The only clear cut difference I see here is that Muslim perpetrated outrages are more covered by the media.
The difference is, if those bizarre beliefs/practices of Christians were covered by the media, Christians the world over would express their outrage. [/quote]
Go tell that to the average guy in Waziristan for whom Christians are a bunch of kiddie-raping, bomb-dropping (that one is for Chushin), money-worshiping, porn-loving perverts.
He never interacted with any member of the Christian faith and gathers his information from W-OBL 780 on the AM dial. What’s your excuse?
This is getting out of hand. I have lost track of who’s making what point, and have probably made assumptions on people’s views based on what somebody else has written.
Chushin, what thesis are you defending? You jumped into a discussion who’s core was to determine whether marrying and screwing pre-pubescent girls was allowed in Islam. You posted a heavily edited video which you did not seem to have understood, if not watched. Then went on to suggest that Islam “contains very despicable teachings”.
State your position clearly. Also, please refrain from linking to the work of questionable organizations if you don’t want to be associated with them. Or at the very least, include a disclaimer about it so that others don’t get confused.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
OK, let me try to sort my own thoughts:
The marrying and screwing (your words) may or may not “be allowed in Islam.” I’m not knowledgable enough to say. In fact, according to you, NO ONE is knowledgable enough to say (about this, or any other issue!), save God. [/quote]
Good.
We have trouble communicating because you often jump in after members reiterate their superior knowledge of the Quran, and keep accusing people who doesn’t share their views of lying. You also link to sources that strongly defend the idea Islam’s teaching are satanic/violent/what-have-you.
I don’t know if you purposefully cultivate the ambiguity or not, but I hope you can see the number of instances where you jump in the middle of a discussion defending the point “the other side” is making. I should normally know better than confuse the many posters, but I’ll still ask you, as a favor, to refrain from the practice in the future. It would make the debates more fruitful.
That’s not an “approach”. It’s a central tenet of the religion. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.
I don’t support absolute rule, be it by one man or a bunch of “elders”. To me, the only legitimate authority is that of God. I don’t think it makes my religion any “more susceptible to perversion” than the rest. It’s still the only monotheistic religion without sacraments or hierarchy, and that is admirable. I would never give that away for a sense of uniformity. But then again, I’m a Libertarian-Socialist…
Well, if you’re going to get hung up on details, then yes, it would be “all but impossible”. The core is inarguably set in stone,
God is ONE (not three, not four) and Mohammed was his prophet,
A Muslim should obey the pillars: see 1), Pray five times daily, Fast from dawn till dusk on Ramadan, Give out a few points of your wealth to the poor every year, Visit Mecca if you can afford it.
Do good deeds,
Do no evil including to yourself,
The Golden Rule.
The rest makes for interesting debates but turns very often into mental masturbation. Like who cares what foot you should wash first during the ablutions.
Like I said earlier, suspect away! Criticism is healthy.
What I have noticed on this board is a tendency of some towards the “guilty until proven otherwise”.
If there are, I don’t know any. Nor have I ever even heard of any.
How, in the 21st century, can a society tolerate screwing pre-pubescent girls? It just don’t compute. You’d get a mutiny on your hands in no time. Now, obviously Ghada has first-hand accounts of what is happening in Bahrain, but she did not speak of a public figure condoning that. The practice may happen in some places, but I highly doubt any 'Alim will risk his neck defending it.
Also, I did not see this “fact” you speak of where “the male reporter tries to defend against her statements”. He was uneasy and jittery, but nothing more. Like I said, it’s a pity that the full video is not available to get more perspective about what was said. I don’t need to tell you just how much bias one can introduce by editing down videos. You probably already saw it in action at O’Reilly or Stewart. I contacted Al-Arabiya asking for a full release of the program, but I’m not holding my breath.
True. But like I said in a previous post, I don’t CARE about what bigots think. If they want to associate me with Ben-Laden or HH’s favorite Pakistani, based on my faith alone, there’s nothing I can do about it. All that’s in hands, is lead by example.
I thought we had just settled this earlier on the page.
See, that’s the kind of statements that I will not agree with. I didn’t say a word about “the fact that the Koran and Islam are wrapped up in some very ugly things going on in the world today” because that was nicely phrased. You can even say that Muslims have a serious problem or that the Islamic world has problems. I would whole-heartedly agree. But this one I have to comment on.
Islam is a set of beliefs that define a way of life. It was brought down on Abraham and revived periodically by different prophets, the last of whom was Mohammed. The message is eternal and immutable, because it derives from divine law. To say that it has a serious problem is in contradiction with the attributes of God.
In any case, I assume that you meant to say, is that some currents that claim ownership to Islam, have a serious problem. And that is true. But there simply is nothing you and I can do about it. See the previous discussion about the absence of a central authority or absolute rule in Islam. The only person that might convince a substantial number of Muslims to follow him is the Messiah. And I’m gonna need to see some serious miracles if he wants me in his ranks.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
lixy wrote:
I’ll be more than interested in knowing what public figure actually supports such monstrosity. He’ll get a personal letter from me.
That is, if you can come up with actual evidence of this “support”.
At a minimum, it seems that guy who is respected in Iran, Syria and Iraq approved of it.
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.
The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom
Are we to believe that such thinking died with him?[/quote]
Oh, dear. So I am to believe that the Supreme Leader of Iran wrote that sex with a baby is Ok, but that the only source for that is a website dedicated to the memory of a self-immolated woman who had arguments with him?
Seriously mate, if you truly believe that the quote is genuine, then you are beyond repair. I might as well start telling you about Markus Wolfkamp’s routine and stack.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Didn’t Mohammed have a pre-pubescent wife?
I don’t know.
Give me a break.
Huh? Do you have evidence either way?
People reach puberty at different ages. And there’s hardly any sort of consensus about the age of the marriage.
Your spin of the 3 months waiting period was ridiculous. It pretty clearly stated that it applied not only 3 months after a woman quit having her period (could be age or pregnancy) but also for girls that have not yet menstrated. This clearly means young girls.
Suit yourself.
You know better about my religion than me. The bulk of Muslims are not only pedophiliac, but liars. And women converting to Islam are kept in the dark about these abhorrent practices by cunning men.
All hail our new Islamic scholar: Zap!
//done[/quote]
This is exactly the shit I am talking about. You cannot acknowledge the obvious problems in your religion. Mohammed married a 9 year old named Aisha and you are going to pretend she was a full grown woman? Amazing.
[quote]mafzal4 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Didn’t Mohammed have a pre-pubescent wife?
I don’t know.
Zap Branigan wrote:
Give me a break. You guys are not representing your religion well with this stuff.
Excuse me? Just because he didn’t know the answer to that question? At least he told us that honestly. No one here is an expert on Islam, at least not that I know of.
He didn’t make any claims about being an expert.[/quote]
He knows the answer and he is trying to lie his way through it. You appear to be honestly addressing things.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Where is this outcry against terrorism from the greater Muslim community?
Where is the majority of the outcry coming from with regards to similar happenings in the Christian world?
He he. Read some news now and again. Perhaps you’ve heard something about sexual abuse in the Catholic church?
[/quote]
I think the majority of Catholics were outraged by the actions of the priests, don’t you? Maybe the outcome wasn’t as some would like, but the situation was addressed and condemned.
I mean, they didn’t say “Well, these priests were just intrepreting the Bible wrong.”
Go tell that to the average guy in Waziristan for whom Christians are a bunch of kiddie-raping, bomb-dropping (that one is for Chushin), money-worshiping, porn-loving perverts.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t surprise me if this were your opinion as well.
edit, the things you mentioned Christians doing are clearly sins and never, ever condoned my the Church.
do we rape children and praise God?
do we drop bombs in the name of our God?
do we worship money in the name of our God?
do we love porn in the name of our God?
no.
You can not even point to Scripture which could be taken out of context to approve of such things.
Yet Muslims commit atrocity after atrocity praising Allah, praising Islam.
Go tell that to the average guy in Waziristan for whom Christians are a bunch of kiddie-raping, bomb-dropping (that one is for Chushin), money-worshiping, porn-loving perverts.
Wouldn’t surprise me if this were your opinion as well.
edit, the things you mentioned Christians doing are clearly sins and never, ever condoned my the Church.
do we rape children and praise God?
do we drop bombs in the name of our God?
do we worship money in the name of our God?
do we love porn in the name of our God?
no.
You can not even point to Scripture which could be taken out of context to approve of such things.
Yet Muslims commit atrocity after atrocity praising Allah, praising Islam.
Your argument doesn’t mean shit.
[/quote]
And your argument is that it is better or worse if you do not kill in the name of your god but kill anyway?
Why would I do that? It’s a bunch a rules typed on a computer. How do I know Khomeini authored any of it? You don’t seem to understand the concept of verifiability.
This website (which seems to be stuck in 1994 design-wise), links to the previous site you provided as “reference”. Which, if you ask me, is a low way to fabricate credibility. Give me something solid to chew on; The Iranian government, the BBC, anything that carries weight.
I read a couple of pages, and it was a bunch of rules about retirement funds, testimonies and other things.
What was rude about my comment? I expressed my disbelief that you would buy the premise of sex-with-babies being official policy in any significant religious movement. To believe that the Iranians would tolerate it is downright insane.
The quote might be accurate. I don’t really know. But my initial reaction is one of disbelief. You don’t know if the quote is accurate either. When you choose to believe whatever the internet dishes out and then go around spreading that around, you have to expect scrutiny. Typing stuff up on a screen may be good enough for you, but others have higher standards - particularly when the claim defies common sense.
I don’t care what language it’s in, as long as it’s a reliable source. Just quit mining obscure websites.
I was seriously questioning your critical thinking abilities. In general, the process of parroting whatever cool facts they heard without any form of fact-checking is the domain of younglings. They’d tell you about the car that runs on water, Bush putting bombs in the WTC and how NO-Xplode is “da shit”.
I see nothing “rude” about asking what’s your age. Well, unless you’re a lady, which you clearly aren’t.
I think this “there are no clerics in Islam” argument needs full disclosure of the facts. Perhaps lixy could be troubled to tell us about the Four Schools and their influence on imams preaching in Sunni mosques around the world, and what trickle-down effect it has on the understanding of the Qur’an by the general Muslim population.
Otherwise, we’ve been told yet another half-truth.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I imagine his argument is that there’s something wrong with a religion where killing seems to be sanctioned. [/quote]
Allow me to rephrase that: There is something wrong with people using a religion (or anything else really) to sanction the killing of innocents.
And in case you missed the point I was making with the Waziri, it’s that in his/her eyes, the kiddie-touching so prevalent in priest-circles, are a reflection upon Christians. He’ll tell you about the lack of condemnations from Christians and some might even be led into thinking it’s actually organized by the Church (the secretive way it’s dealt with might suggest that it’s condoned). The Waziri might listen to John Hagee and believe that the bombs that rained on Iraq were some sort of crusade and that those killings are actually sanctioned by religion. He might look at crime rates, obesity and religion in the US and infer causality from correlation.
That’s no different than what many around here are doing. You see, at least half a dozen members on this board openly accuse me of lying and purposeful deceit. That’s a convenient to avoid re-examining one’s views and cling to whatever built-in prejudice there is. In his/her defense, the Waziri might actually never run into a single Christian his/her whole life. And the choice of media he/she has access to is relatively very limited - if any.