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.