freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2017 at 9:18pm:


Is "mealy mouthed" your way of saying I never actually said it?

FD, are you actually able to  quote me "describing" them as "treacherous jews" as you claimed - in a way that doesn't involve projecting your own words on to me?

Quote:


The questions are your attempts to save face for the fact that I never once "described" the Banu Qurayza as "treacherous jews". It is the only way you can think of to justify your BS about me being racist against jews. The questions are completely non-sensical and irrelevant to anything I have actually said. So rather than play your pathetic game of "please gandalf be racist for me" - I prefer to focus on a) what I actually say, and b) the total incoherence of your attack on me. For example, what is the actual point of the questions (besides trying to put words into my mouth)? What do your questions actually mean? And the fact is, you don't even know yourself. Perhaps if you made some attempt to actually make sense of the questions, and give me a reason why they might possibly be relevant to anything - then I might be tempted to answer them.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 3:46pm:


Yes I would FD, thats exactly what I asked. Please quote me "describing" them as "a mindless collective of treacherous jews".
Thanks.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 3:46pm:


You are obviously confused by what you think you are saying. First you claim I'm not racist against jews - even though you still shove the words "treacherous jews" in my mouth - in the next breath you say jews are the target of my racism (done somehow by not even mentioning jews). Can you explain that for me FD? Putting aside the whole shoving words into my mouth for a moment - can you explain the difference between being racist against jews and jews being the target of my racism? Perhaps you can answer it by shoving more words into my mouth.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 3:46pm:


Indeed I am FD.

If you could kindly address my concerns that you missed just now, that would be great. Here they are again:

Quote:

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 4:09pm:


Sorry FD, its not really helping much. I just can't get past the bit where you're claiming all this when I never once said anything about their "jewishness" - indeed never even mentioned that they are jews. Or are you saying that my racism was a kind of generic, non-specific racism that targeted people who incidentally happened to be jewish? If thats the case, it still doesn't explain why you need to keep asking me if they were jewish - as if that answer will prove something about my racism.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 4:09pm:


None of it makes sense FD, thats the point I'm trying to make.

Is it really too much to ask why you are asking me these? Just have a go. Humour me. Convince me that there is some purpose to this besides shoving words into my mouth just so you can say I'm saying racist things.

karnal Today at 9:40am
Quote:


Well you can't get much lower than that, as the muslim said when he sat down to pee.

Marrying kids and incest got nothing to do with islam?

muhammad was a zealous practician of both. So what does islam say about muhammad?   

qur'an 33.21: Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.

muhammad was touted as the best model for muslims to follow, so they marry children and perform incest because islam tells them to. (following muhammad)

circumcising your daughters got nothing to do with islam?

According to hadith muhammad said:

Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women." Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.

Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband. Sunan Abu Dawud 41:5251

She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory. Sahih Muslim 3:684

Seems pretty clear that muhammad favoured and was well aware of female genital mutilation.

making your wife cover her face got nothing to do with islam?

qur'an 33.59: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

It seems marrying children, incest, circumcising your daughters, making your wife cover her face,  absolutely 100% all are part and parcel of islam.

Karnal wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 9:40am:


Great.   Now you just need to tell hundreds of millions of the muslim world they aren't muslim. Good luck with that.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 6:22pm:


You're making up more crap about me FD. By the way, any progress on your quote of me "describing" the banu qurayza as "a mindless collective of treacherous jews"? Let me know if you're having trouble with the whole how to quote someone thing.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 6:22pm:


I know FD, and my answer was 'no'. It doesn't make sense when you ask it, it doesn't make sense when I ask it: "were they jewish" - have another think about the issue FD, and try and concentrate here: if I'm not being racist against jews specifically - which I think is your latest position - why do you keep wanting me to say if they are jewish? And in case you are confused - thats when you ask me "were they jewish" like some broken record every single post.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 6:22pm:


Oh I know FD. Glad you're sick of you asking that question every single time you post. Yet you still do it - and no one seems to know why - not even you.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 6:22pm:


Please remind me.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 1^st, 2017 at 6:55pm:


fair dinkum alevine - is deliberately misrepresenting what I say some favourite pass time of yours? You seem to do it every time you quote me.

You may or may not be being islamophobic, but thats not the issue here, and its certainly not what I was thinking about. What I was thinking about, and what is the issue, is this scurge of jumping to baseless conclusions using faulty logic. Its rampant here, unfortunately.

Now as you say, "stats don't lie" - and thats precisely why you are wrong. What the stats show is that inbreeding is relatively higher in a large block of the world that incorporates the middle east, central asia, south Asia - as well as pretty much the entire African continent. If we are talking about religous makeup of these regions, Islam is only one of 3 major religions - the others being hinduism and christian/animist. Now we can go with your logic and say this is all down to religion - which would mean all 3 religions independently cause people to want to marry their cousins. And we presumably dismiss any other socio-cultural factors. Keeping in mind that we would be applying this logic despite the fact that none of those 3 religions give any doctrinal encouragement for the practice. Does that sound logical to you?

Another point about stats: other muslim areas, most notably SE Asia, including no less the largest muslim country in the world, have negligible levels of cousin marriage - about on a par with most of the west.