Datalife wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:


Oh, I know. 99% of your replies say just that, DL.

Miam miam.

I think I have figured it out, and once again it boils down to a simple language barrier. Muslims have been saying these things for so long now that to them, terms like vast majority have literally come to mean the number of Australians who want to ban criticism of Islam. And tiny minority of extremists literally means the number of Australians who want to maintain those rights.

Thus, Muslims like Gandalf can say with a straight face that they are no different to the vast majority of Australians on any topic you can poke a stick at, and it is unfair to tar the vast majority of Muslims with the same brush as the tiny minority of extremist Muslims who keep giving Islam a bad name. And of course, they are totally bewildered when people disagree with them.

Datalife wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:45pm:


Funny to hear you echoing what Brian has been saying all along about the Islamophobic charge of "paedophile" against Mohammed DL.  He's often quoted L.P.Hartley, 'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."   

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 11:47am:


Decent argument. Would it perhaps be fairer to say he engaged in acts of paedophilia?

Although, I feel it's only fair to point out that your point no. 2 doesn't really advance your argument - you've got Mo going from pre-pubescent to early teens.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 9:57am:


Of course. If the vast majority of Australians want to ban criticism and mockery of religion (as you claim) that makes you a freedom fighter in comparison, doesn't it? Even if you are intolerant of white men promoting an open marketplace of ideas.

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 11:55am:


Holding off screwing the only pre-pubescent girl he makes available to himself for a whole 3 years is strange behaviour for someone who supposedly has a pathological lust for pre-pubescent girls - especially when there is otherwise nothing by way of contemporary cultural norms preventing him from carrying out his lust. This seems to advance my argument that Muhammad cannot be judged to be a pedophile pretty well to me.

Its not a moral argument either, its simply stating that on the universally understood definition of pedophile, Muhammad clearly does not fit the bill. You can still say he was an immoral bastard or whatever, and I wonder why the haters simply don't stick with this. Their unwillingness to simply admit that they are applying an inaccurate definition of "pedophile" - as if this might somehow paint Muhammad in a less evil light (shock horror!) - speaks volumes about the mindset of these people. And that is why exposing this dishonesty is not mere semantics, but is a necessary part of exposing this sort of anti-islam campaigning as being rooted in prejudice and bigotry. I don't see much difference between this sort of dishonesty and using footage from an Iranian feature film, or images of non-muslim cannibals in Indonesia to try and smear islam.

No shooting myself in my foot, reread my statement.

I think by any modern standard a 50 plus year old bloke marrying a six year old and smacking her when she was a ten year old would class as a paedo (even leaving aside the thighing her whilst she was still too small to bugger )... well maybe not for a modern Muslim.  And it is the reasoning that modern muslims take to justify child marriage and underage sex. 

As I suggested your best defence is to accept and say that by the standards of the time he did nothing wrong, which is something I cheerfully accept.

Last time this came up I said my bit and left it at that and will do the same again. I will leave you to continue your limbo dancing.