So Mr. fecal-matter-in-the-skull, why do you think allah covered 20% of Pakistan in water? It seems like you must agree with allah's judgment that those people need to suffer, because you're doing nothing to help them.
ahhhh...you and your assumptions and your judgements and your talk... I'd love to answer that, but let me inform you before hand...unfortunately I'm not included as a member of the committee where Allah presides over the meetings and decides whats gonna happen to whom. Moreover, it's his business...not mine and cmon if you're gonna be insulting me please use some classy + funny insults, so that I and the rest could enjoy them, or laugh over 'em. No, I'm serious -_-
So while the Pakistani's beg for welfare from the US and the EU, you won't even lift a shovel to help them. I guess that's what passes for brotherly love in the cult called Islam. If I believed in your imaginary god, I would condemn him for causing senseless pain and suffering.
Lolzzzz!!! now from where Pakistan came in the discussion? Awwww... i respect your love toward the Pakistan, thats why u try your best to put Pakistan in your dissension!!!!
Scroll back until you find it. I'd love to see Pakistani's wake up from the dark nightmare in which they are currently living. I'd love to see the people of Pakistan living in peace.
I think the only people who want to see the end of Pakistan are the Muslims who believe that everyone should die in service to allah.
That is hardly my problem, isn't it Mr. Spencer? The tafsir I posted is clearly saying something different from your -- in your own words -- "agenda to provide a misinterpretation". You mean the so-called claims of "child molestation, rapes and murders", which have been alleged by the Orientalists who, I repeat again your words, have "an agenda to provide a misinterpretation". This is getting old, and I am pretty sick and tired of having to repeat myself the very same arguments which you quickly dismissed in the past because it doesn't fit your "agenda to provide a misinterpretation". But regardless, perhaps this new documentation will shut you up permanently...though I seriously doubt that Islamophobes like you will bother to think about it since it is obvious you people have an "agenda". We all know what that "agenda" is, don't we, Mr. Spencer?
The "Glass House" talked about in that "documentation" refers to Christians and Jews. I'm an atheist, which means that I'm not foolish enough believe in any of the Big Three fairy tales referred to in your "documentation" or their false idols. Where's my glass house? Funny, the best that your "documentation" does in the argument over Mohammed's actions is to say, "Maybe the hero of Muslims did something wrong, but so did the heroes of Christians and Jews!" Not exactly a scathing defence of ol' Moe and his behaviour. Note: The fact that something is written down somewhere and referred to authoritatively as "new documentation" does not on its own make it compelling evidence. This applies in all cases, though particularly so when the "documentation" mixes in with its various soruces articles from Wikipedia and Ask-Imam.com.
true....but how this question is only raised when the Document is in favour of Islam. Documents which are against Islam which are NOT even 'referred to authoritatively as "new documentation"' so widely believed? |You guys are being fooled| Believing in one God and and not the other is one thing. Not believing in the very own existence of God is totally different...and sad
It covers atheists as well. Look at the examples of marriages by secular kings in Rome, Greece and even Europe.
Fortunately for me, I do not think that any of those kings are messengers of God, nor do I have any particular admiration for them. Otherwise, your argument might have some scintilla of relevance. (As an obiter dictum, but in no way necessary for my response, as far as I can tell none of those kings were "secular," but were instead officially religious). Anyways, here is where your response fails in its logic, assuming that you are right about the kings being secular (you are not): If I argued that all Muslims did something wrong, simply because one Muslim did something wrong, you would be correct to give a rebuttal about what secular people have done wrong to show how such an assertion is absurd. However, that's not my argument. My argument is that the founder of your religion was a kiddy diddler, and that you follow a kiddy diddler's writings religiously with the belief that he was God's prophet. I do not follow any of those kings' writings religiously, nor do I believe they were prophets. There is also no founder of secularism--it's just the absense of belief, which requires no prophet to reveal wisdom to anyone, which is why there is no "glass house" for me. In any event, your entire response fails to address one of my most important earlier points, which was that: Your sole attempt at responding to me--and it was a poor one for the reasons stated above--still lies not in trying to say that Moe was a moral person, but that other people were equally immoral. Hardly a defence of Mohammed. "Sure he diddled kids, but he's not the only one!"
I criticize anybody who uses Wikipedia as a source, regardless of whether it's in the context of a religious debate or otherwise. Why should I believe in anything for which there is no credible evidence of its existence?
That was not the point of the documentation, if at all. The documentation never said or assumed or asserted that marrying women at puberty was immoral or something which was practiced by only a few people. That is an assumption which you imposed on the documentation....not the other way around. The documentation clearly showed -- as given in the numerous pages -- that people from various cultures such as the Romans, the Greeks, the Europeans, the Native Americans, etc. practiced and accepted marriages at puberty as the norm.... because it was perfectly normal and reasonable for these cultures to accept that women do come of age and reach sexual maturity at puberty. That was the whole point of the documenting all the variant cultures throughout the ages.
Marrying at puberty was "the norm?" Is that why Mohammed's first two wives were in their 40s and 50s?
It was the norm for the Arabs to marry off women at puberty at the period of time we are talking about. The Prophet was no exception to the rule as he was an Arab and he was living in that particular time-period. And the Arabs were not the only ones who practiced this. If you had actually read the documentation, you wouldn't be asking stupid questions like the above. I should also point out that the second part of your question actually disproves your earlier statement about the Prophet (P), that "he diddled with kids". Who are the "kids" (plural) you are talking about here? There was only one person whom you think is a "kid" (Aishah r.a.), and she was far from a "kid"...she was a sexually-mature woman who had achieved puberty. And she was the only woman that the Prophet (PBUH) married below the age of 30. That busts your "he diddled with kids![sic]" theory, and also busts your nonsense about marrying women at puberty as "immoral".
I apologize. You are correct: He only diddled one kid. I'm sorry, not a "kid." A "sexually mature" nine or ten year old.
Yeah, I know what aid they are giving, you have already received many bounties in Katrina disaster by the Muslims.. Why was you "Welfare recipient" from the Muslims at that time? See the news and get yourself updated... !! We are doing much (In real) than you media people making fake aids. We know better how to deal with such issues and we are doing it in great force. Yeah, every thing comes from the Lord of all mankind, even if you call Him Allah or God..!! He is the God of Jesus and all mankind..!!
and IS that why you believe in his non existence? don't you think you're looking for an easy way out...being a wuss? not being able to search for the truth. You drop a chalk and say if God existed he would stop it from breaking and conclude that God doesn't exist? that's out dated and immature... You need to FIND the truth