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?