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.