Not just a muslin, an obvious commie terrorist: Who else would suggest that anyone who wants to comment on a book should read it first?

I think the guy is a combative idiot.  He gets invited on national TV because he's a Muslim who wrote a book about Jesus.  The interviewer is trying to allow him to answer critics who question his motives.  But, instead of answering her questions, he keeps claiming he's an academic with a PhD.  Please Dude, you're here to discuss the controversy.  You don't really believe that anyone gives a shit about your book, do you?

I am always amazed at the stances you agree with Phreddy.  Really, you need to get out more often.

If the guy wanted to discuss the virtues of his literary work of art, he would have gone to the local Sunday morning book review program on the community access channel.  But no, he was invited to Fox News because a Muslim writing about Jesus is controversial and he accepted.  Any of you literary critics who really believe the interviewer should have engaged in an academic discussion of his work really doesn't understand the purpose of TV programming.

Why would a Muslim writing about Christian History even be controversial.  Read what Em just said.  Jesus is highly regarded, as is Moses etc in the Quran, and other writings.  The depths of your ignorance about anything outside of your narrow little world always amazes me.

Phreddy, trolling is really beneath you.

Dmtdust wrote:

Troll quoting Trolls.  Another golden moment in Phwedd's internet career.  Read your quotes.  People of the Book, (I.E. Christians, Jews & Muslims) are excluded.  Very similar edicts against polytheist are to be found in all 3 religions. 

Surely, you aren't as ignorant as you appear?  Oh wait.

I am not the ignorant one poor Dusty.  Here is the truth as today's Muslims see it.  A muslim is someone who submits him/herself to God's will. The people who followed Moses and the Torah were muslims and the people who followed Jesus and the book he came with were muslims. But God has sent all the prophets with the message to worship God alone and to submit to His will, people cannot pick and choose amongst the prophets or ignore any new prophets because they don't feel like it. Also to believe that a man is God or the son of God is no longer worshipping God alone. The present Jews and Christians are People of the Book because both Moses and Jesus came with Books from God but a person in the present time cannot be considered muslim if he/she rejects God's prophets or worships any one else, this is no longer considered submission to the will of God.

So you see, Christians, by definition are no longer "people of the book" because they worship Christ as a god.

Last edited by phreddy (2013-07-29 18:53:28)

Dmtdust wrote:

Funnily enough, my Muslim friends disagree with you.  Then again, they aren't going by the silly ass primer that you got from Coulter/Savage school of comparative religions.

Your Muslim friends can be compared to today's liberal Christians.  They both like to forget about the violent decrees that are spelled out in the Bible.  Kumbaya.

Dmtdust wrote:

They are also the majority of Muslims.  Painting everything scary... "oooooh a Muslim!"  "Ooooooooh waaat is doing writing about Jayzuz!" "ooooooooh a Muslim, check his vest!"  is fucking silly.

Yes, your are correct, the majority of Muslims are just fine with overlooking the Prophet's command to kill Christians.  However, a very high percentage of those who are killing Christians, and other heathens like me, are Muslims.  I don't think it is silly to profile them.  I think it is prudent.  And to be skeptical of the motives of a Muslim who writes about Jesus is warranted.  I'm absolutely certain that Muslims do not accept Christians as experts on Islam. 

Personally, I think the whole supreme being story was concocted by men to fill a need to know why we are here.  It soon became a useful tool to control the masses and this is what we see today.

You may be on to something, Phreddy. From now on you're not allowed to write anything at all about Democrats or liberals. If you do, your motives are suspect and will be ridiculed out of hand.

Tall Paul wrote:

You may be on to something, Phreddy. From now on you're not allowed to write anything at all about Democrats or liberals. If you do, your motives are suspect and will be ridiculed out of hand.

Oh please.  As if my motives are not ridiculed out of hand now?  You make my point.  Persons of opposing views are always viewed with skepticism when commenting about the other guys.  So why are we so surprised this Muslim is getting the same treatment?

fnord wrote:

The stupid bitch totally lacks subtlety when it comes to tripping up an enemy of the True Faith of Jesus Christ of the Republican Confederacy™.  From what little he was able to get in, he doesn’t buy the Virgin Birth story (believed in by Muslims as well as more literal Christians), says Jesus was crucified for being a terrorist, that the two thieves were also terrorists, and that his goals were political instead of religious (Jesus didn’t see himself as a prophet).  If she had half a brain, she could have been a charming interviewer and wrecked his credibility with the Fox Tards.

I wanted to see if he’s a credible scholar, an absurd pompous academic hustling a product to further his career (publish or perish), or a political hack with an agenda.  Instead, I saw a tard hired for her tits badger a man about his academic qualifications and his right to exist.

I'm going to have to agree with just about everything you just said fnord.  The interview went south when Fox assigned an incompetent interviewer.  Anyone with a modicum of journalistic savvy could have cut him to ribbons.

phreddy wrote:

Tall Paul wrote:

You may be on to something, Phreddy. From now on you're not allowed to write anything at all about Democrats or liberals. If you do, your motives are suspect and will be ridiculed out of hand.

Oh please.  As if my motives are not ridiculed out of hand now?  You make my point.  Persons of opposing views are always viewed with skepticism when commenting about the other guys.  So why are we so surprised this Muslim is getting the same treatment?

It's not your motives that are ridiculed, I think your motives are mostly honorable. It's your sources of information and the conclusions you draw based on them that are questionable, but then again High Street would be a mere tit-picture list without ridicule and slander. You also prove my point rather well since, as you point out, Fox started the interview with the assumption that any Muslim is necessarily opposed to any Christian in all things as if it were axiomatic.

Last edited by Tall Paul (2013-07-30 20:18:35)

Notice how well Fox's plan worked out for them? The last two lines of this article tell it all. Number one on both bestseller lists.

The first line of her interview is the most amusing - "he was a christian but converted to islam".

Also, she has very nice tits.  Hopefully we will some day get to the point that broadcasters like her start doing these interviews topless.  (I hope Fox News is listening right now)

Emmeran wrote:

My apologies to all, I shall now go fall on my sword.

Saber sounds more like the weapon of choice.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2013-07-31 16:42:46)

Emmeran wrote:

Mameluke Sword

Still not my choice of weapon to fall on. A Ka-Bar would more efficient.

Unrelated
I met a Vietnam era  ROK soldier yesterday.  His family is in the dry cleaning business and setting up down the street.

MSG Tripps wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Mameluke Sword

I met a Vietnam era ROK soldier yesterday.  His family is in the dry cleaning business and setting up down the street.

I have a very high opinion of the ROK's, most of those guys are as hard as nails; they simply cannot afford to fuck around about anything.