Yadda wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:


hmmm tough choice there yadda.... can I phone a friend?

Actually, in your terms you left out option number 3 - a naive ignorant muslim. Wouldn't that be me? Not all of us can be devious or hypocrites - surely a good number of us are just stupid? It would be nice if we were all that smart, but I think you give far too much credit to the intellect of the average muslim.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:


Does that matter if he's confused to start with? You seem to miss my point.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:


Quite right - and so isn't it ironic that you say this now, but you were quite absolute when you stated in no uncertain terms that "islam permits rape". Apparently in that instance, the word of fallah, or whoever you were "quoting", was absolute. Interesting isn't it?

Muslims interpret what islamic law is, and virtually every muslim rejects the idea that rape is allowed in islam, or that rape is a legitimate weapon of war, or most of the other outrageous claims you made in the wiki. And yet you quote exactly zero of them.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:


the king of trolling? I've attempted to engage Yadda multiple times, and I get endless abuse and personal attacks. Surely your not accusing me of being unfair on Yadda now.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:


I suggest you read the entire post you keep quoting. Here it is:

Quote:


On reflection, I actually agree with you - his evidence doesn't contradict his central view, which is that abuse of women is not condoned. Whether or not there is a specific punishment for spousal rape is really neither here nor there. Abuse of women is certainly strictly forbidden - what is the specific punishment? I couldn't say. But its common sense that there would be a punishment - otherwise why would it be so firmly denounced in the quran and hadith? Same goes with spousal rape: unless you are really sick, or extremely confused, you would never say that spousal rape wasn't a form of abuse. So as far as I'm concerned, put it all under the "don't abuse your women and treat them with dignity" category.

Long story short, Falah is not condoning any form of rape in islam. So what exactly is your point about it?

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:


Oh goody. I look forward to being misquoted and taken out of context.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:


ahh so its started already! Nice work. Please enlighten me further - what backward views are you attributing to me more specifically?

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:


By all means, ask muslims, but get *ALL* the different points of view, not just the ones that support the view you want to propagate.

Its pretty obvious that you are really only interested in tripping muslims up by keeping this "dirt file" and strategically pulling it out in key 'gotcha' moments.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:


I repeat, falah is not condoning any form of rape in islam. Read the rest of his post for once. Was spousal rape "condoned" in Australia before it first became criminalised in 1981?

What Islam does say, is that men shouldn't abuse or take women by force. Nowhere does it qualify this and say "...except in the case of your wife".

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:


I have no idea what you are talking about. My first response said your wiki was a piece of sh*t because you have no idea how to reference properly. I'm afraid you're going to have to quote me "agreeing" with your ridiculous claims about islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:47pm:



Interesting.
We need to get ALL the different points of view even though nobody is actually speaking for Islam.

How do we know that we have heard all the possible points of view on any given subject? When is an 'Islamic' way of seeing completely before us? Under this scheme, never.

If we dismiss Islam as represented by this or that arsehole, we are guilty of not taking into consideration ALL the possible permutations and all the imams who have uttered on the subject.

In the meantime, crazy bearded fvckers go on a rampage, in deeds and words, in the name of Islam. Not this or that interpretation of Islam, but of Islam.

The so-called mainstream Muslim is then free to oscillate between picking and choosing what he endorses, what he condemns and what he vacillates over, as well as being able to get all hot and bothered about the unfairness of stereotyping Muslims as lying, opportunistic crazies, who forever sniff the wind, depending on the reception of the outrage perpetrated in the name of Islam.


Strikes me as an opportunistic, dishonest and cunning smacking racket by the so called moderates.

The crazies are at least honest enough to be upfront. They say exactly what they mean.

The 'moderates', the opportunistic, arse-covering, shifty, cameleon-like 'moderates' are the worry. They are the ones who must not be trusted.

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:09pm:



Point #1,

It goes without question, that all moslems are fallible men.

So, we can be certain that NO moslem, NO moslem, can speak in any informed and correct sense, for ISLAM!      

If that is correct, then who does speak for ISLAM ???

It is ISLAM's foundation texts [the Koran and Hadith] which, clearly and unequivocally, speak for ISLAM.

And i suggest, that you read and interpret what those texts say, and interpret what the intent of the words of the Koran and Hadith are, as you wish.

I always do.      

After i have read a Koran verse, i rarely have any doubt as to what it is 'speaking'.       



If some moslems then [are shocked and 'offended', and] disagree with how >> i << have interpreted, how the Koran and Hadith 'speak for ISLAM', then imo, it is up to those moslems [the ones who are shocked and 'offended' with my conclusion(s)] to provide me with good and convincing evidence of my 'error'.

No ?



+++

Point #2,

DOESN'T THE EVERYDAY BEHAVIOUR OF THE MANY PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO BE 'RIGHTLY GUIDED MOSLEMS', 'SPEAK FOR ISLAM' ?


Any person, can also be guided as to what ISLAM permits, by observing the behaviour of those persons who are making the claim to be, 'rightly guided moslems'.

BECAUSE, AS I HAVE STATED MANY TIMES HERE ON OZPOL;
Quote:






SO, we must correctly assume, that the common-all behaviour of those persons who are making the claim to be, 'rightly guided moslems', is halal [permitted] by ISLAM, and that the behaviour of those persons, 'speak for ISLAM'.

After all, EVERY MOSLEM, EVERY MOSLEM, is an ambassador for ISLAM.

Am i not correct ?



Isn't that conclusion that i have come to, a reasonable and logical conclusion ?








p.s.

What about those moderate moslems who live among us, and who frequently will claim to disassociate their beliefs, with the behaviour of the tiny minority of extremists ?

Well, i am not convinced by their protestations!

If they were truly sincere, then those 'moderate' moslems, those 'REAL' moslems, who live among us, would start an ISLAMIC movement to oppose the tiny minority of extremists.

But they have not, and the never will.



Just think it through;

[SUPPOSEDLY] The mainstream ISLAM, the majority of, pluralistic, moslems, will do absolutely NOTHING, against those infidels, who are - they claim, are misrepresenting ISLAM, and bringing the name of ISLAM into disrepute.

How likely is that, when at every juncture, supposed 'moderate' moslems will claim to be offended, when non-moslems castigate that 'tiny minority of extremists', after they have committed their latest act of vicious violence, IN THE NAME OF ISLAM ???i

Soren.... Quote:




No argument, Soren.

I think that you have stated your case very eloquently.      

Quote:


It was your suggestion that I have to get all of them, not mine. I think you will find that with Abu and Falah I have a Sunni and a Shite, who have both done extensive study of their religion. They both claim to be mainstream - just like you.

Quote:


When Abu claimed to speak on behalf of mainstream Islam, he actually went to some effort to justify the claim. You on the other hand make these claims without justification, while at the same time insisting on absurd standards from everyone else.

Quote:


It does that, where Abu presented evidence that it actually exists.

Quote:


Well, let me know when you have made up your mind.

Quote:


Gandalf, if we start with common sense, there are a few basic flaws with your argument that Islam outlaws spousal rape (if indeed you are arguing that).

1) It does not make sense that Islam outlawed spousal rape a millenia before anyone else, but all those people (including Abu and Falah) who try to make Islam out to be far more progressive than it is failed to mention it.

2) You have not come up with a single example of someone punished under Shariah law for spousal rape.

3) You have not come up with a single utterance from Muhammed that spousal rape is illegal.

4) You have not come up with a single 'interpretation' from Islamic clerics that spousal rape is a punishable offence.

5) The illegality of spousal rape does not exactly sit well with the Islamic position that it is the wife's duty to satisfy her husband sexually and that it is a sin not to do this.

6) The punishment for rape depends on the marital status of the perpetrator. If the rapist is married, he gets stoned to death. If the rapist is unmarried, he gets 100 lashes. It just so happens that this is the same punishment for consensual sex outside of marriage. That is, the punishments would not actually change if you declared rape legal but maintained that sex outside of marriage is forbidden (except of course for the victim). You would have a hard time reconciling that with punishments for spousal rape.

7) You don't even seem to know where you got your view from.

To top it off, you counter this with 'I am right because I represent most Muslims, but I can't back it up in any way, but you have to study for 10 years before you are allowed to comment.'

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:10am:



Well, how do you conuct your Muslim life? Do you first consider every possible teaching adn every utterance by every imam on whetever you are about to do?

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 9:09pm:


Ah, so you prefer the crazies. Why is that not suprizing?

Old boys share a fondness for each other the world over. Rich tapestry, innit.

It’s the pluralists we have to watch out for. Always. Perpetual. Never ever.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, eh?

Good show, old chap.