betsy

Why do you care? No. I'm responding to this particular topic about scammers! It happens that there's this question regarding Mohammad's authorship plus his historical background which painted him in a different light so unlike the "holy men" image religion usually have. And I did not pretend to know much. In fact, inspite of the various sources I gave to back up my statements....I still maintained a neutral position in the matter and referred to these as allegations so far hence I used the terms, "apparently" and "said to be." Unlike some anti-Christians I know who will automatically use the human errors of priests and ministers (such as adultery and engaging male/female prostitutes), or criminal acts (molestations, abuses and scams) to smear Christianity entirely. Kuzadd's opening statement seems to have already tried and gave the verdict of guilty.....when in fact there is still an on-going investigation. And again, just shows you....zealotry comes in all shapes and sizes. And unlike you, who obviously know so little of Christianity....I made no pretense about being "qualified" to insult Mohammad....which brings me to question your own qualifications. Besides, why do you call this an insult? I'm just bringing out the debates and questions that's happening regarding his alleged authorship of the Quran....and I gave sources backing up my claim that there are questions about it. You levelled an accusatory statement regarding that "I think I'm qualified".....on what do you base this accusation? So explain exactly where it says and how is it I think I am "qualified to sling insults about him and the religion and all of the Muslim people."

I haven't seen your thread at all...what was the exact fat-slob title you gave? what is it called now? What is it all about? I can only assume the reason it was not allowed was due to the fact that not only considering his position but it was a very personal insult. What next? A title about your own Democrat's Bitch? Bill's Cow? Kerry's Mile-Long Chin? The NDP's Lard-Ass Cabal? The Liberal Gimp?

Or a woman in labor! Or firemen responding to an emergency call. Or paramedics rushing to a child from choking....or drowning.... Or cops responding to a domestic disturbance or other crimes. These so-called peace-makers (who should aptly be called "shit-stirrers") are lucky they're not sitting in jail! If they are so rabidly anti-war, they should be doing their protests in places of war! Go to Iraq or Afghanistan! Just sign a waiver that our own military are not responsible for their well-being!

Quite true! And taking over an office.....that's invasion!

I never realized there was a question about it until I bumped onto it while surfing. Anyway, since you're interested, here are some sites: Who Wrote (Down) the Qur'an? A conference produced in association with the Middle East Center, University of Pennsylvania When and how did the oral message of Islam's revelation became a book? Muslims believe the Qur'an is the literal word of God, revealed to Muhammad in the seventh century, transmitted by him orally to listeners in Arabia, and written down by his companions during his lifetime. Within decades of Muhammad's death, Muslim historians say, the faithful were able to hold a canonized Qur'an text in their hands, which is the same as the Arabic Qur'an of today. Noted scholars—all leading authorities on early Islam and the Qur'anic text—consider the physical process of writing, collecting, and canonizing the earliest Qur'ans (rather than with the authorship of the Qur'an). Several journalistic accounts have appeared recently in the U.S. and Great Britain about the dating of the Qur'an, based on the discovery of early fragments of the Qur'an found in Yemen and about new interpretations of Qur'anic vocabulary. Would the religion of Islam, as the articles suggest, fall apart under historical and critical study of its Holy Book? http://www.phf.upenn.edu/02-03/quran.htm Now the question is, who wrote Quran or who was the author of Quran? Hadith tells us that Muhammad was illiterate and was unable to read or write. So of course Muhammad did not write Quran. Muslims claim that Muhammad dictated the whole Quran to his followers and many of them memorized the Quranic verses word by word and later they wrote it down. The bottom line is that no one knows for sure who wrote the Quran. After the death of Muhammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of Quran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of Quran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to Quran and Hadith, Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam. So Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original Quran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of Quran? Muslims claim that Quran was directly given by Allah and Sheikh Ahmed Deedat the Muslim Scholar and other Muslims have claimed that Quran is the word of God because it was written in first person speech unlike Bible, where third person speech is used. But the very first chapter of Quran is written in the third person speech. Surah 1:1-7. "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray." This is not the only one example but there are many Surahs which are written in third person speech. So if we take the word of Muslim Scholars, Quran is not the word of God. http://bibleandquran.com/quran-word-of-god9.htm "Who Wrote the Holy Quran" Quran, in Arabic, could only have been written by ONE of 3 possible sources: 1 the Arabs 2 Mohammad (peace be upon him) 3 Allah (GOD) http://www.jannah.org/articles/quranwrote.html Abstract This article delves into the very authorship of the Holy Qur’an. It is a new way of looking at the Holy Qur’an. An enquiry is made using logical reasoning and historical references on the authorship of the Qur’an. Thus, this methodology is totally opposed to the blind believers who accept the authenticity of the Qur’an unquestionably. By analysing, dissecting and carefully interpreting the contents of the Qur’an, the Ahadith (Muhammad’s traditions) and Sirah (Muhammad’s biography) the author has identified several parties who had undoubtedly contributed to the composition of the Qur’anic verses. It was not Allah who wrote the Qur’an; it was not even Muhammad alone who did this either. The Qur’an is not the creation of a single entity or a single person. There were several parties involved in the composition, scribing, amending, inserting and deleting the Qur’anic verses. The most important personalities involved in the creation of the Qur’an were: Imrul Qays, Zayd b. Amr, Hasan b. Thabit, Salman, Bahira, ibn Qumta, Waraqa and Ubayy b. Ka’b. Muhammad, himself, was involved in the make-up of a limited number of verses, but the most influential person who motivated Muhammad in the invention of Islam and the opus of the Qur’an, perhaps, was Zayd b. Amr who preached ‘Hanifism’. Muhammad later metamorphosed Zayd’s ‘Hanifism’ into Islam. Therefore, the assertion that Islam is not a new religion stands to be true. However, the important finding is that the Qur’an is definitely not the words of Allah—it is a human-made scripture which Muhammad simply passed up as Allah’s final words to mankind. http://www.challenging-islam.org/articles/...wrote-quran.htm

Well I don't agree. And I've given samples of politically incorrect book titles that had been deliberately titled in such controversial manner so as to grab the interest, to titilliate or be talked about. If we are in an elementary schoolroom, perhaps our titles should not cause confusion and angst. But we are supposed to be mature.....and supposed to be open-minded.

As far as I know, Christianity started with CHRIST! And yes, since HE is the Son of God and God had sent Him down to us, HE WAS AUTHORISED TO MAKE REVISIONS. Now, I don't know much about Mohammad....but from the few articles I've read, his background was actually not impressive. They're talking mass murders and massacres, among other things.

There's some debate about who actually wrote the Quran. I'm not sure that's why I used the words "apparently" and "said to be."

Yes, it is an appropriate title indeed. Some who call themselves Christians do not truly practice the teachings of Christ. They are in it for the money or the power. Just like Mohammad who call himself the "prophet of Allah" (but is said to never have made any prophecies), apparently did not truly practice the true Islam faith. Furthermore, he is said to have made some changes in the Quran. Just shows you, every religion have their own scammers.

I agree that ignoring something that annoys you is a way you can debate maturely. However, you did not really ignore the thread. You simply refused to read beyond the title because you've already decided to label it the way you want. That would've been fine if you've kept your opinion to yourself. But you did not. You passed judgement on a thread based on the title alone....without bothering to read even just the opening statement of Scott. That's not how a proper debate is done. Furthermore, you are participating in a Scott-bash fest on this thread....wherein that controversial title of Scott is being skewered and used. One of you told him to get lost, while another referred to him as the "poison" on this thread. I take it this is the subtle pressure some people are putting on Greg. So if we want to get someone banned, we gang up and raise hell until the moderator complies? We issue subtle threats about leaving this forum in a huff? Gee...this kind of blackmail tactic is giving me goosebumps. Deja vu. Kinda similar to something we read in the papers.

Am I stopping Greg from replying???? Now we're talking more than petty here with your last statement. You're being childish! By all means you can wait for Greg's reply to your heart's content for all I care. I'm not stopping you....and I can assure you I don't have Greg all tied up and gagged! And btw, you're the one who directly replied to my post! My statement above was not exclusively for your eyes alone. There are others here on this board other than your royal self.

If we truly want to be petty, we can go through each and every thread with a fine-toothed comb and I bet we'll both find numerous examples coming from practically everone (including me!) that would have everyone screaming "inconsistensies!" Shall we do that? Not that I'm calling your concerns petty. But singling out one member publicly like this is quite ugly....after all, there are others we could also mention. It seems that this particular topic raised by Greg is being exploited and used to get back at Scott. It seems to me, it has the undertones of a personal agenda. And it is not right.

Some people had used Scott's "Islam, The Sneaky Buggers" as an example. Some of those people criticizing it had admitted that they did not even go beyond reading the title! If you disagree with Scott's claim about those sneaky buggers....then, refute him! Scott had given some sources backing up why he called them sneaky buggers! Well, provide some sources backing up your counter-claim and give your argument why you think he is wrong! Screaming bigotry and racism at Scott for the title that he'd used - detracting from a topic - only shows that one could not refute the opinion that was said. That's not how you debate in a mature forum. Personally, I think we should be able to say bigot or racist....and back up our name-calling with sensible reasons. However, if the rules says no, we can't do that on MapleLeaf Forum, then I think we should respect that rule whether we agree with it or not.

Never mind the soft approach of sending religious holiday-greeting cards! What I truly find scary is the NDP/Liberal government's tactics of buying votes.....outright pandering to religious groups!

I think the political agenda of Kofman is to resuscitate the Scary Harper mongering. She sound like a non-Conservative diehard whose loyalty clearly belongs to another party. And I wouldn't be surprised to know that she is on the payroll of that party. If you received a well-wish card and you want to find out where they got your name, would you go straight to the media? Wooooh..... scary. Harper knows everything. You think Kofman is doing it for Haloween?

What's so disturbing about that? Ask her if she ever bought or entered or joined or subscribed to anything. Mailing lists are sold everyday!

That's your view. I, on the other hand, think that persistent petty complaints and open aggression that only enocourage and incite others to gang up on a target poster is what is poison to a board. And that includes anyone who persistently clamor for censorship! If anybody has serious complaints about a fellow-poster, you should complain in private. The fact that you do not agree with how the moderators respond to your complaint is not an excuse to gang-up and attack anyone. You have your freedom to choose. Why don't you exercise it?

Anyone who refuses to comply to the requirements needed should be booted out of school. Furthermore, anyone who has obvious leanings towards discrimination of anyone should not be allowed to enrol in and practice medicine. We trust our doctors with our health and lives. There should not be any reason for that to change.

Higgly, Coot and American Woman....take a deep breath. Maybe it's time for you three to have your group hug.

The way I take that title, Scott was referring to the group of people who were involved with the plan. But that is if you read his opening line. After all, it is sheer stupidity to comment on something one hasn't read, isn't it? For someone whom I thought is quite smart, I'm sure you know very well that you are deliberately twisting the context of the title. But perhaps I'm wrong about you....

Perhaps you need a break from this forum? Judging from your various posts that had been directed towards the moderation of this thread, which I think galvanized these other sheep to say baaa-baaa too (or lemmings that are following you off the cliff), they're now also complaining of imagined unfairness (to the point of nit-picking for heaven's sake).... obviously you are not happy here. Why stick around? There are tons of other forums out there. Just a suggestion. How can it be fun to be here if it causes you such aggravation?

Well "Islam, the sneaky buggers" is unlike "Michael Moore is a Fat slob"..... Singling out one individual and calling him a fat slob is a direct and very personal insult. That's along the level of calling a fat woman a cow...or a lard-ass! ScottSA title is not insulting at all since he plainly explained the reason behind it. They were sneaky indeed .....and actually, imo, ScottSA had shown restraint with his choice of words. In light of what these people are up to, I would be using more colorful words in place of sneaky....and buggers.

Well, here are some intriguing book titles. I saw these titles on Wiki. No I haven't read any of these books. I go to mainstream bookstores....I don't know where you go. But really, some books do grab you by their titles. That's what creative writing is all about....especially if you want to sell your books. The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims is a controversial collection of 63 essays, including 17 by Bat Ye'or, edited by writer Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, and other Middle Eastern scholars and experts on Islam, including Ibn Warraq, Walid Phares, David Littman, Patrick Sookhdeo, and Mark Durie. " The Calcutta Quran Petition ( कलकत्ता कुरान याचिका ) is a book by Sita Ram Goel and Chandmal Chopra, and published by Goel under his Voice of India imprint. The first edition was published in 1986, the second in 1987 and the third in 1999. The subject matter of this book is censorship, the banning of books and the Quran. After the publication of this book, some people tried to ban it. Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations is a 1996 book by author and comedian Al Franken. It is satirically critical of right-wing political figures, such as Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and particularly radio host Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man - rebuts the arguments set forth in Michael Moore's books Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man is a book by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke about author and filmmaker Michael Moore. It is a book designed to criticize and discredit Moore and his works. The title can be seen as a parody of the titles Stupid White Men by Moore and Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot by Al Franken. The Holocaust Industry - subtitled Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering is a book by Norman G. Finkelstein which argues that an "industry" has exploited the memory of the Holocaust to further Jewish and Israeli interests, and has corrupted the Jewish culture and heritage of Judaism as well as the history of the Holocaust. The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed - supposes Jewish plot to take over the world by subverting countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_books So....what's the big deal with "Islam, the sneaky buggers?" What more, we normally use the term "sneaky bugger" - as in "you sneaky bugger - usually on a lighter or teasing note.

Mind you, addicts and disabled people are not monsters like that serial killer. The only thing that's making me re-think capital punishment are the cases of Truscott and others who were wrongfully convicted.

Naw.....it's not racist! It's what you call, INTRIGUING! I bet you rushed in there to see what Scott was on about with a title like that! Obviously the title grabbed you guys. It surely got me. Gee, lighten up will you. Don't tell me you have not seen any published books with intriguing titles such as that!