Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right on. Tokidd is very good at sophistry and obfuscation. As the lyrics to the old Bob Dylan song, "Subterranean Homesick Blues" goes, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
Now, I have a question for Tokidd if s'he is a Muslim (as I think s'he is): Do you believe that Muhammad rode a magical winged horse called Burak from Mecca to Jerusalem and then to the 7th heaven and back to Mecca? See link.
Many people on city data do not share their history or background. The premisis, especially on a forum titled " politics and other controversies ", is to share and discuss ideas and debate one's perspectives. Insights on many different issues on thousands of topics are discussed in this forum. Its also what is described in the TOS. Hope that helps.
No, it doesn't.
Golimar presented this article as though it is an Australian academic paper. It's not.
As an Australian ( Now you see my perspective) I'm sharing, this writer is not affiliated with any respected university. You'd probably find copious references to his works on stormfront.
So yes, I'm interested in that posters claims as to where they are from so I can understand his perspective.
Right on. Tokidd is very good at sophistry and obfuscation. As the lyrics to the old Bob Dylan song, "Subterranean Homesick Blues" goes, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
Now, I have a question for Tokidd if s'he is a Muslim (as I think s'he is): Do you believe that Muhammad rode a magical winged horse called Burak from Mecca to Jerusalem and then to the 7th heaven and back to Mecca? See link.
I'm not a Muslim. I was raised Catholic. I currently do not participate in any organized religion, although I still attend church from time to time. So much for your conjecture.
No, I don't believe Muhammad rode a mythical winged horse anywhere. And I also don't believe that Jesus was God. And I also don't believe that God built the universe in 7 days. Shall I keep going?
BTW, accusing me of sophistry and obfuscation without providing any examples is no different than me saying you are obviously a hater of all Muslims. Where did I use sophistry and obfuscation and how did I use it?
I'm not a Muslim. I was raised Catholic. I currently do not participate in any organized religion, although I still attend church from time to time. So much for your conjecture.
No, I don't believe Muhammad rode a mythical winged horse anywhere. And I also don't believe that Jesus was God. And I also don't believe that God built the universe in 7 days. Shall I keep going?
BTW, accusing me of sophistry and obfuscation without providing any examples is no different than me saying you are obviously a hater of all Muslims. Where did I use sophistry and obfuscation and how did I use it?
Do you believe Muhammad was a violent pedophile warlord?
Do you believe Muhammad was a violent pedophile warlord?
I believe your question is irrelevant. I don't care what Muhammad is or was. He lived a very long time ago in a society that was very different than ours. Go read a history book if you want the answer. Not a blog that you linked to from Fox News or one of golimar's posts. An actual history book on the life of Muhammad. If you really care about the kind of person he was, go read about him. Why do you care what I think?
I believe your question is irrelevant. I don't care what Muhammad is or was. He lived a very long time ago in a society that was very different than ours. Go read a history book if you want the answer. Not a blog that you linked to from Fox News or one of golimar's posts. An actual history book on the life of Muhammad. If you really care about the kind of person he was, go read about him. Why do you care what I think?
You don't need a history book. It's whitewashed, if the author is still alive and not in hiding.
If you want to learn about Muhammad, learn from Islamic sources. Sources that Muslims hold dearest to them, like the Sahih Hadiths and the Sira. That is the true Muhammad, and that Muhammad is a nasty man (to put it mildly).
I don't need a study to tell me that islam is incompatible with civilized society. All I need to do is keep up with current events. Even the "friendly" ones look down their noses at us.
I believe your question is irrelevant. I don't care what Muhammad is or was. He lived a very long time ago in a society that was very different than ours. Go read a history book if you want the answer. Not a blog that you linked to from Fox News or one of golimar's posts. An actual history book on the life of Muhammad. If you really care about the kind of person he was, go read about him. Why do you care what I think?
Already done all of that. Took three semesters of Arabic and many more on the history and politics of the Middle East. And I can tell you that Muhammad was a barbaric pedophile warlord who invented a religion in order to enrich himself and increase his own power. Those are the historical facts and they are not disputable.
Golimar, did you actually download and read the essay? Or did you just scan the talking points on the website you provided the link to? The whole notion that this is an "Australian study" is nonsense. It is an essay written by an Australian academic (and I use the term academic loosely in this case) without the backing of any reputable governmental or academic institution. It is simply the author's own scholarship. I read the actual essay by Frank Salter, and it is a perfect example of the worst kind of scholarship. He set out with the thesis that mosques have negative impacts on Australian communities, but his "proof" is nonexistent. He makes sweeping statements and generalizations loaded with citations that actually don't prove the author's assertions at all, and often link to equally tendentious and badly written "studies" and academic texts. He also uses these citations in an extremely dishonest way, making a statement, then adding a point only somewhat related to that statement, adding a citation to "prove" the latter point, but which has no bearing on the larger statement he is making. So while it seems he is citing evidence for his larger claims on the negative impact of mosques, he isn't at all. This is the kind of "voodoo academics" I see all the time when reading "scholarly" works and "studies" on issues where the author wants to make a statement that actually contradicts most known facts about that issue. Extremist Muslims do it too.
I'm not a Muslim. I was raised Catholic. I currently do not participate in any organized religion, although I still attend church from time to time. So much for your conjecture.
No, I don't believe Muhammad rode a mythical winged horse anywhere. And I also don't believe that Jesus was God. And I also don't believe that God built the universe in 7 days. Shall I keep going?
BTW, accusing me of sophistry and obfuscation without providing any examples is no different than me saying you are obviously a hater of all Muslims. Where did I use sophistry and obfuscation and how did I use it?
If you really care about the kind of person he was, go read about him. Why do you care what I think?
Below is what US president John Quincy Adams wrote about Muhammad in an era when politicians were not constrained by political correctness.
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.)."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
