Dear Foxy :) I'm not selling....I'm giving away freely.

EXAMINATOR ... wow.. I am touched that you would take the trouble to communicate with someone about my offer. I'm not surprised that his eminence took the view he did.. Muslims tend to run scared when confronted with someone who actually knows their material as well as or better than they :) (now that should stirrrrrr the pot a bit)

Let's choose the subject..

THE MORAL CHARACTER OF MOHAMMAD.. as SHOWN BY THE 33rd SURAH.

NOw.. I invite you to look at and evaluat the following information.

1/ Verse 50 "Mohammad declares that the following women are 'lawful' to him.
2/ He then declares "But this is only for ME...not for the believers"

3/ He includes in his 'list' of lawful women 'a believing woman who offers herself' ie.. ANY believing woman.

4/ Temporary marriage Nikah Muta' was approved of by Mohammad UNTIL the Battle of Khayber, much later than the time of surah 33

4/ Revelation STOPS at verse 50.. I mean..seriously.. really.. that's the 'end' UNTIL.. a certain event takes place.

It's found in the Hadith.

There is obviously a procession of women.. which could include children as young as 'just' pubescent coming to Mohammad and offering themselves for...?

OUTCOME.

His youngest wife Ayesha says..in her own words as follows:

Muslim Book 008, Number 3453:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.

SEE IT? only THEN.... after she complains..is verse 51 "revealed"

v51= "I can do what I like"

I challenge him to debate me on THIS! and we'll see who the blind man is.

EXAMINATOR...

MORAL CHARACTER OF MOHAMMAD ...(continued)

It might be argued that "Oh...that was the practice at that time"

Well..fortunately for me, I've done my background reading.

We often hear, from Muslims, that "Mohammad lifted the Arabs out of their moral squalor with the light of the Quran" etc etc.

But look at what one of their major scholars says.. a man considered of sufficient scholarly repute that the University of Southern California Muslim Students Association uses him as their reference scholar on the Quran.

"Today, over 150 MSA chapters exist on American college campuses (divided into five regional chapters), easily establishing this organization as the most extensive Muslim student organization in North America."

HE...says as follows in his introduction to Surah 33

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau33.html

The other problem was that before marrying Hadrat Zainab, he had four wives already in the houses: Hadrat Saudah, Hadrat Aishah, Hadrat Hafsah, and Hadrat Umm Salamah. Hadrat Zainab was his fifth wife. At this the opponents raised the objection, and the Muslims also started entertaining doubts, that as for others it had been forbidden to keep more than four wives at a time, but how the Holy Prophet himself had taken a fifth wife also.

In OTHER words.. the Televangelist or the Priest is saying "GOD TOLD ME" I can molest that child.. YOU ordinary believers cannot, but I CAN!

Anyone who cannot see this.. is utterly blind :) including your professor friend.

USUAL RESPONSE from Muslims is..
-"Oh.. you got that from hate sites" (no..I got it from the Quran and hadith)
-"But that is a WEAK hadith" (which it is not!)

If all else fails....

-"Your just an idiot" (or blind:)

What he(your friend) really means is.. "This bloke will not eat the spin and propoganda I would like to feed him" So..the ending is indeed 'bad'..but for your friend..not me.

You can always count on Porkycrap to revert to whack-a-Mozzie mode when he can't get traction elsewhere - like his homophobia thread, for example, or when he's caught out telling lies, or when his other rabble-rousing efforts don't go in the direction he wants.

However, I'd defend his right to do so. Unlike him, I believe in free speech.

And in Porky's case, nobody could do a better job of destroying any shred of credibility he may retain than he does.

Horus, through necessity there's always "degrees" of freedom. Regarding the cartoons, whether they should, or shouldn't, be banned/allowed/supported/criticised depends on the general social/political/religious/non-religious/philosophical outlook of the people who wish to either ban or allow such expression. No **ONE** action suits all people everywhere in the world. That's just human nature. There is no **ONE** answer to your question of, "why should or shouldn't we be allowed to view the cartoons?". There may be of course "one" answer for "one" grouping of people, but that doesn't mean there's one answer for all people in the world. This concept doesn't just apply to the cartoons, but to every word written by every writer everywhere in the world, past and present.

No matter what........ whether we are slaves, partially free, free or are totally free to do or say as we choose, our actions can sometimes negatively impact and impinge on other peoples' freedom to do or say as "they" choose: the degree of that impact depends on one's actions. When one person's version of freedom clashes with another person's version of freedom, we don't end up with freedom, we end up with a real problem. This is a problem that will NEVER be solved on a universal basis for all. Why? Because of the diversity of human nature. The MOST we can hope for is compromise. That's why "true" freedom works (mostly) in relatively free societies such as our's, where limits are placed on our freedoms. We are free to do and say certain things "only". We are not free, for example, to drive on the wrong side of the road or assault people or defame people etc etc etc.

In a pragmatic, workable way, what we have in this country (and similar countries) is as close to true freedom as it gets so far, taking into account human nature. If someone wants to merely say or write or do ANYTHING then that person is not encompassing freedom, he/she is encompassing anarchy. Some people are incapable of understanding this very basic concept.

samsung>"In a pragmatic, workable way, what we have in this country (and similar countries) is as close to true freedom as it gets so far, taking into account human nature."

Not even close. Why do people assume that our society is the end game? There is no way at all it is. There are all sorts of examples provided by stevenimeyer that PROVE right here that such an opinion is absurd. Other countries already have wider range of freedoms than our own. The current system is puppeting you samsung.

Oh for goodness sake, get a grip steel, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing now.

OF COURSE, I repeat, OF COURSE our country is not the "end game": In fact I said that by including the term "so far". We AGREE! Duh. Our society here has more freedoms than some free societies, and less freedoms than some free societies.......again DUH! EVERY free society is like that; I don't know of ONE "perfect" free society. If you read my posts "properly" you'd see I've been saying exactly that all along. Maybe you failed comprehension at school, maybe not, but I think you could possibly up your skills in that regard; it certainly wouldn't do you any harm.