[waps]

I wonder, don't you feel all over just how wrong you are. You have, in order to defend islam, defended :

1) raping 6 year old girls (apparently it's okay if "he did not do anything outside the norm of that time")

2) massacring (I guess this was the norm of the time too ?)

3) stoning (funny how the hadith mentions that this actually wasn't the norm at the time ...)

4) forcing other people to stone women

At what point is one absolutely certain islam is disgusting and despicable ? I'd go with 1), why don't you share your opinion.

I also wonder. If there is one thing islam promises more than anything else, it's that the caliph will win any war, any battle. But today, we know that over 4 caliphs were murdered, and the last one died without a successor after being deposed by Kemal Ataturk. Where is the victory, because I see mostly a hell of a lot of defeats. And of course, even in islamic history itself there are reports of the prophet getting his ass kicked in battle. The last islamic state is extinct, and even the pseudo-islamic states only live by the grace of infidels. Where is allah's promise ? Where is the victory ? Why are you so pathetic ?

> it is explicitly talking about the Messengers, Scholars, and Rabbis, who were upholding ...

By the way, I take it you agree on the validity of the fatwa that it is haram for muslims to not live in the state of the caliph ? You focus on supposed disagreement on the punishment sharia demands for denying islam's laws, and you're making ever more idiotic arguments, but you're curiously silent on the issue.

As I recall you were initially trying to defend that muslims always follow sharia, and yet ... Every single muslim on the planet obviously violates this fatwa, as there is no exception for not having a single islamic state lead by a caliph. Why don't you come up with some more moronic arguments about this issue ?

> Again, put your citation as to who are these "highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia", and what exactly they said.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015...

Repeated from article : For example, in 2011, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Which is also why you might want to google "thighing". Your religion is truly ugly and disgusting if it lets this happen. They defend this as moral and just. Raping babies. You must feel proud.

> If you read the incident, it is saying that those two Jews themselves accepted what was mentioned in the Torah. Even today, you will find the same penalty in the Torah.

Why don't you comment on the obvious fact that they were honorable and moral by NOT following that law, and then muhammad forced them to do it ... After which the Jew being executed used his own body simply to try to protect and lessen the pain of his companion while your paedophile prophet was murdering them.

We both know which of them deserves respect and admiration, and it's that Jew.

Note that you skirt around the issue of stoning for even suspected adultery. Do you think that's moral ? If not, why does islam say so ?

> Aishah is one of the highest regarded sources from whom to take Hadith and religion.

I take it you are a sunni then ? Because this is not at all true in general. Shi'a 'hate" her, or perhaps it'd be better to say that they act like she doesn't exist, because of the agreement between Abu Bakr and Muhammad about selling her to the paedophile prophet for "rape and later marriage" (why, btw, does the prophet get to have sex before marriage ? Care to explain ?) in trade for inheriting the islamic empire. This is the root of the sunni-shi'a conflict of course but you're still presenting the moronically stupid argument that he was elected (and then proceeded to immediately to massacre former parts of the muslim army in what is called the "apostasy wars").

Do you seriously believe that ?

[azth]

> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015....

The article just mentions that Islam (similar to other religions like Judaism and Christianity) does not set a minimum age for marriage. Nothing really special here.

[azth]

Aishah was not 6 when the wedding happened, so you can lay that issue to rest.

> 2) massacring

Any battle that happened was either (1) out of self defense, (2) after the other party broke a peace treaty.

3) stoning

Taken straight from the Torah, which I believe you must accept given you are Christian. Try finding any incidents of stoning after the Ayah for punishment of adulterers (by lashing) was revealed.

> 4) forcing other people to stone women

They came to the Prophet, Peace be upon him, asking for the penalty for what they did, which was then picked straight out of the Torah.

> If there is one thing islam promises more than anything else, it's that the caliph will win any war, any battle.

No it does not. The Muslims were defeated in the Battle of Uhud, way before any Caliphs came into rule.

> By the way, I take it you agree on the validity of the fatwa that it is haram for muslims to not live in the state of the caliph

You're moving away from the original subject. But no, that fatwa you're referring to is just one opinion. I already answered this before, as long as you're able to practice you're religion easily, and there are many other Muslims in the same place, there no issue God willingly.

> Dr. Salih bin Fawzan

He has been severely criticized for several things he said. What you have to keep in mind is that any fatwa can be challenged. It is an opinion of one or more persons, and not binding.

> Why don't you comment on the obvious fact that they were honorable and moral by NOT following that law

So they were honorable by explicitly deciding not to follow what they believe God revealed to them? That's some double standard right there. Why did they come to the Prophet, Peace be upon him in the first place? And why did they try to hide the penalty right in front of him? It's basically picking and choosing what they like and leaving what they don't like from the Torah.

> Note that you skirt around the issue of stoning for even suspected adultery.

There is no punishment for suspected anything in Islam. We have several Hadiths that have the same meaning: ادرؤوا الحدود بالشبهات (i.e. fend off penalties with suspicion). For the penalty for adultery to hold, there needs to be four witnesses, who witnessed the actual act (not just saw a couple hugging or kissing, for instance). If any one of them decides to change his word after testifying, then the supposed witnesses will be penalized. And for your information, not once did this take place in the history of Islam. And please don't bring up what is happening in Iran today; it does not carry weight religiously; even though it is quite tragic what they're doing.

> I take it you are a sunni then

I'm Muslim. I know the position of some of the Shi'ah with regards to her. At the end of the day, the proof is on the one making the claim. The sources they use to make these false claims about her do not hold up to scrutiny (they are falsified stories).

> because of the agreement between Abu Bakr and Muhammad

I'm still waiting for a reference, even if it were a Shi'i one.

> does the prophet get to have sex before marriage

Of course he doesn't.

> and then proceeded to immediately to massacre former parts of the muslim army in what is called the "apostasy wars"

Explicitly denying an established part of the faith (in this case, Zakah) constitutes apostasy.

At the end of the day, you're not bringing up anything we haven't heard before (or just making up stories I have no idea where you came up with), hoping that something would "stick" perhaps?. Rest assured though, that over the course of the past 1400+ years, there is nothing that scholars have not been able to refute, thank God. Even with my basic knowledge, I'm able to find out the chain of narration of claims you and others make, only to discover that they are fabricated stories, or picked apart and misconstrued to try to show a certain aspect while hiding the whole story.