Irrational, moi?

>>Dear Pericles, it is increasingly clear that you know so little about Islam as to be more dangerous than helpful. You admit you don't know much about it.. but you stridently defend it. That's irrational.<<

Boaz, I know as much as I need to about Islam, and about Christianity, to recognize the difference between intellectual argument and tub-thumping rabble-rousing.

You wilfully misinterpret my antipathy towards your whack-a-mozzie antics as "defending Islam", so that you don't need to justify your own actions, merely attack mine.

You wilfully misinterpret my rejection of your justification for such actions - the blind belief you have in certain selected parts of ancient texts - as "knocking Christianity". This allows you to convince yourself that you are somehow defending your religion, when the issue is the use to which it is put.

You then provide a classic example of Boaz-speak:

>>The more rational approach would be to unpack my own presentation and find fault with it. Unfortunately that approach it would involve abject denial of the meaning of language and grammar.<<

Leaving aside your shoot-myself-in-the-foot observations on "language and grammar", this is a classic example of your self-delusion.

"Unpacking" your presentation would require an acceptance of your groundrules. That your choice of excerpt from this or that religious text somehow has independent value. That your assessment of the motives of others is somehow more insightful than other people's. To argue against your position without questioning its premise would require an admission that it has some basis, some foundation, apart from its own self-importance.

It doesn't.

Until you are able to see that your accusations have no foundation in common sense, we are bound to continue to disagree:

>>You could always... simply deny that they say what they say.<<

I don't.

>>perhaps just attack the Bible.<<

My only concern is the reliance you place upon it.

>>you could always abuse me.. "you are a zealot"<<

The cap seems to fit.

>>it seems you need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the actual facts<<

"Facts" aren't at issue here, Boaz, simply your interpretation of them.

Part 1 of 2

aaah.. the sweet smell of roasting Pericles :)

Sometimes it takes a considerable effort but when you finally, absent mindedly swing that gun down and accidently pull the trigger and blow half your foot off(with your double barrelled 12 guage)... welllll.. my ethics prevent me from rejoicing over your pain BUT.... we might at least be able to make some progress.

Barrel 1
"Until you are able to see that your accusations have no foundation in common sense, we are bound to continue to disagree:"

Barrel 2

"Facts" aren't at issue here, Boaz, simply your interpretation of them.

Oh my.. you have no idea how juicy that 2nd barrel is.

Now....let's just focus on barrel 2 "your intepretation of them"

Which of course leads us back to the basics of language and grammar.

I've outlined a set of facts, and even the dimmest of dimwits can see what is going on here, but they seem to elude you.

Let's recap the FACTS.

1/ Mohammad outlines all the categories of women HE may marry in 33:50

2/ In that verse, he contradicts his previous limitations on how many women a Muslim can marry, by claiming that Allah allows him and only him, to marry all those outlined PLUS "a believing woman who offers herself"

3/ One of his wives testifies that he made good use of this 'plus' provision by using the plural "women" in her hadith.

4/ She then says that He received 'revelation' to justify that which was illegal for all other Muslims to do. (treating wives unfairly)

5/ His response then becomes the 51st verse of the 33rd chapter of the Quran, tailor made to suit his 'desires' which Allah rushes to fulfill.

Now.. as I said before, even you.. with all your stubborn "whack-a-critic of Islam"-itus can see what is going on here.

...continued next post

ROAST PERICLES part 2 of 2

INTERPRETATION.

I'm not sure what goes on in your head at this point, but I think at a guess it's something like "I don't care how true or accurate Polycarp or Paul L or Kactuz might be, if it is critical of Islam, I'll attack them"

But if you were even a bit honest about this issue, you, like even Muslim commentators would recognize there is a serious problem here.

Maududi, on the issue of Mohammad's marriage to the divorced wife of his adopted son (an act which was abhorrent even to pagan Arab culture) says the following:

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

"As soon as the marriage was contracted, there arose a storm of propaganda against the Holy Prophet."

He goes on.....

<<The other problem was that before marrying Hadrat Zainab, he had four wives already in the houses: .... 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.>>

Now.. make no mistake, Maududi is a very loyal and passionate Muslim.
He sees the problems.. but dear roasting Pericles in 2008 ...does not! :)

Maududi simply accepts Mohammad's solution "Allah said it's all ok"

Pericles says of critics of the above "a classic example of self delusion" (at this I take a deeeeep breath)

Dear Pericles.. the delusion is yours I'm afraid.

The Quran says it
The Hadith supports it.
Maududi/Muslim commentators recognize it..

It gets worse. He even claims 'no fault' if he takes a women:
a)WithOUT dowery
b)WithOUT Guardians permission.

(Both being requirements for all other Muslims)

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1839&Itemid=89
<<a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers.) no woman has the right to offer herself to any man without a Wali or a dowery, EXCEPT..... to the Prophet>> . (Ibn Kathir)

Pericles doesn't get it.

For the zillionth time Boaz, I have absolutely no interest in, nor do I share your enthusiasm for, random excerpts from an ancient text.

You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.

It doesn't matter whether that particular ancient text originated with a cabal of like-minded zealots, dedicated to the creation of a religion from the mythology that grew up around a charismatic soothsayer, or the writings of a single individual bent upon an identical enterprise.

To me, they may as well be in Aramaic, for all the value they hold in discussing twentyfirst century issues, in a country that didn't even exist when those books were written, and in a language that wasn't around then either.

These stories have no resonance in a society that has learned to think for itself. I know that you believe that no-one is able to do this without turning into a paid-up member of NAMBLA, but strangely, they do exist. They live normal, healthy, responsible and honest lives, without having to listen to you banging on about worshipping some random deity.

>>I've outlined a set of facts, and even the dimmest of dimwits can see what is going on here, but they seem to elude you.<<

Unfortunately, you once again choose to fight your battles on premises that you, alone, can subscribe to. This is akin to Obama saying to McCain, I'm willing to debate your policies, so long as we do so in Swahili.

Why you still insist on quoting verses at me, providing your own commentary to those verses, then berating me for not agreeing to their logic, frankly astounds me. It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that communication can only begin when there is a shared foundation.

Usually, of course, using English is a fruitful starting point.

But even that is of no value when your thought processes diverge so far from the norm as to make a shared language superfluous.

Do you also speak in tongues? Maybe we'll have better luck with those.

BINGO :)

*You can regurgitate as much of their content as you like, it does not represent evidence to me.*

Dear Pericles...that rather says it all :)

It represented evidence to Justice Higgins... he paid very close attention to it... but for you ? nah :)

Oh my.. ..oh my oh my.... are you this far gone or just this stubborn?

I think part of the trouble between us is... that when I write on Islam in a critical way, I am writing to expose something about Islam to

a) Those who currently adhere to it.(misguided)
b) Those who might be contemplating it.
c) Those who seek a better understanding of it in order to engage with Muslims about faith issues.

Now..if you don't fit into any of those categories..why in the world do you bother to rip into me? (along with Paul L and Kaztuz)

You seem to have this trigger mechanism which always rises to defend Islam or.. in your mind it's expose bigotry and narrow mindedness....
and all the while you claim to not have the slightest bit of interest in either Islam or Christianity. You claim to be an atheist..then you attack Paul L who is one of your mob.

At least if you are going to attack peoples position.. you should be informed about it. Otherwise you end up just attacking the person.

Maybe u feel threatened...that if one cannot find fault with Christ or his teaching.. but one can find fault with Islam and it's prophet.. perhaps Christ IS....'The Way' and this scares u?

Frazier is on now and I find his comedy more alluring than debating with you :) so.. tata.

Boaz,

The point I am making (which surprisingly every one seem to get but yourself):

- If you are a true believer in your faith then just celebrate it without jumping on others. I don’t see followers of the Islamic faith caring about whats in and what out of your scripture. Seems all you read is the Quran and the hadith which I find odd.

- Your arguments against the prophet’s wives are understood only if it comes from an atheist. But you claim to believe your scripture which talks about god’s prophets marrying 3, 9 and 700 wives. You also believe that some of them drank and slept with their own daughters. I can understand that your belief system contains some unexplained and ethically challenging material but thats not an excuse to tarnish others. Just try to come to terms with your faith or find something else.

Finally Boaz look around: all religions ae still around since the dawn of time and they will eventually come to an 'eco' system.
There is no precedent for anything succeeding to stop a religious conviction from growing. In fact, such as the case with christianity during the roman empire, the more resistence the more it grew.

Peace,