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.