What does it mean to its followers today?

What do they think of their scriptures in the context of modern life and how do they conciliate the theory and practice of the Quran with modern living?

Oh yeah only muslims should answer this as it would be interesting to know how muslims reconcile terrorism, misogyny and antiquated religious edicts with modern living.

This of course isn't religious baiting its the new 'good faith' sciforums is passing as intellectual debate:rolleyes:

You see in order to ask the question one first has to see muslims as people not some monolithic group (wink wink its an example of doublspeak).

Please read more about islam and Mohamed Biography.
Read Quran, and i challenge: if you can pick up a verse from Quran that incite terrorism or racism of the women.
i want to tell u that Our prophet Mohamed said in his last word :
''... Be friendly with womens.... Comrade supreme,comrade supreme''
i dont know if i translate it well but it is clear.
And u talking about terrorism all Muslims know that ''Taliban'' and '' El-Qaida'' exaggerate in the principle of '' Jihad'', but what u think about USA or Israel.
Advice: dont repeat words of Asaosp and monks.Try to have ur own vision.
I let u reply then i'll show u who is Racist and terrorist.

... Well I'm convinced.

What does it mean to its followers today?
i'm a follower, it's a couple of instructions to follow where relavent, and do whatever i want where it says nothing about.

for many other followers it's a word to fill in the "religion" blank when filling forms.



What do they think of their scriptures in the context of modern life
??
i'm not sure i understand what you mean.


and how do they conciliate the theory and practice of the Quran with modern living?
i don't know, we just do it, practice our freedom of religion i guess..
it's easily compatible, if that's what you mean.

Oh yeah only muslims should answer this as it would be interesting to know how muslims reconcile terrorism,
glad to see they have so far granted you your wish,

my personal view, is that there are three kinds of terrorism:
1-one which we all agree upon is bad, like people killing civilians who are residents of the same country and there's no war, like the dumbasses who call themselves muslims and blow themselvs in the middle of riyadh, whether they targeted muslim population who they call traitors or non muslims who the saudi or any other government have allowed to live in their country.

those might start rambling about all the bad consequences we're suffering for having those non muslims in islamic countries, they might also bring up a quote by the prophet muhammed saying to keep all non muslims out of the arabian peninsula....now while both point are debatable and they could be right or wrong about them, they are a 100% wrong in the way they are dealing with it, the government have allowed them to stay there and they have signed contracts and everything, and the prophet also did say:"who killed a contractee won't sniff the smell of heaven", and "muslims abide by their treaties", and just how killing them is a back stabbing move trashing lots of islamic morals, and definitly doing more harm than good.
blowing up yourself in the middle of a market is also terrorism..and so on.

2-what the west calls terrorism and we (or i) don't:
acts of war against invading troops, is not terrorism.
freedom fighting, is not terrorism, defending a homeland, even by suicide bombing, is not terrorism.
actually it is terrorism, it's terrorizing your enemy, which is a good thing, and the arabic translation of terrorism is actually ordered in the quran in this context, such verses are used by those who brain wash the dumbos of the first type into doing "terrorism", saying it's mentioned and ordered in the quran, so strap it up and let a rip!.
so... no, killing american husbands and sons and brothers in afganistan and iraq is not terrorism, it's self defense.

3-a grey area:
which is when an invaded country which has had it's civilians terrorized, reply to the terrorizing country's civilians by peer terrorism, like 9/11.
you have countries living life and walking their path, along comes another country and wrecks havoc and tyranny in it, why did i say i"wreck havoc and tyranny in it" instead of just "invade" it? because of the great difference in power, making it go from a typical war of invader and defender, into "wreck havoc and tyranny in it".. from tanks, soldiers and jets vs. tanks, soldiers and jets, into an army vs. civilians.. and a war against civillians is the definition of terrorism.

so when the terrorized civilians reply by terrorizing the civilians of the original terrorizes, for me it enters the grey zone.
what nudges it out of the grey zone into the justified white zone, is that those who are terrorizing have no other way of defending themselves, meaning it would be really grey if the two armeis were fighting, and one army trespassed by terrorizing the civilians of another, then is replying by terrorism justified? i don't know.. but in the absence of an army and fair fight and equal power and just no systematic war as we know it, the choice taken by the terrorized becomes a bit more into focus, even though i won't be so sure about it.


-A
the first step in discussing terrorism from islam's viewpoint is to define terrorism so we can start from shared grounds of understanding, and be sure we're talking about the same thing.

B-
i really like this, and i think it's got a point:
http://toppun.com/Great-Quotes/Anti-War-Quotes/Anti-War-Quote-Peace-Sign-69.gif

-C
i've inquired about type 3 before, see http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2293544#post2293544
which, last time i checked, wasn't locked.


misogyny
that's utterly silly, women are holy in islam, well, in a manner of speaking, everything else is bullshit, propaganda, whatever you call it..


and antiquated religious edicts with modern living.
wow, that's interesting..mmm, how about this:
http://www.dollsofcolor.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Steampunk-Lincoln-steampunk-1038417_600_750.jpg
something that even though it's coming from the past, it bears what we can't reach in the future.
i think they're ambiguous parts of wisdom which survived the old times, kinda like how a book of quantum mechanics would be appreciated by a kid born in the second stone age of post world war three or world war four.

also, such religious edicts may be surrounded by many different forms of disapproval, but they have never failed when followed.


This of course isn't religious baiting its the new 'good faith' sciforums is passing as intellectual debate
that went over my head.

You see in order to ask the question one first has to see muslims as people not some monolithic group (wink wink its an example of doublspeak).
why thank you lucy.

Advice: dont repeat words of Asaosp and monks.

"And monks"? Is this based on that old damning of monks by Mohammed? Funny the memes that pop up unexpectedly. And who the hell is "Asaosp" meant to be?

Well its glad to see that everyone understands the meaning of irony behind the post:rolleyes:

The OP was nothing but a reaction to Sams which I found insulting. As a matter of fact its almost an exact copy of her thread except I changed the word judaism with islam. So if followers of the tradition were a little put off by what was written in the OP all I can say is :yay:

I thought it was a little insulting too. I hope you all felt the EXACT same way about Sam's 'What is judaism' thread.

If you think that Sam does not represent you and your religion as far as her 'thought' concerning others then you should say something. You should react to her from time to time otherwise it just makes the comments in this thread look a tad bit hypocritical. It would have been nice if you guys had popped into the 'what is judaism' thread and challenged her on some of these ideas. Too bad I saw no sign of that from any of you. If you bloody don't like this OP then you should have also spoken out about the other. Don't ask for respect if you cannot show respect.

I challenged her, actually, on that thread. But I felt bad about contributing to another thread that would inevitably be seen as islam-bashing. Islamic belief is whatever it is; that is to say, in the mind and practice it is probably all well and good. It's when some of the intolerant passages are acted on, or accepted as a societal meme for prejudice that there's a problem. Unfortunately, and I believe largely because of the notion that islam isn't merely a religion but a "total life system" to be incorporated into social and political systems, this proves difficult to separate out.

...:confused:
........:confused:


:wtf:?

what does that thread have to do with this? who's offended? why should anyone be offended? what's all this about respect? what the hell is going on? i'll go see who sam killed in her thread and be right back...

besides,

Well its glad to see that everyone understands the meaning of irony behind the post:rolleyes:

I DIDN'T :bawl:

besides,

I DIDN'T :bawl:

Scifes where have you been anyway? :D

Its a response to this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95736

You would have to read into it on or two pages to see why it is so offensive which was where we all knew it would go anyway. By the way it is interesting what you had to say about terrorism. I'll let you get your bearings before I respond to what you posted.

Scifes I recently watched this documentary, called 'Islam: What the West needs to know. The link is in the Documentary thread in free thoughts on the last page somewhere. Anyway, it tries to explain jihad and how jihad is really used by fundamentalists who are going by what was written in the Quran as a means to fight off an enemy. When you get a chance take a look at it as I would be interested in what parts you think are correct and what you find to be simple propaganda.

i've been on vacation.. and skinwalker is either refusing to or has forgotten to grant me my three week ban i asked for...

as for that thread, lol, i can see you'd bite sam's head off any time of the day.

i really don't see what's wrong with that thread, i think she saw jews contradicting their religion's teachings and wanted their take on that being done.. what's wrong with asking one of a religion about his religion?

i think christians' trinity is,.... well it's still vague for me to judge it, so i asked in a thread.
she thought something similar of jews and atheists jump in saying jews would be offended.."it depends on the jew", that's why she's asking THE JEW who it depends on, what does HE think.. same with me and the trinity, i can speculate and explore possible explanations to how chrisitans justify three being actually one, but it's not like a christian telling me why it is, instead of an atheist telling me why MAYBE it is.

when you asked here about islam i didn't get offended one bit, something seems wrong about my religion to you, i feel privileged to explain it as best as i can.

and note, sam's thread about jews can be copied to muslims;

"why do muslims do{insert muslims' actions} even though their scriptures say{insert broken rules or ignored orders}, is there a muslim around to tell me what he thinks of it?"
and i wouldn't mind getting in and examining what's given and reply what i think.


it seems discussing anything but atheism here is..unpractical(?). i guess it'll always be theism against atheism..we never have enough theists to have a discussion between ourselves.

Scifes: i really don't see what's wrong with that thread, i think she saw jews contradicting their religion's teachings and wanted their take on that being done.. what's wrong with asking one of a religion about his religion?

What in the world isn't contradictory? There is a problem with priests molesting children in the catholic church and being protected by the church. We have an american democratic government supporting undemocratic systems. Contradiction is the most of all human traits and you will find it in everything. There isn't anything special about contradiction in religion. Any religion. To bring up the jews and then use the incident of the Kapos to suggest that jews somehow betray their religion because of said event is as offensive to me as suggesting that all muslims betray their religion because of the actions of terrorists.

Scifes: i really don't see what's wrong with that thread, i think she saw jews contradicting their religion's teachings and wanted their take on that being done.. what's wrong with asking one of a religion about his religion?
i don't get it, you don't mind the thread "what is judaism"?


What in the world isn't contradictory?
my life isn't:p

There is a problem with priests molesting children in the catholic church and being protected by the church. We have an american democratic government supporting undemocratic systems. Contradiction is the most of all human traits and you will find it in everything. There isn't anything special about contradiction in religion. Any religion.
but the world is, i agree, that's why i'm gonna set things straight:mad:

actually you can see it in a way that it isn't contradictive, the priests are defending their friend because they're all evil, they speak of religion and goodness because they want to decieve everybody, it all makes sense:D

No, I did mind the thread on judaism. I found the thread offensive.

Scifes: ctually you can see it in a way that it isn't contradictive, the priests are defending their friend because they're all evil, they speak of religion and goodness because they want to decieve everybody, it all makes sense

Don't start:D

I think you understand what I am saying. There is another documentary named Deliver Us From Evil that would break your heart. Its all about how the church turned a blind eye to a known pedophile and how they turned their back on the victims. It sheds a negative light on all priests but context is always important right, and the judaism thread lacked a context to discuss the issue save a segue-way to bash jews.

"What does it mean to its followers today?

What do they think of their scriptures in the context of modern life and how do they conciliate the theory and practice of the Torah with modern living?"

Personally, I don't consider this as offensive. Simple questions which got demonised and twisted around by some just because it was coming from S.A.M. Also taking into account that those who were there complaining about it, or even criticising S.A.M.'s thread weren't even the people in question.
Basically, because the questions were coming from S.A.M. it was offensive, right?
It's noteworthy that similar questions are being posed in most threads concerning the Islamic faith.

It's your prejudice against S.A.M. that turned the original thread into an offensive one.

It might have been an interesting thread if people wouldn't have been so hostile right from the beginning, but alas we'll never find out now.

It might have been an interesting thread if people wouldn't have been so hostile right from the beginning,

Some people take exception to injustice, righteously.

Implying most if not all Jews betray their beliefs and given the situation would send their children to a gas chamber isn't exactly asking questions about Judaism.

Some people take exception to injustice, righteously.

Implying most if not all Jews betray their beliefs and given the opportunity would send their children to a gas chamber isn't exactly asking questions about Judaism.

Those comments did come after several users have attacked her/him, or showed hostility. Everything he/she said seems pretty kosher. The only thing you could reproach her/him is the slight cynicism in the word choice in some posts. It's not like he/she was spreading lies...

And honestly, I don't think that "Some" equals with "most" or "all".

I have no prejudice against Sam. I used to defend sam against all those who called her out on bad posting practices and bigotry. It took some time for me to see it myself but I have which I find ironic considering her complaints about how muslims were characterized by other members. The thread wasn't an honest attempt to understand anything about judaism on the whole and in particular did not bring up anything that couldn't have been highlighted about all religions.

You don't have to 'lie' to be offensive about a group of people you just have to skew the issue and be subtle in your attack. Like for example you can begin like this 'why are blacks so prone to crime?' and behave innocently as you list how there are more of them in prison blah blah blah, then you can list all of the evils they use to suppress each other like 'well blacks who were the masters house servants treated the blacks in the field terribly' blah blah blah. Those last two statements are not 'lies' but they are being used outside of a wider context that would give clarity to those particular incidents and blind you to all those who do not fit that mold. Then you can top it off with questioning their morality for example. You don't have to lie, you simply have to isolate and twist the truth.

Those comments did come after several users have attacked her/him, or showed hostility. Everything he/she said seems pretty kosher. The only thing you could reproach her/him is the slight cynicism in the word choice in some posts. It's not like he/she was spreading lies...

And honestly, I don't think that "Some" equals with "most" or "all".

Yeah, thats pretty much it. You can say anything about Muslims (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84683) on this forum, but even asking questions about any other religion is not kosher. :rolleyes:

Again that is her not seeing that what she had done is no different than what she accused others of doing to muslims. Nuff said.

I take it, it's your way of retaliation against the unequal treatment of certain religions? Creating a reverse reflection. Well, I pretty much understand what you're trying to get across, but it looks like you're being slightly outnumbered by the opponents, and most just don't want to see the initial intentions behind your actions. Or they're deliberately misinterpreting them.

I still don't see what was the issue with your thread about Judaism...I was actually interested myself in the potential replies from real Jews.

I take it, it's your way of retaliation against the unequal treatment of certain religions?

There was an interesting comment that Orleander once made to me about a poster I showed from an American eating place. Muslims not allowed here or something, it said. Most people would not consider it offensive, but if it said, Jews not allowed here, then it would suddenly become a racist antisemitic poster. This is what sciforums is. That restaurant which does not consider anti-Muslim bigotry as offensive, but put Jews or blacks in their stead and its a different ball game altogether.

In a way, perhaps I am confirming this. No point demonstrating it, since demonstration requires comprehension on the other side.




I still don't see what was the issue with your thread about Judaism...I was actually interested myself in the potential replies from real Jews.

Ya, me too. Fraggle has just posted and I had messaged Cheski chips too. Both of them represent opposite ends, with Fraggle having an atheist background from Bohemian parents [and being of the "older sect"] and Cheski being a Zionist born in the USA and probably not past 20. Cheski has always been forthcoming in discussing such questions.

Its the not-Jews who panic and flail around for some reason. :rolleyes:

Well, maybe I should recreate said thread because apparently Muslims are not allowed to pose questions about other religions. (I'm not even sure if I can create threads...because of my low post number, and young account)
At times it feels good being an agnostic. ^-^

When Sam went around with a swastika as her avatar she claimed she was using some kind of 'reverse reflection' its just that no one else could see it from her point of view. My OP has a point of irony in it. I disagree with the what you call 'opponents' I see no opponents. Sam's thread was closed because it was obvious what she was doing with the thread. As you can see I have made no move to demonize muslims in this thread. If you read the thread and still don't see my point then fine but then Sam and no other member has any cause to call fowl when there is any thread that chooses to highlight the worse aspects of islam and then wonder about the morality of those who practice islam. Fair is fair. Either the rules are applied to everyone or everyone is free to break them. If you want your beliefs or your tribe or your race or nation or anything to be treated with some respect its important to show respect. This doesn't mean that there is no room for criticism but criticism comes with illustrating something within a wider context, not zeroing in with the intent of showing only the negative. Most people around here know the difference and I am sick and tired of sam's divisiveness on sciforums.

Sam forgot to mention that the restaurant had a neon pig in its logo because it was a pork restaurant.:rolleyes: Again information with no context. The joke being that a restaurant specializing in pork wouldn't attract religious muslims not to mention jews.

Well, maybe I should recreate said thread because apparently Muslims are not allowed to pose questions about other religions.
At times it feels good being an agnostic. ^-^

It won't make any difference. Gendanken also did it and she has no religious affiliation that I know of. Of course, her presentation was entirely original. I could never match up to her. :p

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79627

Gendy would have learned to despise you. She detested the obsessive boom boxes playing only one tune and she couldn't tolerate the hypocrites.

No, I understand you fairly well, Lucy..and maybe S.A.M. has been taking it a bit to the extreme. But come on...the thread about Judaism was passable. The OP didn't hint on anything negative. Just everybody who entered the thread, ironically most posts weren't even from Jews, started to create a tantrum about how it's offensive because it was S.A.M. who asked those questions. And then started to twist around her words.

I haven't read all of S.A.M.'s posts, so I don't know what she said and thought two months, or years ago, and with this can't pass a judgement. But that isn't really the point in question, because notions evolve with the time. People's opinions change throughout time, and naturally makes each and everyone guilty of hypocrisy. I'm sure that S.A.M. is by now willing to take that criticism against her religion and counter it accordingly and answer questions concerning Islam as long as the questions, and the criticism are within reasonable measures and she's being given the privilege to question other religions and life philosophies in return without being called an anti-Semite or bigot just because she's a Muslim.


lucysnow said: Either the rules are applied to everyone or everyone is free to break them.I will not disagree with you on this.
We surely could find a compromise. The only issue I see is to get every user to follow it, because as we know opinions may widely differ. There will always be a bias concerning the monitoring of the topics in question. I've noticed this in every forum I've ever joined. So I take it that it's the modding attitude of moderators that is in question because they're the ones who can control what has the right to stay in the forums and what not.


Lucysnow says: Sam forgot to mention that the restaurant had a neon pig in its logo because it was a pork restaurant. Again information with no context. The joke being that a restaurant specializing in pork wouldn't attract religious muslims not to mention jews.

That's nice and all, but why did the poster just mention Muslims then?


S.A.M. said: It won't make any difference. Gendanken also did it and she has no religious affiliation that I know of. Of course, her presentation was entirely original. I could never match up to her.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79627

Haha, interesting thread, but I'm not sure how kosher that one was because for once I didn't understand half of what Gedanken said, and secondly it seemed to be rather offensive towards a few individuals, and a rant thread in general. Though I have no clue in what context this rant came into existence.

Ironically it is the same people who will write stuff like this:


Our restraint is in keeping with British values of tolerance and respect for the feelings of others. However, we are equally in no doubt that a small minority of Muslims would be offended by such a publication to an extent where they would threaten, and perhaps even use, violence. This is a problem that the whole of the Western world needs to confront frankly, and not sidestep.

The right to offend within the law remains crucial to our free speech. Muslims who choose to live in the West must accept that we, too, have a right to our values, and to live according to them. Muslims must accept the predominant mores of their adopted culture: and most do. One of these is the lack of censorship and the ready availability of material that some people find deeply offensive: anyone who wishes to see the cartoons can find them within a few clicks on the internet.

Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture. We cannot put it better than the editorial in an Arab paper in which the cartoons briefly appeared yesterday (before all copies were suddenly withdrawn): "Muslims of the world, be reasonable."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3622806/Why-we-will-defend-the-right-to-offend.html



who will be the quickest to censor/shut down what offends them.

All I am asking for is consistency. Why shut down only some threads or discussions? Why not all?

Maybe they should employ a mod who specifically and regularly checks on such threads, and topics?

Like who? James is admin and arbitrarily shuts down discussions on Jews and Israels.

Like this one:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90620

I'm not even certain what his logic is.

Don't say anything bad about Israel? Or about Jews?

Well Israeli "fascism" is a bit of an extreme word choice? If I was a mod I would have probably changed the title to something that doesn't include the word fascism. Something along the lines of "Israel goes vile" and "Fate of the Palestinians under Israeli despotism"..perhaps.

Uh fascism is probably less pejorative than vile and despotic which are opinions unrelated to the political spectrum which I was discussing

A concerned Jew has called it Israels Terror Inside

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qt38N0PqrU

Well, I think that people just generally don't like to see Israel, or Jews being put in the same sentence with fascism or Nazism.
To the other it's a matter of opinion what is considered more pejorative, but the general perception of fascism is that it's correlated with Nazism for some, and therefore people might take bigger offence.

I guess "terror" would have been the better choice over fascism.

Israel, the US and Britain are axes of evil .
Their history is their witness .
;);).

Well, I think that people just generally don't like to see Israel, or Jews being put in the same sentence with fascism or Nazism.
To the other it's a matter of opinion what is considered more pejorative, but the general perception of fascism is that it's correlated with Nazism for some, and therefore people might take bigger offence.

I guess "terror" would have been the better choice over fascism.

Why would anyone associate Nazism with fascism? Fascism was Mussolini, not Hitler :confused:

Because Mussolini was later on a real suck up of Hitler?
So? Does that preclude Israel becoming a fascist nation?

Uri Avnery - Fascism at the heart of the Israeli government (http://jfjfp.com/?p=4686)

** whoops you caught me when I was deleting the message because I was writing bullsh*t and realised it only later. Mussolini didn't like Hitler all that much, but I guess that Rome and Berlin were still tight at some point.

*hmm lemme check out the link.

It doesn't matter if they were sleeping together, even. While the term fascist is much maligned, it has an original meaning and that fits Israeli ideology towards Palestinians better than "vile" or "despotic"

Just read their death porn
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html#APPENDIX%203%20%20%22Soon%20the%20Sing ing%20Will%20Turn%20Into%20A%20Death%20Moan%22

lool,
so..
what is islam?:D

Nah. for me it matters. I like to correct my mistakes.

Uh, I don't actually see why despotism can't be used instead of fascism - fascism is seemingly a form of despotism, no?...but anyway, you seem to be implying that the whole of Israel is fascistic, maybe that was the point with which people didn't agree?

Nah. for me it matters. I like to correct my mistakes.

Uh, I don't actually see why despotism can't be used instead of fascism - fascism is seemingly a form of despotism, no?...but anyway, you seem to be implying that the whole of Israel is fascistic, maybe that was the point with which people didn't agree?

The thread title was Israel goes fascist - Lieberman to the fore!

But yeah, maybe the entire state is fascist as this woman watching the Gaza attacks defines herself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjw8U0AcH4Q

So what? We're not allowed to say it?

I think you understand what I am saying. There is another documentary named Deliver Us From Evil that would break your heart. Its all about how the church turned a blind eye to a known pedophile and how they turned their back on the victims. It sheds a negative light on all priests but context is always important
kinda reminds me of a story of a guy who had the other end of his large intestines pumped up and ready to blow(i don't know what it's called but it's removed surgically).. the guy spent more than an hour in the lobby of a prestigious hospital which didn't let him in because he didn't have the papers(money or otherwise), and so he rolled on the floor there till it popped.

or the pregnant women who was so close to delivery but for some bureaucratic ass reason she wasn't let in, so she took a taxi to another hospital and had her baby in the back seat...
who knew becoming a taxi drivers would make you save lives?

yeah, don't let me get started either:D..


i might get a look at that documentary after i finish the first one..

Hmm, no under normal circumstances your topic would pass, but like I hinted on earlier, it was only logical that people would take your word choice as a provocation and get offended and they'd go on a rant, and a flame war would break out. The reactions were "predictable".

So some people have a greater right to be offended than others because of what they read into it? If you read the thread, the discussion was pretty standard, for sciforums.

Especially if you see discussions like this which no one has ever curtailed:

The Palestinians killed their own children (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55602)

Is Muslim Mentality Psychologically Disordered? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70426)

How it is like to have a Muslim in your Family ? (http://www.sciforums.com/How-it-is-like-to-have-a-Muslim-in-your-Family-t-36105.html)

Note that this was the same time when members were roundly banned for making pejorative comments about Jews.

People have been permanently banned from sciforums for saying bad things about Jews. Has anyone been permanently banned for saying bad things about Christians? Muslims? Atheists?

Like I said..it's a moderation issue. Can do little to nothing about it..well we could address it and nominate a moderator who is renowned for his rather neutral approach on these subjects to become the main moderator of such topics/threads..

Yeah can do nothing about it actually, we can only discuss it within the limits permitted us. Its not a democracy you see. :p

Did anyone ever directly confront James_R with this issue? Just wondering..(am not really updated with Sciforum drama)

He doesn't think there is an issue.

Me, I think a moderator of the religion forum making statements like this:


But it occurs to me that if there are a billion muslims in the world; and they each pray 5 times a day; this is 5 billion prayers a day; almost 2 trillion prayers a year. It would seem they either aren't praying about anything or their god simply likes the status quo since their part of the world is the most violent.

is an excellent reflection of the site

kinda reminds me of a story of a guy who had the other end of his large intestines pumped up and ready to blow(i don't know what it's called but it's removed surgically).. the guy spent more than an hour in the lobby of a prestigious hospital which didn't let him in because he didn't have the papers(money or otherwise), and so he rolled on the floor there till it popped.

or the pregnant women who was so close to delivery but for some bureaucratic ass reason she wasn't let in, so she took a taxi to another hospital and had her baby in the back seat...
who knew becoming a taxi drivers would make you save lives?

yeah, don't let me get started either:D..


i might get a look at that documentary after i finish the first one..

Its a pretty intense documentary from the standpoint of having to listen to the priest so beware.

I'm not sure how you tie in the medical stuff with what I was saying but yeah its a contradiction:D Like the woman who was admitted to the emergency room, was laying in the bed and everything. She layed there screaming in pain as nurses walked by her with better things to do until she died, this was in california I believe and they closed down the hospital. I mean what's the point right? What's the point in having a priest who will teach you about god and then diddle your child after giving him the eucharist?

What's the point in having someone cry racism and then denies that they characterize others in a racist fashion? :shrug:

Ah? Where does he state that?

Ah? Where does he state that?

Thats the general picture I get from his comments when I ask him questions:

Inconsistency in Religion and other forums (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92247)
All threads on Gaza closed? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90235)
Hate Speech on Sciforums (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87774)
Joos, Islamofascist and other generalisations (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84262)

Psychotropicpuppy: I will not disagree with you on this. We surely could find a compromise. The only issue I see is to get every user to follow it, because as we know opinions may widely differ. There will always be a bias concerning the monitoring of the topics in question. I've noticed this in every forum I've ever joined. So I take it that it's the modding attitude of moderators that is in question because they're the ones who can control what has the right to stay in the forums and what not.

Well it doesn't need a compromise it needs an understanding of what it means to have some respect especially if you demand it for yourself. The thing is that if someone doesn't recognize their own bias, bitterness or bigotry then they will feel victimized and not realize that they are creating their own opposition. Sam thinks its because she says 'jew' not realizing its how she consistently characterizes all jews. Like saying that Israel speaks for all jews for example which i poppycock.

Psychotropicpuppy: That's nice and all, but why did the poster just mention Muslims then?

They didn't it was a picture of a neon billboard on a restaurant.

Psychotropicpuppy: the thread about Judaism was passable

Really? You mean comments like this:

SAM: "Well if you put your kids in a gas chamber and walked away, you betcha I would demonise you. If you went ahead and made olia to someone elses land and decided you had a right to it because of what you survived I'd probably have you euthanised."

Or this:

SAM: Done, still cannot fathom the tribalism of Jews and why they have this whole paranoia thing going.

SAM: "You'd think most of them would be intelligent enough to see how self defeating it is to be pluralistic outside and ethnocentric at home, kind of a cultural schizophrenia. So what keeps so many of them inside the clutches of a failed model of tribal identity?"

Or this:

SAM: "Some of them even put their own wives and kids on the trains to the gas chambers, thats how loyal they were."

Now psychotropicpuppy you can go back and look at the context in which it was written and tell me that this was not blatantly being offensive. Why didn't she mention all the jews who tried to help each other survive the camps as a way of understanding their 'tribalism'? There were no positive examples. Go and look for yourself it was pure antisemitism under the guise of 'intellectual inquiry'.

Ah? Where does he state that?

Here is the post I was looking for:


I do not believe that a double standard applies to the moderation of offensive statements made against Muslims as compared to those against Jews. Personally, I strive to be impartial in such matters.

However, maybe you can provide some examples.

As for theists vs. atheists, I'm fairly confident that the number of pejorative statements made against atheists approximately balances the number of such statements made against Christians and other theists.

Since Islam has both a political and religious dimension, it may be that Islam is subjected to more criticism than Christianity is, since Muslims can be criticised both in the Religion forum and also in WE&P.

I'm not sure what you want here. Do you wish to eliminate all criticism of Islam?

Would you also agree to the elimination of all criticism of, say, atheism?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2083560&postcount=56

They didn't it was a picture of a neon billboard on a restaurant.
huh? maybe showing the picture would be welcome..because I kind of feel like lost in translation when one says that it says something about muslims, and the other doesn't. :bugeye:



Really?
Yeah, really. The OP was okay, but the following posts filled with hostility were not okay. Everybody implied or accused her of being an anti-Semite for asking simple questions that were not in the slightest anti-Semitic. Towards the end though a few of her comments leave a lot of room for interpretation, but after having been subjected to criticism since the opening of the thread I guess that was to be expected, but wasn't the best course of action to take since people seem to have little to no faith in the nature of her intentions.


You mean comments like this:

SAM: "Well if you put your kids in a gas chamber and walked away, you betcha I would demonise you. If you went ahead and made olia to someone elses land and decided you had a right to it because of what you survived I'd probably have you euthanised.
"

Since I like to give people the benefit of doubt I think that she was kidding, plus she explicitly pointed out that she was referring to GeoffP, the part which you surprisingly removed. Though granted ..it leaves a lot of space for interpretation.


Or this:

SAM: Done, still cannot fathom the tribalism of Jews and why they have this whole paranoia thing going.

SAM: "You'd think most of them would be intelligent enough to see how self defeating it is to be pluralistic outside and ethnocentric at home, kind of a cultural schizophrenia. So what keeps so many of them inside the clutches of a failed model of tribal identity?"

Or this:

SAM: "Some of them even put their own wives and kids on the trains to the gas chambers, thats how loyal they were."



Now psychotropicpuppy you can go back and look at the context in which it was written and tell me that this was not blatantly being offensive. Why didn't she mention all the jews who tried to help each other survive the camps as a way of understanding their 'tribalism'? There were no positive examples. Go and look for yourself it was pure antisemitism under the guise of 'intellectual inquiry'.
She does have a sharp tongue. It being of anti-Semitic nature - that's just you speculating.

So, lets make an appeal to S.A.M.'s honesty - S.A.M. were you trying to be anti-Semitic? Did you purposefully leave that much room for interpretation? If so, why?

Psychotropicpuppy: huh? maybe showing the picture would be welcome..because I kind of feel like lost in translation when one says that it says something about muslims, and the other doesn't.

I don't have it anymore. Think of a restaurant sign that has a neon pig on it, the name of the restaurant suggests pork is the speciality. So they have the name and below in block letters, like you see at the movie theatre, was 'we don't serve muslims'.

Psychotropicpuppy: Yeah, really. The OP was okay, but the following posts filled with hostility were not okay. Everybody implied or accused her of being an anti-Semite for asking simple questions that were not in the slightest anti-Semitic.

If you know how Sam twists things then you know it is only a matter of time before she makes comments like the ones she had made. The whole topic is eventually diverted towards her agenda (israel, whatever flaw she can find in a jew, american imperialism, atheism (eg Israel beginning with atheist jews) etc. The topic wasn't sincere from the start because we already know what she thinks of jews. She wasn't asking a simple question and when the question was answered by spidergoat which is to say that jews believe in many different things, practice in many different ways, it didn't take long before she raised the Kapos and offering ones children to the nazis benefitting the nazis. If someone started a thread suggesting there was something wrong with muslims because they offer their children up for martyrdom, suicide bombing and the like she would be offended. If someone questioned their morality she would be offended. I understand why you think you need to defend her, I also used to defend her and thought everyone was just 'picking' on her because she was a muslim until I got to see it for myself, over and over and over again. People are hostile towards her bigotry not towards her. There are other muslims on this board who do not raise the red flag.

Psychotropicpuppy: Since I like to give people the benefit of doubt I think that she was kidding, plus she explicitly pointed out that she was referring to GeoffP, the part which you surprisingly removed. Though granted ..it leaves a lot of space for interpretation.

I told you to go back and see her comments in context. I didn't read it as if she was kidding. Where is the irony or humor in this comment exactly?

"Well if you put your kids in a gas chamber and walked away, you betcha I would demonise you. If you went ahead and made olia to someone elses land and decided you had a right to it because of what you survived I'd probably have you euthanised."

Where? You seem capable of the benefit of the doubt so please enlighten me.

Psychotropicpuppy: She does have a sharp tongue. It being of anti-Semitic nature - that's just you speculating. So, lets make an appeal to S.A.M.'s honesty - S.A.M. were you trying to be anti-Semitic? Did you purposefully leave that much room for interpretation? If so, why?

We have had sharper tongues in this forum and believe me no one ever thought them a racist or bigot. I am not speculating that she hates jews I am saying she proves over and over that she hates jews. Why the obsession with them? Why say that Israel speaks for all Jews? Why start yet another upon another thread on jews?

You can ask her whatever you like but you won't get an honest answer if you get her to answer at all. She loves to avoid pointed questions by diverting the issue or by answering the question with another question.

PsychoTropicPuppy:


"What does it mean to its followers today?

What do they think of their scriptures in the context of modern life and how do they conciliate the theory and practice of the Torah with modern living?"

Personally, I don't consider this as offensive. Simple questions which got demonised and twisted around by some just because it was coming from S.A.M.

There was no problem with the thread opener, and the thread was left open for some time. The problem came when SAM went from her original, innocent-sounding query, to her real agenda for the thread, which was to demonise Jews. In particular, she proposed that all Jews would hand over their own children to the Nazis to be killed in order to save their own skins, or something similar. At that point, I closed the thread, since SAM had turned it into an anti-semitic tirade.


Basically, because the questions were coming from S.A.M. it was offensive, right?

No. Absolutely wrong.


It's noteworthy that similar questions are being posed in most threads concerning the Islamic faith.

And they are also closed if they turn into hate-fests.


It might have been an interesting thread if people wouldn't have been so hostile right from the beginning, but alas we'll never find out now.

You mean people such as SAM? Yes. Good point.


So I take it that it's the modding attitude of moderators that is in question because they're the ones who can control what has the right to stay in the forums and what not.

It's not unusual to concentrate on the actions of moderators in order to avoid examining the actual issue that led to the moderation in the first place. Criticism of moderators most often comes from those sympathetic to the moderated poster's position, for obvious reasons. Everybody has a cheer squad. Moderators have a hard job because it is impossible to please everybody. Nobody whose post is edited or deleted or whose thread is locked is every happy about it, because if they had believed their behaviour in posting the offensive material was unacceptable or unjustified they presumably would not have posted it in the first place.

huh? maybe showing the picture would be welcome..because I kind of feel like lost in translation when one says that it says something about muslims, and the other doesn't. :bugeye:

Here is the picture:


http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/brendan13_photo/buckwheat/no_muslims.jpg

And Orleander's comment:

I know a lot of people who would find that funny as hell. Unless you change the 'Muslim' to 'Jews' and then its offensive and racist


Yeah, really. The OP was okay, but the following posts filled with hostility were not okay. Everybody implied or accused her of being an anti-Semite for asking simple questions that were not in the slightest anti-Semitic. Towards the end though a few of her comments leave a lot of room for interpretation, but after having been subjected to criticism since the opening of the thread I guess that was to be expected, but wasn't the best course of action to take since people seem to have little to no faith in the nature of her intentions.

Exactly and this is not just in this thread, but in most topics where I make mirror image arguments of arguments that are allowed to stand on sciforums. e.g. A thread I made to mirror the one on "my friends are turning religious, what should I do" ie a parody of it was shut down within 5 seconds when entitled, "my freinds are turning atheist, what should I do"




Since I like to give people the benefit of doubt I think that she was kidding, plus she explicitly pointed out that she was referring to GeoffP, the part which you surprisingly removed.

Exactly, I was referring to the individual not the group.


So, lets make an appeal to S.A.M.'s honesty - S.A.M. were you trying to be anti-Semitic? Did you purposefully leave that much room for interpretation? If so, why?

First you have to tell me what anti-semitism is. Because apparently saying anything negative about Jews or Israel or even posing questions about them is antisemitic, no matter how much evidence or facts you back it up with.

Here is the picture:


http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/brendan13_photo/buckwheat/no_muslims.jpg

Wow. Nasty. I bet it would justify an attack by the Israelis.


First you have to tell me what anti-semitism is. Because apparently saying anything negative about Jews or Israel or even posing questions about them is antisemitic, no matter how much evidence or facts you back it up with.

It's kind of more when your outlook overrides reality, so that you deflect everything even conceivably negative about your group onto a persecuted other:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2355775&postcount=126

Someone else did this once. Who was that guy?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Hitler_portrait_crop.jpg

Wow. Nasty. I bet it would justify an attack by the Israelis.


No there are no Muslims inside.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Hitler_portrait_crop.jpg

Oh look some one mentioned the holocaust again, talk about milking the dead. :yawn:

So Hitler was a German Muslim?

Rather, someone mentioned a significant historical parallel. Those who disregard history are doomed to be...you.

Rather, someone mentioned a significant historical parallel. Those who disregard history are doomed to be...you.

Clearly.

PsychoTropicPuppy:
There was no problem with the thread opener, and the thread was left open for some time. The problem came when SAM went from her original, innocent-sounding query, to her real agenda for the thread, which was to demonise Jews. In particular, she proposed that all Jews would hand over their own children to the Nazis to be killed in order to save their own skins, or something similar. At that point, I closed the thread, since SAM had turned it into an anti-semitic tirade.

Lol, I really don't know why I got myself involved into that.. "curiosity killed the psychotropicpuppy"

Look, if my memory serves me well, she never said "all" but "some". To the other, it wasn't false, historically speaking. I wouldn't say that it's anti-Semitic. She may have been critical of a few things some Jews did, which doesn't really make it anti-Semitic. Though I must say that she doesn't seem to be in possession of a lot of empathy since she's been completely disregarding the psychological aspect of the Jews' situation.



No. Absolutely wrong.
Well, from what I've observed it really did look that way. People entered this thread and from the first page on they were already kvetching and/or making sly remarks about how her thread and questions are offending, or referring to her anti-Semitic intentions which weren't at all present at that time, nor later on.
I'm not really here to defend, nor justify S.A.M., because she surpasses me by far in eloquence, and therefore can do it herself.
I just thought that the reason for the lock of this thread was uncalled for. I was really interested in seeing how individual Jews view their religion, and ethnic background, and how they identify themselves with it, etc. - the sole reason why I actually meddled with what others were discussing.




It's not unusual to concentrate on the actions of moderators in order to avoid examining the actual issue that led to the moderation in the first place. Criticism of moderators most often comes from those sympathetic to the moderated poster's position, for obvious reasons. Everybody has a cheer squad. Moderators have a hard job because it is impossible to please everybody. Nobody whose post is edited or deleted or whose thread is locked is every happy about it, because if they had believed their behaviour in posting the offensive material was unacceptable or unjustified they presumably would not have posted it in the first place.
Eh, I'm not really trying to be critical of moderators. I'm just saying that they have the control over what can stay on this board and what not, but I also realise that they can't monitor everything, nor control every user's actions, and I know that people on here are rather outspoken so they'll come and b*tch about anything whether it was one of their posts that got deleted, or whether the length of their ban was justified or not, blah blah. I know all of this..
I just suggested, later on, that maybe it would be a good idea to employ a mod, who isn't particularly involved/interested in these topics, who would specifically monitor those.

Thanks for showing me the picture.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/brendan13_photo/buckwheat/no_muslims.jpg

Now that I've seen it I can actually judge it. And honestly, this one is clearly hinting against Muslims.

First it informs us that they probably sell pork meat there. Okay, but right after that it says: "Safest Restaurant on Earth" which is then followed by "No Muslims Inside"
To me this sounds like that this restaurant is safe because there are no Muslims inside, i.e. no suicide bombers/terrorists. At least that's me trying to put myself into the shoes of a primitive-thinking person, who is strongly influenced by the anti-Muslim propaganda.

Glad you could see the context. Its why I always follow any news to its source. Context is very important.

I don't have it anymore. Think of a restaurant sign that has a neon pig on it, the name of the restaurant suggests pork is the speciality. So they have the name and below in block letters, like you see at the movie theatre, was 'we don't serve muslims'.
Saw the picture. It's clearly not made with good intentions.



If you know how Sam twists things then you know it is only a matter of time before she makes comments like the ones she had made. The whole topic is eventually diverted towards her agenda (israel, whatever flaw she can find in a jew, american imperialism, atheism (eg Israel beginning with atheist jews) etc. The topic wasn't sincere from the start because we already know what she thinks of jews. She wasn't asking a simple question and when the question was answered by spidergoat which is to say that jews believe in many different things, practice in many different ways, it didn't take long before she raised the Kapos and offering ones children to the nazis benefitting the nazis. If someone started a thread suggesting there was something wrong with muslims because they offer their children up for martyrdom, suicide bombing and the like she would be offended. If someone questioned their morality she would be offended. I understand why you think you need to defend her, I also used to defend her and thought everyone was just 'picking' on her because she was a muslim until I got to see it for myself, over and over and over again. People are hostile towards her bigotry not towards her. There are other muslims on this board who do not raise the red flag.
I can't say that I "know" S.A.M., but from what I've seen she likes to play with other people's words and their mind (my guess anyway). I don't see where the topic was hinting insincerity. I actually had the impression that she was really interested in what some Jews had to say, until people came and started to go on a rant against S.A.M.'s intentions. I mean, I can say that I was really interested in this topic myself.


I told you to go back and see her comments in context. I didn't read it as if she was kidding. Where is the irony or humor in this comment exactly?
I did. The irony lies within the fact that she did exactly what everyone expected her to do, or more like what everyone wanted her to do. But she made it safely, i.e. she pointed out that she's just referring to one individual, in this case GeoffP. Well, like I said previously.



We have had sharper tongues in this forum and believe me no one ever thought them a racist or bigot. I am not speculating that she hates jews I am saying she proves over and over that she hates jews. Why the obsession with them? Why say that Israel speaks for all Jews? Why start yet another upon another thread on jews?

I don't know if she specifically hates Jews, but from what I've read she's advocating against Israelis.


You can ask her whatever you like but you won't get an honest answer if you get her to answer at all. She loves to avoid pointed questions by diverting the issue or by answering the question with another question.
I kind of expected the part in bold.


_______

On a side note: I think I'll give this a rest, because I'm not particularly interested in dragging this out to the extent where I'd be involved in some Online Drama Llama. Just thought that it sucks that the thread got locked because of one individual who's not meeting up with the community's expectations.

central belief of Islam is that there is only one God (Allah) and only He should be worshipped and Muhammed is His Messenger.

The Quran is the Holy Book which is the verbatim Word of Allah.

In order to learn about Islam one would have to read the Quran as well as ask questions about Islam to Muslims

Exactly and this is not just in this thread, but in most topics where I make mirror image arguments of arguments that are allowed to stand on sciforums. You have gone considerably beyond "mirror image", in many cases. And you don't appear to recognize that.

And while it is true - and noteworthy - that you are subjected to continual and IMHO illegitimate personal attacks, it is also true that you do not always argue in good faith, nor do you recognize in your own arguments the very aspects of others' arguments to which you most object.

You might attempt - as an exercise - to remove the two word phrase "the Jews" from your posting on any topic, and avoid similar references via "them" and "they". Just for a while.

In order to learn about Islam one would have to read the Quran as well as ask questions about Islam to Muslims One can learn a great deal about Islam without reading a word of the Quran in any language - as with Judaism, Christianity, and any other holy book religions.

And this is a good thing - I doubt you would appreciate the impression an outsider gets of Islam merely by reading the Quran. The constant threatening and violent tone, the impression it leaves of a benighted and ugly people being hectored and herded by some kind of quasi-parental authority for their own good and his own ego-stuffing, is unfortunate.

nor do you recognize in your own arguments the very aspects of others' arguments to which you most object.

You might attempt - as an exercise - to remove the two word phrase "the Jews" from your posting on any topic, and avoid similar references via "them" and "they". Just for a while.

What part of mirror image arguments is hard to comprehend?

What part of mirror image arguments is hard to comprehend? None. It's usually fairly easy to see when they are not being made, for example. At least, I would have thought so.

None. It's usually fairly easy to see when they are not being made, for example. At least, I would have thought so.

When was the last time you objected to the terms "the Muslims", "the Americans" "the atheists", "the Arabs", "the Christians" [or even the Xians] or the famous quoted "the "Palestinians""?

When was the last time you objected to the terms {1}"the Muslims", {2}"the Americans" {3}"the atheists", {4}"the Arabs", {5}"the Christians" [or even the Xians] or the famous quoted {6} "the "Palestinians""? I don't recall the exact two word phrases, but I have spoken to the problem they sometimes symptomise with 1,2,3, and 5, - especially 3, from you. 4 and 6 have been handled by others in threads involving me, but IIRC not by me in particular except indirectly in replying to people like Buffalo.

I don't object to the term "the Jews", btw. It's a fine and useful term. I just recommend that you avoid it for a while.

I just recommend that you avoid it for a while.

Now I am curious. Why? I once considered using "the *^&%" or something similar instead to de-emotionalise it.

I did. The irony lies within the fact that she did exactly what everyone expected her to do, or more like what everyone wanted her to do. But she made it safely, i.e. she pointed out that she's just referring to one individual, in this case GeoffP.

Well, not exactly, to be honest.

PsychoTropicPuppy:

On a side note: I think I'll give this a rest, because I'm not particularly interested in dragging this out to the extent where I'd be involved in some Online Drama Llama. Just thought that it sucks that the thread got locked because of one individual who's not meeting up with the community's expectations.[/QUOTE]

Really? Why would a muslim be inside of a pork serving restaurant unless they no longer practice their religion? If I have an all male gay gym and have a sign that says 'no women inside' would you also find that it didn't have good intentions?

She advocates against Israelis and all jews as she says that Israel speaks for all jews.

If she was interested in only what jews had to say then why didn't she take it to a jewish site and ask them?

Sam does what she wants to do and we have all learned what to expect because its always the same.

Well, this: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2355793&postcount=65 pretty much sums up the impression this picture gave me.

Well, this: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2355793&postcount=65 pretty much sums up the impression this picture gave me.

But what does this have to do with Sam's campaign? The fact that there was a restaurant that did this? The fact that Orleander said it wouldn't have been tolerated if the word muslim was replaced with jew? What does this indicate about what she is trying to say about Sciforums?

"Only God knows."

Well, it kinda depends on the facts of the case. Sam presents me constantly as despising muslims, whereas I'm actually critical of the involvement of the islamic religion in law, because it ends up badly for everyone else.

The SAM irony is she wouldn't last long in a strick muslim country. They would kill her for heresy and infidelity.

The SAM irony is she wouldn't last long in a strick muslim country. They would kill her for heresy and infidelity.

False I worked 5 years in one and was treated exceptionally well. :p

Now I am curious. Why? I once considered using "the *^&%" or something similar instead to de-emotionalise it.


probably a defense mechanism

in whiteopia, "jew/jews" is as derogatory as nigger/niggers
we exchange understanding glances at each other when the word is uttered
the bigotry is quite covert but still there
you see, they killed christ and we will never forgive them for that
that and their insular ways
ja, we white folks aint good enough for them

False I worked 5 years in one and was treated exceptionally well. :p

is it true that some joke around with their infidel friends by asking them......

"how would you like to die"

..or something in that vein?

"which limb would you like to lose first"?

i kinda like it
dark and morbid humor

is it true that some joke around with their infidel friends by asking them......

"how would you like to die"

..or something in that vein?

"which limb would you like to lose first"?

i kinda like it
dark and morbid humor

No idea, the Indian Hindu doctor who worked in the same hospital as I has probably completed 15 plus years by now and did not seem to find any reason to stop doing what he was doing. Our frequent tete a tetes [him being a Mumbaikar] also did not bother anyone that worked or visited there.

probably a defense mechanism

in whiteopia, "jew/jews" is as derogatory as nigger/niggers ...


I prefer "kike/kikes," though I'm just a mischling.

So did you let it known that you don't pray 5x a day, etc. or did you claim status as a foreigner and keep quite about your heresies?

Didn't bother, actually. And no one asked.

My girlffriend lived/worked in Kuwait for a couple of years. I believe that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are quite similar with respect to the, well, usual occupations (and status) of Indians, correct?

Which is what exactly? I had two Saudis, three Moroccans, one Egyptian [Christian], one Syrian, five Bengalis, four Filipinos [Christians], one Pakistani and one Indonesian working under me. Only the Filipinas were female. I reported to Riyadh.

The only one who ever objected to working under a woman was a Bangali, who I transferred to a location of his choice.

Well, in Kuwait at least, most Indians enjoy a status somewhat beneath that of, say, Mexican aliens in the U.S.--albeit legal. That is, they work in some of the most dangerous, least desirable, and nominally paying occupations, and are accordingly treated with very little respect. Perhaps Saudi Arabia is different--the concentration of capital in Kuwait is something unfathomable even to the more affluent Americans and Europeans, and so the contrast is even more striking.

I assume that Indians, like those I saw in London, are willing to do rough work for little pay and since the status of people in our society is assigned by unwillingness to get hands dirty, they are being treated in the way they would be by middle class or upper class Indians at home. They just get paid better for it. Ironically going to the Middle East to get down and dirty elevates their status on home ground where they can then look down upon the local underdogs.

I think in Saudi Arabia, there is a difference between working for the government and working for a private contractor. As a government employee I was just under royalty and frequently had to abuse my powers to bring contractors to heel in terms of workers rights and late paychecks.

Fortunately I can quote Qur'an verses with aplomb which puts them in the uncomfortable position of explaining me why they are not at fault for not following it. :p

What does it mean to its followers today?

Justification for doing whatever the fuck they want.


What do they think of their scriptures in the context of modern life and how do they conciliate the theory and practice of the Quran with modern living?

The can't. The Quran was written by men who lived the lifestyle of those times, in which myth and superstitions ruled the world.


Oh yeah only muslims should answer this as it would be interesting to know how muslims reconcile terrorism, misogyny and antiquated religious edicts with modern living.

Lies and propaganda, of course.

Well, it kinda depends on the facts of the case. Sam presents me constantly as despising muslims, whereas I'm actually critical of the involvement of the islamic religion in law, because it ends up badly for everyone else.


Justification for doing whatever the fuck they want.

MWAHAHAHAHA AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT:blbl: MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA:xctd:



The can't. The Quran was written by men who lived the lifestyle of those times, in which myth and superstitions ruled the world.
and yet it is more compatible with our world then modern systems. *sigh*



Lies and propaganda, of course.
she asked for the opinion of ONLY MUSLIMS.. you a muslim all of a sudden Q?

MWAHAHAHAHA AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT:blbl: MUAHAHAHAHAH

Not for much longer.


and yet it is more compatible with our world then modern systems.

Not in the slightest.

MWAHAHAHAHA AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT:blbl: MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA:xctd:



And how is that working out so far?

I really don't think you should be proud of the fact that there are some in your religion who are using your religion and killing innocent people because of their sexuality, sex, because they showed a bit too much skin, etc. I don't consider that "getting away with it". I consider that reverting back to the stone age.

Not exactly something you should be proud of or be boasting about.


and yet it is more compatible with our world then modern systems. *sigh*
How is it more compatible? Has it stood the test of time?

Do you think stoning someone to death is compatible with "our world" compared to "modern systems" that views such punishment as being perverted and cruel? Because there are some who share your religion who use said religion to justify such actions and punishments.


she asked for the opinion of ONLY MUSLIMS.. you a muslim all of a sudden Q?
It is an open forum. In other words, others from all walks of life and beliefs are allowed to post in this thread so long as they are members of this forum.

AND WE GET AWAY WITH IT

Yes, how unfortunate for the rest of us.



and yet it is more compatible with our world then modern systems.

And, you're lying about that for what reason?


she asked for the opinion of ONLY MUSLIMS.. you a muslim all of a sudden Q?

"Opinions" of only Muslims? There is no such thing. Muslims can't have opinions about Islam, it is prohibited.

These threads always go this way. "Is islam evil? Is islam good? Is it a perfect life system? Is it intolerant? Is it tolerant?"

Well, yes, to all the above. It can be any of these things. It has as much good in it as evil, I'm sure. It's just that there's a significant minority opinion that is not particularly tolerant, both in the Middle East - where such intolerance carries the weight of legal support - and outside, where conservative opinion may be enforced by the community itself. This isn't to say that it is uniformly intolerant, which would be absurd. But there is a significant minority opinion that desperately needs to be addressed. This would almost certainly be a long-term trend, but it's unlikely that it will be addressed, of course, either in the long term or the short term, because of the intimate associations of the religion with politics and society and sociality. There's a need for its adherents - as reformers are doing, at no small risk - to recognize the issues and errors of islam, much as Christians have been doing off and on since the Enlightenment and since Judaism has since the Judaic Enlightenment (I forget the proper term) in the 1800's. Yet, the self-labeled "moderates" here - Sam, for one - regard any criticism as a paramount evil (apologies to Zak et al).. So, what to do?

There's a need for its adherents - as reformers are doing, at no small risk - to recognize the issues and errors of islam... So, what to do?

That has been harped through these forums ad nauseum, Geoff. Yet, we have not a single Muslim here who listens. You'll quickly find that any such talk will be considered an "attack" on Islam, hence an attack on Muslims.

Well....possibly. Maybe. There are true moderates, like Zak, like inzomnia, Challenger (who's actually leaning more towards atheism these days, but still) and others. Even Straw might - when the wind blows westward - be considered a moderate on religious issues, though a staunch Iranian republicanist on others.

Well....possibly. Maybe. There are true moderates, like Zak, like inzomnia, Challenger (who's actually leaning more towards atheism these days, but still) and others. Even Straw might - when the wind blows westward - be considered a moderate on religious issues, though a staunch Iranian republicanist on others.

That's where I usually have a problem, the notion of "moderates" and "fundamentalists" within a cult.

Seems the fundamentalists are merely those who follow the tenets of their religion while the moderates decided to change the tenets to suit their agendas while back-peddling in the face of reality.

Well....possibly. Maybe. There are true moderates, like Zak, like inzomnia, Challenger (who's actually leaning more towards atheism these days, but still) and others. Even Straw might - when the wind blows westward - be considered a moderate on religious issues, though a staunch Iranian republicanist on others.

I agree with you. We have other muslims on this site who in no way, shape or form mirrors the kind of attitude shown by Sam, they generally don't troll and don't come up with bigoted insensitive bitter posts.

That's where I usually have a problem, the notion of "moderates" and "fundamentalists" within a cult.

Seems the fundamentalists are merely those who follow the tenets of their religion while the moderates decided to change the tenets to suit their agendas while back-peddling in the face of reality.

Well, you might accentuate different tenets.

Well, you might accentuate different tenets.

Again, I have a problem with that. Here's why. I would tend to think that whatever tenets were handed down from a god would not be something that can be changed or manipulated in any way. If it's from god, then who are we to fuck with his tenets?

So, I would also tend to think that "accentuating" those tenets would fall under the same category as "fucking" with those tenets. It simply is not done.

So, we're left with the conclusion that whatever tenets are handed down must be followed implicitly, with no singular tenet having any more or less validity or import than another. And, no single person or group of persons has the authority to make any changes to those tenets. Only god would have that authority.

If they were written down as tenets, sure. What if they were written down as allegories and suggestions?

I mean how would you follow this?

1. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
2. Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the world;
3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
5. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
6. Show us the straight way,
7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace,
those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Again, I have a problem with that. Here's why. I would tend to think that whatever tenets were handed down from a god would not be something that can be changed or manipulated in any way. If it's from god, then who are we to fuck with his tenets?

So, I would also tend to think that "accentuating" those tenets would fall under the same category as "fucking" with those tenets. It simply is not done.

So, we're left with the conclusion that whatever tenets are handed down must be followed implicitly, with no singular tenet having any more or less validity or import than another. And, no single person or group of persons has the authority to make any changes to those tenets. Only god would have that authority.

Maybe so, but He also countenances tolerance and compassion in my Scriptures, so ultimately I'll talk my chances. Sorry I don't have time for a longer answer; busy today. :( I even have to stop arguing with Sam.

Not for much longer.
lol we haven't eve started:D..




Not in the slightest.
have you read the thread heh heh heh?


but on a different note, bells seem not to catch the sarcasm..



And how is that working out so far?

I really don't think you should be proud of the fact that there are some in your religion who are using your religion and killing innocent people because of their sexuality, sex, because they showed a bit too much skin, etc. I don't consider that "getting away with it". I consider that reverting back to the stone age.

Not exactly something you should be proud of or be boasting about.

so you really think what islam means to muslims is:
Justification for doing whatever the fuck they want.

because if you thought my reply to Q meant that i agree with him, then you're wrong.
and even if that is what it means to me, you're talking as if muslims are actually fulfilling even one percent of that wish, who are you kidding people? muslims are doing whatever the fuck they want? isn't it whatever the fuck is what's been done to muslims? are muslims even allowed to decide on what they teach their kids at schools, do charity work, practice their laws, choose how to wear and where to pray, without being called terrorists? without being sent to Guantanamo if they're lucky? without being murdered in a law court in front of everybody? without having to take an exra one hour check in airports? without having their countries invaded and bombed and their people killed and slaughtered and tortured and humiliated, while those who do this to them are deciding not to eat chicken anymore, because killing chicklets is too horrible?
who the F*** are you all kidding?


How is it more compatible? Has it stood the test of time?
you tell me..


Do you think stoning someone to death is compatible with "our world" compared to "modern systems" that views such punishment as being perverted and cruel? Because there are some who share your religion who use said religion to justify such actions and punishments.
go read the thread heh heh heh, i'm tired of repeating myself.


It is an open forum. In other words, others from all walks of life and beliefs are allowed to post in this thread so long as they are members of this forum.

no one said they're not allowed, the starter of the thread has asked a question, was specific to who it was asked, and requested that others don't interfere, if you choose to use your "right" to post in such thread despite that then it gives a clearer image of the amount of respect you hold to yourself and others on this forum.

so you really think what islam means to muslims is:
because if you thought my reply to Q meant that i agree with him, then you're wrong.
and even if that is what it means to me, you're talking as if muslims are actually fulfilling even one percent of that wish, who are you kidding people? muslims are doing whatever the fuck they want? isn't it whatever the fuck is what's been done to muslims? are muslims even allowed to decide on what they teach their kids at schools, do charity work, practice their laws, choose how to wear and where to pray, without being called terrorists? without being sent to Guantanamo if they're lucky? without being murdered in a law court in front of everybody? without having to take an exra one hour check in airports? without having their countries invaded and bombed and their people killed and slaughtered and tortured and humiliated, while those who do this to them are deciding not to eat chicken anymore, because killing chicklets is too horrible?
who the F*** are you all kidding?

But you are using a Sam strategy here which is to take Bells words out of context and then assume that what she says is irrelevant and what muslims do that may not be in their own or others interest as irrelevant because of a random number of abuses. This is like excusing crime because someone was hit by mommy and daddy when they were a child. Or its like saying that if a black person decided to seek revenge or cause havoc its their right because they suffered from slavery and discrimination. Its a rubbish argument. You also do not keep any of these examples within a specific context so anyone can respond to them. For example in what are muslims unable to teach their kids whatever they want in school? Within what context are you referring to muslims wearing whatever they want? I would ask you if you believe Danish journalists have the right to depict mohammed however they want in their own newspapers in their own country within the parameters of the laws which their nation allows. I can think of the same number of grievances the West would have against muslims but you would not agree that this is a reason for the west to behave any way they want.

because if you thought my reply to Q meant that i agree with him, then you're wrong.
and even if that is what it means to me, you're talking as if muslims are actually fulfilling even one percent of that wish, who are you kidding people? muslims are doing whatever the fuck they want? isn't it whatever the fuck is what's been done to muslims? are muslims even allowed to decide on what they teach their kids at schools, do charity work, practice their laws, choose how to wear and where to pray, without being called terrorists? without being sent to Guantanamo if they're lucky? without being murdered in a law court in front of everybody? without having to take an exra one hour check in airports? without having their countries invaded and bombed and their people killed and slaughtered and tortured and humiliated, while those who do this to them are deciding not to eat chicken anymore, because killing chicklets is too horrible?
who the F*** are you all kidding?
Oh, I know you were not agreeing with him. But your post is, as Lucy pointed out so well, weak.

But do tell us. Are Muslims who live in Islamic countries allowed to wear what they want? Learn what they want from school? Read whatever book they want? Watch whatever show they want on TV? Are women in Afghanistan allowed to say "no" to their husbands without risking starvation? Do tell Scifes..

Do you think Muslims who hide behind their religion as justification to abuse women and children, deny basic human rights to other Muslims, who murder anyone who dares to show some sense of individuality or free choice.. should such Muslims be 'allowed to get away with it?' Should your religion be used as a justification for such crimes? And should you be proud of it?

I don't boast about what happens in Gitmo, because what happens in Gitmo is a crime and a human rights nightmare. I don't sit there and do a smiley face and say 'we're getting away with it', as though all the bad that comes with the good of your religion is somehow equal in being acceptable. When the reality is that it is not acceptable to dig a hole in the ground and stone someone to death, just as it is unacceptable to lock up children in Gitmo. But you boast about one and condemn the other.

Your hypocrisy is amusing if the subject matter were not so god damn serious.

So I need to ask you. Who the fuck are you kidding?


you tell me..
You made the claim that it has. And I am asking you how exactly. Making a statement of fact and then telling others to justify your claim when others question you about said claims is silly.


no one said they're not allowed, the starter of the thread has asked a question, was specific to who it was asked, and requested that others don't interfere, if you choose to use your "right" to post in such thread despite that then it gives a clearer image of the amount of respect you hold to yourself and others on this forum.
I would question the respect you have for others on this forum.

lol we haven't eve started:D..

And ended so soon! Sad, really.


have you read the thread heh heh heh?

Yes I have hee hee hee!

Yes I have hee hee hee!

Can I just say, the mental image of you giggling is a tad disconcerting.

It's more of a cackle.

I have to do something in the volcano, you know.

It's more of a cackle.

I have to do something in the volcano, you know.

Then we should be thankful it is just a cackle and not you belching murderous gas.:D

We do that in the secret detention room. Down the hall from the Sharks With Frickin Lazer Beams Attached To Their Heads, past the water fountain, door on the right, can't miss it. Although you would probably want to.

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Sharks_With_Frickin_Laser_Beams_Attached_To_Their_ Heads

What is Islam?

Well, was there an answer in here somewhere?

I like to think about Slavery, because as in Institution and a practice slavery used to be "Islamic". Many many MANY Muslims made a living selling African Slaves. Especially Arab Muslims but also a lot of Turkish and Kurdish Muslims. Jews too. Lots of Jews made money selling Slaves. Mohammad, character in a book or not, owned Slaves.

It was the norm for Muslims.
It was therefor Islamic.

I don't think you could find to many, if any at all, Muslims who think Slavery is "Islamic" today. Most Muslims would say no it isn't Islamic. What they mean is it isn't moral behavior. And accordingly Muslim apologists therefor have to revise what it meant for Mohammad to own Slaves. Or to take other humans as Slaves as war booty.

So, why did so-called Muslim nations ban Slavery? They didn't. Western nations pressured them to do so, because Western nations had decided it was no longer Christian. Before the modern era Slavery was perfectly Christian behavior.

This is the big problem facing Muslim countries today. They are a bit backwards relative to the rest of the world. They don't lead the word in much of anything. The so-called Western nations do. Imagine what that's like? To have a 6th century ideology that is constantly criticized by the West AND from within by Muslims (which is a good thing). It's causing a lot of the problems we have today.

What is Islam?

You should see how modern ME countries were 40 years ago. More modern than now! Too bad really. It's a shame. meh... anyway.




From an outsider looking in on Islam, to me, Islam looks to be about 80% a sixth century branch of Arab Christianity. Mohammad as "THE" Last Prophet is simply icing on a Christian Cake (lots of flavor but no ideological substance) makes up about 20% (IMO).

So, Islam is 6th century Arab Christianity.

- The Qur'an is in essentially the Bible. All the important ideological stuff (one God, Adam and Eve, Satan, what's right and wrong, it's all Biblical).
- Mosques are smaller version of Hagia Sophia (itself the largest Church in the world for 1000 years).

However, Mohammad has taken on the role of demi-God. I've known Muslims who just pray directly to Mohammad. Now I see Mohammad as a literary creation. But, that's not really all that important. what is important is what people THINK his actions were. Because Mohammad was modeled on what was considered good Nomadic Arab behavior - THIS is a the problem with Islam and the modern world. What was good behavior in the 6th century, for a Nomad, isn't good behavior now - it's probably BAD and immoral behavior.

Many Muslims think Mohammad
- chopped off 900 Jews heads.
- ordered a singing girl to have her head chopped off.
- had a 9 year wife.
- waged war in the name of god.
- destroyed Temples to other people's Gods.
- was a polygamist.
- hold slaves.
- took women in battle for sex

etc...


See, this is the problem with cults of personality. Their ideology is based somewhere else (in this case Christianity) so that only leaves the actions of Dear Leader to delineate the so-called New (or Perfected) Ideology. Islamic apologist have their work cut out for them. But, then again, so did Christian apologist. AND it's not that every tiny little nail needs to be flattened down. Just enough to that society becomes stable and wealthy. At the point people will naturally become moderate. And a couple generations from there become secular.


Lastly, about Islam, it might be good to think, what are some good Islamic ideals that will fit well in the modern world? Because I think that's important to think about.


Michael


Just one little note here, about Mohammad taking the 9 year old bride. OK, a lot of people think he was a pedo. But, that's not the case. Mohammad didn't surround himself with little girls. The reason the people who created the literary character who is Mohammad, as having a young bride, was because back them being a virgin (and having a virgin for a wife) was paramount. So, they made sure the girl was so young, that she MUST have been a virgin. This story probably had Persia authors I think. As lineage was more important when it came to who gets to be Emperor, then it would have been to a "real" Mohammad. So, you can see how its not all that hard to be an Muslim apologist. I expect "Islam" to likewise be modified and move with the times.

If they were written down as tenets, sure. What if they were written down as allegories and suggestions?

They were, and are called Aesops Fables and Grimms Fairy Tales.


I mean how would you follow this?

1. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
2. Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the world;
3. Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
5. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
6. Show us the straight way,
7. The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace,
those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Completely insane gibberish. Loss of mind. Unfathomable ignorance, oppression and fear.

Maybe so, but He also countenances tolerance and compassion in my Scriptures, so ultimately I'll talk my chances.

Your scriptures? How many scriptures are out there purporting a one and only single god?

That's quite the chance your taking. Odds don't seem to be with you, though. :p

who are you kidding people? muslims are doing whatever the fuck they want?

Yes, they are. They make demands, often rioting in the streets by forcing their intolerant beliefs on other societies.


isn't it whatever the fuck is what's been done to muslims?

Nothing has been done to Muslims.


are muslims even allowed to decide on what they teach their kids at schools, do charity work, practice their laws, choose how to wear and where to pray, without being called terrorists?

The people decide those things, not Islam.


without being sent to Guantanamo if they're lucky? without being murdered in a law court in front of everybody? without having to take an exra one hour check in airports? without having their countries invaded and bombed and their people killed and slaughtered and tortured and humiliated, while those who do this to them are deciding not to eat chicken anymore, because killing chicklets is too horrible?
who the F*** are you all kidding?

Who are you trying to kid? Stop with all the bullshit, already.

That's where I usually have a problem, the notion of "moderates" and "fundamentalists" within a cult. I agree, but, if we organize the cult/religion in such a way so that the fundamentals are in sync with moral behavior, then it should be OK for both the fundi and the moderate AND the non-believer AND the other believer.

Nothing has been done to Muslims.

Indeed

Indeed

Indeedy-do. Whatever you may assume has been done, Muslims have brought in on themselves.

Your scriptures? How many scriptures are out there purporting a one and only single god?

These are my Scriptures.
There are many like them but these ones are mine.
Without my Scriptures, I am useless.
Without me...well, the concept of a personal God doesn't go quite that far. That's all I'm saying.
Maybe I'm integral or maybe I don't matter.
Up to the believer.


That's quite the chance your taking. Odds don't seem to be with you, though. :p

Ah! but it is my chance to take. ;)

These are my Scriptures.
There are many like them but these ones are mine.
Without my Scriptures, I am useless.

Full Metal Scriptures? :D


Ah! but it is my chance to take. ;)

But, what does that say about mankind and our obligation to it? Don't you think you're being somewhat selfish with your beliefs. I mean, they do tend to alienate you from the rest of the world, yes?

Indeedy-do. Whatever you may assume has been done, Muslims have brought in on themselves.

Like this kid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVEdKbn2Q4U&feature=related) here

Like this kid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVEdKbn2Q4U&feature=related) here

You are one sad individual, Sam. Pathetic.

You are one sad individual, Sam. Pathetic.

Yeah, I'm the sad individual here. You're of course, blissfully indifferent.


Indeedy-do. Whatever you may assume has been done, Muslims have brought in on themselves.

Maybe you might want to spend a few hours with that kid and learn how she brought upon herself the melting to death of her two sisters, while plotting the self-derived state of affairs upon her own body.

Send her any teddy bears yet?

You are one sad individual, Sam. Pathetic.

*sigh* Send the kid a teddy bear already so the world will know how badly you feel. A real sign that you care:rolleyes:

I should have known that foreign policy would resort to this.

Full Metal Scriptures? :D

Maybe my daddy didn't love me enough. :shrug:


But, what does that say about mankind and our obligation to it? Don't you think you're being somewhat selfish with your beliefs. I mean, they do tend to alienate you from the rest of the world, yes?

Well, why should they? I don't mean anyone any harm...except maybe Happeh, who should probably be preventing from breeding just because, as you understand...and my beliefs, while odd, are certainly interesting. Look at the discussion they generate!

Look at it this way: at the worst, for my impression personally (though I...er...gather there have been a few problems from some of my earlier co-religionists :shy;) my beliefs are a harmless anachronisms. I love anachronisms! I like to watch them bash each other over the head at medieval festivals. A little harmless diversity of opinion - so long as it's understood harmlessly - is a harmless thing.

In all seriousness, I don't feel alienated from the world; in fact I feel a more urgent drive to benefit mankind. And selfish? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we all are. I can't say for sure all the dread and damnation so earnestly cited in the NT is going to come to pass, and I hope to hell (so to speak) that it doesn't, if we want to be literal.

ok, so Q throws a general stupid post, i reply to it as if it was A, bells replies to me as if it was B.

A being that "doing whatever they want" is to others, others as in other nations. politics.

B being in how they treat each other, or how and what rules islam applies to them.


But you are using a Sam strategy here which is to take Bells words out of context and then assume that what she says is irrelevant and what muslims do that may not be in their own or others interest as irrelevant because of a random number of abuses. This is like excusing crime because someone was hit by mommy and daddy when they were a child. Or its like saying that if a black person decided to seek revenge or cause havoc its their right because they suffered from slavery and discrimination. Its a rubbish argument. You also do not keep any of these examples within a specific context so anyone can respond to them. For example in what are muslims unable to teach their kids whatever they want in school? Within what context are you referring to muslims wearing whatever they want? I would ask you if you believe Danish journalists have the right to depict mohammed however they want in their own newspapers in their own country within the parameters of the laws which their nation allows. I can think of the same number of grievances the West would have against muslims but you would not agree that this is a reason for the west to behave any way they want.
i think your note on how i took her words out of context are the most relavent..

as for "random number of abuses", well that's a card that can be played by anyone..but the general trend of reality now is that muslims are abused by others, an abuse that makes any back lash negligible, to say the least, muslims' abuse isn't done on a nation's scale. and to round this up, we're talking about NOW..



Oh, I know you were not agreeing with him. But your post is, as Lucy pointed out so well, weak.

But do tell us. Are Muslims who live in Islamic countries allowed to wear what they want? Learn what they want from school? Read whatever book they want? Watch whatever show they want on TV? Are women in Afghanistan allowed to say "no" to their husbands without risking starvation? Do tell Scifes..
you seem to think you know the answers to those questions, and showing you wrong will be fruitless..


Do you think Muslims who hide behind their religion as justification to abuse women and children, deny basic human rights to other Muslims, who murder anyone who dares to show some sense of individuality or free choice.. should such Muslims be 'allowed to get away with it?' Should your religion be used as a justification for such crimes? And should you be proud of it?

this is dumber than dumb.
i understand holding a code's moral values in question when applied to others who don't go by said code...

but questioning the moralities of a code when applied to people who chose it for themselves??

no and holding them as crimes?

and asking those crimes to stop?

are you telling us we don't have the right to be immoral and savage to ourselves? to those who choose to be of us? we don't have the RIGHT to? it's either be with you or nothing? either succumb to the depths of your civilized free modern democratic filth or nothing? weren't satisfied enough shedding your humanity and moral values off yourselves and becoming animals, but want us to follow you too?

so now what, we don't have the right to be muslims???oh no no no, we're free!! we're modern and civilized! we run by democracy..of course you can be muslims, ANYONE can be a muslim if they want to, we might become muslims too actually..

but uh, first we need a couple modifications..

well go screw yourself, islam is how it is and will stay so to it's followers, spare us your saving ideas of concern, save yourselves without opening our book every once in a while and copying us, just try to function like a goddamn society that isn't running downhill on a mono cycle with a flat triangular tire.

and enjoy it while it lasts,as we will have to save YOU one day..uh, maybe forcefully..


I don't boast about what happens in Gitmo, because what happens in Gitmo is a crime and a human rights nightmare. I don't sit there and do a smiley face and say 'we're getting away with it', as though all the bad that comes with the good of your religion is somehow equal in being acceptable. When the reality is that it is not acceptable to dig a hole in the ground and stone someone to death, just as it is unacceptable to lock up children in Gitmo. But you boast about one and condemn the other.
people turn themselves to get in that hole.
people don't turn themselves to gitmo.

four people must see with their bare eyes, a dick going in a pussy, of a man and woman who aren't married, directly; no "i though i saw it" or "the bed was shaking"...to get in that hole.

what if they were lovers? well they should get married..what if they're assholes who loved but didn't want to get married? well such assholes shouldn't have been muslims.

and the hole is only for married adultery,if they're not married then it's not the hole, it's the whip.

gitmo.. you just dissappear off the face of the earth, to a place on no map, no lawyer, no law, no charge, only pure torture.

going in a whole has been done for 1400 years, gitmo and the kidnappings to it, that paper bush signed for the CIA, has been around for what? 10 years?


when was the last time you saw a guy in that hole?
when was the last time you seen the lucky guys in orange?

Your hypocrisy is amusing if the subject matter were not so god damn serious.
a post by Q is "so god damn serious"?
i really wanna hear the jokes you think are funny, wonder if i won't faint of laughter from the first one.

So I need to ask you. Who the fuck are you kidding?

:shrug:

You made the claim that it has. And I am asking you how exactly. Making a statement of fact and then telling others to justify your claim when others question you about said claims is silly.
highest conversion rates, with the handicap of a mutilated image, letmee see you get around that?

it's amongst the poor and uneducated? show me statistics.

actually jump that, are conversion rates amongst the educated more to islam or atheism?
why are you still an atheist then?


I would question the respect you have for others on this forum.
if someone started a thread saying "ony atheists should answer" i have enough dignity and respect not to, which seems to be where we're different.

all this fiasco of misunderstanding wouldn't have happened if q hadn't tried to be funny and answer them, and you too rigid to take the joke as it was.

Attacking the fabric of religious and cultural differences is a requirement to prejudice the people against the said "race" and also to anesthesize them against the effects of military terror used against them.

Note how much things like the veil weigh on the minds of people as compared to the invasion and occupation of the people wearing them.

The logic is something like this:

While African bushwomen enjoy the right to go around bare-breasted, women in NYC have to hide their beautiful tits under a bra and a shirt even under the scorching summer sun and with the temperature at 40 degrees centigrade.

Something is very wrong with a society that subjects its women to such a torture. It’s time to nuke the United States of America.

Feeling so compassionate about the victims that you have to kill them.

Actually, it's perfectly legal in New York city for women to walk around topless.

Then substitute men with hard-ons. Whatever.

If women had the choice to wear the veil or not, I would not complain. However, they are compelled under threat of harsh penalty to the extent that even visiting western journalists must wear it too.

Indeed its the law in some places. Which women of that country should be able to fight against if they disagree with it. Much like gay marriages or right to an abortion or the right to teach creationism in school or the right to stop saying God in oaths or the right to kill Santa Claus or the right to circumcise or not circumcise or the right to want a demographic of one race over others, etc. However unless they start liberating women in other countries by bombing them into wearing veils or occupy or disposses them for belonging to a race that does not wear one, its really a simple matter of cultural differences

:mad:
HOW DARE YOU!!


Attacking the fabric of religious
what fabric? we know your religion more than you do, we KNOW it's bad, and good smart educated criticalpeople of great numbers following it means nothing but that they're all evil too, how else could it be?


and cultural differences
playing with words are we?
it's not culture, it's right and wrong.


is a requirement to prejudice the people against the said "race" and also to anesthesize them against the effects of military terror used against them.
against?
but we are liberating you!!
we break down your door with our feet with an invit...oh where did i put it..well my invitation is back home, i forgot it, but i can write myself another one if it makes any difference with you..the point is we're here to save you, exactly like we saved ourselves..you see that's why we're here at your door..


Note how much things like the veil weigh on the minds of people as compared to the invasion and occupation of the people wearing them.
we cross half the world treading as lightly as we can -disturbing nobody- to have you run around with lighter heads and that's the thanks we get?


The logic is something like this:
that's a very good one:D

Indeed its the law in some places. Which women of that country should be able to fight against if they disagree with it. However unless they start liberating women in other countries by bombing them into wearing veils or occupy or disposses them for belonging to a race that does not wear one, its really a simple matter of cultural differences

But they do exactly that. Fundamentalist Muslims bomb people that conflict with their strict interpretations of Islam. They are busy dispossessing non-Muslim Africans in Darfur and trying to dispossess moderate Muslims in Afghanistan.

note that it could be the other way around too, which is the way -regardless of what truly the case is- the US, and hence the world's media prefer it to be.

But they do exactly that. Fundamentalist Muslims bomb people that conflict with their strict interpretations of Islam. They are busy dispossessing non-Muslim Africans in Darfur and trying to dispossess moderate Muslims in Afghanistan.

How do you know which one is dispossessing which one?

Kill Santa Clause:D

How does one kill that which has no life?

However unless they start liberating women in other countries by bombing them into wearing veils or occupy or disposses them for belonging to a race that does not wear one, its really a simple matter of cultural differences So the argument seems to be: even serious oppression of women is not as bad as dropping bombs on them, therefore the varieties of female oppression are merely simple cultural differences, carry no weight of ethical value, cannot be compared as right or wrong, good or bad, even better or worse.

So the argument seems to be: even serious oppression of women is not as bad as dropping bombs on them, therefore the varieties of female oppression are merely simple cultural differences, carry no weight of ethical value, cannot be compared as right or wrong, good or bad, even better or worse.

Based on my personal experience, I would say that women wearing veils in Islam [which is probably about 5-10% of Muslim women overall] are as as oppressed as women wearing any other piece of clothing rather than going naked. By your criteria the only free women would be those in Girls Gone Wild or other porn actresses.

How many women want to be them?

Based on my personal experience, I would say that women wearing veils in Islam [which is probably about 5-10% of Muslim women overall] are as as oppressed as women wearing any other piece of clothing rather than going naked. Your perceptions and understandings are at issue, not your experience.

For starters, never mind the veil - flagrant as it is.

For starters, never mind the veil - flagrant as it is.

Exactly, never mind the veil, because that is a cultural difference, I wore one there and was treated better than I was without one in the States. Look at other issues, the ones that are not [culturally defined]

Exactly, never mind the veil, because that is a cultural difference, I wore one there and was treated better than I was without one in the States. The mandatory veil is a flagrant oppression, and treating some of the oppressed well does not change this.

By your criteria the only free women would be those in Girls Gone Wild or other porn actresses. Where did porn come into this?

Why was that irrelevancy your chosen comparison?

For that matter, why would it matter how many women wanted to do this or that?

The mandatory veil is a flagrant oppression, and treating some of the oppressed well does not change this.

Probably, as I already acknowledged. But its far far faaaaar lower on the scale of priority for any woman than the invasion and occupation of her country to bring her "backward" society into line. In fact, it seems to have rather the opposite effect, from historical precedent



Where did porn come into this?

Why was that irrelevancy your chosen comparison?

For that matter, why would it matter how many women wanted to do this or that?

It would unless you think what women want is irrelevant to their society.

I suppose it depends on the woman. Sam you obviously need a burka made of jute.

But the real issue is the being required to wear something. People who have a choice and choose to wear stupid is one thing. People forced to wear stupid or be killed or maimed, that is another.

I just got a kurti made of Jute will that do? :p

What about people forced to be stupid and kill or get killed?

Yeah, I'm the sad individual here.

Yes, you are, as if your attempts at putting up pics and vids of children is somehow supposed to support your bigotry and hatred. You're worse than the JD's who show up at my doorstep with their kids to promote their cult.



Maybe you might want to spend a few hours with that kid and learn how she brought upon herself the melting to death of her two sisters, while plotting the self-derived state of affairs upon her own body.

And, maybe you should be honest, but it would appear that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Ever notice how the men most against the veil are also likely to be the ones who blame the victims for having brought it upon themselves?

I think all the religions in the world should be ranked by an impartial observer under the category Contemporary. For the sake of argument the modern era arrived after WWII ended. Where would Islam be on the contemporary scale? I seem to think prejudices would automatically tar and feather Islam for what some may call antiquated customs and traditions. Also the standard for contemporary would be different for Muslims, Xians, Jews, etc. But from an impartial perspective, perhaps a panel of representatives of each religion in the world taking into account the general overall picture, how would Islam rank? Nah...not very impartial. Perhaps an atheist panel. Who is #1?

Ever notice how the men most against the veil are also likely to be the ones who blame the victims for having brought it upon themselves?

Er...like uncovered meat?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

He's against the veil?

Er...like uncovered meat?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

From the article (quoting mufti)
He said women were "weapons" used by "Satan" to control men.

Well honestly, if this is a known fact then why aren't men capable of recognizing it? Surely a devout religious man would love to thumb his nose at Satan. I suggest that all attractive and alluring women be the male atheist's problem, he's going to hell anyway.

He's against the veil?

Hehe. Classic avoidance. He blames the victim.

Hehe. Classic avoidance. He blames the victim.

Reading comprehension -1


Ever notice how the men most against the veil are also likely to be the ones who blame the victims for having brought it upon themselves?

Reading comprehension -1

WOW. Reading comprehension -10. He's for the veil. He blames the victim. Tell you what: illustrate which in those two things is the real dependent variable and which the independent. Good luck!

WOW. Reading comprehension -10. He's for the veil. He blames the victim. Tell you what: illustrate which in those two things is the real dependent variable and which the independent. Good luck!

According to Wren and Martin, "more likely to" is not all encompassing.

According to Steel and Torrie, "more likely to" suggests a correlation. A meme you advanced yourself! This is a great thread.

Indeed. And correlation is not causation.

girlfriend
you are so clever!

Indeed. And correlation is not causation. Correlation was your choice. It is being disputed, by an example implying generality for those of us familiar with the type.

But I'm willing to fill in a bit of your argument for you, hinting at mechanism of causation:

Probably, as I already acknowledged. But its far far faaaaar lower on the scale of priority for any woman than the invasion and occupation of her country to bring her "backward" society into line It's debatable how far lower on the scale of priority it is, considered as a symptom of the actual situation in which it is possible.


It would unless you think what women want is irrelevant to their society. That was you, denigrating what you presume few women want as no aspect of freedom for the rest.

Ever notice how the men most against the veil are also likely to be the ones who blame the victims for having brought it upon themselves? The blamers of victims tend to seize on the victims' wrong-doing for justification of their own evils. That doesn't excuse the victims' wrong-doing - if any, a separate issue.

And this is still hanging:
Where did porn come into this?

Why was that irrelevancy your chosen comparison?

Indeed. And correlation is not causation.

And so your entire argument was spurious. It was akin to asking us to gaze on the daisies, and note how yellow they seemed in the dusk light. Fine as a statement, but then meaningless, no?

What is Islam, a plagiarism.

It is a straight plagiarism of the Torah, New Testament, and Gnostic beliefs, with Mohammed taking the place of Joseph, Moses and Jesus, almost story for story.

...which are all in turn plagarisms of previous myths of virgin births, prophecies, dying and resurrecting, and miracles.

And so your entire argument was spurious. It was akin to asking us to gaze on the daisies, and note how yellow they seemed in the dusk light. Fine as a statement, but then meaningless, no?

Pay attention. One is accepting his own culture and rejecting another. One is denigrating women no matter what they wear, too much or too little, its all their fault.

What is Islam, a plagiarism.

It is a straight plagiarism of the Torah, New Testament, and Gnostic beliefs, with Mohammed taking the place of Joseph, Moses and Jesus, almost story for story.


...which are all in turn plagarisms of previous myths of virgin births, prophecies, dying and resurrecting, and miracles.

Does anyone have an education these days?

plagiarism:Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard of the Book of God, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what God revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers. 5:44

The Apostle believes in what is sent down to him from his Lord, and the believers all believe on God, and His angels, and His Books, and His apostles,- we make no difference between any of His apostles,- they say, 'We hear and obey, Thy pardon, O Lord! for to Thee our journey tends. 2:285

Say , 'We believe in God, and what has been revealed to thee, and what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and what was given to Moses, and Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord,- we will make no distinction between any of them,- and we are unto Him resigned. 3:84

Does anyone have an education these days?

plagiarism:Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard of the Book of God, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what God revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers. 5:44

The Apostle believes in what is sent down to him from his Lord, and the believers all believe on God, and His angels, and His Books, and His apostles,- we make no difference between any of His apostles,- they say, 'We hear and obey, Thy pardon, O Lord! for to Thee our journey tends. 2:285

Say , 'We believe in God, and what has been revealed to thee, and what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and what was given to Moses, and Jesus, and the prophets from their Lord,- we will make no distinction between any of them,- and we are unto Him resigned. 3:84

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [lawlessness].

my Father which is in heaven


2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

And yet Christians today have substituted a man for God and sublimated Jesus for Paul.

Deuteronomy 4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.
25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.
28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Dueling psalms.

Yeah ain't it fun? :D