[waps]

You failed to explain why the Sana'a manuscripts are different. You see you keep spewing these articles of faith ... but fail to explain known facts. As you know very well, the letters are different in these versions of the quran, and in one case there's a verse missing, and "somehow" your example has the exact same letters.

You utterly failed to explain your faith in early muslims' perfect 120-year long memory. As far as I can tell, you haven't even attempted. This is just rhetoric. Saying anything, anything at all to try to defend your pathetic paedophilic religion's viewpoint :

raping minors is wrong ... except when the prophet did it "because it was common". Needless to say, it is wrong, and the central idea of islam is that your paedophilic prophet is a moral role model for all time. Raping 6 year olds was wrong when the first human walked the earth and will be wrong long after the last human dies. Look at a picture of a girl in a cradle and tell me if raping her is wrong or not. You do not need religion to know the answer to that question, and any religion that even suggests otherwise is immoral and an abomination. Your defense of it makes you a monster.

Massacring is wrong ... except when the prophet "was at war" (not that he ever was at peace), because then it was "self-defence". Self-defence somehow lead to the massacring entire cities on a dozen occasions. Self-defence.

Needless to say, self-defence cannot ever take the form of a massacre for a moral person. To Christians, even just killing, even just hurting someone in self-defence is a crime. THAT is moral (and very hard in some cases). Your way only leads to war, misery and death.

Breaking peace treaties is wrong ... except when the prophet did it ... because "self-defence" (I have read the texts, it was not self-defence). In all cases of course the paedophilic prophet had the chance to walk away ...

Don't you find yourself immoral for defending all these despicable crimes that your paedophilic prophet committed ? Don't you feel dirty, even evil ?

> 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,

And here you are defending religious murder. Even attempting to point out to me that I should murder people. Fuckwit.

Here's a basic fact : Christians, believe it or not, follow Christ : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_ad...

> The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’

As you explained, bringing the woman before Christ was a threat. The Torah was the law of the land, and if he knowingly violated it that would be punishable by expulsion minimum, execution at worst. The purpose was not to punish the woman, but to attack and maybe even kill Christ. He was truly moral, so obviously no stoning happened. Not a finger was lifted against anyone. Absolutely zero violence. Absolutely zero violation of the law. Let me tell you that again : they surrounded and tried to threaten him into killing someone. And he resolves the situation by drawing in the sand. This guy was good, in more than one sense of the word. This is just one of the many occasions where Jesus refuses to so much as threaten anyone to protect himself. He scolds one of the apostles for trying to defend him with violence later in the story.

Do you understand now why Christianity will win ? I may be an atheist(technically agnost), but I fully realize that as long as people like you exist, Christianity is the only answer.

But every point you have made you claw back the paragraph below it. When reading the age-old fatwa that muslims aren't allowed to live outside of the caliph's state you say

> But no, that fatwa you're referring to is just one opinion.

and then, to explain the validity one of the early muslim wars (the apostasy wars, which ended in massacre) ...

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

Note that you've claimed just before that that all wars were self-defence. And this you do 2 paragraphs below where you claim that denying fatwas ... is perfectly A-okay in islam. Fatwas are religious judgements, they are an extremely central part of sharia, the very core of how islamic law works. Most of the verses of the quran technically ARE fatwas, in the sense that they are religious judgements. And note that, yes, any fatwa endorsed by any of the caliphs, is as much part of sharia as the verses in the quran. Muslims don't, and can't, follow sharia.

Here's what any sane person knows happened when Abu Bakr decided to kill the "apostates", the way you claim never happens because of denying fatwas ... When the old commander (the paedophile propet) died, his commanders attempted to massacre eachother. Not just 2 of them, but 5 different groups. What you call islam is the opinion of the winner of that fight, that massacre that occured there. In the years after that there would be more massacres for the same reason. If another commander had won, you would have believed completely different things about your paedophile religion. This war, and the massacres following it was the "election" of Abu Bakr.

Can we just agree that you're a monster ? Not because you're a muslim, but because you agree with death penalty (and even massacres) for "apostasy" and for adultery, because you agree with paedophilic rape. Because you think massacres are justified. Because you defend religiously motivated murder. You have justified almost every single kind of despicable crime I even know about to yourself, right down to the rape of babies, which you clearly feel "was criticized", and that's enough.

To any moral person reading this you have made the case that islam needs to die far stronger than I ever would be able to. That is the problem with islam : it makes otherwise sane people like you defend paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse. Do you understand now that the effect it has on hormone-filled 17 year olds is to make them COMMIT paedophilia, massacres, stealing and worse ?

[dang]

Religious flamewars are not allowed on HN.