link

The Dr of Divinity will not be impressed Herb.
But thanks for the read.

Usual rubbish from Pickering.

Do you disagree with anything he said?

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:

Do you disagree with anything he said?

I disagree with most of what he says, FD.  He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances.  He does so because he is a self-confessed Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:

Do you disagree with anything he said?

I didn't read any of what he said.  Did you, Effendi?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:37pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances.

Does this same apology and rationale apply to Australia's early settlers?

The context of the times, and trying to survive in a harsh environment.

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:37pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances. Does this same apology and rationale apply to Australia's early settlers? The context of the times, and trying to survive in a harsh environment.

Except they claimed they were of superior intellect/virtue/philosophy and many of their own numbers criticised them for what they were doing to indigenous Australians, Herbie.     ::)

Circumstances does not excuse the massacring of Indigenous Australians, the stealing of their children, the destruction of their society and their culture.   That is Genocide.   Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:37pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? I disagree with most of what he says, FD.  He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances.  He does so because he is a self-confessed Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) ::)

He paints a foul picture of Muhammed because Muhammed was a foul person and that is an entirely reasonable picture to create. You would have no problem at all with this if it were not for the millions of people who use him as a 21st century moral guide, which for some reason compels you to abandon morality in judging him.

That is also why you cannot point out anything that is actually wrong with the article.


Quote:

I didn't read any of what he said.  Did you, Effendi?

Yes. It is an interesting read.


Quote:

Except they claimed they were of superior intellect/virtue/philosophy

Are you saying this distinguishes it from Muslims and Muhammed?

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:14pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:37pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? I disagree with most of what he says, FD.  He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances.  He does so because he is a self-confessed Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) ::) He paints a foul picture of Muhammed because Muhammed was a foul person and that is an entirely reasonable picture to create. You would have no problem at all with this if it were not for the millions of people who use him as a 21st century moral guide, which for some reason compels you to abandon morality in judging him.

Effendi, I am yet again most abjectly sorry that I have to disturd your serendipitous bliss, but would you mind ever so much reading the PM I sent you many hours ago concerning an accusation of paedophilia levelled directly against me and two other Members?

Perhaps this twisted apologism is why Brian is so willing to pass moral judgement on Australians but not Muhammed:


Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:

Do you disagree with anything he said?

Yes.

" ... according to the Islamic activist, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, Sharia law is only about ‘praying 5 times a day’ ... "


And it's by Zanetti, not Pickering.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Perhaps this twisted apologism is why Brian is so willing to pass moral judgement on Australians but not Muhammed: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm: It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.

There's a tribe in Africa that throws a trussed-up live white goat onto a blazing fire to propitiate the Gods to give them a good harvest.

But you don't have the right or ability to criticise this practice in concert with others who would like to see this practice stopped to save any further suffering to goats in the future?

Do you realise how morally ill you are, Brian?

No right to criticise the people who organised and acted out the 800,000-deaths in Ruanda in 1993? It was 'unfortunate', but the proper protocol is for no one outside of Ruanda to offer a word of criticism or disapproval?

Isn't it time you stopped trolling nonsense like this, Brian? Yes, it gets you attention but at what cost to your reputation?

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:14pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:37pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? I disagree with most of what he says, FD.  He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances.  He does so because he is a self-confessed Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) ::) He paints a foul picture of Muhammed because Muhammed was a foul person and that is an entirely reasonable picture to create. You would have no problem at all with this if it were not for the millions of people who use him as a 21st century moral guide, which for some reason compels you to abandon morality in judging him.

Nope.  I believe that Mohammed was a human being and had just as many failings as all human beings did.  He though, it mus be admitted, a successful human being who managed to forge a religious empire out of nothing.  However, just as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any other great military commander, he really cannot be judged by 21st century standards of morality.   In the 14th century they did things differently, just as they did in earlier periods.   You, however want to judge his actions by today's standards and are surprised that they don't measure up.   Don't try and erect a strawman argument, FD, it doesn't work with me.  Mohammed was a man who lived ~1400 years ago.   While Muslims may hold him up as a paragon of virtue, I don't.  He was a man and nothing more to me.   He had his failings, like all men.

We don't see you judging Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great or Chingiz Khan or anybody else from history in the same manner.    ::) ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:37pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances. Does this same apology and rationale apply to Australia's early settlers? The context of the times, and trying to survive in a harsh environment.

You also have to understand that the context in which Mohammed and his followers were in was in a tribal society. Social and political organization in tribal societies is different from nation-states. For e.g. when you are a small group, you're at greater risk of being 'exterminated' and so you would do anything to survive. Today, millions of people living in nation-states; there's no chance of completing wiping out anyone.

Quote:

Nope.  I believe that Mohammed was a human being and had just as many failings as all human beings did.  He though, it mus be admitted, a successful human being who managed to forge a religious empire out of nothing.  However, just as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any other great military commander, he really cannot be judged by 21st century standards of morality.

So why do you keep interjecting when we criticise people for holding him up as an eternal example of moral leadership for all mankind?


Quote:

You, however want to judge his actions by today's standards and are surprised that they don't measure up.

I would be happy to leave him in the 7th century. It is Muslims who want him in the 21st.


Quote:

While Muslims may hold him up as a paragon of virtue, I don't.

 

Why are you afraid to criticise Muslims for holding him as a man of virtue while being eager to criticise people for agreeing wiyth you - that he does not stack up by modern standards?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:15pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:14pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:37pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? I disagree with most of what he says, FD.  He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances.  He does so because he is a self-confessed Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) ::) He paints a foul picture of Muhammed because Muhammed was a foul person and that is an entirely reasonable picture to create. You would have no problem at all with this if it were not for the millions of people who use him as a 21st century moral guide, which for some reason compels you to abandon morality in judging him. Nope.  I believe that Mohammed was a human being and had just as many failings as all human beings did.  He though, it mus be admitted, a successful human being who managed to forge a religious empire out of nothing.  However, just as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any other great military commander, he really cannot be judged by 21st century standards of morality.   In the 14th century they did things differently, just as they did in earlier periods.   You, however want to judge his actions by today's standards and are surprised that they don't measure up.   Don't try and erect a strawman argument, FD, it doesn't work with me.  Mohammed was a man who lived ~1400 years ago.   While Muslims may hold him up as a paragon of virtue, I don't.  He was a man and nothing more to me.   He had his failings, like all men. We don't see you judging Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great or Chingiz Khan or anybody else from history in the same manner.    ::) ::)

Bump

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:20pm:

Quote: Nope.  I believe that Mohammed was a human being and had just as many failings as all human beings did.  He though, it mus be admitted, a successful human being who managed to forge a religious empire out of nothing.  However, just as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any other great military commander, he really cannot be judged by 21st century standards of morality. So why do you keep interjecting when we criticise people for holding him up as an eternal example of moral leadership for all mankind?

I don't.  I object to you judging his actions by 21st century standards of morality.  You can judge the Muslims who hold up as being fools but you really cannot judge Mohammed for his actions in that way.  The world ~1400 years ago was far more violent and dangerous than it is now.    ::)


Quote:

[quote]You, however want to judge his actions by today's standards and are surprised that they don't measure up.

I would be happy to leave him in the 7th century. It is Muslims who want him in the 21st.[/quote]

Just like Christians like Christ to be in the 21st Century or Hindus who want their multitude of gods to be in the 21st Century?  How about Buddhists?   We don't hear you criticising them, now do we, FD?   I wonder why the over-emphasis all the time on Muslims?  Islamophobia?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)


Quote:

[quote]While Muslims may hold him up as a paragon of virtue, I don't.

 

Why are you afraid to criticise Muslims for holding him as a man of virtue while being eager to criticise people for agreeing wiyth you - that he does not stack up by modern standards?[/quote]

I am not afraid of criticising Muslims.  I just don't see the point, just as I don't see the point of criticising Mormons or Christadelphians or Catholics for their beliefs, FD.   They are theirs and long as they don't intrude on me, I'm happy.   I've never had a Muslim knocking on my front door and asking me to believe in Allah.  Funny that, hey?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:37pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? I disagree with most of what he says, FD.  He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances. He does so because he is a self-confessed Islamophobe.

Those 'ISLAMOPHOBES' Brian  !!!

You can travel through time, yet you just can't escape them !

/sarc off



Quote:

Was Marco Polo an ‘Islamophobe’? 2010/04/16 by Raymond Ibrahim [Marco Polo]......According to their doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens (p.63). [Raymond Ibrahim] In fact, based on the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s numerous raiding expeditions, plundering infidels is quite standard in Islam and treated regularly in legal manuals; the Koran has an entire chapter dedicated to and named after plunder (Surat al-Anfal). As for being a martyr simply by dying at the hands of the infidel enemy, this too has ample support in Islam’s texts and enjoys consensus among the ulema. The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid (martyr) as “one killed in battle with infidels.” [Raymond Ibrahim] A more telling anecdote follows: According to Polo, a certain “Achmath” (probably “Ahmed”), one of the few Muslims to have had great influence over Kublai Khan, habitually abused the largely non-Muslim subject peoples without the Khan’s knowledge: he put to death anyone he pleased, robbed them of their possessions, and, most notoriously, he and his sons regularly raped and coerced into concubinage countless women. Due to Achmath’s many atrocities, he was eventually assassinated. When the Khan later discovered the extent of Achmath’s crimes, his [Marco Polo]   ......attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined (p.173).

http://raymondibrahim.com/2010/04/16/was-marco-polo-an-islamophobe/

Quote:

I am not afraid of criticising Muslims.  I just don't see the point, just as I don't see the point of criticising Mormons or Christadelphians or Catholics for their beliefs, FD.   They are theirs and long as they don't intrude on me, I'm happy.   I've never had a Muslim knocking on my front door and asking me to believe in Allah.  Funny that, hey?

You are afraid to criticise Muslims Brian. Exhibit 1:


freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Perhaps this twisted apologism is why Brian is so willing to pass moral judgement on Australians but not Muhammed: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm: I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

If Muslims held up a rock as their moral compass, and we responded by saying it is just a rock, you would feel compelled to criticise us for judging the rock by human standards, and you would insist you have no right or even ability to criticise foreign rock-worshippers.

In order to criticise Muslims for holding Muhammed up as an eternal example for all mankind, it is absolutely essential to criticise Muhammed himself and to judge him by modern standards, precisely because Muslims hold him to be a modern and eternal example. There is no other way to do it. To insist we must navigate around your objections is to tie yourself into convoluted knots of spineless apologetics, which is no trouble for people who have no spine, but for those of us with a spine it is simply not possible.

What a shame you failed to read the whole work, Yadda.


Quote:

(It is significant to note that, in both of Polo’s block quotes above, he criticizes Muslim doctrine — not so much Muslim peoples. In other words, he allows for what would today be called “moderate” Muslims, as shown by his aforementioned praise for individual Muslim leaders.)

[url=http://raymondibrahim.com/2010/04/16/was-marco-polo-an-islamophobe/]Source[/url]

Polo was not an "Islamophobe", he did not hate Muslims or even Islam.   Unlike you.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 6:50pm:

Quote: I am not afraid of criticising Muslims.  I just don't see the point, just as I don't see the point of criticising Mormons or Christadelphians or Catholics for their beliefs, FD.   They are theirs and long as they don't intrude on me, I'm happy.   I've never had a Muslim knocking on my front door and asking me to believe in Allah.  Funny that, hey? You are afraid to criticise Muslims Brian.

You will believe what you want to believe and you will post what ever you desire to post, FD.  Nothing I say will ever make you change your mind.  So, lets leave it at that.  I am magnanimous and willing to disagree with you.  Are you willing to disagree with me?  I suspect not.    ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Perhaps this twisted apologism is why Brian is so willing to pass moral judgement on Australians but not Muhammed: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm: I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

Wacism, innit.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:

Do you disagree with anything he said?

I think we're all rather curious about you, FD.

Do you disagree with anything Pickering says?

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:

Do you disagree with anything he said?

Yes it is full of factual errors. For example the concept of the 'Dar al-Islam' and 'Dar al-harb' was invented centuries after Muhammad's death.


Quote:

He insulted the Christians by stating that Jesus was not the son of God, but a Muslim prophet. To add insult, he claimed the ancestors of all the other religions were all burning in hell because they were not Muslim, going so far as to tell the other religious leaders that they, too, would burn in hell as Islam was the only true religion. His growing confidence, aggression and religious intolerance put out the noses of the local leaders. Attempts to pacify and mediate with Mohammed proved unsuccessful, so the leaders hatched a plot to kill him to restore harmony in the community.

What do you think about this FD?

Basically what he's saying is Muhammad peacefully preached things that the leaders didn't approve of, so they tried to kill him for it - after first trying to silence him.

Actually, the truth is Muhammad was promoting dangerous ideas of social justice amongst the most disadvantaged and discriminated in society - which was obviously unacceptable to the elites at the time.

You used to mock the idea that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad - which caused the migration to Medina. So I guess this is something you disagree with no?

Just to clarify, this article is from Paul Zanetti.

http://zanettisview.com/story/islam-and-women-a-historical-perspective/4141

Pickering has merely reposted it on his own trashy website.

Interestingly, he changed the title from:

"Islam And Women - A Historical Perspective"

To:

"OF COURSE I'M A HALF-WIT ... ONLY MUSLIM MEN CAN BE FULL-WITS - Yassmin Abdel-Magied's extraordinary claim!"

That shows you what sort of creep the guy is.

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:17pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:14pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:37pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:22pm: Do you disagree with anything he said? I disagree with most of what he says, FD.  He deliberately paints a foul picture of Islam and Mohammed, without attempt to understand the context of what Mohammed did and why he did it.  Rather like you, he seems to be applying early 21st century Western morality to early Arab 15th century circumstances.  He does so because he is a self-confessed Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) ::) He paints a foul picture of Muhammed because Muhammed was a foul person and that is an entirely reasonable picture to create. You would have no problem at all with this if it were not for the millions of people who use him as a 21st century moral guide, which for some reason compels you to abandon morality in judging him. Effendi, I am yet again most abjectly sorry that I have to disturd your serendipitous bliss, but would you mind ever so much reading the PM I sent you many hours ago concerning an accusation of paedophilia levelled directly against me and two other Members?

As FD says, Aussie, no one has the right to not be offended.

It could have been worse. They could have called you a stinking apologist

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 7:12pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:50pm: Quote: I am not afraid of criticising Muslims.  I just don't see the point, just as I don't see the point of criticising Mormons or Christadelphians or Catholics for their beliefs, FD.   They are theirs and long as they don't intrude on me, I'm happy.   I've never had a Muslim knocking on my front door and asking me to believe in Allah.  Funny that, hey? You are afraid to criticise Muslims Brian. You will believe what you want to believe and you will post what ever you desire to post, FD.  Nothing I say will ever make you change your mind.  So, lets leave it at that.  I am magnanimous and willing to disagree with you.  Are you willing to disagree with me?  I suspect not.    ::) ::)

You previously accused me of taking this quote out of context brian, but would not clarify in what way you wish to disown it. Do you still hold these views?

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.


Quote:

What do you think about this FD? Basically what he's saying is Muhammad peacefully preached things that the leaders didn't approve of, so they tried to kill him for it - after first trying to silence him.

I think people had good reason to try to kill him. I am not aware of the details of what happened in Mecca. In Medina, Muhammed was openly hostile to Jews and threatening them, at the same time as Muslims such as yourself expected the Jews to remain bound to whatever treay they had.

BTW, how did you make the leap from "growing aggression and intolerance" to "peacefully preaching"?


Quote:

Actually, the truth is Muhammad was promoting dangerous ideas of social justice amongst the most disadvantaged and discriminated in society - which was obviously unacceptable to the elites at the time.

Whatever limited improvements he preached relative to conditions at the time (tolerance of diversity was obviously not among them), his long term influence was to destroy western civilisation by locking it into the most uncivilised and brutal ideology. Muhammed was a grand hypocrite to the extent he initially preached peace and tolerance, and the people who opposed him no doubt saw this. Muhammed's later actions validate their judgement of him.


Quote:

You used to mock the idea that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad - which caused the migration to Medina. So I guess this is something you disagree with no?

I mocked it for the same reason I woulkd mock a Nazi complaining about western interference in Hitler's grand scheme of a thousand year reich.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 7:33pm:

Just to clarify, this article is from Paul Zanetti. http://zanettisview.com/story/islam-and-women-a-historical-perspective/4141 Pickering has merely reposted it on his own trashy website. Interestingly, he changed the title from: "Islam And Women - A Historical Perspective" To: "OF COURSE I'M A HALF-WIT ... ONLY MUSLIM MEN CAN BE FULL-WITS - Yassmin Abdel-Magied's extraordinary claim!" That shows you what sort of creep the guy is.

No no, it shows FD's sense of humour.

FD's one of those few who reads Pickering for the articles.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Perhaps this twisted apologism is why Brian is so willing to pass moral judgement on Australians but not Muhammed: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm: I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

yes well posting bwian is a lying hypocrite is de rigueur these days.

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 8:43pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:19pm: Perhaps this twisted apologism is why Brian is so willing to pass moral judgement on Australians but not Muhammed: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm: I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations. yes well posting bwian is a lying hypocrite is de rigueur these days.

Nah.  This is getting way out of hand.  Gandalf, you are the Mod here.

Good luck there fd, bwian is simply a lying hypocrite...  his arguments are based on that and the ones here are so full of holes its laughable. :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D
He will never admit to being wrong and he will never apologise. :D

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 8:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 7:12pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:50pm: Quote: I am not afraid of criticising Muslims.  I just don't see the point, just as I don't see the point of criticising Mormons or Christadelphians or Catholics for their beliefs, FD.   They are theirs and long as they don't intrude on me, I'm happy.   I've never had a Muslim knocking on my front door and asking me to believe in Allah.  Funny that, hey? You are afraid to criticise Muslims Brian. You will believe what you want to believe and you will post what ever you desire to post, FD.  Nothing I say will ever make you change your mind.  So, lets leave it at that.  I am magnanimous and willing to disagree with you.  Are you willing to disagree with me?  I suspect not.    ::) ::) You previously accused me of taking this quote out of context brian, but would not clarify in what way you wish to disown it. Do you still hold these views? I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

I was correct, you aren't willing to let it go.   Tsk, tsk, FD.  Tough.  The mystery is all yours.   ::)

Grendel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 8:43pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 5:19pm: Perhaps this twisted apologism is why Brian is so willing to pass moral judgement on Australians but not Muhammed: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 5:39pm: I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations. yes well posting bwian is a lying hypocrite is de rigueur these days.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 9:30pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 8:07pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 7:12pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:50pm: Quote: I am not afraid of criticising Muslims.  I just don't see the point, just as I don't see the point of criticising Mormons or Christadelphians or Catholics for their beliefs, FD.   They are theirs and long as they don't intrude on me, I'm happy.   I've never had a Muslim knocking on my front door and asking me to believe in Allah.  Funny that, hey? You are afraid to criticise Muslims Brian. You will believe what you want to believe and you will post what ever you desire to post, FD.  Nothing I say will ever make you change your mind.  So, lets leave it at that.  I am magnanimous and willing to disagree with you.  Are you willing to disagree with me?  I suspect not.    ::) ::) You previously accused me of taking this quote out of context brian, but would not clarify in what way you wish to disown it. Do you still hold these views? I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations. I was correct, you aren't willing to let it go.   Tsk, tsk, FD.  Tough.  The mystery is all yours.   ::)

The eternal mystery of whether Brian actually believes the crap he posts.

Have you ever thought of asking?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 7:10pm:

What a shame you failed to read the whole work, Yadda. Quote: (It is significant to note that, in both of Polo’s block quotes above, he criticizes Muslim doctrine — not so much Muslim peoples. In other words, he allows for what would today be called “moderate” Muslims, as shown by his aforementioned praise for individual Muslim leaders.) [url=http://raymondibrahim.com/2010/04/16/was-marco-polo-an-islamophobe/]Source[/url] Polo was not an "Islamophobe", he did not hate Muslims or even Islam.   Unlike you.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

No shame at all Brian.

I read the whole article before i posted it.





Quote:

He refers to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice” (p.317) and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody (p.332).” That said, Polo clearly had no problem being blunt about Islam.....Whereas he praised the Brahmins for their “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons,” regarding the Muslims of Tauris, (modern day Iraq), he wrote:     According to their doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime;.....

Quote:

(It is significant to note that, in both of Polo’s block quotes above, he criticizes Muslim doctrine — not so much Muslim peoples. In other words, he allows for what would today be called “moderate” Muslims, as shown by his aforementioned praise for individual Muslim leaders.)

'he allows for what would today be called “moderate” Muslims'

And yet, it is precisely 'Muslim doctrine' [ISLAM] which causes the moslem [as an individual] to so often err, morally.

Yet the moslem [as a group] refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing in being guided by 'Muslim doctrine' [ISLAM], which sanctions which 'makes lawful' many criminal actions.

And within that moral framework, ISLAM 'normalises', and makes lawful, a culture of intimidation, theft, political violence [terrorism], rape, murder,          so long as the victims of those [often violent] crimes are not moslems.



And like so many, you are a part of it Brian.

The wrongdoing.

Because you are unwilling to criticise the     MANIFEST     wrongdoings of the moslem,          because clearly, you have decided that it is not in your own interests to do so.



Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

What a shame you not as advanced as Polo was in your analysis of Muslims, Yadda.  You are an Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Karnal wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 10:10pm:

Have you ever thought of asking?

FD never asks.  He tells us what we are all thinking.  Tsk, tsk, Karnal, you should know that by now.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 12:20am:

What a shame you not as advanced as Polo was in your analysis of Muslims, Yadda.  You are an Islamophobe.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

You are a Christianophobic bigot!

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 12:22am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 10:10pm: Have you ever thought of asking? FD never asks.  He tells us what we are all thinking.  Tsk, tsk, Karnal, you should know that by now.   ::)

yet you libel and pretend to mindread bwian... you cant even bring yourself to apologise for your constant lies and hypocrisy.

Oh and while I remember all you dingbats blaming Pickering for the article and playing the man and ignoring the substance of the article....  might have been nice if you had some credibility and actually got the name of the author correct eh? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ::)

Grendel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 8:03am:

Oh and while I remember all you dingbats blaming Pickering for the article and playing the man and ignoring the substance of the article....  might have been nice if you had some credibility and actually got the name of the author correct eh? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ::)

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487735685/11#11

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1487735685/25#25

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 12:22am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 10:10pm: Have you ever thought of asking? FD never asks.  He tells us what we are all thinking.  Tsk, tsk, Karnal, you should know that by now.   ::)

Yes, Brian, but sometimes a question is just a question, you know.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 8:07pm:

I think people had good reason to try to kill him. I am not aware of the details of what happened in Mecca. In Medina, Muhammed was openly hostile to Jews and threatening them, at the same time as Muslims such as yourself expected the Jews to remain bound to whatever treay they had. BTW, how did you make the leap from "growing aggression and intolerance" to "peacefully preaching"?

So basically you are saying the Meccan leaders were justified in persecuting a peaceful preacher because of events that hadn't yet happened. Do you think the attempt on his life and driving out his followers and confiscating their property had any bearing on later hostilities?

'growing aggression and intolerance' was the author's spin in attempting to paint a peaceful preacher as something other than that. No one has ever attempted to claim Muhammad was violent in any way towards the Meccan masters - not even the most rabid of revisionists. Nor did he ever encourage violence before the Hijra. So you are literally justifying the violent persecution and forced exile of a group of people because they were expressing non-violent criticism of the leadership. Lets remember that next time you get all uppity about people advocating violence against peaceful criticism.


Quote:

I mocked it for the same reason I woulkd mock a Nazi complaining about western interference in Hitler's grand scheme of a thousand year reich.

You mocked it because you didn't believe it happened. So you are in disagreement with the article.

However you are on the same page on justifying the violent persecution of peaceful protesters.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 10:04am:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 8:07pm: I mocked it for the same reason I woulkd mock a Nazi complaining about western interference in Hitler's grand scheme of a thousand year reich. You mocked it because you didn't believe it happened. So you are in disagreement with the article. However you are on the same page on justifying the violent persecution of peaceful protesters.

But FD has never mocked Nazis complaining about things. He's had ample opportunity on this board.

Let's see, there's Herbie, Bogie, Sprint, Gordon, Homo, Honky and the old boy - all card-carrying Nazis in one form or another. All have championed National Socialism and Nazi racial theory. All have defended Nazi methods, including concentration camps and mass executions.

And then there's Moses, with whom FD is in sound agreement. Moses is an interesting case as he transcribes racial characteristics onto Muslims, those who the above posters are keen to distinguish from a race - "not racist". Moses' arguments about inbreeding and "retardation" turn FD's "criticism of Islam" into a whole new racial agenda, and FD supports it completely. FD supports the detention of people at airports who "look" Muslim for Muslim-specific screening and banning. FD has also added Aboriginals to his arguments about Muslims, claiming they have additional legal rights to white people. FD's purpose, as he says, is to defend the "freedoms of white people everywhere", who are under attack from certain cultural and racial groups, including Muslims and Aboriginals.      

This, of course, was the very basis of the Nazi program. Hitler wanted to defend the German people from the "racial pollution" of the Jews, gypsies and other races. Nazism created a social hierarchy based on race, with certain races identified as "sub-humans", people to be stripped of all human and legal rights.

FD has defended this categorization too, using an inscrutable genetic argument no one here could follow. While he has stopped short at calling for a ban or culling of all the "sub-human" races, as Herbie and others do regularly here, it's hard to imagine the post-2007 FD holding back. He has never criticized or disagreed with such arguments, and ignored all questions when asked directly.

The post-2007 FD has never mocked the Nazis. Every post FD has made defends their arguments. Every question put to FD on this subject has been evaded. While FD likes to complain about having words "put in his mouth", he either refuses to put words in his own mouth, or agrees with the arguments of the Nazis. Indeed, FD has complained about words put in his mouth that FD himself has said. When his own words are put to him, FD changes the subject, asks more questions, or leaves the thread.

Freeeeedom, innit.

mothra wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 4:19pm:

Usual rubbish from Pickering.

Sorry gweggy missed your post... you at least have 1/2 a brain. ::)

You could have told mothra and the other dingbats that as well couldn't you. :D :D :D
Saving it up were you? :D
Glad at least 2 of us noticed. ;)

Grendel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 11:54am:

mothra wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 4:19pm: Usual rubbish from Pickering. Sorry gweggy missed your post... you at least have 1/2 a brain. You could have told mothra and the others that as well couldn't you.

Well, there is utter rubbish from Pickering.

He changed Zanetti's title from:

"Islam And Women - A Historical Perspective"

To:

"OF COURSE I'M A HALF-WIT ... ONLY MUSLIM MEN CAN BE FULL-WITS - Yassmin Abdel-Magied's extraordinary claim!"

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2017 at 12:22am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 10:10pm: Have you ever thought of asking? FD never asks.  He tells us what we are all thinking.  Tsk, tsk, Karnal, you should know that by now.   ::)

Do you still hold these views Brian?


freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 9:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 9:30pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 8:07pm: Brian Ross wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 7:12pm: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 6:50pm: Quote: I am not afraid of criticising Muslims.  I just don't see the point, just as I don't see the point of criticising Mormons or Christadelphians or Catholics for their beliefs, FD.   They are theirs and long as they don't intrude on me, I'm happy.   I've never had a Muslim knocking on my front door and asking me to believe in Allah.  Funny that, hey? You are afraid to criticise Muslims Brian. You will believe what you want to believe and you will post what ever you desire to post, FD.  Nothing I say will ever make you change your mind.  So, lets leave it at that.  I am magnanimous and willing to disagree with you.  Are you willing to disagree with me?  I suspect not.    ::) ::) You previously accused me of taking this quote out of context brian, but would not clarify in what way you wish to disown it. Do you still hold these views? I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV.  I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments.   It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them.  I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations. I was correct, you aren't willing to let it go.   Tsk, tsk, FD.  Tough.  The mystery is all yours.   ::) The eternal mystery of whether Brian actually believes the crap he posts.

Looks like FD's taking questions, BR.

I think he wants to engage you in discussion.

Quote:

So basically you are saying the Meccan leaders were justified in persecuting a peaceful preacher because of events that hadn't yet happened.

I am saying I am not aware of the details. That is why I said I am not aware of the details. In my experience Muslims are reluctant to go over them. Apparently children bit him and dogs spat on him.


Quote:

Do you think the attempt on his life and driving out his followers and confiscating their property had any bearing on later hostilities?

I expect it made Muhammed a bitter, angry old man, and he gave it back in spades to anyone who didn't kneel for him. Pretty much the opposite of Ghandi, Jesus, Mandela - the people who actually stuck to what they started out preaching. People who actually deserve respect.


Quote:

'growing aggression and intolerance' was the author's spin in attempting to paint a peaceful preacher as something other than that

Are you suggesting that Muhammed did not become more agressive and intolerant?


Quote:

No one has ever attempted to claim Muhammad was violent in any way towards the Meccan masters - not even the most rabid of revisionists. Nor did he ever encourage violence before the Hijra.

It was not necessary for him to express his intolerance. After all, the slaughter of the Jews acted as a strong warning to anyone considering not giving him what he wants. You cannot pretend that his genocide was not an implicit threat of violence, and a very effective one. The Mecca of today is an expression of Muhammed's intolerance.

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:09am:

Looks like FD's taking questions, BR. I think he wants to engage you in discussion.

Does he?  He has rather a funny way of achieving that, Karnal.  Tsk, tsk...   ::)

Bwian you broke your worthless word buddy... you have no credibility.

So bwian you've reneged on your promise hey...  how unusual for you...  well bwian you owe me an unreserved apology as originally promised...  and I will keep holding you to it until I get one...

WHERE IS MY UNRESERVED APOLOGY BWIAN...

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:16am:

I am saying I am not aware of the details.

You don't say.

Funny how this little revelation has never stopped you from making up all sorts of crap about it and using it to construct elaborate memes.

FD are you now saying you were wrong to mock the legitimacy of the assassination attempt? Has it ever occurred to you to educate yourself of "the details"?

I am happy to accept that Muhammed started out preaching peace and tolerance while he was in a position of weakness then switched to rape and pillage once he was in a position of strength. I have even said so many times myself.

I have asked Muslims about the details plenty of times. They either don't know themselves or are reluctant to say.

I don't think that's right fd.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

Has it ever occurred to you to educate yourself of "the details"?

An interesting idea, G. Are you suggesting FD should do some reading or take a course or something like that?

I don't know about that. I think FD's preferred method is to ask you, and then disagree with your answers.

What details are there that are not recent inventions in books like the sealed nectar?

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

I am happy to accept that Muhammed started out preaching peace and tolerance while he was in a position of weakness then switched to rape and pillage once he was in a position of strength. I have even said so many times myself.

We know FD, but thats not what we're talking about here.

I'm pointing out your attempted backpeddling from openly mocking the idea that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad, which precipitated his migration to Medina, to now accepting it because some Islamophobic rant states it as fact, and you can't bear the thought of disputing it after declaring there was nothing in the article you disagreed with.

Or more specifically, from...


freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Muhammed openly robbed Meccan caravans for years before they attacked him.

and...


freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

"well documented" cases of someone trying to kill him that even google struggles with

to...


freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 8:07pm:

I think people had good reason to try to kill him.... Whatever limited improvements he preached relative to conditions at the time (tolerance of diversity was obviously not among them), his long term influence was to destroy western civilisation by locking it into the most uncivilised and brutal ideology. Muhammed was a grand hypocrite to the extent he initially preached peace and tolerance, and the people who opposed him no doubt saw this. Muhammed's later actions validate their judgement of him.

But of course this isn't merely a demonstration of your backpeddling, you are also demonstrating your support for acting violently against peaceful activists (as long as they're muslim of course).


freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

I have asked Muslims about the details plenty of times. They either don't know themselves or are reluctant to say.

What details exactly are you after FD? The treatment of the early muslims before the hijra? Strange, whenever I want to know about the details of a particular event/period in history, I go and research it for myself. Not demand that others tell me. As it happens there is a reasonable amount of literature on the subject. I'd recommend starting with Montgomery Watt. But of course I have suggested this before as you well know - and yet here you are once again whinging about nobody telling you the details. Strange.

FD, would it be fair to say that you are willfully ignorant on this topic? Is it fair to say that this willful ignorance is part of some bizarre meme that enables you to say "I'd love to know what happened, but those darned muslims won't tell me!" Ingenious isn't it - that you can actually use your own ignorance as a tool to somehow demonstrate how sneaky the muslims are.

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:24pm:

What details are there that are not recent inventions in books like the sealed nectar?

Good question FD. But you could always conduct your own objective research on that very question. Wouldn't this make more sense rather than asking someone you have already decided is biased to the point of being deceitful what are the unbiased sources?

Quote:

I'm pointing out your attempted backpeddling from openly mocking the idea that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad

By who? The child that bit him or the dog that spat on him?

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:08pm:

Quote: I'm pointing out your attempted backpeddling from openly mocking the idea that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad By who? The child that bit him or the dog that spat on him?

Are we back to pretending that hasn't all been covered before?

I agree that we have been over the reluctance of Muslims to provide even the most basic details of Muhammed's victimhood many times.

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

I agree that we have been over the reluctance of Muslims to provide even the most basic details of Muhammed's victimhood many times.

You might have missed this on the previous page...


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

What details exactly are you after FD? The treatment of the early muslims before the hijra? Strange, whenever I want to know about the details of a particular event/period in history, I go and research it for myself. Not demand that others tell me. As it happens there is a reasonable amount of literature on the subject. I'd recommend starting with Montgomery Watt. But of course I have suggested this before as you well know - and yet here you are once again whinging about nobody telling you the details. Strange. FD, would it be fair to say that you are willfully ignorant on this topic? Is it fair to say that this willful ignorance is part of some bizarre meme that enables you to say "I'd love to know what happened, but those darned muslims won't tell me!" Ingenious isn't it - that you can actually use your own ignorance as a tool to somehow demonstrate how sneaky the muslims are.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:03pm:

Is it fair to say that this willful ignorance is part of some bizarre meme that enables you to say "I'd love to know what happened, but those darned muslims won't tell me!" Ingenious isn't it - that you can actually use your own ignorance as a tool to somehow demonstrate how sneaky the muslims are.

And right on cue:


freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

I agree that we have been over the reluctance of Muslims to provide even the most basic details of Muhammed's victimhood many times.

FD: I have no idea about the details of history - but thats definitely not my fault for not educating myself - its the fault of those pesky muslims for not telling me!

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2017 at 1:54pm:

link

You will go blind reading that rubbish Herb.

Pickering is considered a nutter in his own community.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

FD: I have no idea about the details of history - but thats definitely not my fault for not educating myself - its the fault of those pesky muslims for not telling me!

Well, remember, sometimes a question is just a question.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:57pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Feb 22nd, 2017 at 1:54pm: link You will go blind reading that rubbish Herb. Pickering is considered a nutter in his own community.

The immigrant community?

Oh, I don't know about that. Bogie, Sprint and Herbie think he's perfectly sane.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:21pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 9:13pm: I agree that we have been over the reluctance of Muslims to provide even the most basic details of Muhammed's victimhood many times. You might have missed this on the previous page... polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 9:03pm: What details exactly are you after FD? The treatment of the early muslims before the hijra? Strange, whenever I want to know about the details of a particular event/period in history, I go and research it for myself. Not demand that others tell me. As it happens there is a reasonable amount of literature on the subject. I'd recommend starting with Montgomery Watt. But of course I have suggested this before as you well know - and yet here you are once again whinging about nobody telling you the details. Strange. FD, would it be fair to say that you are willfully ignorant on this topic? Is it fair to say that this willful ignorance is part of some bizarre meme that enables you to say "I'd love to know what happened, but those darned muslims won't tell me!" Ingenious isn't it - that you can actually use your own ignorance as a tool to somehow demonstrate how sneaky the muslims are.

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 8:24pm:

What details are there that are not recent inventions in books like the sealed nectar?

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2017 at 9:08pm:

Quote: I'm pointing out your attempted backpeddling from openly mocking the idea that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad By who? The child that bit him or the dog that spat on him?

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2017 at 10:08am:

freediver wrote on Feb 25th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Quote: I'm pointing out your attempted backpeddling from openly mocking the idea that there was an assassination attempt on Muhammad By who? The child that bit him or the dog that spat on him?

You could start by reading the OP article that you were asking if there were anything from it that anyone could disagree with.

Can you find the bit about the assassination attempt? Can you work out who it was?

Presumably this article is just another of those apologist revisions you mentioned.

I have never gotten any straight answers on this before, and the best you can do now is to tell me to go looking.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2017 at 7:12pm:

I have never gotten any straight answers on this before, and the best you can do now is to tell me to go looking.

Since its the topic of the thread, it seems kind of relevant. Have you read it?


Would you describe yourself as willfully ignorant on this topic FD?

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2017 at 7:12pm:

I have never gotten any straight answers on this before.

Ah.

Just a collective of ignorant, ugly, miserable sub-humans. Who ever came up with the idea that bringing Muslims into Australia would be a benefit?

Firebrand wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2017 at 8:29am:

Just a collective of ignorant, ugly, miserable sub-humans.

Sounds like Matty agrees with you, FD.

Not Matty, Carnal. (A hint!)

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2017 at 6:55am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2017 at 7:12pm: I have never gotten any straight answers on this before, and the best you can do now is to tell me to go looking. Since its the topic of the thread, it seems kind of relevant. Have you read it? Would you describe yourself as willfully ignorant on this topic FD?

No, I have tried before and gotten nowhere. Yesterday you tried to tell me that a Koranic verse on inheritance rights for children is actually an instruction on the age of consent for marriage. There again you refused to provide a quote and insisted I go looking. So you'll understand if your advice on how I should spend my time carries little weight.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2017 at 5:27pm:

So you'll understand if your advice on how I should spend my time carries little weight.

Oh I understand that FD. My advise that you actually spend your time educating yourself on things you freely admit you know little of the details - while you whinge all day about how the dastardly muslims won't spoon feed the details for you - indeed carries little weight. I wonder why?

Still, not even a self-confessed ignorance of Islamic history stops you from acting as the supreme authority on the subject, latching onto a revisionist version that no serious historian takes seriously, preaching it as gospel truth, and using that to judge and condemn muslims en-masse.

One might even say your ignorance actually serves your agenda perfectly - would you agree? Why bother actually educating yourself when you can just spend all day here trolling muslims and their apologists with idiotic gotcha questions that you can collate and use 6 months down the track to score points? Hence my question, are you willfully ignorant on this topic. It is of course just a rhetorical question - as we all know the answer.

Quote:

Why bother actually educating yourself when you can just spend all day here trolling muslims and their apologists with idiotic gotcha questions

Were the Banu Qurayza a tribe of treacherous Jews?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2017 at 7:56pm:

Quote: Why bother actually educating yourself when you can just spend all day here trolling muslims and their apologists with idiotic gotcha questions Were the Banu Qurayza a tribe of treacherous Jews?

Gee...where have I heard that broken record before?

Firebrand wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2017 at 8:36am:

Not Matty, Carnal. (A hint!)

Matty always says that,

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2017 at 6:54pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2017 at 5:27pm: So you'll understand if your advice on how I should spend my time carries little weight. Oh I understand that FD. My advise that you actually spend your time educating yourself on things you freely admit you know little of the details - while you whinge all day about how the dastardly muslims won't spoon feed the details for you - indeed carries little weight. I wonder why? Still, not even a self-confessed ignorance of Islamic history stops you from acting as the supreme authority on the subject, latching onto a revisionist version that no serious historian takes seriously, preaching it as gospel truth, and using that to judge and condemn muslims en-masse. One might even say your ignorance actually serves your agenda perfectly - would you agree? Why bother actually educating yourself when you can just spend all day here trolling muslims and their apologists with idiotic gotcha questions that you can collate and use 6 months down the track to score points? Hence my question, are you willfully ignorant on this topic. It is of course just a rhetorical question - as we all know the answer.

That's a relief. FD wouldn't answer anyway.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2017 at 7:56pm:

Quote: Why bother actually educating yourself when you can just spend all day here trolling muslims and their apologists with idiotic gotcha questions Were the Banu Qurayza a tribe of treacherous Jews?

Interesting I see you've discovered the wikipedia article on Muhammad. It too mentions the assassination plot - just like the article in the OP.

And yet here you are asking little old me inane questions about whether the plot was really boys spitting or a dog bite - and despairing about no one giving you any information about it. Can you understand why I'm asking you if you're willfully ignorant FD?