Dear Frank :)

the problem with presenting:

" convincing evidence, logical reasoning, scintillating intelligence and sparkling wit."

is that you get called a whole list of names by other folks.. or.. (as in your case) you get generalized stonewalling but little effort to demonstrate the weakness of the case :)

Now..that's not fair..(whiney tone)

I just receive this unbelievable convoluted reasoning from a Muslim on youtube.

When challenged about Mohammad marrying a 6 yr old.. he siad "But her father OFFERED her to mohammad"

I've never in all my reading of Islamic literature ever come across anything even remotely hinting that this was the case. All I've found is "Mohammad had a dream.. seeing him with Ayesha" and based on that dream..he actually proposed the marriage.

Now..that is the 'fact' of the matter.. without entering the arena of making value judgements.

What did this Muslim say ?

Here it is ..word for word:

<<AbuBakr did 'offer' his daughter to Muhammad(saws), by excepting his asking for her hand,>>

Do you see it ? now incedibly twisted is this blokes mind..and all who reason thus.

"I ask for a kg of sausages at your shop"= "You OFFERED me a kg of sausages"... I mean.. c'mon.. lets all get real here.

At least he TRIED to respond to the 'abuse of children in 65:4' but his reasoning there was equally twisted. In short..he does not deny that the Quran permits sex with pre-pubescent children (in marraige)
And...that such woefully abused children can be (God forbid) DIVORCED!

Why does he agree with my claim ? Simple.. because my claim is based on evidence which is irrefutable. (If language means anything)

Now..if a passionate Muslim can at least address the question.. I fail to see how you who try to rip me apart cannot.

*tightens 'anti-adhominen' belt*

It never ceases to amaze me that you have the gall to write this stuff, Boaz:

>>the problem with presenting: "convincing evidence, logical reasoning, scintillating intelligence and sparkling wit." is that you get called a whole list of names by other folks.. or.. (as in your case) you get generalized stonewalling but little effort to demonstrate the weakness of the case :)<<

On the contrary, the problem with presenting logical refutation of your fanciful argumentation is that you simply choose to disappear in a puff of smoke. It really is a waste of time.

I'm still waiting for your response to my - completely free of any name-calling - challenge for you to produce evidence to support yet one of your over-the-top claims for the reliability of your sources.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1528#29330

Unfortunately, in this case there isn't even any grainy footage of religious fanatics on YouTube to help your cause.