Replies

You also stated that those very few "moderate" Muslims were apostates, and would be killed by all right-thinking Muslims.

sigh. no. that is not what I said - read it again. never said anything of the sort.

let me see... the accusation of racism didn't cow me, so now you trot out the ol' misquote in the service of the Big Lie.

Are you some kind of Socialist? If you are, you are making a mistake common to creatures of that breed: you are trying to apply the tricks of viva-voce character assassination to a textual format debate. Doesn't work. Knock it off.

What I said, dear fellow, is that the korannic penalty for unrepentant apostasy is death. This is a fact. Read the Koran. That some Muslim (Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Jordan, others) countries enforce this edict quite literally and exactly is also a fact.

I know you don't like facts, instead preferring specious allegory and ivory tower opinion, so I do not expect you to come to understand or accept the points I have made here. Nor shall I bother to speak with you again.

"Moreover, I have known a goodly number of "moderate" Muslims. I say "moderate" in quotes because they would be considered apostates by their hardcore coreligionists (the overwhelming majority) and are condemned as apostates repeatedly throughout the Koran and Sunnah."

My apologies, you merely said they were apostates. You do know that apostates are supposed to be killed, however, according to the strictest interpretations of the Koran? You also stated that it is forbidden to interpret the Koran.

"What I said, dear fellow, is that the korannic penalty for unrepentant apostasy is death. This is a fact. Read the Koran. That some Muslim (Egypt, Saudi, Yemen, Jordan, others) countries enforce this edict quite literally and exactly is also a fact."

Hmm, yes, you do know it. So how is it not what you said?

"I know you don't like facts, instead preferring specious allegory and ivory tower opinion, so I do not expect you to come to understand or accept the points I have made here. Nor shall I bother to speak with you again."

Your use of "facts" seems to be as slippery as you accuse me of being, so you are right not to expect me to accept the points you are trying to make. I do understand them, and reject them, because they are wrong, as are many of your supposed facts.

"Are you some kind of Socialist? If you are, you are making a mistake common to creatures of that breed: you are trying to apply the tricks of viva-voce character assassination to a textual format debate. Doesn't work. Knock it off. " Tit for tat, I see. I called you racist, you call me socialist. No, I'm afraid I'm not trying to commit a character assassination; you need no help in displaying your character. I am, however, calling it as I see it. Perhaps it's not racism, as such, since it's directed at a religion rather than a skin-color, but it is the same sort of thing. Bigotry is bigotry. You should knock it off, yourself. Concentrate on the real problems, and the real facts.

My major problem with your arguments is the broad sweep of them. If you said much of what you said generally more specifically of, for example, Saudi Arabia, I'd probably agree with you. It is the broad-brush approach I disagree with. Most of Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi, after all, at least officially. Continue the discussion as you like, or not. You're still wrong, as you stated your arguments.