69 million page views

once again....

Reader comment on item: Dueling Fatwas
in response to reader comment: Dueling Fatwas- reply to Grand kaffir -Final

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Oct 21, 2010 at 04:28

Perhaps feeling a little offended, Mr Curmally continues with his third response after his 'final' response to GIZK:

"Why are you constantly applying today's standards to events 1400 years ago?"

You mean to say that in your mind it is incorrect for me to think that it's a very, very, sick 53 year old adult that sleeps night after night with a nine-year old child and creates a within her a psychological dependence on him ? Especially after getting the hots for her 3 years earlier. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. As I am mine. As for the other events - theft, slavery, murder, mass murder - well, yes, call me a bit of a fuddy-duddy - but I do tend to judge them as crimes. But that's just me.

And applying scientific standards of the burden of proof to things like 1000kph winged 'buraks' and 'djinns' and Mo splitting the moon with his little finger etc? Well, you have me there. I guess what made me slightly suspicious was the lack of evidence in the fossil record in archaelogical digs in the middle east for anything remotely resembling a member of the species Equus with even the slightest hint of limbs adapted for high velocity flight. That got me thinking ... and after many months of soul searching - it occurred to me that maybe such a creature never existed. Yes, I was stunned to reach such a conclusion.

"...What is your intent?.."

Mostly to point out the obvious - and hopefully also how expert some human beings are at deceiving themselves.

".Why can't you see see the paedophilia of a segment of the Church today? "

Why should I deny that in some cases and certain sections of Christian clergy - there have been grave abuses against young children. The big difference is that the perpetrators most probably are fully aware of the culpability of their actions and how they have betrayed great trust placed in them. The BIG difference is no case has come to light yet of any priest or pastor sleeping night after night with a young child (of either sex) - for years and years. Certainly no priest or pastor has then claimed special permission from God - or that they were 'prophets'. And certainly - if they had - no sane person would believe them.

"What bis your excuse?"

my excuse for what?

"I don't need to sidetrack or evade answering your questions or replying to your allegations."

you've addressed virtually none actually,

"I quoted Jerry Lee Lewis as an example that happened in my lifetime."

Ok, that's fair enough. But as I pointed out - JL Lewis was not a self-appointed 'prophet'.

"...Why are you so bothered about my beliefs?

You personally? I'm not. Looking at your situation - you're in one way not to blame. The cultural meme you've been immersed in all your life is Islam. It's your 'reality' because you know no better. Perhaps I should use the plural 'you' when speaking about 'your' beliefs. To save myself the time - I'll just refer you to the points Plato so clearly and graciously has itemised for us - wherein he outlines a myriad of reasons that clearly show the dangers of 'islamic thinking'.

"...have I tried to convert you?"

as I said - you are smart enough to realise that would be a complete and utter waste of time.

"I am also very sure that there are Holy books that are more than 1400 years old. "

No good mentioning those - they're corrupt, remember? But you well know the Gita and Upanishads , Bible and Torah are much. much older than 1400 years. Islam is a recent blow-in on the scene.

"How come people believe in them."

Because they are useful and point to a deeper level of existence - and point people to discover the unity and harmony within themselves

"...Who do you think the Christ (may peace be upon him) was? "

He was a fully enlightened being.

"...Wasn't he a Palestinian?"

He was a Jew born in Bethlehem in what is called Palestine . He spent most of his life in Judaea.He was not a dispossessed Jordanian muslim.

"....Old the prophets of the Old testament were Arabs."

Israelites were semites who spokeHebrew, not arabs.

"As for the Buraq, It was a horse and not a donkey."

aha! so NOT related to Equus africanus asinus at all! Right, I should have known that.

"Regarding Dueling fatwas, other than adjectives about the legal scholars what have you said? Nothing..therfore I see no reason to continue answering your mails."

If you think fatwas are the main point of people's difficulties with your belief system, then you've completely missed the point. You do as you wish though.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to once again.... by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2022 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)