Lawsuits to protect Free Speech against Religious Violence?

[Jason Rees]

Seemed very obviously a camera to me....

Looked like a rocket launcher, in the company of several rocket launchers, to me.

[AAAhmed46]

Seemed very obviously a camera to me....

Looked like a rocket launcher, in the company of several rocket launchers, to me.

that small?

BUt okay, you know moreout this stuff than i do. So what about the entire incident as a whole?

[Jason Rees]

Oh and I'm not sure these 13+ year old children were bullied for "buttsex," to use another one of your carefully chosen terms, but for being gender nonconformist. Please say something ridiculous about religion so we can get back on track!

ROTFLMAO!!!

Oops too late. Your fault Jason!

Hehe. My only objection to the way that all panned out was that GLBT groups used it as a springboard for a political appeal. Yeah, using the death of an 8-year old to pander for protections of GLBT? Lame. I didn't wear purple that day. I wore green.

As for his comments about the fascists, you again seem to miss his point. He says the ones speaking with the most sense about the threat of Islam in Europe are the fascists. THEN HE MOURNS THIS FACT. Agree, disagree, whatever; he's not endorsing fascism. He's saying that most people are too bound up in multi-culti to notice that very different, oppositional culture was taking root in Europe and not incorporating, and they share some crazy ideas that threaten those in the West. And that it's ok to take that on. For example, if I were France, I wouldn't want huge Muslim populations immigrating anymore (and here I'm referring 100% to ideology and 0% to race). In fact I'd be inclined to shut it down completely, given that with the higher Muslim birth rate, they're going to be bred out of their own country in not too long anyway. I know that populations shift and merge but nations will say they don't want people hostile to their culture taking over from within. Lots of people are so busy being egalitarian and pro-freedom about the matter they're not recognizing the very threat to those values they face. The fascists have always been good with xenophobia so they're banging the drum. Neither Harris nor Hitchens are fond of this situation; both of them are 100% against fascism from all I've read. Cool?

BOOM!

I got ADHD dude, i think scrambled. Im not joking either. So i write scrambled.

Hell, I have ADHD, so I toss up a lot of your postings to ESL (English as a Second Language). Nothing wrong with that, but sometimes I have to re-read to try to understand what you're saying.

[Jason Rees]

BUt okay, you know moreout this stuff than i do. So what about the entire incident as a whole?

There's a general order not to view that particular video on wikileaks (nothing says I can't watch the clip from the news, though). It appears that they were worried this group might get away before a ground crew could arrive. The gunner may have been a little overzealous (I don't agree with shooting up people retrieving the wounded. Self-interest there, probably).

[AAAhmed46]

Nothing wrong with getting upset(if you really care about something, you will react to it) Just when you literally hate and antagonize the guy with the other view that it. Or cannot understand why someone would have this view that upsets you. I don't blame you for objecting to the marriage with aisha. I view it differently, but whether your or my view is accurate is what the debate is. I can't fault you for it. I can see why many people will hold this view, though i do not agree.

So we don't agree that Muhammed, a failed merchant, married a 9-year old girl, one source I have putting her actually at 7 years old (The Age of Faith, by Will Durant). That you say it was humanitarian to marry her, when as far as I know, even in those barbaric days, one could adopt children instead of marrying them.

We probably don't agree that he killed 300 jews because they wouldn't acknowledge him as the Messiah (in fact, they laughed in his face because he clearly didn't know what he was talking about regarding the Hebrew faith). That in 610 he was over the hill, and having a mid-life crisis, he claimed to his wife that Gabriel visited him in a dream while he napped in a cave. That he displayed fits that can be easily seen as epileptic seizures. That he appropriated Kaaba worship as a means to bypass the authority of the religious leaders of Mecca. That instead of feeding the masses that followed him with his own provisions, he raided passing caravans.

We also probably don't agree that he had Asma, a Medinese poetess, assassinated. That he had Afak, a Jew convert, assassinated for writing satire about him. That he had Kab ibn al-Ashraf, a converted Jewish Medinese poet assassinated, and thanked Allah when the man's head was laid at his feet. That he expelled 700 jews from Medina with only the shirts on their backs, and allowed his followers to loot their property. That he executed 600 more Jewish men for daring to defend themselves, and sold their wives and children into slavery.

Mohammed was a charlatan, a fraud, and a monster. I compare this man to Joseph Smith, and would gladly take the latter. I compare both their behaviors to Jesus, and is it any wonder who I would more willingly follow?

So far just chapters. I can't exactly form a proper opinion on it unless i read teh whole thing myself Also had an ex-mormon tell me that Joseph smith ripped off muhammeds life(or was a man inspired by god in a simlar manner depending on your perspective) but thats basically just speculation on my part, i have yet to study the religion in depth to see if this is true.

Haha... Smith not only copied from Mohammed's life, he copied chapters of the Bible almost entire. He has characters in the Book of Mormon quoting scripture they could not have read, and claiming they said it first. He copied the ideas of an unpublished novel, creating a make-believe nation of Native Americans, claiming they were descended from Middle-Eastern peoples transported over the ocean... that they had a massive war and were wiped out, but not before being visited by none other than Jesus himself... and that it was all recorded on golden plates that Joseph Smith found, and no one else ever saw. Mark Twain made a jest of how much terminology used in the Book of Mormon was straight out of the King James.

Before I had indepth conversations with practicing mormons, most of what I heard about them was media misconceptions. Also gave me perspective on some of their theology.

Mormons have weekly training in speaking to people about their beliefs... mostly in trying to make their beliefs seem normal and mainstream Christian. Their missionary work doesn't involve mingling. It's people working in pairs, working like door-to-door salesmen. That's in fact a very apt description. Door-to-door salesmen, selling 'salvation.'

I wrote a long ass rebuttal, but my computer crashed before i submitted, So ill give you teh short form.

[Jason Rees]

I wrote a long ass rebuttal, but my computer crashed before i submitted, So ill give you teh short form.

Ouch. My suggestion? I mean, this isn't the first time you've lost your reply. Write it all out in word first. Heck, you can even run a spelling and grammar check from there. And Word saves automatically, so you can recover it.

And if you do write it on here, I often select and copy the entire text before I hit submit, in case it's been so long the forums log me out.

But did you really have to quote the ENTIRE post just to say that?

[AAAhmed46]

So we don't agree that Muhammed, a failed merchant, married a 9-year old girl, one source I have putting her actually at 7 years old (The Age of Faith, by Will Durant). That you say it was humanitarian to marry her, when as far as I know, even in those barbaric days, one could adopt children instead of marrying them.

He was never a merchant. I don't know why people keep saying that. He worked for his wife as a negotiator.

But he was bethrothed first, then waited until she hit puberty to finalize the marriage. The wait was 3 years, so the opinion that says she was 9 says there was a 3 year wait for puberty. He also wanted kids, so he married a young wife out a ##### load that were old widows from different tribes. She was also known for her memory, and wanted a female preacher of the quran he could teach himself.
Did this book mention ANYTHING of that?

We probably don't agree that he killed 300 jews because they wouldn't acknowledge him as the Messiah (in fact, they laughed in his face because he clearly didn't know what he was talking about regarding the Hebrew faith).

I have to write all this up again, so ill just make it short form.

-There was a battle. Banu Qurayza(the jewish tribe) promised to helpe the muslims.

-They cut a deal with the Meccans, and then joined up with the Meccans.

-muslims still won

-They fled to their villiages.

-muslims chased.

-They came out and said they would only be judged by their jewish brethern, under jewish law.

-So moe visited another jewish tribe, talked to them, they said treason is punished by death according to jewish law.

-So they killed all the enemy soldiers.

Orientalist E. G Browne confirms this, as well as many others.

Also like to point out that tarek fatah and some orientalists have uncovered the possibility this was a historic fabrication.

That in 610 he was over the hill, and having a mid-life crisis, he claimed to his wife that Gabriel visited him in a dream while he napped in a cave. That he displayed fits that can be easily seen as epileptic seizures.

Certainly the stresses from his life would show up in his ravings/revelations. Yet, when his wife khadija died and was dying, when his uncle(who raised him, who loved him) When his one and only son died, no mention of this in the quran. At all. I would assume these stresses would show up in seisures.

That he appropriated Kaaba worship as a means to bypass the authority of the religious leaders of Mecca.

They were supposed to share it actually, but hey, when 'leave islam or die' is declared, thats pretty hard to do huh?

That instead of feeding the masses that followed him with his own provisions, he raided passing caravans.

When pre-islamic arabs went to war, they would take their opponents stuff and sell it. The muslims left Mecca in a hurry(muslim? your life is forfiet). They left most of their positions there. They were stealing possession back and waging ecnomic warfare.
Do you think muhammed left Mecca as a king with great wealth? They were, for a long time, isolated into a valley, with the pagan arabs putting on sanctions for food and water? How do you think Khadija became sick and died? Or Abu Talib?

We also probably don't agree that he had Asma, a Medinese poetess, assassinated.

Don't know enough about this.

That he had Afak, a Jew convert, assassinated for writing satire about him. That he had Kab ibn al-Ashraf, a converted Jewish Medinese poet assassinated, and thanked Allah when the man's head was laid at his feet. That he expelled 700 jews from Medina with only the shirts on their backs, and allowed his followers to loot their property. That he executed 600 more Jewish men for daring to defend themselves, and sold their wives and children into slavery.

On the poets: Do you know what the poems contained? Or what they caused?

Muslim woman in the market place would be shopping, they would recite their poetry. People got riled up and attacked and killed some muslim woman. Even the u.s. has hate speech laws.

And about the jews: I think your mixing up Banu Qurayza with something else.

There is actuallY NO evidence of looking. How do I know?

Because the reference that says they looted the villiage afterwards is UNSOARCED.

Mohammed was a charlatan, a fraud, and a monster. I compare this man to Joseph Smith, and would gladly take the latter. I compare both their behaviors to Jesus, and is it any wonder who I would more willingly follow?

How do you think jesus would respond in the same situation? I doubt he would say to turn the other cheek when it's more than his skin to worry about.

And what the hell kind of soarces have you been reading? In college, ive looked at what non-muslim scholars of islam had written about muhammed, ive read non-muslim biographies written by non-muslim schoalrs of islam. Though karen armstrongs was the most flattering, most did NOT paint the picture you wrote. Where exactly did you read this? Who was the author?
Im repeating this again, this picture your painting is veyr different from the one I have read in many soarces.

Haha... Smith not only copied from Mohammed's life, he copied chapters of the Bible almost entire. He has characters in the Book of Mormon quoting scripture they could not have read, and claiming they said it first. He copied the ideas of an unpublished novel, creating a make-believe nation of Native Americans, claiming they were descended from Middle-Eastern peoples transported over the ocean... that they had a massive war and were wiped out, but not before being visited by none other than Jesus himself... and that it was all recorded on golden plates that Joseph Smith found, and no one else ever saw. Mark Twain made a jest of how much terminology used in the Book of Mormon was straight out of the King James.

How do i know this isn't simply misconceptions passed on as fact? Nothing personal, but based upon our discussion on mohammed, it's possible this is the same thing happening with jospeh smith that your doing with mohammed. ill probably try to take a look a Joseph smith myself, then look at what the non perspective is, and what the mormon perspective is. Over a course of a long time though.

Mormons have weekly training in speaking to people about their beliefs... mostly in trying to make their beliefs seem normal and mainstream Christian.

interesting.

Their missionary work doesn't involve mingling. It's people working in pairs, working like door-to-door salesmen. That's in fact a very apt description. Door-to-door salesmen, selling 'salvation.'

Thats not how i met them.

[AAAhmed46]

I wrote a long ass rebuttal, but my computer crashed before i submitted, So ill give you teh short form.

Ouch. My suggestion? I mean, this isn't the first time you've lost your reply. Write it all out in word first. Heck, you can even run a spelling and grammar check from there. And Word saves automatically, so you can recover it.

And if you do write it on here, I often select and copy the entire text before I hit submit, in case it's been so long the forums log me out.

But did you really have to quote the ENTIRE post just to say that?

im very tired.

And man it was looooong, i wrote alot, with links and soarces.

[AAAhmed46]

Hell, I have ADHD, so I toss up a lot of your postings to ESL (English as a Second Language). Nothing wrong with that, but sometimes I have to re-read to try to understand what you're saying.

I rush too. Lots to say. Also, my adhd manifests it self differently. Ive met people with ADHD who are actually very silent. Others are like me, bouncing off the walls, impulsive, random.

Gotta undersand, im the only guy holding fort here. Im getting shot at from two directions. Atleast on bullshido there is either another muslim, cullion or danno, or eternal lurker( working on his masters for middle eastern anthropology, or something like that. No longer posts)

My internet time is also very limited, so i write as much as I can while i can sit on the computer. Often i post in bursts. Hence the editting.

HAd alot of time tonight though.

going to edit previous posts to add more relevent info.

BOOM!

Not exactly. If a guy says he mourns fascism but supports fascist candidates, that means the 'boom' is getting muffled. Not so black and white. And considering only 2000 woman in france wear the niqab, riling people up over this was just a show of 'hurr I are french cultural warrior'. Know what was attached to that bill? The whole retirement humdrum everyone is pissed about right now. To pass an otherwise unpopular bill, they linked it to one where they can rile up peoples fears. And whoo!!!! Now we got the age of retirement rising up, something nobody wanted, but because people hated 2000 woman in the whole country wearing masks, the bill passed. Now they are pissed.

[Jason Rees]

He was never a merchant. I don't know why people keep saying that. He worked for his wife as a negotiator.

Ok. Forgive me, but I work from historical texts, and Age of Faith is the only historical text I have immediately available to me.

"At the age of twelve, says a tradition, he was taken by Abu Talib on a caravan to Bostra in Syria... Another tradition pictures him going to Bostra on mercantile business for the rich widow Khadija." who he later made into a sugarmomma.

Did this book mention ANYTHING of that?

Actually, this particular book is uncritical of the whole affair, and says only complimentary things of Aisha, and Mohammed's behavior towards her.

-There was a battle. Banu Qurayza(the jewish tribe) promised to helpe the muslims.

-They cut a deal with the Meccans, and then joined up with the Meccans.

-muslims still won

Separate issue. And for a guy who claims to speak with the voice of God, he sure acts like a very human tyrant.

They were supposed to share it actually, but hey, when 'leave islam or die' is declared, thats pretty hard to do huh?

*snort* Yeah. I suppose marching into Mecca with 10-20k men was equivalent to Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem. No threat there.

When pre-islamic arabs went to war, they would take their opponents stuff and sell it. The muslims left Mecca in a hurry(muslim? your life is forfiet). They left most of their positions there. They were stealing possession back and waging ecnomic warfare.

But he was a Prophet, and the last, right? And Jesus was only a prophet, right? Why couldn't Mohammed feed the masses with two fish and a loaf of bread? I don't recall Jesus raiding any caravans. You'd think an account like that would have survived, and he fled several towns with nothing but the shirt on his back. Heh.

We also probably don't agree that he had Asma, a Medinese poetess, assassinated.

Don't know enough about this.

"Strengthened by victory, Mohammed used the customary morality of war. Asma, a Medinese poetess, having attacked him in her rhymes, Omeir, a blind Moslem, made his way into her room and plunged his sword so fervently into the sleeping woman's breast that it affixed her to the couch. In the mosque the next morning, Mohammed asked Omeir, 'Hast though slain Asma?' 'Yes,' answered Omeir, 'is there cause for apprehension?' 'None' said the Prophet; 'a couple of goats will hardly knock their heads together for it.' "

The source he gives for this is "Ibid., 238, quoting traditions."

On the poets: Do you know what the poems contained? Or what they caused?

Sure do.

"Afak, a centenarian convert to Judaism, composed a satire on the Prophet, and was slain as he slept in his courtyard."

"Kab ibn al-Ashraf... when Mohammed turned against the Jews, he wrote verses prodding the Quarish to avenge their defeat... 'Who will ease me of this man?' asked Mohammed. That evening the poet's severed head was laid at the prophet's feet. In the Moslem view these executions were a legitimate defense against treason; Mohammed was the head of a state, and had full authority to condemn."
- Andrae, Tor, Mohammed, p206; Muir, Sir W. Life of Mohammed p245 quoting Ibn Hisham and al'Tabari

I dunno, man. Maybe that's how you view the behavior of a saint or holy man, but it seems pretty screwed up to me.

And about the jews: I think your mixing up Banu Qurayza with something else.

No, I think you're mixing up Banu Qurayza with several other matters, and using to to justify more than one occurance.

Because the reference that says they looted the villiage afterwards is UNSOARCED.

Unsourced? Try Origins of the Islamic State, by al-Baladhuri, Abu-L Abbas Ahmad (translated by Hitti), Columbia University Press, 1916

And what the hell kind of soarces have you been reading? In college, ive looked at what non-muslim scholars of islam had written about muhammed, ive read non-muslim biographies written by non-muslim schoalrs of islam. Though karen armstrongs was the most flattering, most did NOT paint the picture you wrote. Where exactly did you read this? Who was the author?

Ah, my friend, I have not always been a Christian, but I have always been a student of history. Accounts of these and more are scattered throughout texts that have survived the test of time. One can only wonder how, with all the Jewish and Christian cities taken by the Islamic hordes, we have yet to find an account of Jesus as a dictatorial monster, killing and enslaving all who opposed him. But we must give Mohammed a pass, as a prophet of God, because of the traditions of his culture? I think not.

Im repeating this again, this picture your painting is veyr different from the one I have read in many soarces.

Broaden your horizons.

How do i know this isn't simply misconceptions passed on as fact? Nothing personal, but based upon our discussion on mohammed, it's possible this is the same thing happening with jospeh smith that your doing with mohammed.

And what am I doing with Mohammed, aside from looking at historical fact and making a moral judgement?

Thats not how i met them.

Then you found them before they found you.

[AAAhmed46]

Ok. Forgive me, but I work from historical texts, and Age of Faith is the only historical text I have immediately available to me.

"At the age of twelve, says a tradition, he was taken by Abu Talib on a caravan to Bostra in Syria... Another tradition pictures him going to Bostra on mercantile business for the rich widow Khadija." who he later made into a sugarmomma.

Even muslims wrongly say he was a merchant. He wasn't he just worked for a merchant (his wife) he went with abu talib on a caravan briefly, but not really as a merchant.

Actually, this particular book is uncritical of the whole affair, and says only complimentary things of Aisha, and Mohammed's behavior towards her.

fair enough.

Separate issue. And for a guy who claims to speak with the voice of God, he sure acts like a very human tyrant.

They were trying to kill his entire people. He fought back.

*snort* Yeah. I suppose marching into Mecca with 10-20k men was equivalent to Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem. No threat there.

Different point in his life, long after the starvation. Robbing caravans was all they could do at the time. The march to claim Mecca was after the meccans violated the hudaibah pact(yes spelling). It was a truce.

But he was a Prophet, and the last, right? And Jesus was only a prophet, right? Why couldn't Mohammed feed the masses with two fish and a loaf of bread? I don't recall Jesus raiding any caravans. You'd think an account like that would have survived, and he fled several towns with nothing but the shirt on his back. Heh.

Different prophet had the ability to do different miracles. Muhammeds was the production of the quran, and if you believe the hadith, splitting the moon.
And from what i know about jesus, he had no need to raid caravans, there was no war. Though i am aware of christian persecution done after christs death, there was no edict for a genocide, and the tension never broke in the same way.

"Strengthened by victory, Mohammed used the customary morality of war. Asma, a Medinese poetess, having attacked him in her rhymes, Omeir, a blind Moslem, made his way into her room and plunged his sword so fervently into the sleeping woman's breast that it affixed her to the couch. In the mosque the next morning, Mohammed asked Omeir, 'Hast though slain Asma?' 'Yes,' answered Omeir, 'is there cause for apprehension?' 'None' said the Prophet; 'a couple of goats will hardly knock their heads together for it.' "

The source he gives for this is "Ibid., 238, quoting traditions."

Ill look into this.

Sure do.

"Afak, a centenarian convert to Judaism, composed a satire on the Prophet, and was slain as he slept in his courtyard."

"Kab ibn al-Ashraf... when Mohammed turned against the Jews, he wrote verses prodding the Quarish to avenge their defeat... 'Who will ease me of this man?' asked Mohammed. That evening the poet's severed head was laid at the prophet's feet. In the Moslem view these executions were a legitimate defense against treason; Mohammed was the head of a state, and had full authority to condemn."
- Andrae, Tor, Mohammed, p206; Muir, Sir W. Life of Mohammed p245 quoting Ibn Hisham and al'Tabari

I dunno, man. Maybe that's how you view the behavior of a saint or holy man, but it seems pretty screwed up to me.

Caused a riot. People died because of them.

No, I think you're mixing up Banu Qurayza with several other matters, and using to to justify more than one occurance.

Ill go through my books. But my memory tells me that there was only one occurance really.

Unsourced? Try Origins of the Islamic State, by al-Baladhuri, Abu-L Abbas Ahmad (translated by Hitti), Columbia University Press, 1916

....and he got it from an unsoarced utterence in an old dusty seerah. Thats the only reference ever made of any order to loot. And it's unsoarced, stand alone. When i say unsoarced, i mean unsoarced way back when.

Ah, my friend, I have not always been a Christian, but I have always been a student of history. Accounts of these and more are scattered throughout texts that have survived the test of time. One can only wonder how, with all the Jewish and Christian cities taken by the Islamic hordes, we have yet to find an account of Jesus as a dictatorial monster, killing and enslaving all who opposed him. But we must give Mohammed a pass, as a prophet of God, because of the traditions of his culture? I think not.

Ah, no wonder you keep making comparisons to jesus. I thought this rather strange for an agnostic. So your christian now. Seems everytime i talk to christians, they try to compare christ to mohammed.

But if you want to go into historical comparisons, people even doubted, and still doubt whether christ even exists. Now as a muslim, you know what i believe about him. But still, the New testament is just like the hadith really, other than the council of nicea. Who knows how the man was before the editting? Or even what the miracles were, the nature of them.
Also, the image of christ is not a super perfect man, but god in human form. of course god won't be protrayed as angry and vengeful... in human form. But seems when he can no longer have a face put to him, he can do whatever he wants, like wipe out cities, particularly in the O.T.

So it's really a matter of perspective, mohammed, viewed largely as limited in his supernatural powers(his only miracle is said to be the quran really) or Jesus, who is literally supposed to be god. We also don't know how much was omitted by nicea or manipulated by paul. So we don't know really if jesus didn't pull out a katana and start slicing people up, and then danced on peoples graves.

And as I recall, the roman empire even when christianized militarily spread, and nearly every empire in the world. You would also know that, as muslim armies spread, many did not say convert or die as they occupied territory. Not always the case obviously.

Broaden your horizons.

Maybe you should. I just have to turn on the T.V. to hear islam getting attacked. I went through my own critique of the faith, my own cycle of it.

And what am I doing with Mohammed, aside from looking at historical fact and making a moral judgement?

It's not just historical context(though i think that is very important) it's missing out key facts of these historical facts, and when not alot of it is a narrow view. Only reason we don't hear the 'context' arguement with christ is because we have no idea what the writers of the bible were reading, and what they disregarded. Afterall, isn't he percieved as god in human form? Your mistake pragmatism for immorality. Your image of christ is one of god, so god has no need of pragmatism as god is all powerful. Although i would point out that from what i have read, when the second coming occurs, jesus will try to whoop alot of ass. So what happened to turn the other cheek here? Ill admit, i probably have a certain level of blindness to faults in my theology, to say otehrwise is to say one is not human.

But im positive your doing the same. Also, even if i found all sorts of historical rumours and 'evidence' about jesus that do paint him in such a way, as a muslim I am forbidden to say anything insulting about christ. You will see this with alot of muslims a black friend of mine(non-muslim) put on a parody cartoon called the black jesus when he visited me and my buddies(some were muslim) he laughed his ass off, but was disturbed to see his muslim buddies reacting with silent irritation. Now do they have to get used to it? Sure. But that is how we treat christ. So understand if you don't find muslim writings bashing him or showing him like a dicator.

Then you found them before they found you.

One guy i worked for, found out he was mormon when I slept over at his house. He's was not hardcore.

The otehr guy was hardcore, i met him at BJJ and we went for coffee a few times. Good guy, very devouted to his faith.


Im tired...................gonna sleep. Maybe we will agree to disagree in this thread. I think we will end up going in circles.....

We will end up debating this again in a future thread anyway.

[AAAhmed46]

First time we went in this much detail though, and we can go deeper and deeper.

[IJ]

Waaaay too many quotes and counterquotes to know what is happening here. Suffice to say for me, the whole story doesn't make sense.

Let's say I'm God. I want to communicate a message to my children on Earth. Shall I... dictate some random musings to a dude in the desert with a 9 year old girlfriend, in a manner duplicated by other religions the world over (all those other ones were just charismatic loons or self interested charlatans, however)? Or shall I make the message clearly known by revealing it to everyone, say, at least, miracling some titanium editions of my text into all their villages, and speaking to everyone?

In my book, should I try to convince skeptics by being poetic and literate sounding, thereby proving I exist because gosh, how could the desert dude be a good author otherwise? I mean, we know that people on the welfare rolls don't become billionaires by writing a book about boy wizards. Or should I make the case unequivocably by including knowledge no person then had, such as a 1000 digits of pi, or principles of relativity, or something like that, which would permanently settle the issue?

Should my wisdom be clear, or not so clear? For example, should my book be misquotable such that my peaceful Islamic religion is cited as a justification for the slaughter of civilians? I mean, it's clear to me and some that "you can't hurt someone unless they hurt you," and, shall we say, less clear to others. For example, you're fond of saying the pew polls were distorted because people were made to believe it was about Islam being attacked. Let's see what was actually asked:

"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-te ... slim-world

Look at Table 1--the success story is Morrocco, where the "often / sometimes" response dropped form 40% to 13%. Great! Except that means that more than 1 in 10 people support blowing up crowds of civilians. And that improvement was apparently just the result of suffering a devastating terrorist attack in 2003. Now let's consider the inanity of your claim that these pew studies were misquoted. Respondents felt blowing up civilians was ok to "defend Islam from it's enemies" in sizeable minorities or even majorities. So, yeah, this was about "defense." But what is your point, really? What's the alternative question? Blowing up civvies out of pure spite, financial gain, or world domination? Meanwhile, what fraction of Americans or Christians support deliberately killing civilians to defend America or Christianity from "enemies." The respondent can define that however they want, and yet I think we'd do better than Islamic nations somehow. Even though some of us read those "warlike" books by atheists... instead of peaceful Qurans.

As for the Jains--talk your way out of it all you want saying they arose from another group that is less ideal, but the simple point here is he was stressing to Christians that their book wasn't the paragon of perfection. That's it. If you applied as much skepticism to the Quran as you do to his claims we'd be coauthoring a peace + reason atheist text by now.

[Jason Rees]

I mean, we know that people on the welfare rolls don't become billionaires by writing a book about boy wizards.

[Jason Rees]

They were trying to kill his entire people. He fought back.

So we know how Muslims justify atrocity: by fear of atrocity.

Different point in his life, long after the starvation. Robbing caravans was all they could do at the time. The march to claim Mecca was after the meccans violated the hudaibah pact(yes spelling). It was a truce.

Since when do holy men have any business causing wars? Aren't they supposed to spread peace? I speak to the character of Mohammed, and it isn't a pretty picture.

Different prophet had the ability to do different miracles. Muhammeds was the production of the quran, and if you believe the hadith, splitting the moon.

Splitting the moon! ROTLFMAO!!! Good one. Yeah, the production of the Quran a miracle? You're just full of chuckles, man.

And from what i know about jesus, he had no need to raid caravans, there was no war. Though i am aware of christian persecution done after christs death, there was no edict for a genocide, and the tension never broke in the same way.

First you justify raiding caravans by saying M's people were starving. Then you justify it by war due to persecution. Then you make my point for me, in that Christians didn't go to war when they were persecuted.

Religion of Peace, eh?

Caused a riot. People died because of them.

Yes, we already know Muslims agree with the assassination of people like Salmon Rushdie and Molly Norris because of the fear of riots. I understand tradition, man.

....and he got it from an unsoarced utterence in an old dusty seerah. Thats the only reference ever made of any order to loot. And it's unsoarced, stand alone. When i say unsoarced, i mean unsoarced way back when.

Un-sourced, man. A source is a source, not a hoarse horse, because that would be a farce, of course. A source is not invalidated by being old and dusty, it is invalidated by being proven wrong.

Ah, no wonder you keep making comparisons to jesus. I thought this rather strange for an agnostic. So your christian now. Seems everytime i talk to christians, they try to compare christ to mohammed.

Would you prefer a comparison to Ghandi? Buddha, perhaps? I'll try to find another murderous tyrant that happened to be a holy man, but geeze, it sounds like a tall order.

But if you want to go into historical comparisons, people even doubted, and still doubt whether christ even exists.

People will disbelieve alot of things. Jesus' existence is historical fact, backed by hostile witnesses.