What parts of this are true? *Highly offensive*

The_Minister

What parts of this are true: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1054/1054_01.asp
It's a tract written by a right-wing nut.

Do Muslims really believe that Adam was 90feet tall etc?

Hobbes

I think the real question is you actually think a Chick tract could contain even anything truthful and not hate speech in it.

That comic is pretty offensive as well. You should see his "The pope is dead" one too. ouch.

The_Minister

I've read all of them, I was just wondering if ANY of it was true.

Yusuf Mirza

Hmm let me tell you.... NO :rolleyes:

mardybumbum

Would this sort of trash be distributed to school children?

Nodin

mardybumbum wrote: »

Would this sort of trash be distributed to school children?

They leave them lying around in public places, afaik.

Schuhart

The_Minister wrote: »

I've read all of them, I was just wondering if ANY of it was true.

Depends on what you mean by ‘true’. Clearly, the cartoons amount to a theist of one persuasion saying ‘our holy book is much better than yours, and yours has lots of weird stuff in it’, as if the Bible didn’t also have its share of oddball passages. This in a context where both Bible and Quran claim the virgin birth took place, even thought that legend seemed to originate from a mistranslation of Jewish scriptures.

But if you’re asking if his references to Quran and Hadith are made up, then no, those references substantially exist. They’re not hard to verify, as this stuff is online. For example, Bukhari Vol 4 Book 55 No 543

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. When He created him, He said to him, "Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting (salutations of your offspring." So, Adam said (to the angels), As-Salamu Alaikum (i.e. Peace be upon you). The angels said, "As-salamu Alaika wa Rahmatu-l-lahi" (i.e. Peace and Allah's Mercy be upon you). Thus the angels added to Adam's salutation the expression, 'Wa Rahmatu-l-lahi,' Any person who will enter Paradise will resemble Adam (in appearance and figure). People have been decreasing in stature since Adam's creation.

You’ll understand, I’m just pointing out the fact that such a text exists. I’m not pontificating about its religious significance, and I don’t doubt you’ll know yourself that a Christian fundamentalist cartoonist is likely to get as much mileage out of this kind of stuff as he can.

The stuff about the Hadith stating Mohammed’s wife Aisha was nine at the time their marriage was consummated has been discussed before. (You’ll find an earlier thread here), and there are others. As a topic, it’s a bit of a hardy perennial.

Sonic_exyouth

Schuhart wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by ‘true’. Clearly, the cartoons amount to a theist of one persuasion saying ‘our holy book is much better than yours, and yours has lots of weird stuff in it’, as if the Bible didn’t also have its share of oddball passages. This in a context where both Bible and Quran claim the virgin birth took place, even thought that legend seemed to originate from a mistranslation of Jewish scriptures.

But if you’re asking if his references to Quran and Hadith are made up, then no, those references substantially exist. They’re not hard to verify, as this stuff is online. For example, Bukhari Vol 4 Book 55 No 543You’ll understand, I’m just pointing out the fact that such a text exists. I’m not pontificating about its religious significance, and I don’t doubt you’ll know yourself that a Christian fundamentalist cartoonist is likely to get as much mileage out of this kind of stuff as he can.

The stuff about the Hadith stating Mohammed’s wife Aisha was nine at the time their marriage was consummated has been discussed before. (You’ll find an earlier thread here), and there are others. As a topic, it’s a bit of a hardy perennial.

It's really very dull, but, the context here needs to be added.
Firstly, it's a hadith, not from the Quran.
Secondly, it was in the garden of eden, not earth. It most (not all) versions of sunni islam , the garden of Eden is a heavenly place, not an earthly one. When Adam and Eve sinned they were cast out of Eden and into the confinements of an evolved monkey (this is a bit more modern, it's from Tantawi). Their lives in these bodies will be the basis of judgment on the last day.
Thirdly.. metaphors.. Muhammad spoke in poetic verse which is completely lost in translation. If it looks like it could be a tortured metaphor of humanity become more and more sinful over time.. thats probably what it is.

Phototoxin

I must admit that I had to laugh at the depiction of the 'evil' muslim boy complete with fez and the evil dark rings around his eyes.... what is scary however is that people believe this comic book guy

hairyheretic

Just for reference, I think Jack Chick hates everyone who isn't Jack Chick (judging by his tracts).

oceanclub

hairyheretic wrote: »

Just for reference, I think Jack Chick hates everyone who isn't Jack Chick (judging by his tracts).

Too right - more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_T._Chick

His comics about Dungeons & Dragons are hilarious:

http://www.chick.com/READING/TRACTS/0046/0046_01.ASP

P.

D4RK ONION

Ahahaha, that was both hilarious and horrifying!

InFront

It's pointless reading through the rest of that cartoon. OP do you actually think this stuff is taught to Muslims or is that supposed to be a joke?

And Schuhart, saying "they're not hard to verify" is a mistake.

What you have shown is that the hadith exists, not that it is verified or easy to verify. There are an enormous amount of hadith with varying degrees of reliability from sahih (or sound) to hasan to da'if to maudo (fabricated, wrong) in decreasing order.

I have to say to my knowledge there is no agreement about what this Hadith and its meaning. Al-hamdulillah 'ala kool ahaal, The other stuff doesn't deserve any reply.

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

And Schuhart, saying "they're not hard to verify" is a mistake.

What you have shown is that the hadith exists, not that it is verified or easy to verify. There are an enormous amount of hadith with varying degrees of reliability from sahih (or sound) to hasan to da'if to maudo (fabricated, wrong) in decreasing order.

I've already said almost exactly the same thing, only clearly from a non-believing perspective. Read again.

Schuhart wrote: »

You’ll understand, I’m just pointing out the fact that such a text exists. I’m not pontificating about its religious significance, and I don’t doubt you’ll know yourself that a Christian fundamentalist cartoonist is likely to get as much mileage out of this kind of stuff as he can.

You'll understand, its not my fecking fault that various holy books contain some utterly weird stuff. And I think you know yourself that the 'degrees of reliability' spin is frequently used to draw a discrete veil over the fact that many of the Hadith that Islamic scholars use to make judgments describe pretty incredible scenarios. And that plenty of perfectly respectable scholars see no reason to doubt the Hadith about Aisha's age.

And, no, I don't want to dig up that hardy perennial again. But just try to get through your noggin that my statement contains no 'mistake'.

InFront

Firstly Schuhart, all of my post was not addressed to you, just the part where you said the Hadith could be verified. To my knowledge this is not the case, and so that's what I pointed out to you for the benefit of the thread.

I don't see why you need to reply so contentiously to a simple correction of the mistake and then descend into a denigration of the Hadith whch is what you have clearly just done. If you are not a Muslim nobody is insisting that you study ahadith but coming into the Islam forum and veritably shouting 'wrong!' at our beliefs hardly seems apropriate either.

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

Firstly Schuhart, all of my post was not addressed to you, just the part where you said the Hadith could be verified. To my knowledge this is not the case, and so that's what I pointed out to you for the benefit of the thread.

You're falling into a basic error in logic - equivocation. The problem is over the use of the word 'verify'.

It's very easy to verify that the Hadith that Chick refers to exists. That's clearly what I've said. Read it. But if you’re asking if his references to Quran and Hadith are made up, then no, those references substantially exist. They’re not hard to verify, as this stuff is online. You are making a massive mistake if you equate that statement to establishing the religious significance of that Hadith, if any.

So, frankly, I find your original intervention on this point inexplicable. And, as you can see, I wasn't happy to leave your misrepresentation of what I said unchallenged.

InFront wrote: »

I don't see why you need to reply so contentiously to a simple correction of the mistake and then descend into a denigration of the Hadith whch is what you have clearly just done.

Well, maybe you'll never see why I'd feel this justifies the response I've given. So long as the meaning of my original post is clear, I'm satisfied.

InFront wrote: »

If you are not a Muslim nobody is insisting that you study ahadith but coming into the Islam forum and veritably shouting 'wrong!' at our beliefs hardly seems apropriate either.

I can't actually make sense of this comment at all. All I'm doing is supplying clear material relevant to the point. Do the texts Chick uses exist? Yes. What is there religious significance? I'm not purporting to know, but I'm suggesting Chick is not an unbiased commentator. That's, substantially, all I've said. So what's your problem with that?

If I was out to cause offence, I'd be posting in the other thread that the OP might think about planting a few boxthorn trees.

InFront

Schuhart wrote: »

You're falling into a basic error in logic - equivocation. The problem is over the use of the word 'verify'.

Again I'm not sure why you are behaving so contentiously about a simple clarification. It is not a personal slight against you for me to point out that there is no clear agreement on the meaning of this hadith - that is to say, its reliability may not be verified. Many posters unfamliar with Islam and the Sunnah would have taken up the wrong end of the stick by your use of the term 'verified', whether intentional or not.

Again, I am simply making a clarification. My real issue was with your puzzling attack on the Sunnah which you don't even seem to recognise:

I can't actually make sense of this comment at all. All I'm doing is supplying clear material relevant to the point.

So what's your problem with that?

If you can't make sense of it then consider what you said

its not my fecking fault that various holy books contain some utterly weird stuff. And I think you know yourself that the 'degrees of reliability' spin is frequently used to draw a discrete veil over the fact that many of the Hadith that Islamic scholars use to make judgments describe pretty incredible scenarios.

You disagree with the basic teachings of Islam. Fair enough. What I don't understand is why you bring your issues with such teachings here to boards' Islam forum and start throwing it around.

Imagine you have a problem with Pro-Ev computer game, would you go into that forum and keep telling everyone how it sucks and expect a welcome?

InFront

Schuhart wrote: »

If I was out to cause offence, I'd be posting in the other thread that the OP might think about planting a few boxthorn trees.

Nice, Schuhart.

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

Again I'm not sure why you are behaving so contentiously about a simple clarification.

Because there is no mistake. If you had said “Schuhart, you are absolutely right to query the religious significance of these texts. While they appear in the collections used to make religious judgements, many of these stories are known to be unreliable", that might have reflected reality. But you didn't.

InFront wrote: »

Many posters unfamliar with Islam and the Sunnah would have taken up the wrong end of the stick by your use of the term 'verified', whether intentional or not.

Err, no they wouldn’t. They would have perfectly understood my statement that Chick could be relied on to milk this stuff for everything he could get out of it. Read the sentence again “They’re not hard to verify, as this stuff is online.” That is patently saying the texts exist, not that their religious significance is easy to verify.

I think what’s really the problem here is your over-sensitivity to the weird stuff that you know appears in those texts. Relax a little. People know that all religious texts of all religions contain this kind of stuff – its not a surprise to them that Islam has it too.

That’s clearly what my posts are saying in this thread. What my posts boil down to is the incongruity of a fundamentalist Christian picking some of the bad bits out of Islamic texts, when similar material can be found in the Bible. Any eejit could see that’s what I was saying. So I’m genuinely suspicious as to your reaction, and not a little put out at being misrepresented. What’s your problem?

InFront wrote: »

Again, I am simply making a clarification. My real issue was with your puzzling attack on the Sunnah which you don't even seem to recognise:

Can I point out that what you now claim to be your ‘real issue’ was in my response to your post – so unless you’ve been blessed with the gift of prophecy I don’t see how I can accept your contention that this was your ‘real issue’.

As to the quote you select, can I make it clear that my comment “its not my fecking fault that various holy books contain some utterly weird stuff” is not intended to be limited to Islamic texts. Although I’m certainly including them in that. You’ll understand, I didn’t compile the Hadith or say they were to have any status within your faith. So I repeat, its not my fecking fault if there’s a whole load of stuff in them that you wish wasn’t there.

Can I also draw attention of the elastic nature of the respect you want shown to them. On the one hand, you say yourself that they include stuff that’s fabricated or wrong. Yet, it would appear this fabricated and wrong stuff is capable of being ‘denigrated’. Go figure.

InFront wrote: »

You disagree with the basic teachings of Islam. Fair enough. What I don't understand is why you bring your issues with such teachings here to boards' Islam forum and start throwing it around.

Right, well another thing to get your noggin around is that the Quran and Hadith are public domain documents. That means we can all read them. You can read them and take whatever you want out of them, and I can read them and take whatever I want out of them. Not, tbh, that I’ve read them for quite a while. I’m only posted in this thread because it needed a little nudge to get it stating the full reality of the situation.

InFront wrote: »

Imagine you have a problem with Pro-Ev computer game, would you go into that forum and keep telling everyone how it sucks and expect a welcome?

I’m afraid the allusion is lost on me. I’ve no idea what a Pro-Ev computer game is, or how narrow-minded its players are.

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

Nice, Schuhart.

Yeah, like I'm making this stuff up.

InFront

Schuhart wrote: »

If you had said “Schuhart, you are absolutely right to query the religious significance of these texts.... But you didn't.

Schuhart I get dizzy when I talk to you. I'm afraid I didn't think I needed to put that much effort into explaining the situation to you because my point was initially not directed at you. My pont was, and is, getting across to the OP or whoever else was new that in Islam there is a clear system for classificaton of the Sunnah.

Despite what you said, the less credible aspects of Sunnah does not resemble the more unusual elements of the Christian and Jewish texts, where a referenced classification system of reliability is not in place.
Often there can be literal interpretation in those texts. Believe it or not newcomers to Islam might not know that the Sunnah does not so operate.

Can I also draw attention of the elastic nature of the respect you want shown to them. On the one hand, you say yourself that they include stuff that’s fabricated or wrong. Yet, it would appear this fabricated and wrong stuff is capable of being ‘denigrated’. Go figure.

No, with respect that is not the case on two counts.

Firstly and most importantly, I'm not actually saying this verse is fabricated or wrong. I said there's no clear agreement available on its meaning.

Secondly, my issue isn't primarily with the respect shown to the hadith in your case, but rather your rubbishing of the classification system for the hadith as it exists from sahih to ha'san, da'iif and then maudo. This is worse.

The hadith are such an integral part of the faith that their credibility is very important. You called the system of interpreting aahadith "spin".
You also said the degrees of credibility argument can be used to draw a veil over certain aahadith. That could be true on the part of some vested interests. However, it is this accusation of "spin" that I would consider quite rude considering the forum and those of us who post here. It's Islam not Islam defense.

InFront

Schuhart wrote: »

Yeah, like I'm making this stuff up.

It is just too much of an easy shot to come up with that stuff, I don't even want to get into it.

Fluffybums

Could only read so much of that ignorant, twaddle. Don't know if anyone else has pointed this out but if that Chick rubbish was written by a Christian organisation they should really go back and re-read the bible. If I remember correctly Jesus was the son of God and not God - mind you it's a long time since I went to Sunday school.
A bit of a creationist agenda in that spiel as well.

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

Schuhart I get dizzy when I talk to you.

If you were dizzy while you were typing that post, I forgive you.

InFront wrote: »

my point was initially not directed at you.

So your statement, Schuhart, saying "they're not hard to verify" is a mistake. is not directed at any poster using the name Schuhart.

InFront wrote: »

My pont was, and is, getting across to the OP or whoever else was new that in Islam there is a clear system for classificaton of the Sunnah.

And my post does not contradict that. There is no ‘mistake’ in it. I stated quite plainly that I wasn’t pontificating about what religious significance might be attached to those texts.

InFront wrote: »

The hadith are such an integral part of the faith that their credibility is very important. You called the system of interpreting aahadith "spin". You also said the degrees of credibility argument can be used to draw a veil over certain aahadith. That could be true on the part of some vested interests. However, it is this accusation of "spin" that I would consider quite rude considering the forum and those of us who post here. It's Islam not Islam defense.

OK, firstly I think its very important to point out that this statement, again, relates to my responses to your posts. So it’s not that I’m blundering in here, shouting ‘its all spin’ without a context. Once that’s established, I’m happy to continue.

I’m coming at this from an atheist perspective, so I’m simply going to assess these things as features of a human organisation. Focussing on the concrete issue, are you really suggesting this system of classification removes all doubts from interpretations? More to the point, are you really suggesting the acknowledgment of the existence of dodgy texts isn’t used to confuse issues – like Aisha’s age, where an amount of scholars argue there is nothing dodgy about the relevant texts at all?

Now, maybe you will assert that to be the case, and maybe that is your belief. But that’s not how I see it, for what its worth.

InFront wrote: »

It is just too much of an easy shot to come up with that stuff, I don't even want to get into it.

Strange to relate, neither do I. But it is one of my all-time favourite bits of Weird Religious Stuff. Its right up there with the bit in the Old Testament where David is told to collect 100 Philistine foreskins in lieu of a wedding gift for his father-in-law.

InFront

Schuhart wrote: »

So your statement, Schuhart, saying "they're not hard to verify" is a mistake. is not directed at any poster using the name Schuhart.

Well as a regular on the forum obviously it's safe to assume you already know how the Sunnah is interpreted according to witnesses or reliability of sources, I'm surprised you seem to think I would feel the need to tell you the thing.
I think saying something along the lines of "What Schuhart means here, is..." would be a little patronising. Why is this even an issue?

OK, firstly I think its very important to point out that this statement, again, relates to my responses to your posts. So it’s not that I’m blundering in here, shouting ‘its all spin’ without a context. Once that’s established, I’m happy to continue.

Well I don't think my description of the classification system was spin because imo, it's cold hard fact. I respect it may not be cold hard fact to you, I even fully accept you might think of it as spin... I just have an issue with you passively referring to it it as such.

Focussing on the concrete issue, are you really suggesting this system of classification removes all doubts from interpretations?

Let me put it another way, it doesn't always remove all doubt from classifications. Scholars are not perfect and do disagree, so the concrete issue you refer to is certainly not always concrete. But that doesn't make it spin.

More to the point, are you really suggesting the acknowledgment of the existence of dodgy texts isn’t used to confuse issues – like Aisha’s age, where an amount of scholars argue there is nothing dodgy about the relevant texts at all?

Okay lets not complicate this conversation by opening that box. Some questionable hadith may be used by vested interests, sure.
Honestly I think we have to be open to the possibility that Aisha was nine or was nineteen, I for one don't know the answer for sure. People on both sides could feasibly manipulate interpretations. It is up to the Muslim to determine the case based on strong advice.
But this is different to saying that the classification system itself is some old spin people dreamed up t protect the faith from mockery. It is a valid tool in ones own struggle with understanding the Sunnah as part of greater Islamic awareness.

Strange to relate, neither do I. But it is one of my all-time favourite bits of Weird Religious Stuff. Its right up there with the bit in the Old Testament where David is told to collect 100 Philistine foreskins in lieu of a wedding gift for his father-in-law.

What do you get for the man who has everything..

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

I'm surprised you seem to think I would feel the need to tell you the thing.

But you’ll appreciate, its hard to see a comment specifically addressed to me as other than specifically addressed to me.

Now, maybe your intent was elsewhere, and fair enough if it was.

InFront wrote: »

Let me put it another way, it doesn't always remove all doubt from classifications. Scholars are not perfect and do disagree, so the concrete issue you refer to is certainly not always concrete. But that doesn't make it spin.

Indeed, I don’t doubt there’s a need to draw a distinction between honest scholarly research as distinct from people trying to cloud, rather than clarify, an issue.

Also, after a night’s sleep and looking out over a cut lawn on a sunny day, I’m of the opinion that your objective is not to deliberately cloud this issue.

However, my concern here is not that questionable hadith get used by vested interests. Its more that the existence of questionable hadith is used to throw a quick veil over texts that are not really questioned at all.

I’ve had another look at that Chick cartoon (which I can assure you is not something I do for entertainment). Take the specific texts he’s highlighting (and, to be clear, I haven’t looked each of them up – but I do recall checking a couple before making my first post on this thread just to be positive he was referring to some of those texts that we know exist). I take it we agree the Quran verses he is citing cannot be deemed questionable. The Hadith about turning Jews into rats is not familiar to me. But the fact that Mohammed had many wives, and that slaves were apart of that society is surely unquestioned. Like you, I don’t want to open that whole business of Aisha’s age. But can we take it as read that the relevant texts do have some degree of acceptance as authentic from folk with expertise in such matters.

Now, to be very, very, very clear all I’m saying here is that the texts exist and, on the face of it, the issue of fabricated or wrong texts does not seem particularly relevant to them – and utterly irrelevant to the Quran verses used by Chick.

Where does that leave me? Right back to where I started. The issue here is not about fabricated texts, or at least that’s not the main issue by any stretch. The main issue is simply what religious significance is drawn from those texts. For example (and I’m deliberately trying to pick an example less controversial than Aisha’s age) I’ve seen the stuff about slavery being explained as developmental. In other words, Mohammed was trying to set down rules that would gradually eradicate slavery in his society.

I know that message is more subtle and harder to communicate than ‘that Hadith is invalid’. Yet, the simple fact would seem to be that many of these texts (and particularly the ones used by Chick here) aren’t really regarded as invalid – or, at least, many folk accept their validity.

So, after this rather lengthy post, can you piece together why I might have seen your intervention as an attempt to quickly brush all this stuff under the carpet and hang an inappropriate ‘invalid Hadith’ sign over it? And why I might call that spin?

InFront

Probably in the true style of any religious debate I'm going to operate backwards, because the last issue you raised is easy to clear up I think

Schuhart wrote: »

So, after this rather lengthy post, can you piece together why I might have seen your intervention as an attempt to quickly brush all this stuff under the carpet and hang an inappropriate ‘invalid Hadith’ sign over it? And why I might call that spin?

Yes, to both questions. In bringing up the issue of the reliability of the Hadith I freely admit I did not consider this implication to someone reading it. As I said a lot of people (maybe the OP) aren't familiar with the Sunnah and the classification system and that was my initial motivation in replying. I agree that it is also important to clarify that one is not just making such points for what you are referring to as spin.
Obviously such spin is a tool used by certain teachers 'within' Islam and even more outside of it... enter original cartoon.

However, my concern here is not that questionable hadith get used by vested interests. Its more that the existence of questionable hadith is used to throw a quick veil over texts that are not really questioned at all.

I'm not really clear if you mean questionable hadith themselves, or the actual classification system?

Taking it to mean the latter, yes this does happen I'm quite certain. I actually think this is less of an issue for younger Muslims who may be more mobile (culturally) than their parents, more open to different teachings, visit different masjiid and be more likely to have access to the more distinguished religious leaders on a national scale or a global scale through the different media and Islamic websites.

Yes such manipulation of texts can occur here too, I'm just saying a greater number of contributors to ones knowledge diminishes the likelihood of a quick veil been thrown over certain teachings and such manipulations being exposed - i.e. less of an educational monopoly for younger Muslims.

I take it we agree the Quran verses he is citing cannot be deemed questionable.

Excuse me if I don't read back over that cartoon, but yes of course the Qu'ran itself is not in question nor would it ever be

But the fact that Mohammed had many wives, and that slaves were apart of that society is surely unquestioned. Like you, I don’t want to open that whole business of Aisha’s age. But can we take it as read that the relevant texts do have some degree of acceptance as authentic from folk with expertise in such matters.

The wives and slaves issue cannot really be denied nor should they be.
However, in any discourse on the matter, the issues should be presented in a comprehensive light - i.e. outlining the reasons why such conditions were in place and pointing out the cultural issues surrounding people of the time and how Muhamma s.a.w. put policies in place to particularly dry up and rid those cultures of slavery (successfully)

Now, to be very, very, very clear all I’m saying here is that the texts exist and, on the face of it, the issue of fabricated or wrong texts does not seem particularly relevant to them

This is true. I would just qualify it by saying that this Chick guy (first name?) is hardly using the most accurate translations. His perogative and indeed maybe his job, is to use the most pejorative and offensive translations he can come across. I don't think anyone would really deny that.

I’ve seen the stuff about slavery being explained as developmental. In other words, Mohammed was trying to set down rules that would gradually eradicate slavery in his society.

Yes, there were rules like once you had a slave working for you, you could set him free or keep him in good conditions, but never sell. One had to protect their legal an human rights (Of the time). You could kill your slave if you yourself would accept death and you could castrate a slave only if you would yourself accept castration. So actually it was all a transition progamme to freedom as opposed to any kind of endorsement of slavery by Muhammad s.a.w.

the simple fact would seem to be that many of these texts (and particularly the ones used by Chick here) aren’t really regarded as invalid

It's not that such examples are always invalid, often there can be an element of validity, it's just that frequently the entire story or background is not being communicated.

rockmongrel

I love how they're so offended by the idea of Adam being 60 feet tall, but they completely go with the idea of the world being created in 6 days :P

Schuhart

InFront wrote: »

I would just qualify it by saying that this Chick guy (first name?) is hardly using the most accurate translations. His perogative and indeed maybe his job, is to use the most pejorative and offensive translations he can come across. I don't think anyone would really deny that.

He's Jack T Chick. A relevant wikipedia articule was posted above. In fairness, he is a complete nutcase.

InFront wrote: »

It's not that such examples are always invalid, often there can be an element of validity, it's just that frequently the entire story or background is not being communicated.

I think that puts it about right.