polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2017 at 8:09am:


I was watching a debate between a Muslim and a the head of Jihad Watch (can't remember his name). There was an interesting argument which the Muslim made about 'war and combat against unbelievers'.

He stated that terms like 'and fight the unbelievers... or kill them... or fight those who believe not in....' referred to WHO they were fighting but don't state WHY they were fighting. I found this argument to be quite impressive, but it does leave room for interpretation. The Muslim said that at the time Christians were very belligerent and were 'massacring' Jews, and so seen in this context, this is the reason WHY the Muslims engaged in battle. Therefore, he asserted that the the reason WAS NOT BECAUSE OF the fact that they were Christians or Jews (i.e. didn't believe in the Quran) but because they were aggressive.

When they debated about 'rape' in Islam, the Muslim quoted '4:65' which gave an example of when Muhammad had refused a woman (presumable for sex), thereby showing that all the intercourse was consented to. Although the counter-argument might be that the woman was kicking up such a stink that Muhammad though she wasn't worth it, and could move on to the next one. However, when an audience member asked the Muslim about 'whether or not a 9 year old could give consent', the Muslim replied 'that is outside the scope of the topic' and didn't really address it, which was a bit problematic.
--
Which brings me to a previous post where I asked you about Muhammad's alleged 'consummation of marriage' with a nine-year girl. Your reply was that this was stated in a 'dubious' aHadith. It is stated in Sahih which apparently is the main Hadith and the considered the most authoritative in the Sunni tradition. Are you able to address this, please?

Auggie wrote on Jun 21^st, 2017 at 11:22pm:


Excellent, you can therefore be considered redeemable.  Unlike others, we could name who post here all the time with their rampant bigotry against anything non-Christian.   They are unfortunately so far gone that they are irredeemable.  Tsk, tsk.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2017 at 6:14pm:


Well, no one's perfect.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2017 at 7:27pm:


No problem. I have created a special post asking you to do it there under 'extremism exposed' (maybe the wrong topic?) I have also made a  post to FD about the bible. I hope this ok, if not. I'll ask FD to scrap it.

Frank wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 6:50pm:



Thanks for proving my point for me, Soren.  Tsk, tsk.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

Al Qaida started its terrorist activities because Muslims were mighty offended by 'Christians' entering Saudi Arabia to help.


Muslims should stay in Muslim countries. Their Islamic beliefs bring no improvement to the West at all, only degradation.

Frank wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 9:13am:


Of course, to an Islamophobe that makes sense.  You identify all Muslims as exactly the same in some sort of Borg like manner.  To you, they are all extremists, all Terrorists or Terrorism supporters, they kill their women because of "honour", they behead apostates and so on and so on.

Unfortunately for you, in reality they are overwhelming just normal folks with normal beliefs and act normally.  You concentrate on the tiny minority, the few, the Terrorists, the extremists, the fundamentalists and never look around at how the majority act,  what the majority believe.  You are the exact mirror image of those you claim to oppose, Soren.   You are irrational, you are extreme, you advocate violence against innocent people simply because they believe in something you don't.   You are a fascist in the true meaning of the word.   You don't believe in Australia, Soren.  You have failed to absorb the subtlety of a culture which is laid back, which believes in live and let live.   You should be rejected because your views and your beliefs.   You disgust me.   Utterly.