Re: Job, another false claim from Robert
- From: Denis Giron <denis_giron@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:27:04 -0500
On Oct 22, 9:09 pm, "G.Waleed Kavalec" <kava...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am more interested to know why the current moderators
of this forum continue to post this man's nonsense.
Because, though many may consider it nonsense, his posts that get
through do not violate the rules here in SRI (at least in the
interpretation of the moderator). While I, personally, do not consider
the argument presented in this thread to be very compelling, I don't
see on what grounds it should have been rejected.
It is quite clear he has no "content" - he only has an
agenda. An agenda of insulting Muslims and Islam.
The reality is that this newsgroup has long had posters who had an
agenda against Islam. That is not prohibited by the rules of SRI
either.
As for the content of Robert's posts, it certainly does exist in this
thread. Again, his argument seems poor, but it does have content. The
content is clearly his argument that Job was not an historical figure,
therefore the Qur'an (or any Muslim interpretation of the Qur'an which
understands Job to be an historical figure) is false.
There was a time such empty miasma would not have
been considered acceptable here.
Really? When was this? I have been in this newsgroup at least as long
as you, probably longer, and I don't recall a period like that which
you are describing.
.
- References:
- Re: Job, another false claim from Robert
- From: Saqib Virk
- Re: Job, another false claim from Robert
- From: G.Waleed Kavalec
- Re: Job, another false claim from Robert
- Prev by Date: Re: Muhammad and the Jews of Medina
- Next by Date: Re: Ramadan: a few quesions
- Previous by thread: Re: Job, another false claim from Robert
- Next by thread: Re: If the Muslim's belief is justified, just how exactly is it justified?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading