest.

I was actually hoping that you had reasonable explanations for some of the disgraceful things you are reported as saying. But by your blunt refusal to discuss these things you've shown that you have little interest in real dialogue.

You say >>”Insulting people with whom you disagree does not prove your point.”

Really? And here I was, sure that it did.

Hiding doesn't prove it either by the way.

You say>>” The ball is my present argument, deal with it if you have the wit,”

I might not make the rules around here but you sure as hell don’t either. You can try and limit the discussion to only those topics you are comfortable with but I’m not going to meekly submit. I fully believe that most of the questions I have put to you are well within the scope of this topic. This is a thread on secular democracy and I for one am concerned that radical Islam is a threat to such a system. I think, given your inability to be open, that there is no way you are as moderate as you claim.

CJ

you say>> “Paul.L is most definitely NOT A BIGOT... I must have been led astray by all the Islamophobic, prudish and generally intolerant far-right comments ….

I am just flabbergasted that you can suggest with a straight face that I insult people.

KTRAD has politely engaged in meaningless discussion with the Christians whilst refusing to answer the tough questions regarding

1) his support for one of the most intolerant men in Australia, Hilali.
2) any of the inflammatory things he has said.

Politeness-is-an-overrated-virtue-anyway. The-truth-is-far-more-important.

GZ: << ...CJMorgan who cowardly ran away with tail between his wobbly legs... >>

Paul.L: << I am just flabbergasted that you can suggest with a straight face that I insult people >>

I'm afraid that in this thread I've strayed from the teachings of St Mark (Twain):

" Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. "

My apologies to anybody still reading this thread who's not a fool.

This has been an interesting thread.

K.TRAD the "well-mannered Muslim" uses every possible rhetorical trick to avoid answering the hard questions.

K.TRAD, why has Keith Moore's amazing discovery of scientific miracles in the koran never appeared in a QUALITY PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL? (No reply that actually addresses the issue.)

K.TRAD, do you have any evidence that an angel transmitted the koran to Muhammad other than the unsupported words of Muhammad and his followers? (No reply that actually addresses the issue.)

Meanwhile the usual gang of "useful fools" and apologists run interference for the well-mannered K.TRAD against those of us who are so impolite, wicked and ill-mannered as to demand K.TRAD provide some CREDIBLE evidence for his extravagant claims.

"Why," they wail, "do you focus on Islam. You must be guilty of that worst of all thought crimes, Islamophobia. You must be a racist. Call the thought police."

And then we have the usual Christian nuts, that includes you BOAZY, who maintain that theirs is the "true superstition" and Islam the false one.

All this reinforces my belief in "GOD THE DIVINE COMEDIAN." (No relation to "Allah," "Yahweh," the Trinity or any of the numerous Hindu godlets.)

Those of you with cash to spare may wish to donate to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust. See:

http://www.ayaanhirsiali.org/Security.html

The lady needs protection from some of the practitioners of the religion of peace. Seems they want to kill her.

Here is a link to an article on Islam by Sam Harris, author of the best selling "Letter to a Christian Nation." The title of the article is:

LOSING OUR SPINES TO SAVE OUR NECKS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

And here is a link to Sam Harris' home page:

http://www.samharris.org/

BOAZY, spare me a riposte about peaceable, loveable Christians. WHEN CHRISTIANS EXERCISE POLITICAL POWER THEY'RE AS BAD AS MUSLIMS.

The reason Europe advanced in science and technology while the Ottoman Empire stagnated is that Europeans got out from under their religion. In Dar-ul-Islam the people lost their battle against their religious authorities and were condemned to backwardness.

This interesting thread is opening up some fertile ground for discussion.

STEVEN.. "Christian nut" here:) I'd like to qualify 2 statements you made.
1/ "When Christians have political power, they are as bad as Muslims"
Steve..does that apply to Jews? Atheists? but more importantly, I recommend a through review of a foundation for what you said in the New Testament... which of course you will not find. So..I'd say as follows:

"When Christians have political power and use it UNbiblically..they may or may not be as "good/bad/indifferent" as Muslims"

2/ "Peaceful loving Christians" I'll spare you that.. partly.
the Genuine Biblical Christian walking with Christ day in day out IS.. peaceful and loving. Those who have strayed.. are not.

BUSHBASHER.... without meaning to patronize you, I note you have a very good grasp of reason..and applied this to KatieO's post, and I want to explore something with you.

You said:

"I tried to indicate why i thought the text-based attacks on islam here were in bad faith,"

BB..given that Islam is a 'text based' faith, I find that rather astounding. I suggest it is in the 'best' faith. I don't feel I have disgraced myself in the slightest as I've directed peoples attention not to my opinions, but to Islamic scholars commenting on the primary and secondary sources of this faith. Is there any 'other' way to go in serious debate? I don't think so.

When Keysar says things like "Allah said" where the direct implication of 'what' Allah 'said' is very unsavory for those with different ideas, surely you would expect a robust comeback from those effected?

Would you reject such an approach in the analysis of Mein Kampf and National Socialism? I rather doubt it. Sentimentality has its place...it's not this thread.

For Keysar.. I had an arabic expert check out the Hadith, (Bukhari Vol 7, book62 Number 63) and it turns out there is a difference in the numbering, but the hadith is present.

CJ.. *smile* :)

Bushbasher,

I only know you from 4 posts that briefly addressed me.

Your first post, "GZ, what's your point?" followed by a proposition to pick on "fine" christians.

My observation: A touch of rudeness, sarcasm, even naivety & ignorance. But that's alright, no worry.

I replied with a concise and adequate statement, 100% correct logically. (Fact is, I do not owe you a detailed explanation, let alone an explanation.)

But it got worse in your second post.

Bushbasher: <<GZ...can't you see...very strange...? you don't think mine is a natural question to ask?>>

1 - Well, I don't think it is strange at all to only attack Islam. It's only your biased perception, (out of ignorance). Perhaps the only thing strange is the strength of my attacks.
2 - Did my concise reply suggest your question was not a "natural" question? You put words in my mouth?

My observation: A tint of presumptuousness and self-conceit.

Bushbasher: << you repeatedly bombard K trad...most aggressive...i politely ask you one question...and you think it reasonable to dismiss my question out of hand?>>

1 - Do you elevate yourself by comparing with others? The presence of bad guys around you make you feel like a saint, is that it??
2 - Was I so rude to reply your first post with a concise statement?? Was my simple (but adequate) answer an unreasonable act that dismissed your very polite question out of hand?

My observation: A serous touch of presumptuousness, self-conceit and arrogance.

But it got worse and worse... all in just 4 posts!!

Importantly, you seem not a principled person. One that is easily fooled by a victim mentality and political correctness . Example:
1. Islam is attacked in this forum. So your sympathy goes to Muslims.
2. If you were to live in the Islamic country I came from, I suppose your sympathy would swift to non-Muslims.

But don't you bother - I tell suffering non-Muslims that someone of such a character, cannot be trusted.

BB: point taken (one way street, so I bowed out).

Motive: If you look at the examples of the dialogue between Grobian and Gerda, the “self-insulating” replies of Grobian raise some questions about debate in general, and ours in particular.

Is there a set of rules out there by which we are all expected to play by? Can we reasonably agree who is Grobian, and who is Gerda?

For CJ and Pericles, the Grobian character could be. BD, stevenlmeyer or PaulL. Meanwhile, for myself, it is KT.
Is the crux of the problem “because debate is one game and (KT) has chosen to play another? (All that talk about the ball, the game and own goals..). Is it that others enter the debate for reasons other than to be informed or to participate? Is one playing golf and another parchese?

Starting point: propositions on rudeness in debate (descriptive, not prescriptive):

- "a certain amount can be justifiable, even if offensive: “legitimate” in the sense that it is permitted by the content of the theory being defended and the good faith of the believer. It is not like telling critics to shut up, even though this too is always possible.”

- Rudeness as a defensive weapon

- Disdain for rudeness under the names of reasoned inquiry and debate, unhelpful

- “success at insulating the believer and the belief of which it is a part seems independent of the merits or truth-value”

- “… theories that are false or implausible could use a rude defense as well as true or plausible theories.”

- “we suspect that the license to brush off objections is not a sign of truth or even a supporting argument. It is a gimmick, a piece of insolence that “civilized” and “reasonable” people will not stoop to use”.

- “what good faith belief authorizes, we believe, is authorized – at least until it conflicts with a higher rule. In cases of logical rudeness, belief in certain theories authorizes believers to be incredibly smug. Is this a price, or an abuse, of freedom?

- Descriptive rudeness: instantly dismissive

... tbc

....cont.

- Some kinds are fallacious: “One may at least infer the presence of a fallacious defense, beyond a merely rude one, and the presence of self-referential inconsistency”

- “Epistemic democracy”: all persons presumed to have an equal entitlement to know the truth”; the “no holds barred” principle of debate (note the conflict of the either approach being used to challenge the other): principles of logical courtesy.

- Some forms are inevitable: “Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game.”

- “Sociability in debate may be important….but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth.”

- Possible falsehood: ask "can a theorist retain her good faith while sincerely conceding the corrigibility of her theory and herself”

- “If the consequence of a “bad” belief are intolerable to public order, we may deal with it through the criminal law. …. As inquirers we may deal with the rude believer’s belief without dealing with the rude believer; but we admit that this is to abandon a valuable practice that is valued for its contribution to inquiry – debate”.

- “We cannot automatically infer falsehood from rudeness.”

-“If we abandon debate and examine such theories in silence or apart from their proponents, we feel that we have abandoned a valuable practice, perhaps a practice indispensable to reliable inquiry”.

- “For the purposes of logical etiquette, good faith is equivalent to truth”.

- “ (debate) works best when the participants and spectators allow their assent to follow the evidence and reasons exchanged in debate, and do not enter with prejudice or simply for sport”.

There are several camps represented above, and all fall victim to rudeness, however, there are noticeable differences:

- the “no-holds-barred” approach that Christians encourage
- the defensive attitude taken by Muslims; absence of "good faith"
- the demand for truth by those not drawn in by a fallacious defence
- the descriptive rudeness of CJ & Pericles

SOUND THE LAST_POST...

This will be mine for this thread :)

TOPIC.

From the article:

<<I should be able to present arguments in defence of my faith and also my point of view, even if either of these is unpopular.>>

Agreed, BUT the problem emerges when 'your' sub cultural/ethnic/religious group seeks to influence the 'secular democracy SUCH that... people are NOT free to criticize that which you desire the right to defend! RRT2001! promoted by Muslims and Jews in particular. (each for their different reasons, and those reasons have seen both parties attacking each other after the laws were introduced)

With this in mind, I have systematically and carefully exposed ONE value in the religion of Islam, which, while not prominent in public discourse here, is nevertheless a part of "Islamic Societies" in places where that is the State Faith.

Let me finish on a positive_note.

EXHORTATION.

"Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Jesus.)

"My son, your sins are forgiven" (Jesus.}

"As to whether he is a sinner I do not know, but one thing I know, I was once blind, but now I can see" (Blind man healed by Jesus)

"If any man causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large stone tied to his neck and be thrown into the sea" (Jesus)

To THIS man, we look for salvation, for hope, for renewal, for redemption. There is no other, absolutely, finally and completely. He is the First the Last and the coming One. He was, and is, and is to come. The Alpha and the Omega.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."(Jesus)

When the storms of life seem too much, remember this:

<<He (Jesus) got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm>>

All Glory, Honor, power, majesty and praise..be unto Him.. both now and forever. Amen and Amen.

PAUL L... I hope you read this :)

katieO, i've had time to get the article you're referring to, so now i know what you're on about. thank-you, definitely of interest! will try to read it soon. i'd still say the main problem with this thread is plain, old-fashioned rudeness. but definitely the concept of logical rudeness is a very valuable one to keep in mind.

GZ, yes you didn't owe me an explanation. it was only worth your while if you want me, possibly others, to read your posts. and that is up to you of course. but your answers to my questions have just been silly. the logic wasn't tough, but you missed it.

you may have good reasons to hate islam, you may be right that we all should. but if your posts are premised on that idea, that we already agree with you on that, you'll only being preaching to the converted.

you say i defend muslims because islam is attacked. earlier in the thread i stated that the majority of muslims i have met have been good and loving people. yesterday, i spent a lovely hour tutoring a uni student, a gentle, charming and good-humored muslim fellow. i don't know whether you're attacking him or not. but if you're attacking him then, yes, i'm defending him.

stevenlmeyer i don't know who you're referring to as "apologists". if me, i don't see that i'm apologising for anyone or anything.

boaz, i took your question seriously, and thought to answer more directly. given religious texts are important to religious observers, you ask a reasonable question. but i don't think this is the time of the thread to do it. note that i am critical of these text-based attacks both because i regard them as probably pointless, and because i think they are being undertaken in bad faith. i think my reasons are spelled out enough above.

katieO, thanks again. that one reference made following this thread worthwhile.

Keysar,
Are you still here??
The conclusion of my challange on Islam so far:
(1) No, Mohammad never proved that he met with an angel from God.
(2) You are not able to provide an evidence of such a meeting.
(3) Mohammad lied about his angel encounters. Such lies led to a false religion.
(4) Islam's foundation is based on Mohammad's lies.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Bushbasher wrote: <<...your answers...silly. the logic wasn't tough, but you missed it.>>

Perhaps you've been a tutor for too long. You need to learn too, not just your students.

Apparently you did not learn from my last post. You continue to make circular assumptions, put words in my mouth, but worst - you set up a strawman (Good,loving,charming students that no-one could possibly want to hurt).

First, your strawman:
1 - Please tell your lovely Muslim students that GZ is attacking Islam as being a false religion.
2 - They can come here to defend Islam against GZ.
3 - How then will you defend those lovely Muslim students?

Next...
1 - Don't assume you pose clever but subtle questions. (I don't answer your tutorial questions and get marks for them.)
2 - If you don't get the answer you expect, perhaps (i) your questions are not clear (ii) my expectation is not the same as yours.

Next...
Earlier I wrote: "...So your sympathy goes to Muslims"...
I did NOT say you "defend muslims because islam is attacked". You told a little lie.
But after your comments, I now become interested to know how exactly you'd defend Muslims? How will you support their arguments and endorse Islam religion?
I'd like to determine how much of a Yo-Yo is your sense of principle.

Lastly...:
I am not "preaching to the converted".
1 - I challenged a prominent Muslim in Australia.
2 - The outcome highlights the falsehood of Islam now, for the future.
My intention is not tough logic...but did you miss it ??

( I would compliment katieO & BD. I find them, among a few others, intellectual and post beautifully.)

GZ, do i have "a touch of presumptuousness, self-conceit and arrogance". more than a touch! am i "not a principled person"? i'll let others judge.

i didn't knowingly set up a strawman. but i do think something like that is the key, distinguishing A from B.

for me the A and B are:

A. attacking the evidentiary foundations of islamic beliefs

B. arguing that islam is a threat

are you arguing the detrimental effects of muslims' beliefs (B), or the truth of muslims' beliefs (A)?

1) you seemed to be engaging in (A), and i couldn't see why, so selectively. the same charge of (A) can presumably be applied just as well to other religions.

2) in response, you claimed "islam is the greatest threat to freedom and democracy".

3) to that, i responded that you weren't actually arguing for that.

i could summarize the rest, but i think it's already clear why we're arguing at cross purposes.

your implicit argument seems to be that (A) somehow implies (B). if that's not the argument then, again, i don't know what the point of your arguing (A) is.

the trouble is, i don't simply accept that (A) implies (B). you have to argue it, or argue (B) directly. and yes, you're under no obligation to do that: i am explaining my criticism.

in fleshing out my criticism, i gave two examples:

i) other religions satisfy (A). so, if your argument applies, why are they not also a threat? if they are a threat, why do you not show the same concern?

ii) i know many muslims who are good people. true, you didn't say i "defend" muslisms. but the pertinent question is, are you attacking them? that is, does your claim (B) constitute an attack on muslims in general? you have made broad derogatory comments about muslims, but i'm honestly not sure. my point is, to the extent that (B) constitutes a general attack on muslims, i feel that my good friends are evidence against that. and, i will defend my friends against such an attack.

Bushbasher,

On one hand you didn't knowingly setup a strawman...but on the other, you think a strawman is needed for distinguishing (A) (B)??
Ummm...I'm too precise and exact to not notice your conflicting tones.

You could have simply stated (A)(B) previously, without making a condescending remark. A strawman is never needed.

I now understand your doubts revolve around (A) & (B):
(A). attacking the evidentiary foundations of islamic beliefs
(B). arguing that Islam is a threat

But then you completely muddied the water by saying:
<<...muslims who are good people....are you attacking them?... does...(B) constitute an attack on muslims in general? you have made broad derogatory comments about muslims, but i'm honestly not sure...>>
<<...to the extent that (B) constitutes a general attack on muslims...i will defend my friends against such an attack>>

Is it disingenuity on your part, or your comments were unintentionally muddled??
Either way, I think you now owe me a clarification before I will reply your doubts.

First, I do NOT accept that (B) constitutes a general attack on Muslims. Do you agree?? (One is religion, the other human)

If you agree (YES), please explain why your above comments seem to suggest otherwise (NO).
If you do disagree (NO), then you need to seriously explain your attitude towards freedom of speech.

Let’s apply the same test to your texts Boaz. The words of interpreters rather than the text itself.

I already quoted to you Numbers 31:17-18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This alleged command from Moses has been interpreted by the ancient bible scholars to indicate that they can take a girl as young as three years and one day. Refer: Sanhedrin 7/55B, Abodah Zarah 36B-37A and Mishnah Niddah 5:4, there are more references, but this should be enough to highlight your double standards.

KatieO, I really hate to say this, but you should also think about the above before you cast aspersions on me. Also, some people may not like to stoop into the gutter of rudeness, it is like the person who eye-gouged me in a ruck in schoolrugby, or the one who elbowed me in the collarbone in C-grade club league, then there was the dude who dug his studs in my shin and did a spin whilst I was on the ground, this shames them not me. I play clean, this is my life-code.

GZ, your logic should even astound you. If you have a test, or a means of proving or disproving, come out with it, you have not even suggested what type of proof you would like in order to believe? Which means that you are trying to play games with us or with yourself, God knows. You’ve proved nothing and disproved nothing, your trick of asking a question and refusing any logical answer merely betrays gameplay and possibly deceit.

PaulL, really now, am I suppose to cower into answering your questions purely because of your insults and rudeness, I don’t think so? Had most of these questions been asked politely by another person, they would have been answered like they were answered on radio on several occasions, too late for this post. But as irritating as this may be to you, your attempts at bullying will get you nowhere.

The purpose of this comment is not to appease GZ, he seems to have made up his mind before asking the question, I deal with the issue for the benefit of the objective readers.

The test of whether a person saw or did something is one that is tested by contemporaries, just like the miracles of Christ or Muhammad, peace be upon them both. Were contemporaries convinced?

In both cases, not all contemporaries were convinced, certainly not on the surface, in both cases, converts were won over a period of time and the veracity of these converts is one that is judged by their contemporaries, because in such cases, the person can stand up for himself and defend himself or try to.

When the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him first saw the angel, he was not certain himself as to whether or not he should believe his own vision, he went to his wife Khadija, she was 55 at the time whilst he was 40. She was the person to apply the first test, she said, next time he comes, if I am around, let me know. Sure enough, he saw the vision when she was around, so she uncovered a part of her head and the angel left. She said, surely this cannot be a demon, because demonic spirits do not care for modesty.

Then she took him to her uncle Waraqa, Waraqah was a Christian who knew the scriptures. Waraqah was old and had lost his eyesight. He said to the prophet: This is the same angel that spoke to Moses, I wish that I would be alive when your own people turn on you and force you to leave. Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him said: Would my people force me to leave? Waraqah said: never has anyone come with such a vision, except that his people turned on him.

People do this because they like to be set in their ways.

These were the first two witnesses in favour of the prophet’s vision of the angel, there is more.

Love and best wishes

I've always regarded angels as being an imaginative expression of a deeper truth. Am I to believe that both the Muslims and the Christians on this thread believe that angels actually exist as some sort of sentient being?

Ahhh...angels!
I saw an angel once in a dream when he came to speak to me about a certain thing.
It was marvellous.
Angels in dreams are not uncommon and they are mentioned in the Bible as coming in that manner.
Sometimes they come in a clearer manner than dreams. People actually see them outside of dreams. The Apostle Paul? says they come to peoples doors and you dont know they are an angel.
Ive also seen the "other side" which might freak a few people.
It did to me, when it first happened.
It was just before I become a born again christian and I was in bed one night and suddenly my mind openned up and I saw this black slug-like life form, with brilliant shining eyes, come in through the sleepout door as if the door wasnt there.
I lost sight of the being for a few minutes and then suddenly it was on top of me pushing me down and smothering me into the bed. Three times I had to fight the thing off before it departed.
It had been trying to kill me.
Not long afterwards I became a born again christian.
Maybe the thing knew I was going to get saved by The Lord (they know a lot about whats going on before men know it happens).
This wasnt the only time I experienced this activity.
About another four times over the next year or two it occured. I figured they were trying to scare me off Jesus... but he gave His Grace and I persevered with Him:).
Ive also been bitten by the odd one and had one crawl up my chest one night and go "boo" and wake me up. Little rat of a thing.
So they are there...even if we dont believe in them. Satans greatest trick is to convince world society he isnt there. Good old Western intellectual dont believe in evil spirits much but us christian folks do.
So do the poor people in Third World countries where the demon powers dominate village life at night.

more on evil spirits...
Another confirmation of demons (fallen angles) is the number of people with "voices" in their heads.
Psychiatric institutions are full of these poor folks.
Yet the psychiatrists have no answer other than bombing the victim out on medication... and gross events like electro-therapy treatment (dont ever let your child go through that if he or she is sick...its paganism!).
One classic example is the Son of Sam killer in America who got his orders to kill from his neighbours dog, which he says spoke to him. THAT WAS NO dog speaking to him.
He had an open door in his life which gave satan access to his mind. That open door, for you young lustful guys, can frequently be masturbation (with that rotten pornography).
Not in every case will it occur, but it can bring a "voice" that torments.
Masturbation certainly needs to be turned from.
Surely theres better things in life that abusing your body. Its a doorway to demons.
Everything in the spirit world is about authorities... thats why we see family curses coming down family lines.
Someone openned a "door" back down the line and the curse (the demon power) travelled into the next generations to torment those family members. That needs to be broken through confession of sin and repentence. The best place? An on-fire christian church where The Holy Spirit moves in Gifts of tongues, healings, prophecy, micracles and deliverances. Where they "lay on hands" to delivery is the place to go.
Son of Sam I believe later became a born agian christian and received Gods forgiveness for his sin.
*Not all voices are from God. In fact its mostly uncommon He speaks. In my police years I saw photos of a guy who jumped off the 40th floor of the Australian Square building in Sydney. He told the cab driver who drove him to Australia Square that God had told him to jump. The cabbie couldnt stop him from doing it...and tragically he followed the demon speaking to him... to his death.

GrahamY,

My understanding is that Muslims regard an angel as a messenger from God; not as a white creature with wings. In Muslim theology people do not become angels when they die.

K.TRAD,

You still fail to offer any credible evidence that an angel transmitted the koran to Muhammad. The unsupported word of the Muhammad's followers is not sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

Note that the evidence for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is the same as the evidence you provide for the angel and the koran – ie it relies on the unsupported word of believers. So why should I believe the angel story and not the resurrection?

K.TRAD,

You have also failed to explain why Keith Moore's astounding discovery, a discovery that, were it true, would make him MORE FAMOUS THAN EINSTEIN, has never appeared in a QUALITY PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.

Paul.L,

Re interview with Dourehi

For the record I think the invasion of Iraq was an act of insanity and I do not want to minimise the blame attached to the West for the deaths there. However, as a matter of plain fact, most violent deaths in Iraq seem to be due to various MUSLIM factions killing each other.

No Western power is forcing Muslims to kill each other in Iraq.

I note Dourehi's repetition of the constant Muslim refrain that the West has despatched armies to occupy parts of Dar-ul-Islam rather than Muslims invading the West. This is an empty argument. No Muslim country has the capacity to invade a Western country. They could not do it even if they wanted to.

On the other hand, when Muslims are able to get hold of their enemies, usually other Muslims, they have not hesitated to kill on a large scale in the most brutal manner imaginable. Darfur as well as Iraq comes to mind.

This constant whinge that only "the West" is brutal and us poor Muslims are the perpetual victims is getting rather irritating.

Sound the REVEILLI... .. WAKE UP.. ok.. sorry about this, but Keysar introduces a very good point about 'Interpretation'....

I am not surprised you brought that passage..I mentioned it long ago and pre-empted it.

WHO are those 'scholars'?

1/ They are not Christian Scholars.

2/ They (Pharisees/Rabbi's) tried to establish a rule for every bit of human behavior which was not specifically mentioned in the Torah much like Islam does.

This included the age at which a female can have intercourse which was not literally spelt out in any place in the Old Testament.

"Keep them for yourselves".. agreed.. now.. under what law did captive slaves come? Aah..the law of Moses, which prescribed (in the primary source) that if you are attracted to a WOMEN among the captives (not a child) you may MARRY her. Deut 21:11

So, this boils down to the following:

a) How much does the 'rabbinic' opinion reflect what is IN the text?
b) How much of the understanding was based not on the text, but a desire to 'have a rule for everything'?

In Jesus day, the Pharisees had so many 'rules' they even included one that forbade you eating an EGG which had been laid on the Sabbath.

I know of no Christian who would recognize any such opinion as in any way reflective of the true heart of God in the Old Testament.

You could argue that the "Rabbi's" would be the best people to consult about the meaning of a Jewish text? Indeed...IF they just sought the 'meaning' of the text, rather than "filling in the blanks" which in this case...they did.

In the Islamic case, we have:

1/ The plain meaning of the text (65:4)
2/ The secondary source (accepted by Muslims today) supporting that plain meaning.
3/ The explanation of highly regarded Scholars, agreeing with the plain sense of the text and the secondary source.

It's not quite the same thing mate.

GZ,

1) what you call a strawman has nothing to do with distinguishing (A) from (B). it is a separate issue of my understanding of (B).

2) should i have simply stated (A) and (B) earlier? i think my posts were in fact very clear. my first post queried your selective (A). (i.e. my (1) and (i)). you dismissed it my question, and i repeated it. by your reply, it seemed clear you were actually interested in (B), to which i responded then why not argue (B) (my (3)).

3) this wasn't hard, but you largely treated my early posts with contempt. perhaps this was because of my "condescending tone". i would suggest that by the standards of this thread, and by your own standards, i was very polite.

4) your reference to "freedom of speech" is a red herring. i'm not in the remotest sense arguing that you be censored.

5) to reiterate my "doubts":

a) why argue (A) selectively, when it applies to many other religions?

b) how does (A) imply (B)?

i don't think what follows (my "muddied" waters) has any large bearing on those questions.

6) i agree that (B) does not necessarily constitute a general attack on muslims, but it could be interpreted that way. my comments on this were qualified, because i honestly wasn't sure what you intended. again, your general comments on muslims have been derogatory: it's not rhetorical cleverness on my part to include muslims in a discussion of (B).

7) my confusion is, if (B) is not intended as an attack on muslims, then i'm not sure what (B) means. i know that things can be a threat, and people can be a threat, but how can ideas be a threat, except as implemented by people. so, does your version of (B) cascade into a general attack of muslims?

8) i also referred to my muslim friends as potential evidence against (B). if "islam" is a threat then why is that threat not manifested in my muslim friends? what has to be added to (B) to make the threat real?

Dear Steven...

you stated:

<<the evidence for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead is the same as the evidence you provide for the angel and the koran – ie it relies on the unsupported word of believers.>>

As I've said before, we cannot 'prove' the resurrection, but we can provide a 'compelling' case for it. Though, the testimony of the various eye witnesses is, in my view more than compelling.
PAUL is the ultimate 'clincher'. His life, by his own confession, and corroborated by other sources, and witnesses, such as Dr Luke, was one of extreme genocide against Christians.
His encounter with the risen Christ turned him 180deg and he embraced Christ as Lord and Savior.
His writings are more profound than one could even imagine.. so deep it defies contemplation,.. but to speak thus might be said to be 'subjective'... agreed.

The objective testimony does however remain, that he once persecuted the Church, and after encountering the risen Christ..he proclaimed Him and the Gospel to the world.

Please don't feel I'm 'preaching' at you.. I'd rather think of it as recounting some history.

The great part about Christianity, is that it's about a 'relationship'..not 'rules'.. if you confess Christ as your Lord.. we rejoice.. if you then depart from His grace.. we grieve, and pray, but no one will try to murder you as could happen under an Islamic Caliphate. In that sense..I absolutely declare from the housetops, without the slightest hint of apology. "our religion..is better than theirs".

Paul said "Greeks seek wisdom, and Jews seek signs" how true this is :)
but his response?

"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

and I cannot add anything to that :)

I can only urge, encourage and exhort you (Keysar, and all).."If you hear Him knocking...please open the door

A link to statements about homosexuality attributed to a "K. TRAD."

http://www.zip.com.au/~josken/islamf~1.htm

Scroll down.

Quotes:

"The Hadith is clear about the punishment for homosexuality, the Hadith says; kill the one who is penetrating and the one who is being penetrated. …. Two of the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPHS used to bum to death the homosexuals who are caught in the act, the Sahaby Ibn Abbas ruled that they should be pushed from the highest building or mountain (whichever is higher) and then stoned to death. At the very least, they would be stoned to death. (Emphasis added)

"However, the Ahadith narrated above are clear, both the doer and the person to whom it is being done must be killed, the only difference in opinion is with respect to the manner of killing, whether this should be by burning, or by pushing from a height and then stoning to death."

I can find nothing in this speech to suggest K.TRAD thinks "…penal religious law cannot be applied in the modern world."

On the contrary, K.TRAD uses the phrase "rightly guided" to describe caliphs who used to "bum to death the homosexuals who are caught in the act"

You are "rightly guided" if you burn a homosexual!

But there is room for debate. Perhaps dropping them from a great height is the better option!

I am, as most of you here know, almost fanatical when it comes to free speech. However, actual incitement to violence is not protected by free speech laws. I do not know whether K.TRAD's comments amount to actual incitement; but they come close.

In fairness to BOAZY I have never seen him call for the death penalty for anything. In factBOAZY seems quite embarrassed by the more bloodthirsty parts of his "sacred" texts.

I also note that nowhere in the Gospels do I find Jesus calling for anyone to be executed.

If K.TRAD has been misquoted the owners of the website have defamed him and he should take legal action

Stevenlmeyer,

I too am horrified by that passage. Many posters on OLO want to pretend that this kind of attack on values which are dear to the hearts of the progressives is not happening. They think its flaming and that somehow we are putting a spin on things. The determination by people like CJ, that to question one muslim or small group of muslims is Islamophobia , is an attempt to stifle the debate.

But too many of these types of things have come to light for it to really be misunderstanding. Hilali wasn't misunderstood, he knew exactly what he was saying, he just didn't realise that he would be castigated for it.

There are a lot more highly suspect speeches and interviews that Ktrad has given. However, my most recent post has been taken down for alleged flaming. Maybe you could ask the questions since it appears my tone, or manner is not appropriate. If you go back over my posts you will find a number of quotes allegedly ktrads', including his views on polygamy, sharia law, our convict heritage and more unpleasant villification of homosexuals.

Keysar: Yes, I expected evidence like that from you.

Note:
1...Evidence need to satisfy criteria and "burden of proof".
2...Even if contemporaries were convinced, something may still be false (Example: When all witnesses are fooled)
3...Insignificant event may requires few evidence.
4...SIGNIFICANT event requires SIGNIFICANT amount of evidence as proof.

(A) Evidence_1: Khadija as witness

1...Meeting an angel is unthinkable (Very SIGNIFICANT event).
2...But only ONE "witness" (Muhammad's wife Khadija).
3...A wife is emotionally-attached, (likely to tell husband what he wanted to hear).
4...To fool many is harder. But to trick just one emotionally-attached wife can be very easy.
5...Muhammad had earlier prepared Khadija to help solve his "Demon-possession" problem. That indirectly implanted a preconception in her mind.
6...Khadija was therefore expecting a DIVINE BEING to visit, (at a time of Muhammad's choosing, of course).
7...Khadija did NOT actually see "the angel". Therefore She was an unreliable "witness", a non-witness.
8...It cannot be ruled out, Khadija caught a glimpse of a man leaving the house, someone who didn't even know he was part of Muhammad's ploy.
9...But since Khadija was earlier led to believe a DIVINE BEING were to visit, that effectively limited Khadija, psychologically, to decide between (i) A Demon., or (ii) An Angel.
10..Not surprisingly she chose "Angel" over "Demon", with a frauded reason- "surely this cannot be a demon...".
11..It never occurred to Khadija she merely glimsped a human-visitor.

12..Muhammad was clever. He didn't personally claim to meet an angel. He allowed his gullible wife to make that claim, (music to Muhammad's ears).
13..Once enslaved by her own (false) belief, Khadija would readily accept whatever Muhammad told her was from Allah.
14..Unwittingly, Khadija, a wealthy influential woman, became the first false "WITNESS" of Islam.

(B) Evidence_2: Waraqa as a witness

Waraqa was not a witness at all. He was merely tricked by Muhammad, who now had an accomplice - his believer wife Khadija.
No doubt all three entered a cycle of make-believes. Each happy to tell the others something was True (when not).

The foundation of a false religion was laid... The rest is history.

WILL THIS PLEASURE NEVER END??

In 1968 Richard Nixon went onto a cult show (at the time) called "Rowan and Martin's Love-In". He used a very in phrase of that era: he said "sock it to me".......

In 1974/75??-(post Watergate)- he went back on to RaMLI. This is what he said: "In 1968 I came here and told you all to sock it to me. Well you can stop now".
_________________________

Keysar Trad, you have done a sterling job in involving yourself on an ongoing basis on your own thread. Agree OR disagree;-bravo!
Other authors should take note. (Perhaps they have, and will now avoid ANY ongoing discussions on their statements!!).

KEYSAR;-YOU CAN STOP NOW.

If one is to learn nothing else, I guess a good rule of thumb would be:-'don't post, it only encourages them'...!!

This has now come down to nothing more than winning. Being right.
And it's methodology is to go around in ever decreasing circles...

Very unhealthy!

(Besides, I am waiting for the thread to end before

Paul.L: << The determination by people like CJ, that to question one muslim or small group of muslims is Islamophobia , is an attempt to stifle the debate. >>

Rubbish. Anybody's entitled to question anybody. However, when that questioning involves invective, insults and sheer rabid hatred then that stifles any potential "debate" before it can happen. I think that any objective reader of this thread would rapidly come to the valid conclusion that Keysar Trad's detractors are a collection of Islamophobes, Christian fundies and other assorted ill-mannered obsessives.

<< But too many of these types of things have come to light for it to really be misunderstanding. Hilali wasn't misunderstood, he knew exactly what he was saying, he just didn't realise that he would be castigated for it. >>

More rubbish. Hilali is to Islam as people like Boazy are to Christianity - except that Hilali had a brief and inglorious moment moment in the spotlight as Australia's ill-chosen mufti. Whoever it was who suggested that Australian Muslims need to employ a PR team was correct.

While I'm even less sympathetic to Trad's religion than I am to Christianity, I think that the Christians who spend so much time attacking him portray both themselves and their religion in a very poor light indeed. As for the secular wingnut Islamophobes... Keysar Trad is quite correct - a genuine secular democracy wouldn't be so insecure as to devote considerable energy to the vilification of one God delusion over the others.

Here's an idea: let's try having a genuine secular democracy and see how that works, eh?

This thread has passed its use-by date, I suspect.

As usual, it has been used by the Christian fundies to pursue their own peculiar brand of attack-dog diplomacy.

Which has become wearyingly predictable.

Take a quotation from one source or another, claim that yours is the only credible interpretation, and use this interpretation to vilify others.

When challenged, string together a dozen or so meaningless quotations from an ancient document that you have carefully researched via anti-Islamic web sites, and increase the level of vilification.

When challenged again, pretend to be suddenly deaf.

On this thread, G Z ducked out of sight when asked:

"On what basis do you permit yourself to believe the words of one ancient scribe over another?"

Boaz, on the other hand, never quite came to grips with the question of his motives:

"If it doesn't have anything to do with your incessant promotion of Christianity, and your equally incessant denigration of Islam, what on earth IS it all about?"

And I strongly doubt whether G Z sees the irony in his last post here.

>>The foundation of a false religion was laid... The rest is history.<<

Given that there is not one contemporary account that supports the deeds, actions and speeches of Jesus of Nazareth, could the New Testament not logically be described as "the foundation of a false religion" also?

I'd have to say that I have a fair amount of admiration for Keysar for coming back to this thread. I agree that the thread has just about passed its use by date. If I get anymore posts like the ones above from G Z or Stevenlmeyer they will be deleted. They are just harrassing Keysar, not adding anything to the argument.

Make no mistake, a debate forum where anyone can post an argument uncensored, unmoderated, OLO is unbelieveably civilised !!

Earlier someone brought out a point that I connected with freedom of speech. I see significance in that issue and would like to raise it.

First, the "Golden Principle": Under the auspice of freedom of speech in our democracy, attacking an ideology/religion should NOT be regarded as attacking the believers themselves.

Afterall, those believers are free to defend, and counter-attack. Like Keysar hinted in his article - "We should be able to present arguments...even if this is unpopular."

Things become murky when some equate good-mannerism to truthfulnes.

Like someone mentioned he would defend good Muslims against my attacks.
I was attacking a religion, not the people. So why would someone need to defend a believer against my attack??
What defines a "good" Muslim? A Muslim that follows Islam 100% or a good guy that happens to be a Muslim?
If a good Muslim does not believe in the "Golden Principle", is he still regarded as good, (and will be defended)?

Well, it is quite possible many believers do regard an attack on their religion a personal attack. They do NOT tolerate that. They do not accept that "Golden Principle".

This poses a dilemma for an umpire, a moderator.
1 - On one hand, there should be no censorship under freedom of speech (A rational and logical stance).
2 - On the other, demands that bad-manners be curtailed, directly curtailing freedom of speech also. (An emotional outcome).

I accept that Keysar is the GOOD guy and I am the BAD one here.

But truth is, the UGLY ones are actually GOOD guys who do not believe in the "Golden Principle" of freedom of speech.
The BAD ones do not seem to have a problem with freedom and democracy.

Do we actually believe in freedom of speech or let GOOD guys curtail it??

Graham Y: hasty generalization. KT may have earned some points for rhetoric, but the arguments are logical fallacy which sway and fall over like No True Scotsman…drunk on Irish whisky.

…from Peter Suber’s article referenced above:

“Philosophical inquiry may be successful if it is only probative, that is, if it only brings us closer to truth. Respect for the parties is secondary; to put it higher is to put persons on a par with truth, which may be proper for every purpose except inquiry for truth.”

(Exactly stevenlmeyer!)

“Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness.”

Note that this was based on western legal systems. In the absence of a “good faith” argument, the debater is lying or being unconscionable.

“ the logic of defending systems is peculiar, and that if we still cherish both the pursuit of systems and the classical forms of debate, then we will have to forgive some question-begging and rudeness. Moreover, if this is so, we should expect a true system to take these peculiarities into account and present a logic in which some circular arguments and rude defenses are permissible.”

The rude proponent who denies this principle by his ad hominem methods, therefore, seems to us to deny an important normative rule; he is not just rude, but also unfair.

Paul L.:. the fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false – although of any pair of claims only one can be true, or both can be false. It might be hypocritical, and should reflect badly on character in the absence of a period of growth that results in an “older and wiser” version. This is a form of ad hominem Tu Quoque or, the “You Too Fallacy”.

But KT’s mistake, by consistently pointing the finger back at the bible or the critic, is also Tu Quoque : “Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right” or “It takes one to know one!”

As stevenlmeyer said: Can we not criticize the Qu’ran without taking pot shots at the bible?

If we are aiming for quality debate, this thread cannot logically support criticism of the bible.

Tu Quoque is not acceptable in debate as a defense: which is why we have to keep coming back to the original questions. This is a fundamental principle of reasoning in ethics, and KT’s continual insistence on bringing OT passages before us in this debate is equivalent to cheating.

There is also the small matter of scale KT. Asking a question is simply not the same as gouging out your eye. This is the attack strategy of Tu Quoque, aka the “Ex Concessis” fallacy: pointing out that something is, superficially, just as bad as something else which is presumably unacceptable.

Both strategies involve irrelevance (a deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premise).

The following should be compulsory reading for all OLOers:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Note that Pericles’ question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” appears quite prominently under the interrogative form of “Begging the Question”.

Note also that this website is from a group of people that believe in “the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic god”.

BB: if you liked Suber (ex-Saturday Night Live comedian), you will LOVE the naturalistic worldview! Enjoy, and feel free to call me up short whenever I indulge in a fallacious argument of my own.

G_Z: thank you!. I’d love the standard of these debates to improve and I believe that BD’s marathon efforts are the fruit of logical reasoning and wisdom, (and as my bias technically disqualifies me from making this call, it is gratifying that others do). Thanks also for the Good Cop/Bad Cop post. There are a few too many moralizers represented here, all quick to suppress a good critical attack.

You might wonder at my wisdom of quoting from an atheistic website… this does not advance the agenda of the evangelical Christian! Notice, we can never ARGUE you into believing the bible. This decision must always be carefully weighed up in the heart. As BD said, when Jesus comes knocking…

katiO, as it happens, i disagree with pretty much everything in your final posts. but this is obviously not the time or the place to engage in that debate.

i'll simply say that i think your posts suggest much too much concern for (and certainty of what is) logical fallacy, and much too little concern for civility. interestingly, i think you do this whilst displaying the very civility you seem to hold in such low regard.

Katie, I'm not trying to police logic, I'm trying to police the way that the argument proceeds. I don't accept your thesis that rudeness is acceptable in argument, unless by "rudeness" you mean saying something which though logically correct is offensive to the person hearing it for social or customary reasons. If that is what you mean by "rudeness" then that is not what is being practiced by the posts that I am complaining about.

I think it is legitimate for Keysar to raise questions of the Old Testament. When he does this he appears to me to be saying "You can pick quotations out of context from the Koran, and I can just as easily pick quotations out of context from the Bible, but that doesn't make you right anymore than it makes me right."