freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:


The bugger is wrong with you??

Brian makes a comment about not all muslims wanting to slavishly follow Muhammad's example in contemporary society - you then twist that round and distort it is "anti-Muhammadan muslims" - which any sensible person would understand that as completely unreasonable.

Can you actually fathom the difference between a muslim choosing not to follow the prophet's example - but still reverring him as a messenger of God - and actually being "anti" Muhammad?? I can, and so can Brian. Thats my comment on what Brian "actually said".

So, you really can't see the difference between not wanting to "bring back Muhammad's standards" into contemporary society and being "anti-Muhammad"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 10^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:


Do you have an opinion on what Brian posted?

Yes Gandalf, I herewith formally acknowledge that you offered an opinion on something else that Brian wrote.

One more time, do you have an opinion on this:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:


Not losing count are we?

Quote:


But you are not. Your deflections are quite transparent. I herewith formally acknowledge that you are making no effort to disguise your deflections as good-faith arguments.

Quote:


That is why I was careful to include the discussion leading up to it.

Quote:


Yes. You cannot think of any way to attempt to rescue what Brian said (as you did in the spineless apologetics thread), so you are trying an alternative approach of pretending you cannot understand it. Remember, just because what he says is obviously incorrect and beyond reason, does not mean you are misinterpretting it.

But feel free to qualify any opinion you give in case you think Brian might rescue it for himself.

I would also be interested to hear your opinion regarding Brian's claim that only "immature fools" would judge Muhammed by standards other than those of the society he lived in.

Quote:


Deflection Gandalf. If I see you deflecting, I call you on it. Not every reply. Only the ones where you deflect.

Quote:


Would you say that you were intimidating?

Quote:


Yes Gandalf, it was in reference to the other thing that Brian wrote. Do I need to quote him again?

Quote:


Responded to what? Do you want an argument over the appropriateness of a term I made up on the spot?

Quote:


I quoted Brian. What he posted speaks for itself.

Quote:


I think it is a deflection. You refuse to give your opinion on what Brian actually wrote.

Quote:


Brian believes that only "immature fools" (that's an exact quote this time) would judge him by modern standards. He also seems to think that Muslims share this view. Why do you tread on eggshells when addressing what he says? Is he really so valuable to you that you must avoid upsetting him at all costs? Or are you afraid he will direct his constant whining at you?

Quote:


So why are you afraid to explain how to raise a child to be an appropriately mature child bride?

Was Muhammed in love with Aisha? Was she in love with Muhammed?

Was Muhammed tolerant of Pagans, Jews, Christians etc?

Did Muhammed permit spousal abuse?

How do you get this universal morality when his actions clearly contradict it? How does the context turn wife beating, concubinage etc into not abusing women? How does it turn arranged marriages into a marriage based on mutual love? How does it turn the naked agression against pagans into tolerance? How does it turn the execution of 800 Jewish POWs in one day into tolerance?

Quote:


Because I think it succinctly captures the essence of what Brian posted while at the same time highlighting the absurdity. It is also catchy.

Quote:


I initially asked you to comment on what he actually posted. Only after failing to get a response a few times did I resort to the abbreviated version. Then I went back to the long version after you started complaining about it. I went to some effort to highlight the fact that I was asking you to comment on what Brian actually posted. You appeared deliberately oblivious to this - hence my conclusion that you are deliberately deflecting. When you finally did comment on it, it was one of the most spineflexing efforts at diplomacy I had seen from you.

Quote:


It makes sense, but I don't expect that from Muslims, and I have never seen a Muslim argue this. Even you are careful to leave the option open of "socialising" children to make good child brides.

Quote:


ie, he was an asshole, but he was God's great asshole?

Quote:


It makes it hard to draw the line. If you accuse Muhammed of acting immorally, the entire belief system collapses. If, as you do, you insist he acted morally, then you also end up defending as moral those same actions today, though I do appreciate your difficulty in explaining the context. That is why the middle east and North Africa are such shitholes today. They still marry prepubescent girls and all the other BS that Muhammed's mates did. And the fact that they do this maintains a similarly backwards society that in turn (according to you) permits the backwardness.

Quote:


And I've been asking you to comment on what he actually posted, for far longer.

Quote:


No Gandalf. It is based on the fact that he had sex with a pre-pubescent 9 year old girl. I presented the relevant Islamic texts in the child brides thread, and you have been deflecting ever since (I can quote your dummy spit if you would like).

Quote:


I did ask you before whether you rejected the concept of universal moral standards. You deflected. It does seem incongruous with Islam. Perhaps I will start another thread on this.

Quote:


I have no idea what you meant. Hence the question. Hence the same question, unanswered, dozens of times. I was asking you what you meant, not telling you. Even when I quoted you and offered no interpretation at all you continued to deflect.

Quote:


No you didn't. In fact you did the exact opposite.

Quote:


So slaughtering pagans and destroying their religious monuments is being tolerant towards the people but intolerant towards their beliefs?

If our society was hostile towards Islam, banned Mosques, killed Muslims, but tolerated them if they recanted, would you accept that that counts as being tolerant towards the people?

Quote:


Yet he never specifically forbade it or made any comment on it, despite several specific examples of him apparently turning a blind eye to, or condoning it, and even beating his own wife (despite your many and varied protests, eg that it was a 'jovial slap'). Wife beating was rife. Muhammed's friends and relatives did it. Muhammed himself did it. The women complained to Muhammed about it.

This was Muhammed's response:

Quote:

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


Yes, and I had already gone through that with Soren. Muhammad's "standards" are presumably what is revealed through his example - otherwise known as the sunna. Now, as I have explained before, a distinction needs to be made between specific laws handed down by Muhammad, and just every day things that he did. The latter are the "sunna". As a general rule, whenever a practice of the prophet was to become compulsory, it would be specifically stated as such either in the hadith or the quran. The rest, as I understand it, is optional: growing a beard, circumcision, additional prayers outside the 5 compulsory ones, taking wudu before sleep, etc etc. Reccomended, but optional. So yes, literally millions of muslims don't consider all of Muhammad's "standards" (as I understand it) to be applicable to this day and age. And no, that doesn't even remotely make them an "anti-Muhammaden muslim".

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


Have you ever met a muslim man who doesn't have a beard?

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


Of course. But as I argued in great length before, you can believe having sex with a post-pubescent 9 year old is both moral and immoral depending on the time and place, while at the same time holding that they are both consistent with a universal morality.

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


It is not based on that at all. I can tell you, if it really is a fact that Aisha was prepubescent at the time of consummation then I will happily renounce islam and declare Muhammad a filthy pedophile. I have gone over this enough times already, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she was pre-pubescent at the time of consummation. Baron tried very very hard, but literally the only thing he had was a reference to Aisha possessing dolls, and the faulty logic that she must have been prepubescent because post-pubescent girls are not allowed to play with dolls (note, says nothing at all about mere possession). This "evidence" compared to an actual sahih hadith that has Aisha herself stating that she was post-pubescent even before the migration, while she was still living with her parents (that the consummation was after the migration and when she was not living with her parents is not in dispute - by anyone).

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


Goodness FD, if you are religious, then of course you believe in universal moral standards. I thought that goes without saying.

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


Your question itself was the distortion. "How does islam justify something immoral" - was the essense of your question, which as we both know is not a question at all, but a swipe at islam. My answer is just to say islam does no such thing. Or to quote a well used politician answer - I reject the premise of your question.

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


I'm not sure which pagans he "slaughtered". But basically he only waged war on people who were attacking and/or conspiring to destroy the islamic state.

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


He made a universal ruling on rape - all rape, as discussed at length before. Spousal rape is completely contrary to his emphasis on marriage being about mutual love and respect.

freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:57pm:


Muhammad's response was to tell the men who committed the beatings "you are not the best among us" or words to that effect. So please don't tell such blatant untruths.