David f wrote:

"...With the exception of Turkey and Afghanistan all the Islamic countries were colonies of the imperialist European Christian nations. Those nations colonised and ruled with brutality and arrogance. Part of Islam's anger is the remembrance of that. Those hurts last for a long time."

OK I get it. You are now making excuses for Islam just as you accuse AGIR of making excuses for the dark side of Christianity.

Presumably if Muslim nations had not been colonised there would, for example, be no child marriage in Muslim countries.

Got it.

With that logic would I as a Jew be justified in letting off bombs in the Berlin underground or blowing up a Polish airliner?

I always tell my fellow Jews that they cannot excuse everything they do because of CENTURIES of persecution at the hands of Christians AND Muslims* culminating in the Holocaust. But, using your logic, it seems they can.

*Please spare me the politically correct version of history that says Muslims treated Jews well. Sometimes they did. Mostly they didn't

Hi Grateful.

my goodness, you are leaving yourself wide open to soooo much there.

You say:

//AGIR: If you are saying Islam supports child abuse then you are wrong.//

Then you say:

//I would like people to become informed about my religion.//

On the first point...you are in deep denial... sadly so. (for you)

"does Islam support child abuse"? Actually, that wasn't the issue, it was "Child SEXUAL abuse

For this we must first define what 'Child sexual abuse is.

You can spin it however you like Grateful, but the simple and inescapable fact is.. you are ducking and weaving with all your might to avoid the clear and unmistakable FACT that "Islam teaches/permits child sexual abuse" unLESS you redefine sexual abuse to be NOT old men
-marrying
-consummating
-divorcing

PRE pubsecent children!

I went very patiently through an exercise with a number of people on this, related to the meaning of surah 65:4 (in the bigger context of issues about 'divorce')

You will be aware now..that you are up against.

-My own setting forth of the plain meaning of the verse.
-Another (non religious) posters agreement, and concurring on the plain meaning of the verse.
-The scholarly opinion of a MAJOR Islamic scholar on the meaning of the verse...

All of whom concurr that the verse clearly and unmisakably permits the abovementioned treatment of pre-pubescent children.

Now..IF..you wish to declare for all the world and OLO to see that marrying, sexually invading and then casting aside in divorce of small pre-pubescent children is NOT child "abuse"...then go for it...but don't expect any sane person to have much sympathy for either you or your religion.

I wonder how many of the usual suspects will be so bold as to support such behavior? OR...manifest hyper irrationality by claiming that to expose such things is 'an irrational fear' (Phobia)

Steven quotes David F saying:

"Those (Christian) nations colonised and ruled with brutality and arrogance. Part of Islam's anger is the remembrance of that. Those hurts last for a long time."

Wellll... let's also remember that from 1199 to 1683.. what's that ? errr 484 yrs...the Ottomans were slashing and burning through southern Europe in the name if Islam, and if they had not been stopped by Polish hero Jan III Sobieski on SEPTEMBER THE 11TH 1683.... it would have been game over for all the world.

It should be remembered..that the British/so called Christian nations never demanded an annual 'tribute' of 500 'boys' to be trained as Jannisaries as the Muslims did.

Yes..that 'hurt' lasts a long time in memory.

Given the obvious political agendas of stevenlmeyer and AGIR i do not think they can claim any credibility as reliable sources. Perhaps they see themselves as contributing to the global neo-con effort: http://muslimvillage.com/2010/06/19/neo-conservatives-lead-charge-against-turkey/

Since this will be my last time here let me reiterate what i said to david f: i want people to be informed about Islam. All i say is that when reading about Islam just be sure that the author is, or relies upon, serious scholars in Islam: scholars with publications in peer reviewed journals (therefore recognised for their scholarship and a scholarly reputation to protect in Islamic studies) and choose non-Muslims to be free of any potential doubts over partiality.

Those who would fit the above description include:

John L. Eposito, editor of the Oxford History of Islam (and contributors therein); and

Prof Thomas Arnold 'The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching' (Arnold was prof of Arabic at Cambridge and knighted 'for services to learning')

When you look at the posts of AGIR and stevenlmeyer you notice one thing: they cannot offer serious scholarship to support their claims. If OLO is willing to allow a type of Greshams law of information to prevail (good, reliable information being driven out by the bad) in the case of Islam then presumably they also support this agenda and the persecution that this invariably fosters.

For those of us who do not support this political agenda, i can suggest you visit the forums offered by muslimvillage.com. You'll find Christains, Jews and Zionists there who are able to propagate their views and provide critical opinion.I remember a Christian who actually posted an invitation to Bible studies class and this was allowed to run, a good indicator of the level of confidence we have in our own religion as well as the scope for constructive dialogue and debate. The MV moderators are strict in terms of people's conduct and you'll find the Muslims are strict on themselves in terms of requiring support for any controversial statements.

PS: David f. thank-you for the sensible discussion. Also a typo in my last post: The "No" in my previous post did not refer to your last question, but to your interpretation (which i think would have been clear from what i wrote). All the best.

salaams

Dear Grateful,
Your posts are starting to sound more and more like an RSPT advertisement –though, I suspect it’s not a super profits tax you’re trying to sell us on but a super prophets tax: a dhimmis tax

You say:” I want people to be informed about Islam”
And so do we all!

But it seems you only want (or know) the sanitised version of Islam’s past told –hence your apparent support of Vic The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. And its elder, brother injunctions to be found in most Islamic societies.

And I bet you stole this little gem straight-out of the AGW proselytizers handbook: “When reading about Islam just be sure that the author is, or relies upon, serious scholars in Islam: scholars with publications in peer reviewed” Quanda would be proud!