The Associate and Gabriel both would like to open the ongoing debate between him and Gabriel to the general public (or at least our not inconsiderate audience of readers and those who regularly search for zaogeng pics)

The Associate believes that all religions are prone to misinterpretation (if the true interpretation can ever be grasped at, which he denies) and that socio-economic-political-historical-cultural factors affect the extant and popular interpretations of any doctrine.

On the other hand, while Gabriel acknowledges that while everything is subject to interpretation to some degree, certain philosophical doctrines are inherently more rigid than others, being spelt out in black and white rather than being left ambiguous, and injunctions are injunctions, however one chooses to view them. Furthermore, minor points of polemic in certain places are more prone to uncharitable and condemnable interpretation, resulting in a Pareto degradation in the amount and quality of free utility and happiness in the world. Even considering the wider social context and demographic in which these doctrines are applied, it is demonstrably harder to justify a libertarian, non-radical perspective which is compatible with such doctrines. Such doctrines are fundamentally unable to remain more equitable and less injurious to others who do not follow such doctrines in certain issues when compared to other contending doctrines.

Gabriel is a a Bear of Very Little Brain, and big words bother him.

It will be obvious to all but the most unenlightened reader why we have phrased our issues in such a manner.

Transcripts of our long debate are available upon request for readers who wish either The Associate or myself to clarify our positions further.

Gabriel would like to add:

For further reading, you way want to view a Liberal Muslim Website (the most Liberal that Gabriel has found in his virtual travels), which shows that Islam is really not as intolerant as it is usually expressed, and a supposed Muslim-Christian dialog page which is not as cheery, happy and jolly as it is made out to be on the front page, but which nevertheless does have some excellent points for all and sundry to ponder over.

On the former, your may rack your brains over the injunctions to engage in Wife Beating, wonder why polygyny is permitted, albeit with caveats, but not polyandry. On the latter, you can see how they try to slime and discredit by bringing up all the terrible things Mr Mohammad is said to have done (whether he did them or not is another matter), like marrying a 9 year old girl when he was 53. Anyhow, he made no claim to be sinless, so whatever he did was not necessarily grounds for doing the same thing.