[Luis Gonzalez]

"You're still avoiding Mohammed, which is understandable."

And you're still putting up strawman arguments and red herrings.

The discussion, and the article by the way, is about the Quor'an, and how some interpret it one way, and others differently.

Try reading it.

[Sabertooth]

And by the way, if a guerrilla leader emerges in Israel tomorrow, and along with his men, kills every man, woman, and child in the Palestinian sectors of Israel, he may claim that his "war" is just in the tradition of Joshua, and his attacks on the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament, but it will not be so.

In order to skirt the issue of the character of Mohammed, you've now attempted to place Joshua on the same moral plane as Mohammed. Isn't this known in some circles as "moral relativism?"

What are you going to say? That he was a pedophile?

Alexander the Great and Plato were as well.

So what?

Noted, and on the record.

you're still putting up strawman arguments and red herrings. The discussion, and the article by the way, is about the Quor'an, and how some interpret it one way, and others differently.

Well this is news: consideration of Mohammed is irrelevant to the dermination of which interpretation of the Koran reveals "true Islam. Interesting.

The mental hopscotch necessary to conclude that "moderate Muslims" represent the real Islam requires real disingenuousness, not only about the loathesome character of Mohammed, but also of 1,400 years of evidence as to what happens to cultures when Islam becomes dominant.

When we have a bad seed and consistently bad fruit, we can safely conclude that the tree itself is bad.