[. . .] illustrates here that there is only one way to read the Qur'an and one way to read the Bible, and he happens to be the master of both. If your reading of the Qur'an differs from his own (based on a logic of cherry picking and tied to his Christian faith), that just means you don't understand Islam -- even if you've lived it your whole life.Timmy dances around the central issue with all the vigor of James Cagney, but with neither his skill nor style. It's clear: Timmy's no Jimmy.
And [. . .], you are equally informed about Mormonism, it seems. Joseph never claimed to be the "last prophet" as you put it. In fact, he was the first in this dispensation of time; since then he has been followed by 15 others, up to and including the current prophet and president of the LDS church, Thomas S. Monson. Is deliberate misrepresentation of Mormonism part of your personal (un)-Christian belief system in the same way as your pinched and shrill testimony of Muhammad and his teachings?
Rather than address Muhammad's bloodlust (and just lust), Timmy obfuscates again, this time with ad hominem: "[. . .] is narrow-minded, intellectually-dishonest, self-centered, and illiterate," and diversion and self-contradiction: "You can't know Islam, but I know Mormonism."
How can Timmy imply that there's not "only one way to read" Qur'an and Bible, but then criticize another's comments on Mormonism, as if there's "only one way to read" Mormonism? You know folks, if your reading of Mormonism differs from Timmy's own (based on a logic of cherry picking and tied to his formerly-LDS-now-LSD'd faith), then that means you don't understand Mormonism. Or cherries.
So, Timmy, which is it? Can any person of at least normal intelligence and reading ability discover the facts of a religion's texts, tenets, and timelines, or not? If you say, "No," then you can't contradict anyone's characterization of Mormonism (or Islam), since you can't know either. If you admit that we can determine facts, then do what you've avoided so far: Address Muhammad's words and deeds honestly.
Did Muhammad begin raping little, prepubescent 'Aisha when she was only nine-years-old, or not? Did Muhammad command the faithful to "wage holy war" against "unbelievers" who refuse to convert or submit, or not? Did Muhammad have murdered those who mocked him, or not? Did Muhammad butcher prisoners of war and then rape and enslave their women and children, or not? Did Muhammad claim that Allah considered him a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for you to emulate, or not?
Maybe Timmy's right. Maybe we can't really know what an author means by reading what he writes. Perhaps there really isn't "only one way to read" a text. That would explain so many Muslims' struggles with premature detonation: They can't follow simple directions because there's "no one way to read" bomb-making recipes.
Timmy, lie all you like, but Muslims have spent centuries explaining for the faithful just what Muhammad's words and deeds mean. And no, disputes over minutiae like the age at which one can be slaughtered for apostasy or the genocidal pedophile's proper immediate successor are little more than satan's secret handshake to us: Issues that Muslims kill each other over but mean nothing to rational human beings.
If you really believed that Muhammad's life was praiseworthy, you'd boast about his words and deeds. That you feel compelled to avoid discussing them at all costs instead is all anyone needs to see that you're ashamed of Allah's apostle.
Allah will not be pleased.