[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If you don’t have anything besides ad hominem and ridicule, it’s probably time to end the conversation.
That was more to point out how ridiculous your stereotype of the Muslim world is. Did you even realize that Dave Chappelle is Muslim?[/quote]
So you’re arguing by ridicule?
Dave Chappelle is a Muslim, huh? Fascinating. What does that have to do with Sunni fiqh on issues like jihad or polygamy?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So you’re arguing by ridicule?
Dave Chappelle is a Muslim, huh? Fascinating. What does that have to do with Sunni fiqh on issues like jihad or polygamy?[/quote]
I’m pointing out the absurdity of stereotyping. That is all.
And technically, what Gandhi did to resist the British was Jihad, so you wanna argue that point? And I see nothing wrong with polygamy.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So you’re arguing by ridicule?
Dave Chappelle is a Muslim, huh? Fascinating. What does that have to do with Sunni fiqh on issues like jihad or polygamy?
I’m pointing out the absurdity of stereotyping. That is all.
And technically, what Gandhi did to resist the British was Jihad, so you wanna argue that point? And I see nothing wrong with polygamy.[/quote]
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?
Is it also true that Arab Muslims do not consider American Black Muslims “real” Muslims.
I heard a Middle Eastern professor (who was originally from Egypt) say something like that.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?[/quote]
You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.
EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?Ø§Ø kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Is it also true that Arab Muslims do not consider American Black Muslims “real” Muslims.
I heard a Middle Eastern professor (who was originally from Egypt) say something like that.[/quote]
Elitism. Can you say it doesn’t exist in other religions?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
I wouldn’t know about that, so I’ll let someone else question that. But I’m sure as fuck not going to base my actions on a man-written book, and I don’t think too many Muslims go around chatting up 6 year olds.
Two things Mak: The Quran clearly and unambiguously states that the prophet Mohammed was not perfect. And nowhere does it say anything about chatting up girls, let alone 6 years old.
It’s not “chatting” that seems to be the problem, according to her:
Relevant comments about 1/2 way through. [/quote]
I never heard of this lady, but she sure is awesome. Straight talker and can’t be bothered with labels. Too bad the program was edited down.
Bahrain is a very peculiar country that I never paid much attention to. Because of its proximity and association with the Al-Sauds and…well, it’s just too darn small. As it turns out, the place has 80% Muslims equally split between Shi’ites and Sunnis. 10% are Christians and the rest practice other religions. Trouble must be constant seeing how the king is a Sunni, and tries to impose his view on the rest. It’s weird though that the fat chick’s attacks Shi’ites as if it was the country official policy.
Anyway, it’s worth noting that women got the right to vote in 2002. All the more impressive that gal’s intervention seems.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
EDIT: Here’s another: Islamic Law Condones Child RAPE - YouTube [/quote]
I overlooked the “preverted” and assumed it was a typo. But then came the “infalable”.
I stopped watching there.
If you have something not written by a mongoloid (that’s a crack at GKhan!), I’ll be happy to review it for you.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I dunno. Mohammed married little six year old Aisha and took her virginity at 9 while she was “playing with dolls.” Mohammed, being “al-insan al-kamil,” seems to have legitimized the practice amongst Muslims.
[/quote]
Oral narration written down hundreds of years after the fact is a great source for your argument.
Oh wait, here’s something from the web site you shared…
http://www.quranicteachings.co.uk/ayeshas-age.htm
I guess you didn’t read that article.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?
You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.
EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?Ø§Ø kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.[/quote]
So it doesn’t always mean violence, but it is still used in the context of violence. I’m using it specifically as Muslims understand it in an Islamic context, defined in the 'Umdat al-Salik (the classic manual of Sunni fiqh) as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and pretty much every other modern Islamic leader use the term in the same way.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I dunno. Mohammed married little six year old Aisha and took her virginity at 9 while she was “playing with dolls.” Mohammed, being “al-insan al-kamil,” seems to have legitimized the practice amongst Muslims.
Oral narration written down hundreds of years after the fact is a great source for your argument.
Oh wait, here’s something from the web site you shared…
http://www.quranicteachings.co.uk/ayeshas-age.htm
I guess you didn’t read that article.
[/quote]
Actually, it is. The Qur’an contains no internal historical context. It isn’t understandable without help from the Hadith.
But for the sake of your argument, the Qur’an actually does sanction child marriage:
Here, Allah appears to be envisioning a scenario in which a pre-pubescent woman is not only married, but is being divorced by her husband.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Is it also true that Arab Muslims do not consider American Black Muslims “real” Muslims.
I heard a Middle Eastern professor (who was originally from Egypt) say something like that.
Elitism. Can you say it doesn’t exist in other religions?[/quote]
Actually, the term you’re looking for is “racism.”
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?
You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.
EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?Ø§Ø kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.
So it doesn’t always mean violence, but it is still used in the context of violence. I’m using it specifically as Muslims understand it in an Islamic context, defined in the 'Umdat al-Salik (the classic manual of Sunni fiqh) as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and pretty much every other modern Islamic leader use the term in the same way.
[/quote]
You should rather just say:“Mak,you are correct”.
Instead you just continue to state that you ,are in fact, in the right?
Tedious.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Could this have something to do with them being illegal immigrants? Maybe? We tend to not care a lot about those people.
As well, they do it “quietly”. They don’t have an entire enclosed compound preventing people from leaving while they practice pedophilia and incest.
The pedo/incest was the main sticking point with the Mormons you know. Did this article mention that the Muslims were doing those things? I must have missed that part.
Oh and most of the article is about the practice of polygamy in Africa.
I dunno. Mohammed married little six year old Aisha and took her virginity at 9 while she was “playing with dolls.” Mohammed, being “al-insan al-kamil,” seems to have legitimized the practice amongst Muslims.
I’m sure a cursory investigation amongst US Muslims will turn up some interesting findings due to the practices of their prophet, if anyone in .gov can peel themselves from Saudi bribes long enough to look. [/quote]
Regardless of whether they’re doing these bad things or not, they aren’t concentrated into small communities where it is obvious illegal things are happening. So stop trying to act like the government is attacking Mormon’s while ignoring Muslims, as that’s an incredible piece of bull shit.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ghandi waged an armed struggle for the spread of Islam?
You should look up the definition of the word “Jihad” before using it again.
EDIT: In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though �?�?Ø§Ø kif�?ḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle for Indian independence is called a “jihad” in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither an Islamic struggle nor conducted violently; the same terminology is applied to the fight for women’s liberation.
So it doesn’t always mean violence, but it is still used in the context of violence. I’m using it specifically as Muslims understand it in an Islamic context, defined in the 'Umdat al-Salik (the classic manual of Sunni fiqh) as “warfare for the spread of religion.” Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna, and pretty much every other modern Islamic leader use the term in the same way.
You should rather just say:“Mak,you are correct”.
Instead you just continue to state that you ,are in fact, in the right?
Tedious.
[/quote]
The definition he gave states that the term means “struggle for any cause, violent or not”. So it can mean a violent struggle, and in an Islamic context, does mean violent struggle. Or can’t you read?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Why is polygamy illegal?
That’s a tough one. I mean, if a supreme court can find nothing unconstitutional about same-sex marriage, then surely polygamy’s illegality can eventually be overturned.
I’m not sure, but those laws are probably quite old.[/quote]
Does anyone doubt the intense effort underway to destroy the true concept of FAMILY? The concept is being totally uprooted — homosexual perverts adopting children and teaching rhem how to prance about, men having baby after baby with young girls in slave pens (aka religious compounds), teaching black men to have as many babies as possible with as many women as possible, on and on. Soon, we’ll be ‘intolerant’ if we want to kill every scumbag in NAMBLA (and other such Satanists).
I can read just fine.Good luck with your infallability issues.
I normally don’t respond to what that sad excuse for a human being writes, but he is taking it too far. I don’t mind him ridiculing himself by telling us that he knows what “Muslims” believe, that there is a grand conspiracy by Muslims to take over the world by lying their ways through, or that any “leader” (read clergy-like figure) has authority over Islam.
But here, he is taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning in the most abhorrent way I could ever think of. Anyway aya 65:4 speaks of conditions for remarriage. Islam requires that the woman waits a period of 3 months before remarrying - whether she is menstruating or not. The obvious rationale being that, in 3 months time, the belly will start to show. The specification that the woman be menstruating or not is to discard false positives and false negatives. That is, a woman who didn’t leak is not necessarily pregnant, and the one who did is not necessarily not carrying something in her womb.
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.
[quote]lixy wrote:
To interpret the non-menstruating part as pre-pubescent/menopausal is not only incoherent, but deliberately perverted. This is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind.[/quote]
Yes, taking Quranic verses and purposefully twisting their meaning is scumbag-ery of the lowest kind. I honestly can’t think of anything more scumbag-ery than that. Not suicide bombing, not stoning women…but THIS.