Everything she says passes the Commonsense Test.

link

(Just one small correction, if I may) ...

"Unfortunately for her, there are fundamentalist Muslims who don't feel the same way.

'I'm tired of having many Muslims, thinking I'm not Muslim because I don't put a scarf on,' she told Daily Mail Australia".

... (these are not fundamentalist Muslims, of course, but are your so-called 'majority-moderate Muslims').

What she says makes the likes of our weepy Attorney-General George Brandis look very pathetic indeed. 

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Brandis isn't a closet pillow-biter ... being a wimpy Greek and all ...  8-)

When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading

Let's just get something straight: the burqa is not Islamic. It is a custom imported from Najd, a region in Saudi Arabia and the power base of its Salafi fundamentalist form of Islam

Women according to this world view, are a source of evil that should be covered from head to toe to protect the men from seduction.

In a free society people are free to wear what they want. Government interference in that right, and other peoples interference in that right should be limited. I don't support people being forced to have to wear something. I also do not support people being forced not to wear an item. Do we really want to go back to the days where beach inspectors would fine people for showing their naval?

Lastone wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

In a free society people are free to wear what they want.

What Fortune Cookie did you pull that out the arse of?

We most certainly can't wear whatever we want.

Go naked?

Waffen SS Nazi uniform?

KKK outfit?

No need to wear a uniform if you're a schoolboy, soldier, policeman, etc?


Lastone wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

Do we really want to go back to the days where beach inspectors would fine people for showing their naval?

Yes. There are some brutally obscene bare stomachs out there on the beaches .. and that's just the women.

Quote:

However, she is dismayed at more recent Muslim arrivals in Sydney's west who are failing to integrate into Australian society or have jobs. 'One of the main problems around us today is that we're having to adjust to a minority that's coming to our country, when it should in fact be the opposite,' she said. She also says it's time for the Australian government to deport Islamist extremists, like Hizb ut-Tahrir, who call for the death of ex-Muslims Ms Eros agrees with One Nation leader Pauline Hanson's call to ban the burqa and describes face coverings like the niqab as a form of dictatorship imposed by the likes of Iran's Islamic fundamentalist theocracy. 'I do agree with the banning of the burqa. I'd like to know who is next to me,' she told former Labor leader turned media commentator, Mark Latham

She has a go at muslims who bludge on welfare and don't integrate,says supporters of Hizb ut Tahrir should be deported and backs Paulines call to ban the burqa, I guess muslim women like this will not be welcome on Q&A or at the ABC.   :)

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 3:42pm:

She has a go at muslims who bludge on welfare and don't integrate,says supporters of Hizb ut Tahrir should be deported and backs Paulines call to ban the burqa, I guess muslim women like this will not be welcome on Q&A or at the ABC.   :)

Well spotted.

Lord knows the ABC and the Left want her to be given as little media exposure as possible.

The Bolt Report and Mark Latham's Outsiders is where she'll find acceptance.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 28th, 2017 at 3:42pm: She has a go at muslims who bludge on welfare and don't integrate,says supporters of Hizb ut Tahrir should be deported and backs Paulines call to ban the burqa, I guess muslim women like this will not be welcome on Q&A or at the ABC.   :) Well spotted. Lord knows the ABC and the Left want her to be given as little media exposure as possible. The Bolt Report and Mark Latham's Outsiders is where she'll find acceptance.

now that would make an interesting group for Q&A...


this is another comment shes made that I like..



Quote:

One of the main problems around us today is that we're having to adjust to a minority that's coming to our country, when it should in fact be the opposite,' she said.

minority groups are running the country at the moment  along with the politically correct mob...

is it working.??

I dont think so.....

if bill shitten gets in he will open a pandoras box of more minority groups...

and we wont just be paying off a giant debt... >:( >:( >:(

Lastone wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

In a free society people are free to wear what they want. Government interference in that right, and other peoples interference in that right should be limited. I don't support people being forced to have to wear something. I also do not support people being forced not to wear an item. Do we really want to go back to the days where beach inspectors would fine people for showing their naval?

For this girl that's already a reality.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 29^th, 2017 at 5:57pm:

Lastone wrote on Aug 28th, 2017 at 2:03pm: In a free society people are free to wear what they want. Government interference in that right, and other peoples interference in that right should be limited. I don't support people being forced to have to wear something. I also do not support people being forced not to wear an item. Do we really want to go back to the days where beach inspectors would fine people for showing their naval? For this girl that's already a reality.

The hijab became mandatory in Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution, women living under sharia law don't have any say in this they have to wear it.

Lastone wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

In a free society people are free to wear what they want. Government interference in that right, and other peoples interference in that right should be limited. I don't support people being forced to have to wear something. I also do not support people being forced not to wear an item. Do we really want to go back to the days where beach inspectors would fine people for showing their naval?

Kinda like this?

https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/201608/2016-08-25t22-47-58-666z--1280x720.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg

France, 2016 - 3 male armed policeman surround a woman on a beach and literally order her to take off her garment - because it looks a little too Islamic.

Alevine, by the way supports this kind of law

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:12pm:

Lastone wrote on Aug 28th, 2017 at 2:03pm: In a free society people are free to wear what they want. Government interference in that right, and other peoples interference in that right should be limited. I don't support people being forced to have to wear something. I also do not support people being forced not to wear an item. Do we really want to go back to the days where beach inspectors would fine people for showing their naval? Kinda like this? https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/201608/2016-08-25t22-47-58-666z--1280x720.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg France, 2016 - 3 male armed policeman surround a woman on a beach and literally order her to take off her garment - because it looks a little too Islamic. Alevine, by the way supports this kind of law

I guess it would be appropriate for me to go ahead and post photos of women being stoned to death for not wearing face covering, gandalf?  I suppose you're okay with that, because you know, the burka must be respected in all its form for being a muslim religious garment? Regardless of how anti-feminist, illiberal it is?

And we've spoken about this before but I'm sure you've forgotten: at the end of our discussion I made it quite clear I support the banning of sale, not of wearing. Similar to laws to do with cigerettes to minors: it is illegal to sell, but not to buy or wear.

On another interesting case I witnessed personally (of course anecdotal, but nonetheless): While standing in line at Munich airport to go through passport control, a woman (I suppose although one can of course never be sure) wearing a burka was granted access through security, with the guard glimpsing at her eyes and trying to compare to her photo, rather than asking her to remove the face covering (because you know...there were so many horny men waiting to pounce on her the moment she revealed her face). She wasn't escorted to a private room.  No, she literally went through the control without anyone actually checking her identity properly.  How marvellous. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:12pm:

France, 2016 - 3 male armed policeman surround a woman on a beach and literally order her to take off her garment - because it looks a little too Islamic.

Damned right.

These people migrate to the West to improve their financial position while rudely posing as intransigent Muslims as though their blessings come from Islam.

It's about time they had it shoved in their faces that their vastly improved circumstances comes not from Islam but from Western endeavour and cultural inheritance.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:12pm:

Lastone wrote on Aug 28th, 2017 at 2:03pm: In a free society people are free to wear what they want. Government interference in that right, and other peoples interference in that right should be limited. I don't support people being forced to have to wear something. I also do not support people being forced not to wear an item. Do we really want to go back to the days where beach inspectors would fine people for showing their naval? Kinda like this? https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/201608/2016-08-25t22-47-58-666z--1280x720.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg France, 2016 - 3 male armed policeman surround a woman on a beach and literally order her to take off her garment - because it looks a little too Islamic. Alevine, by the way supports this kind of law

What is that black thing she is wearing under her swimsuit is it an Abaya or Chador?

Why does she wear that under her swimsuit?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30^th, 2017 at 8:32pm:

I made it quite clear I support the banning of sale, not of wearing.

Don't for a moment think you are being any less absurd with this position.

Oh, and comparing the sale of a loose fitting diving suit to the sale of cigarettes to minors? Hilarious.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 3:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 8:32pm: I made it quite clear I support the banning of sale, not of wearing. Don't for a moment think you are being any less absurd with this position. Oh, and comparing the sale of a loose fitting diving suit to the sale of cigarettes to minors? Hilarious.

Morocco banned the sale of the Burqa, do you think that's absurd or do you support it?

burqini baron, not the burqa. There is a huge difference.

But no, I don't support the banning of women's garments.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 4:39pm:

burqini baron, not the burqa. There is a huge difference. But no, I don't support the banning of women's garments.

Morocco banned the sale of the Burqa, I think they also dropped the death penalty for apostasy.

Do you support these legal changes in Morocco?

Based on what I just said, as well as what I've been saying for the last 5 years I've been here - what do you think my position would be Baron?

Ooh I know the answer to that one. They are a mindless collective, right?

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2017 at 1:26pm:

Ooh I know the answer to that one. They are a mindless collective, right?

Are they jewish?

If you carefully consider what this woman is saying, you have to have some questions. Look at this:

'You do not force your ideology on others: it's against Islamic religion.'

I don't think she reads her Koran. Its all about forcing ideology on others. The only reason she can say that is because she is in a country that has a small population of Koran-for-brains.

'There are wonderful hard working educated Muslim people in this country, but in the last 10 years the many new immigrants haven't assimilated enough to appreciate Australia.'

Again, she needs to read the Koran. They are not supposed to assimilate, that would be un-Islamic. As for the wonderful hardworking Muzlims, the world is full of them. Working does not prevent them from sympathising with, or supporting, their martyrs, or even going berserk with a knife when the moment seems right.

You have to be careful with Muzlims, they are quite prepared to lie in the name of God, like when they are filling out the forms to rent a truck. What we have with this woman are two possibilities, she is either lying for Mohamed, or she is adopting Western values, which would make her an apostate. This is why we see so many atrocities committed by them, they are afraid of Westernisation. With Islam, you can't have it both ways, you are either believe the Koran, or you don't.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 6^th, 2017 at 2:13pm:

I don't think she reads her Koran. Its all about forcing ideology on others.

Let me guess issue, you have?

Do you think this sounds like "forcing ideology on others" - direct from the Quran:


Quote:

The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve

(18:29)


Quote:

there is no compulsion in religion

(2:256)

Gandalf do you think that is consistent with Muhammad's actions?

Quote:

Do you think this sounds like "forcing ideology on others" - direct from the Quran: [quote]The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve

(18:29)


Quote:

there is no compulsion in religion

(2:256)[/quote]

Then we have the huge part of the qur'an which urges forcing ideology on others as the true path:

qur'an 3.151: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

qur'an 9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

qur'an 5.51: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

qur'an 9.23: O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

qur'an 8.55: For the vilest of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

qur'an 9.73: O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

So what is a muslim to believe?

Nothing but decisions decisions, kill or don't kill?

Well look at the world wide carnage rendered by muslims, as they obey the kill everybody who isn't a believer doctrine.

Present circumstances show the *forcing ideology on others* is very prevalent in the muslim world.

 

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

issuevoter wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 2:13pm: I don't think she reads her Koran. Its all about forcing ideology on others. Let me guess issue, you have? Do you think this sounds like "forcing ideology on others" - direct from the Quran: Quote: The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve (18:29) [quote]there is no compulsion in religion

(2:256)[/quote]

Why don't you go directly to the passage that requires the faithful to behead the unbeliever? But if that is too embarrassing for you, why not remind us why you chose to join the most violent religion in the world today? Convince us of your higher motives. How many of your friends have you turned in for preaching hatred of Western values in private? Let me guess, none, because it is in the Koran, and you have to follow the Koran to be Muzlim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6^th, 2017 at 1:24pm:

Based on what I just said, as well as what I've been saying for the last 5 years I've been here - what do you think my position would be Baron?

You did tell Alevine his position on banning the sale of the Burqa is absurd, do you think Morocco is being absurd in banning the sale of the burqa?

issuevoter wrote on Sep 6^th, 2017 at 10:07pm:

why not remind us why you chose to join the most violent religion in the world today? Convince us of your higher motives.

I didn't join any violent religion issue. How others who claim to follow the same religion as me do is nothing to do with my personal beliefs or my higher motives.

Tell me though issue, what are your "higher motives" for constantly trolling someone who has done nothing against you, been nothing but courteous towards you - and taunt them for basically being a terrorist and traitor to his own people?

Do you sit there and congratulate yourself for occupying the moral high ground?

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 6^th, 2017 at 10:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 1:24pm: Based on what I just said, as well as what I've been saying for the last 5 years I've been here - what do you think my position would be Baron? You did tell Alevine his position on banning the sale of the Burqa is absurd, do you think Morocco is being absurd in banning the sale of the burqa?

Deary me Baron - for the second time - burqini not burqa - look it up if you don't know the difference.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 8:23am:

issuevoter wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm: why not remind us why you chose to join the most violent religion in the world today? Convince us of your higher motives. I didn't join any violent religion issue. How others who claim to follow the same religion as me do is nothing to do with my personal beliefs or my higher motives. Tell me though issue, what are your "higher motives" for constantly trolling someone who has done nothing against you, been nothing but courteous towards you - and taunt them for basically being a terrorist and traitor to his own people? Do you sit there and congratulate yourself for occupying the moral high ground?

Not violent eh? How many people did Muhammad kill or oversee the slaughter of?

How much of the Koran is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 9:23am:

How much of the Koran is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

It promotes religious authority.

"A 17-year old Christian boy in Pakistan was beaten to death in Pakistan by his fellow Muslim students in their classroom, reported the British Pakistani Christian Association."

britishpakistanichristians.org/blog/17-y-o-christian-boy-beaten-to-death-by-muslim-students-in-school

I think its a bit radical but it will end in the conclusion that Islam is superior to all other religions. 

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 9:23am:

Not violent eh? How many people did Muhammad kill or oversee the slaughter of? How much of the Koran is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

Must be that time of week where FD dictates to me what my personal religious beliefs are.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 8:23am:

issuevoter wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm: why not remind us why you chose to join the most violent religion in the world today? Convince us of your higher motives. I didn't join any violent religion issue. How others who claim to follow the same religion as me do is nothing to do with my personal beliefs or my higher motives. Tell me though issue, what are your "higher motives" for constantly trolling someone who has done nothing against you, been nothing but courteous towards you - and taunt them for basically being a terrorist and traitor to his own people? Do you sit there and congratulate yourself for occupying the moral high ground?

So you are a Muzlim, and the people who machine gunned the kids at the concert in Paris, etc etc etc, are not Muzlims. You need to go to Mecca and tell them, . . . not us.

Animosity towards Muzlims didn't just materialise out of a vacuum. It would not be so prevalent if you people would stop murdering and maiming in the name of your religion. How bloody hard is that? And you say Muzlims aren't stupid?

Courteous? There is nothing courteous about a person defending Islam. You thought you could get away with your propaganda by becoming the moderator of the Islam forum. Make your superstition and Orientalism seem to have an objective message. Disown the ugliness and talk about beautiful Arab poetry. Didn't work out, did it?

My motives? Barcelona, Manchester, Cannes, New York, and even Townesville. Some bloke with Koran-for-Brains ran amok there, and knifed a couple of people. Aliakbah.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:24pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 8:23am: issuevoter wrote on Sep 6th, 2017 at 10:07pm: why not remind us why you chose to join the most violent religion in the world today? Convince us of your higher motives. I didn't join any violent religion issue. How others who claim to follow the same religion as me do is nothing to do with my personal beliefs or my higher motives. Tell me though issue, what are your "higher motives" for constantly trolling someone who has done nothing against you, been nothing but courteous towards you - and taunt them for basically being a terrorist and traitor to his own people? Do you sit there and congratulate yourself for occupying the moral high ground? So you are a Muzlim, and the people who machine gunned the kids at the concert in Paris, etc etc etc, are not Muzlims. You need to go to Mecca and tell them, . . . not us. Animosity towards Muzlims didn't just materialise out of a vacuum. It would not be so prevalent if you people would stop murdering and maiming in the name of your religion. How bloody hard is that? And you say Muzlims aren't stupid? Courteous? There is nothing courteous about a person defending Islam. You thought you could get away with your propaganda by becoming the moderator of the Islam forum. Make your superstition and Orientalism seem to have an objective message. Disown the ugliness and talk about beautiful Arab poetry. Didn't work out, did it? My motives? Barcelona, Manchester, Cannes, New York, and even Townesville. Some bloke with Koran-for-Brains ran amok there, and knifed a couple of people. Aliakbah.

There's so very much wrong with that, i can't work out where to start.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 3:24pm:

Animosity towards Muzlims didn't just materialise out of a vacuum.

Animosity towards muslims who have done nothing wrong and give you no reason whatsoever to illicit the sort of vitriol against them that you display - absolutely does materialise out of a vacuum. There simply isn't any rhyme or reason to it.

But yeah, as mothra said, its pretty hard to know where to start with that hysterical incoherent rant of yours.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:23am: Not violent eh? How many people did Muhammad kill or oversee the slaughter of? How much of the Koran is dedicated to the promotion of violence? Must be that time of week where FD dictates to me what my personal religious beliefs are.

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 9:11pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 2:42pm: freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:23am: Not violent eh? How many people did Muhammad kill or oversee the slaughter of? How much of the Koran is dedicated to the promotion of violence? Must be that time of week where FD dictates to me what my personal religious beliefs are. How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

Well, there's that Jew Moh had killed for his gold. There's the caravan raids, although we're unsure if they were ordered by Moh. Let's say there were a hundred - a conservative figure, even if they didn't kill anyone. Then there's the genocide of the treacherous Jews with no individuality whatsoever. At last count it was 800, but let's round it up to 2000 to save us the next 2 years quibbling.

2101. Have I missed any?

freediver wrote on Sep 7^th, 2017 at 9:11pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 2:42pm: freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:23am: Not violent eh? How many people did Muhammad kill or oversee the slaughter of? How much of the Koran is dedicated to the promotion of violence? Must be that time of week where FD dictates to me what my personal religious beliefs are. How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

I'm really not sure what your angle is FD - does the fact that I'm both a muslim and believe in peace and tolerance really bother you? Why the need to "disprove" my own personal beliefs? I just don't get it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 11:30am:

freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:11pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 2:42pm: freediver wrote on Sep 7th, 2017 at 9:23am: Not violent eh? How many people did Muhammad kill or oversee the slaughter of? How much of the Koran is dedicated to the promotion of violence? Must be that time of week where FD dictates to me what my personal religious beliefs are. How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence? I'm really not sure what your angle is FD - does the fact that I'm both a muslim and believe in peace and tolerance really bother you? Why the need to "disprove" my own personal beliefs? I just don't get it.

Let's start with what they are eh?

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

Quote:

a muslim and believe in peace and tolerance

A rare and beautiful islamic desire?

How long does the bullshit go on?

islam in it's present form ensures the bloodshed will continue, the religion itself is stacked against any peaceable behaviour of muslims. 

First the qur'an is against it.

About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity.  About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.”

source

While muslims themselves want to regress deeper into islam ensuring the depravity continues:

---

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

Let's start with what they are eh?

Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives.

But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life?

moses wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Quote: a muslim and believe in peace and tolerance A rare and beautiful islamic desire? How long does the bullshit go on? islam in it's present form ensures the bloodshed will continue, the religion itself is stacked against any peaceable behaviour of muslims.  First the qur'an is against it. About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity.  About seventy-five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.” source While muslims themselves want to regress deeper into islam ensuring the depravity continues:

See FD, moses I can understand. He's a loony christian fundamentalist (no offence moses) - and I'm sure he sees it as his God-given Christian duty to expose Satan's religion.

But I know you are not religious. How does someone like you become such a zealot?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 4:38pm:

But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you?

FD?  :o :o :o

no, never. You must be mistaken.

You take that back right now. 8-) 8-)

John Smith wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 4:48pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:38pm: But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? FD?  :o :o :o no, never. You must be mistaken. You take that back right now. 8-) 8-)

Is he still on your case John?

Thats the other thing about FD - he goes through these manic phases where he suddenly targets one particular person and trolls them relentlessly for weeks on end. - Abu, then Brian, then greggery, Aussie, you, mothra - who's next?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 4:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:48pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:38pm: But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? FD?  :o :o :o no, never. You must be mistaken. You take that back right now. 8-) 8-) Is he still on your case John? Thats the other thing about FD - he goes through these manic phases where he suddenly targets one particular person and trolls them relentlessly for weeks on end. - Abu, then Brian, then greggery, Aussie, you, mothra - who's next?

i think he has given up for now, but that may be because I was on an enforced holiday from here  :D

Quote:

moses I can understand. He's a loony christian fundamentalist (no offence moses)

None taken gandalf, I quote the bible, top credentials for being a christian fundamentalist, however you left out my other qualifications I quote the qur'an as well, a prerequisite for being a muslim, so I'm a double agent.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 4:38pm:

[quote author=freediver link=1503891772/37#37 date=1504849101]Let's start with what they are eh?

Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives.

But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life?[/quote]

Just imagine, FD used to engage racists like Sprint with appeals to reason and justice - just like you do now with FD.

As FD says,  he changed his mind.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 4:38pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Let's start with what they are eh? Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives. But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life?

He - and all of us - hope to achieve an honest answer from a Muslim to his questions. For example:

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?



So that 'eh' is completely justified because there will never be an honest answer out of you. Why? because an honest answer to questions about Islam would have to make you leave Islam. You cannot be both honestly devout Muslim and honestly acknowledge thee absurdity of the Koran and the following of Mohammed. That is precisely why 'spineless' is the correct characterisation of people like you who want to pretend that they have reconciled the irreconcilable.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 4:38pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Let's start with what they are eh? Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives. But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life?

eh?

Exactly FD, I think you've got it.

Frank wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 7:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:38pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Let's start with what they are eh? Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives. But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life? He - and all of us - hope to achieve an honest answer from a Muslim to his questions. For example: How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence? So that 'eh' is completely justified because there will never be an honest answer out of you. Why? because an honest answer to questions about Islam would have to make you leave Islam. You cannot be both honestly devout Muslim and honestly acknowledge thee absurdity of the Koran and the following of Mohammed. That is precisely why 'spineless' is the correct characterisation of people like you who want to pretend that they have reconciled the irreconcilable.

Good show, old boy.

Sorry, G, the only way out is to convert to Lutheranism.

Frank wrote on Sep 8^th, 2017 at 7:09pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:38pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Let's start with what they are eh? Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives. But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life? He - and all of us - hope to achieve an honest answer from a Muslim to his questions. For example: How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence? So that 'eh' is completely justified because there will never be an honest answer out of you. Why? because an honest answer to questions about Islam would have to make you leave Islam. You cannot be both honestly devout Muslim and honestly acknowledge thee absurdity of the Koran and the following of Mohammed. That is precisely why 'spineless' is the correct characterisation of people like you who want to pretend that they have reconciled the irreconcilable.

The dishonesty is FD's by pretending this is a genuine question about my beliefs. Instead of what we all know it is - laying out what is in fact a fringe historical version of Muhammad's rule that is almost unanimously rejected by actual historians, which paints him as a despicable bloodthirsty warmonger, and taunting me to admit this is my "peaceful" (snigger snigger) religious beliefs. Premising my personal religious beliefs on the assumption that I believe this nonsense version of history is bad enough, but the real problem here is reducing what I have found to be a deeply spiritual doctrine into an entirely political, earthly ideology, starting with the brief earthly rule of our Prophet 1400 years ago. Islam does not even remotely begin or end there - a point that is entirely lost equally spectacularly by both you and the ISIS knuckleheads.

You and FD could have at any time asked me honestly and in good faith about the origin and nature of my 'peaceful' Islam, without trying to make it a point scoring exercise against silly, conflicted and/or dishonest muslims. But clearly it first requires you to stop this idiotic insistence of assuming my religion is fundamentally meterialistic. Then and only then it might dawn on you how utterly absurd FD's question here is - ie it defines Islam as nothing but a materialistic, temporal political ideology. As for Muhammad, yes I believe yours and FD's version of history is dishonest and wrong, but the real problem is defining the entire religion by the political decisions Muhammad the earthly ruler made. This is what leads you lot (moses is the worst) to misconstrue deeply spiritual and meaningful passages from the Quran that are in reality messages about your personal relationship with the almighty (which need not involve anyone else) - into shallow statements about earthly glory and dominating over others. And yes, absolutely the fact that so many muslims also buy into this brainless, shallow interpretation of Islam contributes massively to the problem.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 2:27pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:38pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Let's start with what they are eh? Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives. But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life? He - and all of us - hope to achieve an honest answer from a Muslim to his questions. For example: How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence? So that 'eh' is completely justified because there will never be an honest answer out of you. Why? because an honest answer to questions about Islam would have to make you leave Islam. You cannot be both honestly devout Muslim and honestly acknowledge thee absurdity of the Koran and the following of Mohammed. That is precisely why 'spineless' is the correct characterisation of people like you who want to pretend that they have reconciled the irreconcilable. The dishonesty is FD's by pretending this is a genuine question about my beliefs. Instead of what we all know it is - laying out what is in fact a fringe historical version of Muhammad's rule that is almost unanimously rejected by actual historians, which paints him as a despicable bloodthirsty warmonger, and taunting me to admit this is my "peaceful" (snigger snigger) religious beliefs. Premising my personal religious beliefs on the assumption that I believe this nonsense version of history is bad enough, but the real problem here is reducing what I have found to be a deeply spiritual doctrine into an entirely political, earthly ideology, starting with the brief earthly rule of our Prophet 1400 years ago. Islam does not even remotely begin or end there - a point that is entirely lost equally spectacularly by both you and the ISIS knuckleheads. You and FD could have at any time asked me honestly and in good faith about the origin and nature of my 'peaceful' Islam, without trying to make it a point scoring exercise against silly, conflicted and/or dishonest muslims. But clearly it first requires you to stop this idiotic insistence of assuming my religion is fundamentally meterialistic. Then and only then it might dawn on you how utterly absurd FD's question here is - ie it defines Islam as nothing but a materialistic, temporal political ideology. As for Muhammad, yes I believe yours and FD's version of history is dishonest and wrong, but the real problem is defining the entire religion by the political decisions Muhammad the earthly ruler made. This is what leads you lot (moses is the worst) to misconstrue deeply spiritual and meaningful passages from the Quran that are in reality messages about your personal relationship with the almighty (which need not involve anyone else) - into shallow statements about earthly glory and dominating over others. And yes, absolutely the fact that so many muslims also buy into this brainless, shallow interpretation of Islam contributes massively to the problem.

You failed to mention those not so peaceful parts in Muhammad's Koran.

Why Gandalf?  It's not as if we can liquid paper them out.

The fact is : The violence Muhammad exalts and promotes is THERE IN THE KORAN FOR EVERYONE TO SEE....AND MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR MUSLIMS LIKE YOU TO OBEY!

Have you actually read the relevant verses on warfare Lisa? Mothra's posted a salient article on it on another thread that dispels a few prevailing myths. Suggest you start there.

In any case, this is not even the point. Your one dimensional response merely highlights my issue I have with this debate. If you actually read the Quran you would see that its overwhelmingly a conversation on the personal level. The Quran does have some passages on temporal, worldly matters (including warfare), but they are a tiny part of the book. The vast majority of it is spiritual - a private conversation between The believer and the almighty on personal matters of worship. Thus you can perhaps understand my frustration when Frank pontificates every 5 minutes about how "Islam means submission - therefore Islam is inherently suppressive and domineering". Because, you know, Islam is only concerned with shallow, materialism (ie fighting and conquering) - that is if we totally dismiss ~99% of Islamic doctrine that speaks beyond mere temporal concerns and is deeply spiritual. So of course it never occurs to the likes of Frank that "submission" in Islam means "submitting" yourself wholly to God, as opposed to being a slave to worldly pleasures and base desires - something that all religions hold as being the ultimate goal for a believer. In fact an Imam I know describes 'submission to God' as the ultimate freedom. Food for thought.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 2:27pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:38pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Let's start with what they are eh? Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives. But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life? He - and all of us - hope to achieve an honest answer from a Muslim to his questions. For example: How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence? So that 'eh' is completely justified because there will never be an honest answer out of you. Why? because an honest answer to questions about Islam would have to make you leave Islam. You cannot be both honestly devout Muslim and honestly acknowledge thee absurdity of the Koran and the following of Mohammed. That is precisely why 'spineless' is the correct characterisation of people like you who want to pretend that they have reconciled the irreconcilable. The dishonesty is FD's by pretending this is a genuine question about my beliefs. Instead of what we all know it is - laying out what is in fact a fringe historical version of Muhammad's rule that is almost unanimously rejected by actual historians, which paints him as a despicable bloodthirsty warmonger, and taunting me to admit this is my "peaceful" (snigger snigger) religious beliefs. Premising my personal religious beliefs on the assumption that I believe this nonsense version of history is bad enough, but the real problem here is reducing what I have found to be a deeply spiritual doctrine into an entirely political, earthly ideology, starting with the brief earthly rule of our Prophet 1400 years ago. Islam does not even remotely begin or end there - a point that is entirely lost equally spectacularly by both you and the ISIS knuckleheads. You and FD could have at any time asked me honestly and in good faith about the origin and nature of my 'peaceful' Islam, without trying to make it a point scoring exercise against silly, conflicted and/or dishonest muslims. But clearly it first requires you to stop this idiotic insistence of assuming my religion is fundamentally meterialistic. Then and only then it might dawn on you how utterly absurd FD's question here is - ie it defines Islam as nothing but a materialistic, temporal political ideology. As for Muhammad, yes I believe yours and FD's version of history is dishonest and wrong, but the real problem is defining the entire religion by the political decisions Muhammad the earthly ruler made. This is what leads you lot (moses is the worst) to misconstrue deeply spiritual and meaningful passages from the Quran that are in reality messages about your personal relationship with the almighty (which need not involve anyone else) - into shallow statements about earthly glory and dominating over others. And yes, absolutely the fact that so many muslims also buy into this brainless, shallow interpretation of Islam contributes massively to the problem.

Where did you find this 'deeply spiritual' BS Gandalf? The Bhagavad Gita?

Do you think the promotion of violence in the Koran and in the example set by Muhammad might be the cause of the "brainless, shallow interpretation" that so many Muslims have?

If you do not believe 'our version' of history, why are you afraid to answer these questions? Surely the answer alone does not reduce your religion to a violent warmongering pedophile murderer?

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 2:27pm: Frank wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 7:09pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 4:38pm: freediver wrote on Sep 8th, 2017 at 3:38pm: Let's start with what they are eh? Why bother? You are only interested in cornering me and scoring points. Your annoying little "eh" at the end betrays your impure motives. But the real question here is why is this little entrapment exercise so important to you? Have you noticed FD your entire time here is spent playing your little game of "get the muslim (and his spineless apologists)" - rather than a genuine attempt to engage in dialogue and understanding? I wonder why you bother FD. What do you actually hope to achieve with these petty games? Is it some inadequacy you feel in real life? He - and all of us - hope to achieve an honest answer from a Muslim to his questions. For example: How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence? So that 'eh' is completely justified because there will never be an honest answer out of you. Why? because an honest answer to questions about Islam would have to make you leave Islam. You cannot be both honestly devout Muslim and honestly acknowledge thee absurdity of the Koran and the following of Mohammed. That is precisely why 'spineless' is the correct characterisation of people like you who want to pretend that they have reconciled the irreconcilable. The dishonesty is FD's by pretending this is a genuine question about my beliefs. Instead of what we all know it is - laying out what is in fact a fringe historical version of Muhammad's rule that is almost unanimously rejected by actual historians, which paints him as a despicable bloodthirsty warmonger, and taunting me to admit this is my "peaceful" (snigger snigger) religious beliefs. Premising my personal religious beliefs on the assumption that I believe this nonsense version of history is bad enough, but the real problem here is reducing what I have found to be a deeply spiritual doctrine into an entirely political, earthly ideology, starting with the brief earthly rule of our Prophet 1400 years ago. Islam does not even remotely begin or end there - a point that is entirely lost equally spectacularly by both you and the ISIS knuckleheads. You and FD could have at any time asked me honestly and in good faith about the origin and nature of my 'peaceful' Islam, without trying to make it a point scoring exercise against silly, conflicted and/or dishonest muslims. But clearly it first requires you to stop this idiotic insistence of assuming my religion is fundamentally meterialistic. Then and only then it might dawn on you how utterly absurd FD's question here is - ie it defines Islam as nothing but a materialistic, temporal political ideology. As for Muhammad, yes I believe yours and FD's version of history is dishonest and wrong, but the real problem is defining the entire religion by the political decisions Muhammad the earthly ruler made. This is what leads you lot (moses is the worst) to misconstrue deeply spiritual and meaningful passages from the Quran that are in reality messages about your personal relationship with the almighty (which need not involve anyone else) - into shallow statements about earthly glory and dominating over others. And yes, absolutely the fact that so many muslims also buy into this brainless, shallow interpretation of Islam contributes massively to the problem. Where did you find this 'deeply spiritual' BS Gandalf? The Bhagavad Gita? Do you think the promotion of violence in the Koran and in the example set by Muhammad might be the cause of the "brainless, shallow interpretation" that so many Muslims have? If you do not believe 'our version' of history, why are you afraid to answer these questions? Surely the answer alone does not reduce your religion to a violent warmongering pedophile murderer? How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure. How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

Perhaps someone could tell FD the Bhagavad Gita is all about violence. I would, but he's not talking to me.

Quote:

This is what leads you lot (moses is the worst) to misconstrue deeply spiritual and meaningful passages from the Quran that are in reality messages about your personal relationship with the almighty (which need not involve anyone else)

I'm trying gandi honest;

qur'an 8.67: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made a great slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Really means tea and bickies 3 p.m. on the north eastern sand hill?

qur'an 2.216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Really means come to the love fest, main event is forelock tugging of little girls by old muslim men?

qur'an 4.74: Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the cause of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

Really means forelock tugging will be followed by the annual who can squat lowest competition peeing on (shoes? / thongs) penalty instant disqualification?

qur'an 4.89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Really means the final event at the love fest will be the finals of the stepping into the toilet competition, who can put their left foot in first spaced by spitting three times to the left side.

I mean it's all just good clean fun, how the hell can so many muslims get it so wrong?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

Where did you find this 'deeply spiritual' BS Gandalf?

First step was to actually read the Quran.

Whacky, I know.


freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2017 at 9:15pm:

If you do not believe 'our version' of history, why are you afraid to answer these questions?

I ignored the questions, because you ask them like a twat, who is only interested in sneering and scoring points. I thought I made that clear already. Read your own question to yourself FD, and ask yourself if its surprising at all that any reasonable person would respond by rolling their eyes and shaking their heads. Then not wasting another moment on it.

I also pointed out that the earthly rule of Muhammad has very little to do with the actual religion of Islam.

Quote:

I ignored the questions

No you didn't. You put enourmous effort into longwinded excuses for why you cannot possibly answer them. That is not the same as ignoring them. You feel compelled to respond, but not honestly.


Quote:

because you ask them like a twat, who is only interested in sneering and scoring points

I'm sure a deeply spiritual guy like yourself can find a way to respond honestly and untwattily.

Are you saying there is a way to ask that would get an honest answer from you Gandalf? Or is it the nature of the question itself that leads you down the histrionic path?

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?


Quote:

I also pointed out that the earthly rule of Muhammad has very little to do with the actual religion of Islam.

That doesn't make sense either. A lot of the revelations in the Koran were conveniently timed to assist with Muhammad's earthly rule. Like chapter 9's encouragement to slaughter the infidel when the religion had previously been more tolerant.

Also, do thing's like Muhammad getting an instruction while taking a bath from the angel Gabriel to slaughter the Jews have anything to do with Islam? Surely talking to an angel is one of those deeply spiritual experiences you were referring to?

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

No you didn't. You put enourmous effort into longwinded excuses for why you cannot possibly answer them.

translation: I ignored your questions and explained why I ignored them.


freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

I'm sure a deeply spiritual guy like yourself can find a way to respond honestly and untwattily.

yes, like the honest and untwatty answer I already gave you.


freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

Also, do thing's like Muhammad getting an instruction while taking a bath from the angel Gabriel to slaughter the Jews have anything to do with Islam?

Your reference is a hadith. Its not even in the Quran FD. See this is the problem when you attempt to lecture me on my beliefs - when you can't even understand the basic nature of Islamic text.

You forgot to answer the question Gandalf. Too busy condescendingly accusing people of misunderstanding Islam while refuse to explain your version of Islam?

Do thing's like Muhammad getting an instruction while taking a bath from the angel Gabriel to slaughter the Jews have anything to do with Islam? Surely talking to an angel while taking a bath is one of those deeply spiritual experiences you were referring to?

How about your version of history? You claim to reject 'ours'. But you are afraid to offer an alternative. Could you demonstrate how to phrase these questions in such a way that it is possible to get a straight answer from a Muslim? Or is that not possible?

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

Gandalf do you agree that a lot of the revelations in the Koran were conveniently timed to assist with Muhammad's earthly rule? Like chapter 9's encouragement to slaughter the infidel when the religion had previously been more tolerant? How exactly do Muslims take the 'context' of the Koran into account while ignoring Muhammad's situation and his response?

How many years did Muhammad spend preaching before he started murdering and robbing people? How many converts to Islam did he acquire in that period? How does this compare with his religious and financial success after he started murdering and robbing people? How does this fit in with your narrative that Islam is not a materialistic religion?

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2017 at 12:37pm:

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

What do you think FD? I assume you only ask because you think you know the answer. Give us a ball-park percentage. Its obviously so terribly important to you. You previously stated that "entire chapters" (plural) are dedicated to violence. You seemed to understand what rubbish that was after I started challenging you on that. Or at least you stopped peddling that nonsense anyway.


freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2017 at 12:37pm:

Do thing's like Muhammad getting an instruction while taking a bath from the angel Gabriel to slaughter the Jews have anything to do with Islam? Surely talking to an angel while taking a bath is one of those deeply spiritual experiences you were referring to?

You're not even trying FD. How does an alleged "spiritual" experience of Muhammad relate to the spirituality that derives from the personal conversation between the reader and God that I was specifically referring to?

Quote:

What do you think FD? I assume you only ask because you think you know the answer.

The only whole chapter I have read is chapter 9, which is entirely devoted to the promotion of violence. There are lengthy passages in other chapters also devoted to the promotion of violence, but I didn't bother reading to the end. Now, can you offer an answer also?


Quote:

You're not even trying FD. How does an alleged "spiritual" experience of Muhammad relate to the spirituality that derives from the personal conversation between the reader and God that I was specifically referring to?

If you are talking directly to God, why do you need the Koran? And why self-identify as a Muslim rather than any other religion? I expect that has something to do with Muhammad and the Koran, right? Don't spend pages asking me to prove this though. If I am wrong just say so.

How do you go from talking to God to rejecting our version of history? Does He also give you lessons in revisionism? And why are you afraid to offer an alternative? Could you demonstrate how to phrase these questions in such a way that it is possible to get a straight answer from a Muslim? Or is that not possible?

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

Gandalf do you agree that a lot of the revelations in the Koran were conveniently timed to assist with Muhammad's earthly rule? Like chapter 9's encouragement to slaughter the infidel when the religion had previously been more tolerant? How exactly do Muslims take the 'context' of the Koran into account while ignoring Muhammad's situation and his response?

How many years did Muhammad spend preaching before he started murdering and robbing people? How many converts to Islam did he acquire in that period? How does this compare with his religious and financial success after he started murdering and robbing people? How does this fit in with your narrative that Islam is not a materialistic religion?

He read the whole chapter, he just missed all those bits G quoted.

An easy mistake to make. Anyone could do it.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2017 at 8:58pm:

The only whole chapter I have read is chapter 9, which is entirely devoted to the promotion of violence.

Right, so when you repeatedly stated that there were "entire chapters" (plural) "dedicated" to slaughter, you didn't actually know of any except chapter 9. Would you agree that was being dishonest? A bit like, say taking something you heard from a single muslim and attributing it to "muslims" (plural) - while freely admitting you had no idea if anyone else had said that? Or attributing a claim you heard from a single historian, to a plurality of historians? What exactly is it with your use of plurals and being flexible with the truth?


freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2017 at 8:58pm:

If you are talking directly to God, why do you need the Koran? And why self-identify as a Muslim rather than any other religion? I expect that has something to do with Muhammad and the Koran, right? Don't spend pages asking me to prove this though. If I am wrong just say so.

I am not talking about prayer, that is a different matter. What I am talking about is the text of the Quran is as if it is God talking to me, personally. This is one of the most common experiences you'll hear muslims describe - that the Quran is a personal conversation between the reader and the almighty.

Why do I self-identify as a muslim rather than any other religion? Where to begin? Not because of the insignificant earthly rulings and judgments the historical ruler Muhammad made according to the society he found himself ruling - I can assure you. 

Quote:

Right, so when you repeatedly stated that there were "entire chapters" (plural) "dedicated" to slaughter, you didn't actually know of any except chapter 9. Would you agree that was being dishonest?

No. I have come across other chapters that promote violence also.


Quote:

A bit like, say taking something you heard from a single muslim and attributing it to "muslims" (plural) - while freely admitting you had no idea if anyone else had said that?

A bit like that, only more like if I had heard other Muslims saying that sort of thing. Did you think I was attributing your exact quote to someone else?


Quote:

What I am talking about is the text of the Quran is as if it is God talking to me, personally. This is one of the most common experiences you'll hear muslims describe - that the Quran is a personal conversation between the reader and the almighty.

So God is telling you to slaughter the Mushriken wherever you find them? What exactly are you trying to counter by pointing out that Islam is spiritual? You introduced this by arguing that you reject 'our' version of history Gandalf, but you have not said what you reject, though it appears to be you reject the question about how many people Muhammad killed


Quote:

Why do I self-identify as a muslim rather than any other religion? Where to begin? Not because of the insignificant earthly rulings and judgments the historical ruler Muhammad made according to the society he found himself ruling - I can assure you.

Yet the Koran is full of this Gandalf.

How do you go from God talking to you to rejecting our version of history? Does He also give you lessons in revisionism? And why are you afraid to offer an alternative, or even state what is you reject about history? Could you demonstrate how to phrase these questions in such a way that it is possible to get a straight answer from a Muslim? Or is that not possible?

How many people do you believe the founder of your non-violent religion killed or oversaw the slaughter of? Round to the nearest thousand if you are not sure.

How much of the Koran do you believe is dedicated to the promotion of violence?

Gandalf do you agree that a lot of the revelations in the Koran were conveniently timed to assist with Muhammad's earthly rule? Like chapter 9's encouragement to slaughter the infidel when the religion had previously been more tolerant? How exactly do Muslims take the 'context' of the Koran into account while ignoring Muhammad's situation and his response?

How many years did Muhammad spend preaching before he started murdering and robbing people? How many converts to Islam did he acquire in that period? How does this compare with his religious and financial success after he started murdering and robbing people? How does this fit in with your narrative that Islam is not a materialistic religion?

freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 11:42am:

You introduced this by arguing that you reject 'our' version of history Gandalf, but you have not said what you reject

Yes I have FD - a thousand times. I reject your version of the historical Muhammad as a bloodthirsty warmonger. I reject your spineless apologising for the Quraysh where you cherry pick the history of Muhammad's war with them to pretend Muhammad was the aggressor. I reject your version that apologises or even completely whitewashes the flagrant treaty violation by the Banu Qurayza that led to their demise. We've had these "versions of history" debates for literally months on end ever since I've been here FD. Please stop peddling such demonstrable nonsense.


freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 11:42am:

Yet the Koran is full of this Gandalf.

Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds coming from someone who just admitted they had only read one (small) chapter in its entirety?

Define "full" FD - give us a ballpark percentage. Give us all a jolly laugh.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 14^th, 2017 at 11:57am:

Yes I have FD - a thousand times. I reject your version of the historical Muhammad as a bloodthirsty warmonger.

How many people do you believe he killed, or oversaw the slaughter of? How does rejecting my opinion render you incapable of offering an alternative?


Quote:

I reject your spineless apologising for the Quraysh where you cherry pick the history of Muhammad's war with them to pretend Muhammad was the aggressor.

How many of them did Muhammad kill? How many Muslims did they kill?


Quote:

I reject your version that apologises or even completely whitewashes the flagrant treaty violation by the Banu Qurayza that led to their demise.

Would this be the treaty that does not exist? Or the one that was wirten after Muhammad slaughtered them? h wait, let's use the one that was written after he killed them all, but pretend it applied beforehand.

FD can't stick to a point for more than 5 seconds before he reverts back to inane babble mode. Well thats his comfort zone I suppose.

Lets go back a step FD - I'm particularly interested in your rather bold claim that the Quran is "full" of earthly rulings. Don't be so eager to run and hide from it. Can you at least explain what you mean by "full"? Were you attempting to refute my claim that they are an insignificant part of the Quran compared to the spiritual aspects? Do you agree you come across as a bit absurd making these sorts of sweeping claims after just admitting you had only read one chapter of the Quran in its entirety - a small one at that?

Earthly rulings, and support for them. For example, a lot of the encouragement for violence in chapter 9 is not a rule. For example, the verses saying the the best Muslims are the ones who kill and die for Islam. This is not a rule, but was very convenient support for Muhammad, who had just decided to take up warmongering. I'm sure plenty of Muslims consider becoming the best type of Muslim by killing and dying for Islam to be a deeply spiritual experience.

Thats not answering my questions FD. Try again.

I shouldn't need to repeat them, they are very clearly stated.