[quote]Gkhan wrote:
It was 115 before my last post.[/quote]
Aw dude. It was a joke. Post count is irrelevant, it’s post quality.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Hey, mafzal4, I did reply to your posts. You responded to me by saying I edited my posts.
You got a problem, show me proof, take it up with the Mods, or STFU.
I don’t care if have credibility on the Political Thread of a Bodybuilding site.
[/quote]
“I don’t care if have credibility on the Political Thread of a Bodybuilding site.”
That is precisely your problem.
Also, reply to the issues raised in my earlier posts - I’ve raised many issues, not just the one about you being a liar.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The other monotheisms are either far too insignificant or so hidden that it doesn’t matter (Hinduism, for example).[/quote]
Care to elaborate on that?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
lixy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Can a guy not only divorce but proclaim the marriage to be null and void because the woman lied about her status of virginity? (the quran forbids fucking out of wedlock)
I think this fits well into the discussion because ultimately monotheism is about debasing woman and restricing their sexuality.
Did you read the article?
Le vice-président du conseil régional du culte musulman du Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Abdelkader Assouedj, souligne que si “l’islam n’exige pas que l’épouse soit vierge”, il demande que le mariage ne soit pas “basé sur le mensonge”.
Translation: The head of the Islamic council insisted that while “Islam doesn’t require the spouse to be virgin”, it demands that the union not be “based on lies”.
I don’t give a shit.
Have you read my post? No sex out of wedlock.
No fornicating without a spouse.
Who wants (of course only female) leftovers in your society? Not many, especially not the traditional families.
The courts have to protect women.
If they don’t, hymen reconstruction surgeons will make a fortune. And the lying will go on.
You know, woman like to fuck, too.[/quote]
Ha! I think you need to re-read his post.
You wrote:
"No sex out of wedlock.
No fornicating without a spouse. "
He wrote:
Translation: The head of the Islamic council insisted that while “Islam doesn’t require the spouse to be virgin”, it demands that the union not be “based on lies”.
Oh and, I’m in a traditonal family. My cousin was in a previous marriage, has had sex, had a divorce, and is re-married to another traditional family to their son who has never been married.
Issues like that vary from person to person - lets stick to talking about what Islam tells Muslms to do/not to do – not talk about what some people and what some people don’t do. That involves many other personal factors beyond just religion (their own upbringing, prejudice, etc)
[quote]mafzal4 wrote:
Translation: The head of the Islamic council insisted that while “Islam doesn’t require the spouse to be virgin”, it demands that the union not be “based on lies”.
Issues like that vary from person to person - lets stick to talking about what Islam tells Muslms to do/not to do [/quote]
So, should we believe what the head of the Islamic council says or not? I thought Muslims could read the Koran and interpret it for themselves. That being the case, if this is indeed true, I guess it would vary person to person.
What does Islam tell the Muslims about marrying a virgin? Is a woman not allowed to have sex out of wed-lock? Is a woman being a virgin a requirement for marriage? Or is the head of the Islamic council correct and the bottom line is you can have pre-maritial sex, just be honest about it if you do?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, should we believe what the head of the Islamic council says or not? I thought Muslims could read the Koran and interpret it for themselves. That being the case, if this is indeed true, I guess it would vary person to person.
What does Islam tell the Muslims about marrying a virgin? Is a woman not allowed to have sex out of wed-lock? Is a woman being a virgin a requirement for marriage? Or is the head of the Islamic council correct and the bottom line is you can have pre-maritial sex, just be honest about it if you do?
[/quote]
Women nor men are allowed to have sex out of wed-lock.
Women nor the man have to be a virgin in order to be married (ex: they could be divorced from a previous marriage , etc)
I didn’t take the Islamic council’s message that way. I took it as though both parties are by default expected to be virgins, but if something happened before (like a previous marriage) that should be made known before. But you have also a fair analysis of what they wrote - which shows that one needs to be very specific and careful about things like this.
I’m not sure what they meant exactly (as per your query about pre-marital sex and it being okay if it was made known) to tell you the truth.
Hope taht helped.
[quote]mafzal4 wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
So, should we believe what the head of the Islamic council says or not? I thought Muslims could read the Koran and interpret it for themselves. That being the case, if this is indeed true, I guess it would vary person to person.
What does Islam tell the Muslims about marrying a virgin? Is a woman not allowed to have sex out of wed-lock? Is a woman being a virgin a requirement for marriage? Or is the head of the Islamic council correct and the bottom line is you can have pre-maritial sex, just be honest about it if you do?
Women nor men are allowed to have sex out of wed-lock.
Women nor the man have to be a virgin in order to be married (ex: they could be divorced from a previous marriage , etc)
I didn’t take the Islamic council’s message that way. I took it as though both parties are by default expected to be virgins, but if something happened before (like a previous marriage) that should be made known before. But you have also a fair analysis of what they wrote - which shows that one needs to be very specific and careful about things like this.
I’m not sure what they meant exactly (as per your query about pre-marital sex and it being okay if it was made known) to tell you the truth.
Hope taht helped.[/quote]
It should also be pointed out that the position of the Islamic council is uncontroversial. I do not know of any Muslim that will argue against what that guy said.
Schwarz wants the French courts to protect a liar, and that is wishful thinking. I seriously doubt the case would have been treated differently in Germany.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
More and more I become convinced the courts and the state shouldn’t recognize any “marriages.” [/quote]
I think so too. There is a reason religion and government should be separated and those two come way to close when it comes to marriage.
I also do not think it is the governments job to subsidize certain forms of human relationships.
edited
[quote]orion wrote:
I also do not think it is the governments job to subsidize certain forms of human relationships.[/quote]
This is very true. Despite what the puritanical nut jobs may say, this more than anything has contributed to the breakdown of the family unit.
[quote]orion wrote:
I also do not think it is the governments job to subsidize certain forms of human relationships. [/quote]
Very good point. It’s a shame that this is almost never challenged.
“Schwarz wants the French courts to protect a liar, and that is wishful thinking.”
Superior bullshit. Why don’t you read what I posted?
He doesn’t want a divorce. He wants an annulment because of religious crap. Girls cannot fuck in Islam OUT OF WEDLOCK, while boys can. That is, in a nutshell, the problem. Because of this, practically all girls have to lie. He should know, as he probably has fucked around himself.
We’re talking about hymen fixation here. If everyone can get rid of a spouse that easily, we can forget the concept of divorce altogether.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The other monotheisms are either far too insignificant or so hidden that it doesn’t matter (Hinduism, for example).
Care to elaborate on that?[/quote]
Many Hindus believe in a concept of “one god”. It’s just another way to look at their chief gods. They have even something similar like the catholic “trinity”. They have little problem with monotheists because they can view it as a form of Shiva or Vishnu worship, albeit in a different form. (And this is OK to them, which is, in my opinion, the really BIG difference between them and us bloodthirsty dickheads)
I could go here into details, but it’s a lot of stuff and you’d fare better just to pick up a few books on your own.
Hinduism comes on a lot of forms and shapes. Some even say there wasn’t a real coherent Hinduism before the British came, who involuntarily sort of unified it in order to understand and control it better.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
“Schwarz wants the French courts to protect a liar, and that is wishful thinking.”
Superior bullshit. Why don’t you read what I posted?
He doesn’t want a divorce. He wants an annulment because of religious crap. Girls cannot fuck in Islam OUT OF WEDLOCK, while boys can. That is, in a nutshell, the problem. [/quote]
What kind of crap is that? Fornication is heavily discouraged in Islam regardless of sex. You know, just like other monotheistic religions.
It’s a bloody contract. It has nothing to do with religion. Maybe the dude didn’t like the idea of contracting STDs. Maybe he didn’t want his wife to compare his dick to that of others. Maybe he was a virgin himself and wanted a virgin girl out of principle. I don’t know.
What I do know, is that the court was convinced there was deceit. That makes the marriage contract null. Marriage is a contract. The chick accepted its terms in bad faith. End of story.
Like so often, you’re just repeating what already has been said. It doesn’t make it any better.
A minor lie cannot lead to an anullment, it can only lead to divorce.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
A minor lie cannot lead to an anullment, it can only lead to divorce. [/quote]
Exactly! And evidently, in this case the lie was not minor and the marriage was actually based on it.
But now that I looked at the story again, it is very light on details. They say that the annulment was pronounced “two years” after the marriage. What does that mean? Did it take two years to judge the case or has the annulment been filed recently? If they were living together for the whole period and he suddenly just felt swindled, then he hardly has any case at all. Even in case a divorce’s granted, he should cough up alimony. But if he filed right after the nuptials and stopped laying with her, then justice has been served correctly. From what I gather, it is the latter.
Here’s a most excellent analysis by feminist philosopher Catherine Kintzler.
If I was the judge in this affair, rest assured that I would have kicked the guy in the nuts for wasting the court’s time over such a trivial matter.
Mohammed had 15 wives, didn’t he, lixy? Some were captured as spoils of war.
Yes, Islam is obsessed with the virtues of women while it allows men to practice pederasty and as much rape as possible. It takes the word of 4 male witnesses to convict a man of rape. Most women in Pakistani prisons are there for being raped and making an accusation they couldn’t support by 4 male witnesses.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Mohammed had 15 wives, didn’t he, lixy? Some were captured as spoils of war.
Yes, Islam is obsessed with the virtues of women while it allows men to practice pederasty and as much rape as possible. It takes the word of 4 male witnesses to convict a man of rape. Most women in Pakistani prisons are there for being raped and making an accusation they couldn’t support by 4 male witnesses. [/quote]
The Prophet had 15 wives, correct. (I’m not sure if it was 15,16, but one of those two). In any case, the max at any one time was 4, as per Islamic law.
I’m not sure how Islam promotes pederasty and rape?
Pakistan’s ruling on that is also to me very confusing. Its sickening. It is not Islamic at all. And I am a Pakistani - but I have no issue saying that their policy on that and a lot of other things is just plain wrong.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Many Hindus believe in a concept of “one god”. It’s just another way to look at their chief gods. They have even something similar like the catholic “trinity”. They have little problem with monotheists because they can view it as a form of Shiva or Vishnu worship, albeit in a different form. (And this is OK to them, which is, in my opinion, the really BIG difference between them and us bloodthirsty dickheads)
I could go here into details, but it’s a lot of stuff and you’d fare better just to pick up a few books on your own.
Hinduism comes on a lot of forms and shapes. Some even say there wasn’t a real coherent Hinduism before the British came, who involuntarily sort of unified it in order to understand and control it better. [/quote]
Ah. I’m Hindu btw. I knew all this, I just missed what you meant.
Thanks for clearing that up for me!
[quote]mafzal4 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Mohammed had 15 wives, didn’t he, lixy? Some were captured as spoils of war.
Yes, Islam is obsessed with the virtues of women while it allows men to practice pederasty and as much rape as possible. It takes the word of 4 male witnesses to convict a man of rape. Most women in Pakistani prisons are there for being raped and making an accusation they couldn’t support by 4 male witnesses.
The Prophet had 15 wives, correct. (I’m not sure if it was 15,16, but one of those two). In any case, the max at any one time was 4, as per Islamic law.
I’m not sure how Islam promotes pederasty and rape?
Pakistan’s ruling on that is also to me very confusing. Its sickening. It is not Islamic at all. And I am a Pakistani - but I have no issue saying that their policy on that and a lot of other things is just plain wrong. [/quote]
Look, you seem like a nice guy and I don’t take any pleasure in lumping you in the same camp as lixy, who is a shameless dissimulator. Most of my arguments at this point are appealing to the history of interpretation (ijtihad) of Islamic jurists on various issues. I readily agree that there are common grace Muslims out there like yourself that don’t place any weight on jurisprudence and appeal to their own conscience instead of the actions of Mohammed in various issues.
From what I’ve read, you are not within the bounds of orthodoxy as the four schools would define it. The problem is, most Muslims are. Islamic doctrine calls for warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of spreading religion. It’s right there on page 599 of Keller’s translation of the 'Umdat al-Salik. The Maliki school says the same thing. On the Amazon reviews of the 'Umdat al-Salik, there are 29 5-star reviews and no one says “this book is wrong about jihad” or “this book promotes extremism.”
I think, if you were to stand up to Al-Qaeda or any other jihad group, they’d pronounce takfir on you and cut off your head.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
A minor lie cannot lead to an anullment, it can only lead to divorce.
Exactly! And evidently, in this case the lie was not minor and the marriage was actually based on it.
But now that I looked at the story again, it is very light on details. They say that the annulment was pronounced “two years” after the marriage. What does that mean? Did it take two years to judge the case or has the annulment been filed recently? If they were living together for the whole period and he suddenly just felt swindled, then he hardly has any case at all. Even in case a divorce’s granted, he should cough up alimony. But if he filed right after the nuptials and stopped laying with her, then justice has been served correctly. From what I gather, it is the latter.
Here’s a most excellent analysis by feminist philosopher Catherine Kintzler.
If I was the judge in this affair, rest assured that I would have kicked the guy in the nuts for wasting the court’s time over such a trivial matter.[/quote]
Shame.
Shame on this pute and on you for parroting this nonsense.
So according to you every lie is worth an annulment?
Also, how can she say, “a contract they both agreed upon”?
You know how pressured these girls are. When he asked her, she hadn’t the strength to confront him. Also, a lot of girls don’t bleed (at least if you’re sensitive), the hymen is stretched.
This makes it impossible to approach it scientifically. Meaning, it can’t be proven.
And, for example, if a girl who’s expressed her (forced) willingness in a “verbal pre-marriage extra-contract” to always wear a burqa, can be cast out, the marriage declared none and void, if she happens to struggle with her new wedlock uniform?
What if she can’t have kids? Under Allah, a reason to cast her out, so I assume, this is a also a reason for a legal annulment?
Every psychotic whim of a archaic religion must be taken seriously, I guess?
Women are SERIOUSLY oppressed by Allah and his minions. In Germany, there’s a lot of “honor-killings” around in the muslimic communities. And unofficially, it’s quite shocking what you hear privately from muslims.
The state has a big interest in helping women there and shouldn’t cave in to madness.
And this dried up philosopress has no clue what she is talking about. If she, as a feminist, seriously accepts “virginity” as a fair concept, she’s worthless to the female cause.