freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:


FD if you really aren't saying that this practice is prevalent in the Australian muslim community, or that muslims are not "overrepresented" in this practice, then I have no beef with you.

But you are not. Otherwise you wouldn't be playing this childish point scoring game with stratos about the 6% figure.

Quote:


So you have no beef with my criticism of your response as pissweak?

Quote:


Yes I know. You realised this when you saw all the "wiggle room" I had left myself by not saying the things I am saying.

Quote:


I think it is an important piece of evidence. If I have to look up the stats myself, I will. I just thought he would be kind enough to do it himself and save doubling up on the effort.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:


Ah, but he is . FD’s lack of evidence is proof.

He’ll persist with a few sulky, nitpicky questions, but FD knows the score.

There is evidence of one underage marriage performed by a Central Coast imam.

All else is just the usual crowd having a bit of fun.

It is a jolly world, no?

Quote:


I thought it was such an obvious prior step that you had to "admit to yourself" that other Muslims are doing something wrong that it did not need mentioning. I now realise that this is a big step for a Muslim and they should get a cookie every time they do it.

Quote:


But you are free to offer your own alternative explanation of his unusual choice of words?

Quote:


To be fair, I have asked you to clarify this point many times. You never did.

Quote:


So now it is baselss to link Muslims marrying children to Muhammed marrying children?

Quote:

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


I have clarified it many times, I even reposted one in this thread.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


So you're now pretending 'admit to yourself' was the only solution I had?

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


It is not unusual. He is obviously appealing to a non-muslim audience, and he might have thought specifying islam might make him appear insular. "ethical" and "legal" are 'whole-community' concepts, which is who he was appealing to - since he was (presumably) talking to a non-muslim. Also, he was likely acknowledging what you refuse to - that this is not just a muslim issue, in fact its overwhelmingly a non-muslim issue. Plus as I keep mentioning, he said it through an interpreter. I don't think this is an insignificant fact.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:


When the link is based on nothing other than the false logic that "Muhammad did it, therefore muslims must do it" - of course it is.

And please FD, do us all a favour and put some thought into your next post.

Stratos wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:



Stratos,

In my experience a moslem can state that

"Something is legally and ethically wrong"

- while explicitly avoiding any reference to ISLAMIC values - but inferring that the value statement [that the moslem utters] refers exclusively to un-ISLAMIC values.

So a moslem can acknowledge that

"Something is legally and ethically wrong"

- without it explicitly referring to ISLAMIC values - PRECISELY BECAUSE THAT 'CIRCUMSTANCE' WAS NOT EXPLICITLY STATED.

In what ways can something be both legally and ethically wrong, and yet still supported?  That doesn't make any sense.