freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 1:22pm:


Aren't your conclusions that Abu and Falah are reactionary Muslims who believe it's legal (within Islam) to rape your wife?

I can't disagree with that. I wouldn't know.

If you're making a wider conclusion about 7th century Islamic jurisprudence, I'd have to say I have no idea. I really don't. Nor do I have any idea about ancient Jewish law, or even Roman law after Constantine.

Yes yes, I know, the Jews and Christians reformed, but Muslims like Abu and Falah want to return to the strict Muslim laws about raping wives, etc. I get it already.

I agree that there are plenty of Muslim knuckleheads around the world. Behead those who insult the Prophet! A jihad on Amerika and Mother England! Yankee go home!

And I believe a number of posters here have agreed with this conclusion, including:

Gandalf,
Karnal,
Annie Anthrax.

Yes, my frien, we have reached a consensus, isn't it. It is richly woven tapestry, you see. Gud is great!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must get back to the wife.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 2:30pm:



You always go for this over the top, incontinent, hyperbolic nonsense. Is the fudge too tightly packed in, Mr P.F. Packer? Is this your way of seeking release?  Ironically? Or not.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:



You misusunderstand. I am an equal opportunity carpet bomber. Islam has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin' when it comes to carpet bombing.
Only the recalcitrance counts.

Quote:


Sure, that is some of them. Not sure what you mean by reactionary in this context.

Quote:


It is timeless, according to Islam.

Quote:


There is a little bit more to it than that. They manage to succeed in convincing people this is not what they want - hence the lengths I had to go to, to convince you, Annie, Gandalf etc that this is what Falah wants. Apparently directly quoting himsaying it was what he wanted was not enough. How many other religious people seek to deliberately deceive people about their beliefs?

Also, Muslims 'like Abu and Falah' have been very succesfull in achieving their goals. You point to the Arab spring as some kind of contradictory evidence. I consider it astonishing that it took until this century to even begin this reform, even in the wealthier countries (who are often the most behind, socially). Without the benefits that the internet has given by freeing up speech, the Arab spring would have been impossible. Even today the outcome is hardly certain and there is a significant risk that it will result in a backwards step. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it lead to the absurd situation of occupying forces attempting to establish effective autonomy and self rule against the wishes of the locals. Millions are dead as a result. You act like it is all one big joke, but expect people to take you seriously as soon as you change hats.

Quote:


Who knows what they think? I don't think they have made up their mind yet. They have certainly adopted a fairly backwards stance about the preconditions I must meet before discussing Islam.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:



Once again a double dose of strong aperient is indicated. And try not to have your fudge packed so tight.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 9:06am:



In this thread.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1357182115/31#31


In another thread [with your sarcasm].....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1357724929/1#1

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:


Of course it couldn't possibly be that he is confused himself. I mean he did after all make a statement (marital rape is not a punishable offense) - and then went on to quote passages of the quran and hadith that directly contradicted that statement. No, it must be something sinister. Muslims are all about deceiving, everyone knows that. Even the incoherent confused ones.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:


Yes, apparently its far too 'backward' to ask for actual evidence for blanket claims on islamic jurisprudence like "rape is permitted in islam" - as opposed to the vague and uninformed conversations between a random muslim and a couple of non-muslims (and often not even that - but a couple of rants between non-muslims).

Look, what you appear to be interested in is not the facts about islamic law - which I think you understand has to be sourced back to the actual texts - but rather the views of muslims and their own understanding on islamic law. Thats fine, but there are two glaring problems related to your wiki pieces, as well as how you conduct yourself on this forum more generally.

Firstly, it makes absolutely no sense when you make statements like "rape is permitted in islam" - because it is not an observation about what certain muslims think, it is a direct claim about islamic jurisprudence. Of course if you made this statement and then linked it back to the texts (hadith or quran) as supportive evidence, its a completely different story. At least Yadda attempts to do that. But instead you link it back to a conversation you had with some random muslim who apparently (usually cryptically) claims that to be the case. What you are pointing out has nothing to do with what islamic law actually says, but what, at most two muslims have said is islamic law. Thus your claim about rape should have been something like "some muslims claim that rape is permitted in islam..." - or something along those lines.

The second problem with your approach is that you are not interested in muslims views at all, but only two muslims - since that is all that you ever quote. I am a muslim and have made it abundantly clear my disagreement over some of the claims made by these two. Yet you won't quote me in your wiki articles. You even started a whole thread dedicated to what my views are, and I gave you detailed answers. At least some of those contradict the claims you make in some of the wiki chapters you have made - why "override" my opinions and claim the exact opposite views as unquestioned fact?

But this isn't about me, even a cursory investigation into mainstream muslim views clearly shows that none of these claims you make trashing islam are held. It is just so mind numbingly stupid that for someone whose stated intentions is the views of muslims regarding the most controversial islamic issues, you restrict your analysis to a grand total of two rather uninformed (and I would say extreme) Australian muslims. Thats bad enough - that you would take these two people's opinions and cite them as unquestioned facts about islamic jurisprudence is frankly beyond laughable.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 11:34am:


freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2013 at 7:19pm:



gandalf,

Oh, you must be one of those 'moderate' moslems then ?

I don't believe you.

Why don't i believe you ?

Because you claim to be a 'moderate' [a 'pluralistic'] moslem.    [....and there ain't no such animal!!!]

IMO, you are either a lying moslem, or, you are a moslem hypocrite, worthy of death.

So, which is it gandalf ?





The Koran instructs moslems, to take no 'moderate' moslems as friends.
And whenever they oppose you [in Allah's way], kill them.
[n.b. ALL ex-moslems, are non-moslems/disbelievers, and they are worthy of death]

"Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"
Koran 4.88, 89i

Quote:



gandalf,

I'm sure that FD's opinion of/about ISLAM and moslems is informed by a much broader spread of 'contacts' than just two people who claim to be moslems and post here on OzPol.

Don't you think that too gandalf ?