yall

I don't know, I guess that's dependant upon how you define things. As I recall, jesus saw himself as a jew, but a bit of a reformist one at that (which is also up for debate, but that's for another thread). You could make the argument that he was the first christian, but it wasn't as though he refered to himself as such. But his actions and speech did define what we know as modern christianity. Which brings me back to my long standing question: Was mohammed violent?

Thanks allah you responded this way, I'm quite happy you took the bait. Since mohammed violated the koran, he too could not have been a muslim right? http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem51209.htm But hey, we're getting off track. The one thing I've been asking for is for you, or anyonce else to answer this: Was mohamed violent?

You either can't or choose not to read. Which is it? A muslim can choose to ignore a passage from the koran if they so choose, and still consider themselves a muslim, can they not?

If you aren't going to contribute, why bother at all? edit: And what part of my arguements do you consider to be "flailing about"? I'd much rather you attack my arguemenrts logically, than have you insult me. But if you have nothing to contribute, why not just butt-out, instead of trolling?

Why not? As I stated islam requires reformation. I'm not advocating the elimination of islam or muslims, no matter how silly or hypocritacal of a belief syatem I think it happens to be. There are peaceful muslims, just as there are are bad christians (jeez this sounds familiar...). But the difference is the peaceful muslims are the ones who ignore the bad parts of the koran, the hadith, and the life of mohhamed. But just because there are good muslims, doesn't make islam good. Why can't you understand that?

Actually, if I'm stating isalm is bad, aren't I sort of saying being a muslim is bad? Should you be surprised? (Even though I don't hate muslims as mentioned back on page 3 or something like that, I just don't like the religion). And no, it isn't racist, no matter how badly you want it to be. Replace "islam" and "muslim" with "satanist" and "devil worshipper" and see if it's still racist. Nope, it isn't. Sorry, you lose that one.

My bad. I assumed when you replyed that you were in agreement with CTM.

Touche. I did imply you were muslim in that statement. And it was an attempt to insult you in your apparent belief that islam does no wrong, aka, brainwashed. Congrats, you actually used a quote in a successful arguement. Sort of... It still isn't racism. See the dictionary references above.

Even if that was my intention, it's not racism. Get a dictionary. Wait, here are a few for you... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

When did I imply you were muslim, and if I did imply you were muslim, how would that be an insult, unless I thought you would be insulted by being called one....???? That doesn't even make a shread of sense. If you are in fact refering to the quote (since you couldn't be bothered to include one I'll have to guess about what you are refering to...) where I said "your beliefs" in a response to you and KRC, I wasn't talking about your religious persuation, but your insistance that islam and it's founder are peaceful. Here is all of what I said: If you like, I can quote every single post in our discussion and show you both that neither of you has addressed mohammed violent history of murder and persecution. But that would require the both of you to admit mohammed was violent, and that doesn't mesh well with your beliefs. I'm guessing that's what you are talking about. But for the sake of argument, lets say that I did assume you and KRC were muslims. What part of that is racist? What part implies that I could have even guessed your ethnicity?

I now see how you have time for such a high post count.

What have I said that can be construed as racist? What have I said that implied a race or ethnicity of people is superior or inferior to another race or ethnicity? And please, provide an actual quote this time, not just "uh huh you are racist!!!".

I've actually provided proof of my assertion in quotes from the texts and through the history of mohhamed being violent. All these two can muster as a counter-point is "nuh-uh" They have no counter other than monkey's admittedly poor translating skills.. My translations come from arabs, not monkeys.

First off, thanks for responding with something other than nonsense. I was starting to get bored with those other two. Yes, the koran has very specific passages about fighting back and not striking first, but for every passage that seems to imply defense is ok (which logically it is ok to defend yourself) it preaches seeking out those in opposition to allah, and killing them. In fact the koran is very specific at certain point about being "cool" with jews and christians, but not with polytheists. I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that : a) mohhamed was peaceful or b) islam isn't very specific about hatin' on the poly's Many in the arabic world who speak out against islam are using the books in their native language, and they are able to point of plenty of thimgs that are either contradictory or hypocritical in nature, but obviously, that kimd of dissent is pretty well frowned upon. I don't know, to be honest, but I'll imagine not many muslims want to read something critical of their beliefs. Honestly, how many people do? For all of the jews, muslims, and christians I know (or at least people that openly profess to be members of aforementioned religions) I have never heard of one of them reading a non-fiction book or essay that was a critical dissertation of their beliefs. After all, who like to think that they might be wrong. Now, culturally, islam has been used much in the way christianity was used by tyrants to control their subjects. It is going on throughout the muslim world right now, and the twist is, the governments and mullahs are using the western judeo-christian world as the root of the problems for their people. Give them someone to hate, and they'll latch onto their religion and forget their oppressor (or at least not realize who the real ones are). That being said, these other two would have you believe that I'm some racist xenophobe who is out to get islam, which is partly true. I'm out to get islam to reform. They need to address the problems with their religion and understand it's falible, just like the catholic church. Islam needs to address the parts of the koran that aren't peaceful, or that call for human conflict with those who are unbelievers.

I agree. Prove it isn't. Oops, you can't Islam is bad.

Maybe since he wrote: "literally, as best I can make it out with my weak Arabic skills" It's pretty easy to assume that someone who admittedly has weak arabic skills and says something like "as best I can make out" might be using a translation on occasion... But I suppose outspoken critics of islam like Ibn Waraaq and Salmon Rushdie probably are using english translations of the Koran, so I should take your "weak" translations of the koran over theirs right? But again, neither of you counter the arguments I make. Neither of you. You just make attacks arguments ad hominem and leave it at that, ignoring truth and reality. If you like, I can quote every single post in our discussion and show you both that neither of you has addressed mohammed violent history of murder and persecution. But that would require the both of you to admit mohammed was violent, and that doesn't mesh well with your beliefs.

What? All I have done is asked that you respond to my arguement that a peaceful religion cannot be founded by a violent man. And all you have done in response is to say "duh yall think islam bad yall dumb lol". My assertion is that islam is not peaceful and you disagree. Fine, that's the basis for an arguement. But now, to continue said argument you have to say why you believe your point? What makes islam peaceful?

Sigh... You can't address my argumets (or JSP's) and all you can do is insult. You didn't address my point about those speaking arabic mis-reading the koran. They obviously don't have the translations wrong. Have you even considered that the translations YOU are using, might be inacurrate? I bet not. You guys are pretty weak.

I guess I expected a better argument from a mod in a debate forum. Guess I was aiming waaaaay too high.

Best you can do huh? I'll make it easy for you KRC: 1. Mohammed founded a religion that is based upon his actions and communication with god. 2. Many of mohammeds actions were violent. 3. If the religion is based upon his actions (or at least all of the ones kept track of in the koran and hadith) then the religion is also violent.

OK, quotes please. I'd really like to see the one where you addressed mohammed being violent, and showing disrespect for other religions, especially since that's the once I''ve been asking you tp respond to to for almost a week now. Really, let's see it...

So violent muslims must, themselves have a bad translation, right? Surely they are not ignorant of their own language. When muslims riot in the streets of islamabad and hold up a sign quoting the koran, with what they beleive to be a quote from the koran justifying violence against those who disbelive, they must have the quote out of context, right? Where have I made the assumption that islam is evil? You are using a straw man argument yourself (exagerating my position), by stating I assume islam is evil. Hell, I haven't even tried to prove that it is evil. All I have said, all along is that there are major flaws in this religion, which help to fuel extremism, mostly stemming from the action of mohammed. Furthermore, you are guilty of using an argument ad hominem by attacking me personally with your whole "ignorant" nonsense, rather than adressing my points. You STILL have not addressed that point over 6 pages of your posting and a week's worth of time. When someone else called you out 4 days ago on something you said "oh i'll look in to that...". They are still waiting on a response to that one too. Once again, all you can do is post some quips about me being ignorant, not understanding islam, and not addressing the points (even though you claim to have done so).

Where have I proven that? What counter arguments have I ignored, other than questionable translations? Those who use the violent passages of the koran and hadith for an excuse to kill people don't seem to have any trouble at all with how they interpret the books. Furthermore, not one single poster, has addressed the issue of mohammed being a violent person. Not one! That fact alone has huge implications on the interpretation of the religious texts and the acceptable behavior of those who considers themselves muslims.

I don't deny that one bit. I'm well aware of the flaws with all major religions. But right now radical islam is a major problem worldwide, and it needs to be addressed. The problem is, a large portion of the muslims in the world cannot handle any dialogue regarding their religion and view it as an attack. It's as though the feel they deserve a special treatment, one that their founder did not afford to others.

Once again no counter points other than "the only way to understand it is to know arabic" argument. Brilliant stuff, really, if ethnocentrism is a valid point for a logical argument. All you and KRC can muster is "blah blah blah" and "you just hate islam" and at best "oh yeah, well other religions suck too". How about addressing any of the real issues and flaws with THIS particular religion?