Arch,
Just for you. Tiermo pls enjoy:
- Unless one is an expert in that area of science, it is difficult
to make such a judgement. In addition, let’s keep in mind that scientists
regard the Big Bang as a theory
of how the universe came to be as it is now. It is a widely-accepted
theory, but in science acceptance of any theory is provisional. They
do not accept it as certain on faith.
The God theory is the only alternative theory. Or any of the
adjectives below.
- Unproven assumption. Also does not specify what is meant by
“higher power.”
Name a better assumption – higher power is anything you wish
to call it: the creator, manufacturer, the maker, man upstairs.
- ”Science and the Qur'an are totally
compatible. The Qur'an is rich in scientific detail.”
“It can be proved that the probability of all the cases
of higher knowledge (scientific statements in Qur'an) being guessed by an
illiterate man is zero. Thus the Qur'an is the word of God, not man.”
Give me one example from the Koran.
The Qur'an is the truth. See below for
brief examples.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sci_quran.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/city_of_imad.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophecies_muh.htm
Muhammad (SAW) was illiterate and could not have dreamed
these and other theories up; the probability of guessing all the predictions
and scientific phenomena mentioned is zero. This was part of the logical
proof I mentioned. You claim to know the
Qur’an so well, so you are absurd to even ask for proofs.
- “It encourages man to "seek
knowledge"”
Define knowledge. (It
means something different in Islamic terminology).
We don’t need to play with words. Knowledge means knowledge
in any language.
- Zakat is given by Muslims for Muslims. Do not help the
disbelievers (28:86).
Why the hell not? how about charity starting in the home? All
muslims are brothers and sisters.
…if they follow Islam
(9:23, 58:22); otherwise do not obey them if they are un-Islamic (29:8,
31:14-15).
Obey and looking after are 2 very different things. Flawed
response.
- ”Equality for
all mankind (regardless of colour, gender, nationality)”
1.
In general: Wrong. What the Koran says is this:
32:18. "Is
then he who is a believer like him who is Fasiq (disbeliever and disobedient to
Allah)? Not equal are
they."
Another faulty response. Don’t try and change the subject.
Read my quote and your response – 2 different things again – a common theme here.
God will obviously favour a believer – how can you suggest such a notion is
illogical or unfair?
- 3. Gender. Koran says woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s
(2:282). In divorce, the woman has rights similar to a man’s, but the
man’s rights are “a degree above” the woman’s rights (2:228). A Muslim
male must inherit double what a Muslim female inherits (4:11, 4:176).
Men have been given extra authority over women. This is not
unique only to Islam. Western society still has a long way to go before women
are treated equally (pay, high posts, abuse etc.).
- “Protection of women and their modesty”
What
does that mean? Which women? The slave-girls?
The veil - prevents
their beauty and body from being seen which may lead to perverts causing them
grief. What has slave girls got to do with it and where is the evidence to
prove they are mistreated anyway?
- ”Peace and
kindness to all mankind”
Verse 60:4 says that
it is exemplary to hate the disbelievers forever unless they believe in Allah.
Verse 8:39 says fight them until all religion is for Allah. Verse 9:29 says
fight them and subjugate them and make them pay the jizya.
I have argued this already – we fight when oppressed and
Allah would not imply this as “there is no compulsion in religion”. Allah knows
that it impossible to make believers of the whole world. Also, POWs are fed and
treated kindly. You have misinterpreted the above verses and taken out of
context again.
- “Humility and compassion”
Humble with the
believers, stern against the disbelievers (5:54, 48:29).
No, the Qur’an recommends that we are kind to our neighbours,
regardless of religion - a muslim should
not eat while his neighbour goes hungry. Can’t say more compassionate than
that.
- ”Striving in
Allah's cause (JIHAD)”
Yes. (5:54)
Fighting in the name of one’s religion -I am doing this right now.
- ”Respect to
all mankind, in particular one's parents”
Do not obey them if
they are un-Islamic (29:8, 31:14-15).
My point is correct and completely
logical – again you confuse care and obey.
- “In the context, Allah was telling
muslims to fight for their religion; to kill the enemy when they were
being persecuted. You know the history of the holy prophet, he tolerated a
huge amount of abuse.”
The “history” of the
prophet which Muslims use was, in its original form, spoken, written,
collected, and edited predominantly by Muslims. Anyways, no, he didn’t tolerate
the alleged abuse indefinitely. The Koran says that “Allah” told him, “say
peace…but they will come to know” (43:88-89). He gave out a lot of abuse (if
you read the Meccan verses, you will see all kinds of threats and insults
directed at the Meccans by Mohammad, who was claiming to be speaking for
Allah), and this caused tension. Eventually Mohammad got his revenge on the
Meccans (9:5; 9:12-14) including those who doubted him publicly [see these
references: (18), (19), (20)].
Allah commanded the Prophet to fight for Islam because the
Meccans had gone too far in their hostility towards the Prophet and his
followers; they were plotting and conniving; they tried to kill Muhamad (SAW)
and repeatedly attempted to undermine the religion. The Meccans were provoking
and were a genuine threat to the muslims – back to my point about lashing out
when oppressed like a caged animal. The proofs you have supplied are little
more than mere speculation. Having read the links you attached I conclude that
they are full of hot air with little substance. There are no quotes or clear
proofs, just opinions. Flawed ones at that.
Allah had every right to be annoyed at those people who
repeatedly made a mockery of his message. In fact you must know the story of
the Prophet and the mountains – Allah could have crushed his enemy between the
mountains but he declined this offer. This was typical of the compassion he was
renowned for. He wouldn’t be one of the universally acknowledged (by Western
researchers no less) influential, revered and respected historical figures,
without such traits.
- “Allah is saying that muslims should not
be scared to fight for their religion if under attack from the infidel. It
says that we should be willing to die if placed in circumstances like a
cornered animal.”
Mainstream Islam says
kill critics [(18), (19), (20)] and kill
apostates, because such “attacks” threaten the Islamic religion.
Again, we are encouraged to propagate, not kill unless under
threat. There is a chance that with good propagation an apostate could see the
truth. Thus an apostate is really no different to other non-believers. Quote
from your own source “3. Although the Koran does not give an explicit order to
execute simple apostates, the Koran does call for the killing of some apostates
(4:89) if certain conditions are met”
This speaks for itself – those to be killed are those seen as
a threat to other muslims. The article pretty much clarifies my point. People
cannot be killed with no good reason, otherwise there would be fighting between
muslims and non-muslims every day in every country worldwide exhibiting such a
religious mix.
- “The epoch was a violent and brutal one,
hence the language.”
The epoch may have
been violent, but Mohammad certainly did not decrease the violence in pursuing
his goal to make Islam conquer all religions (9:32-33, 48:28, 61:9). And this
did not stop with the death of the prophet. The first four caliphs all waged
imperialistic wars to claim land and booty all in the name of Allah. Abu Bakr
even waged war against those who would not pay zakat (see Ibn Kathir’s tafsir
of 9:123).
I have already explained the use of justified force. All wars
for a worthy cause end with casualties. Except the casualties were fully
justified in those cases where the muslim armies were left with no option to
fight to defend their religion, their people and the ability to spread word
about the new religion. Such casualties were the “troublemakers” and
“mischief-makers” the Qur’an refers to; i.e. those who threatened the religion
with their immoral values and malicious means. This is another example of
Jihad; let us make no mistake, the muslims were not pillaging lands for fun and
wealth and murdering innocent people. There was a clear political mission to
spread the fine values of the religion; if they were not allowed to peacefully
the violent resistance they faced had to be repelled. Again attack under
provocation, not un-provoked attack.
- "The
religion is definitely not telling us to go out and murder innocent
people. What religion could tell its believers to exterminate the rest of
mankind because of what they believe?”
Islam does call for
what non-Muslims consider to be murder, under certain conditons. See this link.
Does the Qur'an Forbid the Killing of Non-Muslims? - An Assessment
of 5:32 makes this patently clear and the same verse you manage to scrutinize
and corrupt in such a long-winded analysis actually confirms what I have said
all along. To paraphrase in layman’s terms (“even then after that many of them
continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding
beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!"),
if the disbelievers do not extend a hand of friendship (they wish to be an
enemy) then under provocation (COMMON THEME NOW!!) a muslim may have to kill.
Playing around with irrelevant definitions of Fitnah do not cloud what is
essentially an unmistakable explanation provided in the Qur’an itself – no
amount of butchering changes this.
Your argument is analogous to me giving you 2 bananas and you
say that I have given you 2 apples.
- “ABSOLUTELY
NONE!!! The holy book clearly states "There is no compulsion in
religion"”
..and the very next
verse (2:257) says Allah will burn you in hell if you don’t believe this “no
compulsion” religion. See this.
- Why shouldn't a God, or the creator leave man a moral
guidance?
- Why shouldn't he favour those that follow it?
- Why can he not punish those that neglected the signs when
after Muhammad (SAW) death the message of Islam was spread and propagated the
world over, especially when these disbelievers kept rejecting the reminders
through all the preceding prophets?
- This life is a test hence Allah has given us free will; he
wanted ppl to believe in the unseen through the signs presented (scientific or
otherwise - if you have read Qur'an you would know that some of the scientific
evidence has been proved only in the last century). If everyone had been shown
miracles etc. then everyone would be a believer, but this is the point of our
test to reach paradise again (Adam & Eve were cast out) - i.e. we must have
faith in the unseen.
- Islamic is a perfect system tainted by flawed practicers
due to poverty/lack of knowledge (greedy power-driven and un-Islamic leaders
have lead to uneven distribution of wealth in all these countries).
- ”I am not sure why
ppl think Islam teaches that women should be degraded and treated as
filthy sex slaves.”
The
Koran and Hadith say so, in reference to non-Muslim female captives and slaves (see this and this).
The Koran says:
23:5.
"And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal
sexual acts). 23:6. Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that
their right hands possess, for then, they are free from
blame;"
70:29.
"And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal
sexual acts) .79:30. Except with their wives and the (women slaves and
captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be
blamed,"
4:24.
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves)
whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you-"
33:50.
"O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives,
to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife
at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand
possesses - whom Allah has given to you-"
OUT OF CONTEXT NONSENSE – “concubines”
as you call them, were meant to be protected and if this meant marriage then
with the woman’s consent (marriage is not valid without consent in Islam – all
the arguing you do will not change this fact – and you would be foolish to
suggest otherwise). Not for sex. Islam preaches that POWs must be clothed, fed
and treated with care and respect. The meaning of the “right hand possession”
means that the captives would be under the command of the men in charge of
them. They were their new carers and providers. Most were recommended to marry
the women and care for them as they had lost their husbands. But a woman cannot
be raped or married against her will – you know very well that Islam prohibits
both those things.
The context is that if it meant that the
women would have to find new partners why not the muslims? Islam protects women
and if treated kindly the women would show reciprocity. This would not always
be the case as many of these women would harbour hate not love, but they had
the option. They would be released if they wanted no part in marriage. The
rights you refer to are not to engage in sexual pleasure, but the right to make
a wife of the captive. And bear in mind that the Prophet was allowed to marry
the beautiful Captive, provided she consented. In Islam a man is encouraged to
marry a woman (in order of priority) for:
Her Piety and religion; Her wealth; Her
beauty
- “Women can be
beaten, but only if they pass certain boundaries”
If
the husband merely “fears disobedience” from a wife (4:34).
“…and as I have previously pointed out this is a very, very
last resort. Not all men should even feel the need to go so far. And whether a
religion teaches it or not, most men may lose control anyway as humans are weak
by design (muslim or not). By no means are we encouraged to be violent
unnecessarily. And there shouldn't really be a need for this anyway.”
Then why does Allah order it
[wife-beating] in the Koran?
The woman is warned by the Qur'an. Allah
is fair enough to recognise that a man can beat a woman whether told to or not.
He tries to control the man's reaction by suggesting 2 alternatives before so
doing. And the woman is informed of her limits. As with all things in life,
islamic or not, women are below men in status. This does not mean that they
should be mistreated.
Women should be loved, respected and cherished. The bottom
line is that man IS the superior sex, but this does not mean domination, merely
man is the breadwinner and has the final say. This is not to say he is always
right.
Islam gives women rights. They are allowed to debate with
their husbands. An inadequate man will always act with violence if so challenged,
muslim or not.
You know as well as I do : Abuse of
women or any other living thing is independent of religion. This is basic human
nature to blame here, not Allah.
- “My point to
you is that Jesus is painted in such a beautiful light (I do not suggest
he was in any way a bad man or bad exmaple - far from it). Why? Beacuse
the Bible is unreliable - it has been butchered and translated and
re-translated on numerous occassions over history. The Christians
themselves cannot decide how many books comprise God's message to them.”
The
Koran has been butchered, mixed up, and taken out of context. Mohammad has
garbled and distorted parts of Biblical stories, and then added his own
revelations to suit his own attitudes, beliefs, and ambitions. The Koran is a
cut-and-paste job.
No it is a correction and complement to
the Bible (and theTorah before it), hence many similar messages (Allah does not
contradict his message) and the stories referred to (Moses, Jesus, Solomon,
Cain and Abel a few exampes).
- “This is why
God has given us free will, "There is no compulsion in religion"
and to paraphrase the Qur'an "If Allah willed all men would go to
paradise". Allah has given us a test over which he has no control (we
shape our own destiny through our choices).But he has given us an
incentive, forms of control, ability to preserve the religion through killing the infidel in times of
oppression (all of which are misread by apostates).”
That
is not the meaning of the English word oppression, but is most accurately presented
as the Arabic fitnah.
"Fitnah: Polytheism and to disbelieve
after one has believed in Allah, or a trial or a calamity, affliction or to set
up rivals in worship with Allah, etc." (21)
"Trial, testing. A term referring to antagonism toward individual
Muslims at Islam's beginning. Now it is used to refer to threats to the health
of the state." (22)
Same thing, if threatned muslims
encouraged to fight back – going over old ground again.
DON’T
NEED 2 PLAY AROUND WITH FANCY DEFNS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GOD MEANS – VIOLENCE
BREEDS VIOLENCE- VIOLENCE ONLY WHEN ABS. NECESSARY
- 9:29. "Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2)
nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah
and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth
(i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians),
until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued."
”This is why the Qur'an mentions and describes violence in vivid detail.
It is to lead us to the right path. Of course if one takes phrases out of context as you ahve repeatedly
done, then Islam and M's message seem flawed.”
See my general rebuttal to the context argument, in preparation, here.
Article - Can’t find it – doesn’t
matter old ground again.
- “We are told
in the Qur'an to be modest, to not oggle women etc. hence the viel to
protect females from perverts (they were rife in that epoch, hence the
advent of Islam to counter the anti-social riff-raff.”
1.
If men are told not to ogle women, then why is the veil needed? In other words,
if men are taught to behave appropriately and with self-discipline and respect
for women, then no veil should be necessary.
Men in all societies are weak, a rapist
will attack a mini-skirted bimbo before attacking a veiled women. This is human
nature again. Allah knows best.
2.
Many Muslim men are known to ogle and harass women in Europe, Australia, and
elsewhere if those women are not wearing the veil. They also rape non-Muslim
women at a disproportionately high rate in Europe (see my article,
which cites Fjordman’s extensive work).
All men will look, some even cross the
boundaries. Islam discourages this. Only un-Islamic perverts will rape and
attack. Are muslims the only perverts and rapists? I would challenge you and
say the West is more susceptible to this from its own kind.
Put it this way, does speaking nicely to a criminal stop
them being a criminal? If it does, tell me why such a civilised country such as
America still have the death penalty?
- “By guarding
against wanton sex, out reward in paradise is the most beautiful virgin
wife, untouched by any man or Jinn. Fair enough?”
This
is absurd. You are saying limit sex now so that you can have sex all the time
in imaginary Paradise. That is pure fantasy.
No not non-stop sex and one mass orgy –
a virgin wife. Reward not wanton kicks. Sex with one’s wife is permissible. How
many times is irrelevant.
- ”3)Status comes from
money - see 1).”
We
know how Mohammad obtained his wealth—a get-rich-quick plunder scheme.
Mohammad said “Booty has been made legal for me” and “the earth belongs to the
Apostle.”
Booty was legal when its owners
were dead or it had been stolen in the first place. The Prophet didn’t
accumulate for himself, he gave it to the Ummah.
All things on earth belong to
God. Muhammad (SAW) was Allah’s messenger so metaphorically speaking he was
given permission to Allah’s possessions.
FYI he left the world with
virtually nothing and next to no money.
·
“At one
time Islam ruled across the World. Ppl say spread by the sword, but you name me
one single muslim Army which went to Indonesia (largest mulsim population) to
spread the word?”
There
are bands of jihadists running around in Indonesia today wreaking havoc,
slaughtering Christians, beheading school-girls, etc. People in Indonesia who
are born into Islam are legally prevented from switching out of Islam. There is
no such thing as freedom of religion in Indonesia. It is an Islamic state and
it is getting worse.
See argument re killing when
oppressed - in the worst case scenario
these are due to cultural abnormalities not religious. Christians are not
entirely innocent are they? As for school-girls you are talking about a handful
of morons, not the country in general.
Look at US army with its vast array of bombs
and airplanes? They don’t even fight fair. They kill hundreds of thousands of
innocents in the name of fake illegal wars.
Are they any better, and all in the name
of Oil at the moment.
Why not stop the dictators in Africa?
They are terrorists. But there is no Oil in Africa.
Who is pillaging and killing? Another
example is the Israeli army.
And they are not fighting for their
religion or for the good of the world but for the greed of corrupt officials
put in power by uneducated, stupid people.
In fact it is these same idiots who are
fighting futile battles and dying for their country. And all immigrants at
that, not TRUE AMERICANS.
·
“Then compare this to the Crusaders for
example. If Islam ruled why weren't all infidels killed - this was an option.
It was not necessary. islam does not teach this.”
Islam
demands that Muslims conquer all religions, the whole world, all of humankind,
Correct, but not demands – this is the eventual goal and it will happen before the apocalypse.
through
force if the call to convert to Islam is refused (see this).
Allah recognises that muslims will
always face brutal and violent resistance – killing is therefore all ok in such
a scenario, as I have explained before.
Many
of the Christians and Jews in Europe (e.g., in Spain and the Balkans) were
killed. In the Balkans, Islamists are still fighting the Christians today. The
Islamic Turks carried out a genocide against the Armenians. Muslim pirates
raided the European shores to capture people and put them into slavery.
All speculation and hype.
The
only thing that stopped Muslim imperialists from taking all of Europe
completely is that they were stopped militarily.
Islam was biggest religion, could have
destroyed Europe, but this was not the intention.
AGAIN I ASK YOU ALL
Why does America bomb helpless countries and people? Why
don't they go in with tanks first?
Why does the US need nuclear weaons but Korea, Iran, Pakistan
and India not allowed?
If US is such a great saviour, why don't Bush send his
airforce to Africa to bomb the warlords?
·
”5) Muhammad (SAW) was not a
paedophile.This is not consistent with the Qur'an's message and teachings. It
does not say anywhere that man must sleep with child. Do you not think that
when the Hadith were compiled it would have been omitted if the scholars
thought it would cause controversy? It needn't have been. The
"hadith" in question is flawed and has been disregarded. It is not
seen as a threat.”
Nonsense.
The many ahadith concerning Aisha’s age (6-7 years of age at marriage, 9 years
of age when Mohammad “consummated” the marriage) are not considered weak. This
ruling became enshrined in Islamic law, and has only been challenged recently
due to concerns from non-Muslim countries and organizations. In any case,
that’s irrelevant, because the Koran assumes in its divorce rulings that Muslim
men may marry girls who are too young to menstruate (65:4).
Cultural not religious phenomena. Islam
has no contradictions. All misinterpretations can be countered. It is the word
of Allah, unlike the Bible and Science.
·
”6) Different Prophets had different
purposes . Jesus performed miracles, Solomon commanded Jinns. M was the last
prophet. People wanted him to perform miracles but he did not need to . His
task was to perfect the religion and its message. Allah woshed people to make
their own minds up and to believe in the unseen through the signs all around us
alluded to in the Qur'an. This is free will man has been given. To mkae our own
choices and read these signs. Allah stated in the Qur'an that if he willed
everyone would go to paradise. The point is that this life is a test, like an
exam to pass or fail. Failure means the hell-fire which allah has kindly
described in brutal detail, for us to ensure we avoid it (by recognising the
signs).”
Your
idea of “free will” is “believe it
or else!”
I repeat - Why shouldn't a God, or the creator leave man a moral
guidance?
- Why shouldn't he favour those that follow it?
- Why can he not punish those that neglected the signs when
after Muhammad (SAW) death the message of Islam was spread and propagated the
world over, especially when these disbelievers kept rejecting the reminders
through all the preceding prophets?
- This life is a test hence Allah has given us free will; he
wanted ppl to believe in the unseen through the signs presented (scientific or
otherwise - if you have read Qur'an you would know that some of the scientific
evidence has been proved only in the last century). If everyone had been shown
miracles etc. then everyone would be a believer, but this is the point of our
test to reach paradise again (Adam & Eve were cast out) - i.e. we must have
faith in the unseen.
- Islamic is a perfect system tainted by flawed practicers
due to poverty/lack of knowledge (greedy power-driven and un-Islamic leaders
have lead to uneven distribution of wealth in all these countries).
·
”7)Muhammad (SAW) certainly did not
bastardise anything!!!!!
We believe in the Torah and Bible, ofwhich the Qur'an is
the 3rd and comprehensive instalment. Like all sequels it builds on its
predecessors and clarifies ambiguities. Thus the Qur'an is the final and
complete word of God. We need nothing else.”
You
need scholars to tell you what the Koran says. The Koran itself is too ambiguous.
You need the Hadith and Sira and experts to tell you what it means.
Rubbish. People like you misread and then
other ppl have to go deeper than necessary when the basic truth speaks for
itself as I have demonstrated numerous occasions above.
·
Look at how well so many societies prosper in peace and harmony without
any Koran.
Name them.
·
Now look at the societies where the Koran is supreme. No societies are
more Islamic than Saudi Arabia, which actually enforces much of the Koran and
Sunnah.
And your point is?
Most
of the Islamic countries are in turmoil, with religious intolerance, jihad
fighting, and killing in most of them including so-called moderate Malaysia,
Indonesia, Turkey, and Jordan.
Rubbish – prove MOST. Pure hyperbole.
Where
Muslims are a large minority in non-Muslim countries, significant elements are
creating major problems, overloading the work of law-enforcement with many
terror cells.
Nonsense - Not significant elements, a
minority in a minority. And name all these so-called terror cells. Mere media
hype and Zionist speculation.
Muslim
organizations in the west tend to be pro-Sharia, and they have been pushing
hard for sharia in some jurisdictions in U.K., Canada, and elsewhere. Because some
Muslims threaten violence against critics, it is not possible to have a safe
discussion about Islam in public where one’s identity is revealed. That applies
now almost anywhere in the world.
A critic is a non-believer. The
treatment should be the same, i.e don’t kill. Blasphemers anger all parties concerned. They
should watch their mouths if they are scared of the repercussions of the
psychos. This is street law, in any language, any country of the world.
·
”All moral messages mate.Contradictions are found where
prople butcher the Qur'an and quote blindly out of context.”
I don’t find it moral.
Wife beating, burning people in hell just because they have a different belief
or no belief in some imaginary Allah, fighting people over religion…doesn’t
sound moral to me.
My arguments above are a clear rebuttal
of this nonsensical statement.
- Tiermo, you denied
or tried to obscure your approval of the hell-fire penalty for
disbelief, but there above you said, in regards to iq balz's post, which
approves the hell-fire penalty:
"That my friend was a great post and response. I do hope the people on this
websitoe debate it fairly and not attack you personaly."
Tiermo
Don't worry Tiermo. I
don't literally expect you to clarify. This is purely for demonstration
purposes
Don’t mock Tiermo. He’s correct - it was a great post. I have,
even ever so briefly, massacred your rebuttal. Bear in mind this is an
unbelievably brief version of my original response and there are other killer
points which have been lost.
Anyway, he has more valid points than you – I’ve read all the
arguments betweeen the 2 of you. He does not try to change the subject and
brings forward clear proof without butchering the source data. And he does not
have to omit proofs you present due to “lack of space”.
Look forward to your response.
Iq_Balz