Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Craven censorship at Beliefnet

Apparently, someone there doesn't appreciate the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet exposed.

From "Why Revile Muslims?"
9/23/2007 2:26 PM

You're throwing out the baby with the bath water right after throwing dirty bath water on the baby!

Just because one religion in particular (you know who you are) commands offensive warfare against those who will neither convert nor submit to the rule of its god does not mean that all religions do so.

You're also making a false dichotomy between Reason and Faith. To believe that one necessarily excludes the other is in itself *irrational.* A truly reasonable person will examine all available evidence on a topic before drawing any conclusions.

We have centuries of historical and archaeological evidence supporting the intervention of YHWH in the affairs of man, culminating ultimately with the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.
9/23/2007 8:59 PM
-A monument inscription referencing Pontius Pilate

-the Pool of Gibeon

-Excavations of Thebes confirming the description of its fall by the prophet Nahum

-A great colonial archway spanning the Via Egnatia crossing the river Gangites, where the Apostle Paul converted Lydia.
A multitude of evidences from the past demonstrate the reliability of the Biblical texts as accurate records of history.

In light of this -- and the fact that much of what is recorded in those documents is eyewitness testimony often professed upon pain of death -- you cannot dismiss honestly the Biblical accounts as "fantasy" or "fairy tales."
From "Is Allah fair?"
9/23/2007 2:49 PM
Of course, none of the passages cited by oleander were universal commands for offensive warfare against all non-believers to make the world Hebrew, and all were judgments in response to sin.

What did Christ do? He forgave the woman caught in adultery, saving her from death by stoning (the legal punishment for that crime under the Mosaic Covenant). He commanded, "Love your enemies." He healed the sick, comforted the despairing, and raised the dead. He spoke words of life and light, and He committed no sin.

Ultimately, He sacrificed His own life to reconcile all people to His Father.

On the other hand, Mohammed practiced the raiding, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering of non-Muslims when they would neither convert (or if they were "People of the Book") nor submit and pay the jizya, and he commanded his followers to do the same.
From Little Aisha:
9/23/2007 12:23 PM
A saint for defending Christendom against bloodthirsty savages bent on raping, pillaging, and slaughtering in fulfillment of "divine" command and prophetic example, as you know.
9/23/2007 1:49 PM

Are you really so careless in your thinking, or is that only an attempt at deceiving those who really are careless?

Of course all people commit evil. The key point on which your argument fails is that those examples you cite are of those whose behavior clearly violates Christ's command and example. Such behavior is abhorred by all decent people.

Mohammed, however, claims to have raped his little "wife" at Allah's ordaining. In Islam, that makes such evil not only permissible, but divine.

Do you realize what you've done? You've tried not only to justify Mohammed's depravity, you've done it by equating him with monsters.

Finally, your analogy emphasizes the fact that in the West such behavior is illegal and generally condemned. In Islam, it is considered part of a "beautiful pattern of conduct" (Qur'an 33:21).
9/23/2007 2:00 PM
By the way, those zealously obeying commands to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" are properly characterized as "bloodthirsty" and "savage."

To deny this only makes you a part of the problem.

Perhaps you should open up a dictionary and close your Edward Said.

It is not "prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture" to tell the truth about the command of Allah, the example of his apostle, and the faithful's nearly 1400 years of rape, slavery, and murder of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.
9/23/2007 3:13 PM

Does your obviously well-worn defense of Mohammed's predilection for pre-pubescent partners come from religious conviction, or civilizational self-loathing?

As for the age-appropriateness of a "prophet" in his fifties raping a nine-year-old, what moral, decent man of any generation desires sexual gratification from a child?

Morality is not time-dependent as you seem to imply. Neither was Aisha physically ready. Hadith record her playing with dolls, which would not have been allowed of a girl in puberty.

Your argument shows only the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture and your perverseness in trying to justify it.
9/23/2007 3:18 PM
"the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture" only if it was actually permitted.

This would not be the only time "divine" revelation legitimized Mohammed's licentiousness.
9/23/2007 3:48 PM
Is not Mohammed's pedophilia evil?

WC was justifying it.