[quote]skor wrote:
tmoney1 wrote:
Nah, that’s ok, I’m all done answering questions on that thread. Besides, you and pookie look like you have it under control.
And answering that thread has NOTHING to do with this thread.
It is kind of off-topic, but you asked us to ask questions about Islam. I didn’t refer you to the whole thread, just to:
(tmoney1)-And killing will not be accepted by God or myself, regardless of the situation.
(skor)How do you reconcile this position with Quran/Sharia calling for death of an apostate? You’ve avoided answering this question.[/quote]
Where does it state that the Quran calls for death of an apostate?
[quote]lixy wrote:
tmoney1 wrote:
I don’t understand why you can’t be muslim because of specific women’s clothing.
I think everytime they see these kind of clothing, they assume that men imposed it on the women. It should be noted that most Muslim women in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia are a infinitely tiny portion of the Muslim community and that most women cover up out of choice.
You should read about Islam and its practices. It is a very good religion. I am Muslim so feel free to ask me any questions if you’d like.
I have one. Seeing that you’re in the US and all the antagonism I see towards Islam comes from north Americans, how do you explain the absence of peaceful Muslims on US mainstream media? [/quote]
I wouldn’t say there is an absence in the mainstream media, it’s that they are not shown on mainstream media very often.
CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is the leading Islamic organization for peace and justice in the US. They have ties with the media, but mainly the information is in print media, internet, and through emails. The lack of peaceful Muslims on mainstream media doesn’t constitute for a lack of peaceful Muslims in other areas.
[quote]tmoney1 wrote:
skor wrote:
tmoney1 wrote:
Nah, that’s ok, I’m all done answering questions on that thread. Besides, you and pookie look like you have it under control.
And answering that thread has NOTHING to do with this thread.
It is kind of off-topic, but you asked us to ask questions about Islam. I didn’t refer you to the whole thread, just to:
(tmoney1)-And killing will not be accepted by God or myself, regardless of the situation.
(skor)How do you reconcile this position with Quran/Sharia calling for death of an apostate? You’ve avoided answering this question.
Where does it state that the Quran calls for death of an apostate?[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
pickapeck wrote:
Now you have brought up birth control and accused me of avoiding that issue. Do you realize that is the first time the words “birth control” have entered into our discussion?
No, it’s the second time. I mentioned it the first time I brought up Africa. You replied to the paragraph, but skipped the issue. Go to page 4 and search for “This is a very cynical view.” which is where you reply to (well, ignore) my first mention of Africa and birth control.[/quote]
Fair enough. I didn’t see it.
It all works toward the greater good.
Someone has to take the moral high ground. If no one does then the equilibrium is shifted. I think the church views birth control as a mode to separate sexual pleasure from the responsibility of child rearing. The church sees that today promiscuity is increased. This goes to family and family stability(out of wedlock births, infidelity). And birth control is not perfect. Just look at out of wedlock births and teen pregnancy even in this country where birth control is ample and available. The church sees birth control’s affect on society and stands against it. However, the church’s stance is pretty lenient when it comes down to it. Confess your sins, you are forgiven and try to be a better person in the future. Birth control continues but in the conscience of Catholics it is known to be sinful and should be because it adds to social instability.
[quote]skor wrote:
tmoney1 wrote:
skor wrote:
tmoney1 wrote:
Nah, that’s ok, I’m all done answering questions on that thread. Besides, you and pookie look like you have it under control.
And answering that thread has NOTHING to do with this thread.
It is kind of off-topic, but you asked us to ask questions about Islam. I didn’t refer you to the whole thread, just to:
(tmoney1)-And killing will not be accepted by God or myself, regardless of the situation.
(skor)How do you reconcile this position with Quran/Sharia calling for death of an apostate? You’ve avoided answering this question.
Where does it state that the Quran calls for death of an apostate?
I didn’t see a quote directly stating that. I see the quote from Abu Dawud, which is not part of the Quran or Sharia, and I saw the quote about killing people who believe in many gods (polytheism). There is only one God, and that is what people are supposed to believe. If people believe in many Gods, then their faith is weak, and do not believe in the Oneness of God. I think in the context of the quote, and take into effect the timeframe as well, if people start following polytheism after leading a life of monotheism, then they were killed. I wouldn’t condone these actions today.
In the quotes on that website, a lot of them are not authenticate quotes from the beginning of Islam’s time. Also, a lot of quotes were not confirmed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or a second source.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Have you seen what engineers come up with? Nothing that compares to a well formed female human body! It is like a work of art and should never be hidden. The original point of the thread.[/quote]
You are thinking with your penis here, not with your brain. This is a common epidemic among western men. Women are built for sex. This much is obvious from looking at them. To value women, therefore, is to value sex. And that is precisely the position you are taking. Trust me, it doesn’t make you remotely unique or noble among men. You are just another walking ape with a perpetual hard-on and a head full of misconceptions. Your entire argument amounts to you stroking your dick and grunting in satisfaction.
Given that women are of little use for anything besides procreation, a rational person could readily comprehend why a culture might choose to suppress sex outside of marriage. It is more efficient to have men thinking about their work than to be constantly distracted by skirts.
The work performed by men is the driving force of all societies, behind all human progress, and efficiency in this labor has for ages stood as mark of high civilization.
The female form is not built for carrying out this most important work. They have thus, throughout history, been assigned an inferior status, and rightly so.
Despite constituting 50% of the entire population, women have yet to “throw off their chains” and establish a female-dominated society, or even to reach true equality with men. Certain minority groups have done far more for themselves with far fewer numbers. These facts alone would suffice to convince any intelligent person of the inherent inferiority of the female race.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Despite constituting 50% of the entire population, women have yet to “throw off their chains” and establish a female-dominated society, or even to reach true equality with men. [/quote]
Perhaps this is true in the Western world (with the notable exceptions of Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher), but there are a few gynaecocratic societies in Asia and Africa. The Minangkabau of Western Sumatra are the best example I can think of in modern times. The Minangs are among the best-educated and prosperous people in Indonesia, and in their society, despite being devoutly Muslim, the women own all the property, inherit the family’s wealth through the mother’s line, and make all of the important decisions in the political arena. The Mosuo tribe in China and a few West African tribes in Morocco also practice gynaecocracy. Japan used to be matriarchal before the samurai seized power, and even in dear old ubermacho Sparta, the real power lay not with the kings, not with the ephors or the strategoi, but with the women.
Women are physiologically more fit for procreation and child-nurturing than for hunting and fighting in a hunter-gatherer society, this is true, but brain matter, muscle tissue and bone tissue are essentially the same in males and females, and many women are stronger, more aggressive, and indeed, probably have higher testosterone levels than men of equivalent size.
Women also have a higher pain threshold, and generally greater muscular endurance than men of equivalent lean body mass. (Sex differences in static muscular endurance, H. Sato & J. Ohashi, 1989); Men are more fatigable than strength-matched women when performing intermittent submaximal contractions, S.K. Hunter, A. Critchlow, I.S. Shin, R.M. Enoka, 2004; Muscle fatigue and electromyographic changes are not different in women and men matched for strength, K. Hatzikotoulas, T. Siatras et al., 2004)
And in a technological, mechanized society, the value of efficient physical labor counts for much less, so there is little reason why women should not be able to “throw off the chains”, so to speak, and attain real equality with men. All it would take would be for enough people to abandon the archaic notion that a woman’s primary function is to procreate.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Despite constituting 50% of the entire population, women have yet to “throw off their chains” and establish a female-dominated society, or even to reach true equality with men.
Perhaps this is true in the Western world (with the notable exceptions of Queen Elizabeth and Margaret Thatcher), but there are a few gynaecocratic societies in Asia and Africa. The Minangkabau of Western Sumatra are the best example I can think of in modern times. The Minangs are among the best-educated and prosperous people in Indonesia, and in their society, despite being devoutly Muslim, the women own all the property, inherit the family’s wealth through the mother’s line, and make all of the important decisions in the political arena. The Mosuo tribe in China, as well as a few tribes in Morocco also practice gynaecocracy. [/quote]
It’s true not only in the West but in 98% of the entire world, throughout all of history. Your counter-examples make for interesting reading but they do not refute the overwhelming trend.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Women are physiologically more fit for procreation and child-nurturing than for hunting and fighting in a hunter-gatherer society, this is true, but brain matter, muscle tissue and bone tissue are essentially the same in males and females, and many women are stronger, more aggressive, and indeed, probably have higher testosterone levels than men of equivalent size. Women also have a higher pain threshold, and generally greater muscular endurance per lean body mass than males. (Sex differences in static muscular endurance, H. Sato & J. Ohashi, 1989)[/quote]
I’m not quite sure what you’re implying when you state that “brain matter, muscle tissue and bone tissue are essentially the same in males and females”. Males carry far more muscle and bone, in general. Physiological discrepancies in brain matter are far more difficult to identify, but intelligence discrepancies are not. Men are distinctly ahead in this area, too.
Women have a higher tolerance to pain than men precisely because they are built to withstand the physical traumas of intercourse and childbirth. Indeed, they are practically intended by nature to experience pain, just as men are intended to experience power and glory. Pain functions as a warning signal in times of danger. This heightened awareness serves as an evolutionary advantage to the hunters and gatherers of the species.
Firstly, you’re kidding yourself if you think physical labor is any less important now than it ever has been. If men suddenly decided to stop working, the world would come to a grinding halt immediately.
Second, there’s no underlying stipulation that the labor should be physical. It could just as well be intellectual, and the assertion would still hold true. For each one hundred notable male engineers, scientists, philosophers or mathematicians, there is perhaps one female counterpart, and that’s being generous.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Nominal, do you really have as low an opinion of women as you seem to, or are you are just playing devil’s advocate to irritate people?[/quote]
It’s the former.
We hold that women derive all of their power from men, and once having obtained this power, the only thing they do with it is use it against men.
These are The Dynamical Laws, as termed by Simon Sheppard, and witnessed by countless male observers throughout the ages.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
… Women are built for sex. This much is obvious from looking at them. …[/quote]
As are men. We have our sexual organs exposed and dangling.
Men and women are different. We are not completely interchangeable. We are both capable of great things.
Many of the things you noted are driven by societal differences and some are driven by biology. You blame too much on biology and seem to think that somehow makes women inferior.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, I hope this philosophy you espouse brings you much health, wealth and happiness. Though the prospect of such seems nominal at best.
And with that, let us remember the immortal words of Sledge Hammer: “hey, just because I gave a guy a back rub once doesn’t make me a misogynist!”[/quote]
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I have a few questions about Muslims for Lixy if you want to respond, that’d be great.[/quote]
My pleasure…
Sure. I highly respect the guy and his ideals.
However, I’m downright opposed to the sectarian nature of Mouridism, its hierarchical structure and the voodoo crap they pull. But hey, nobody’s perfect.
You should understand that unfortunately sainthood is pretty common in the Muslim world. It is denounced by the educated people and religious leaders but persists. It was clearly condemned by the prophet but I guess the need for such practices is embedded into human nature. Note that it’s mostly in rural areas that such aberrations take place.
A bunch of antiquated overly conservative freaks.
I believe in Islam as prescribed by the prophet Muhammad. All that Sunni/Shia/Maliki/Jaafari/Wahabi crap is unacceptable for me. I’m a humanist that believe everyone should be capable to interpret the message by himself. I don’t need no stinking leader to do it for me.
Morocco is an absolute monarchy. There is no going around that fact. In fact, all the Arab/Muslim world is ruled by dictatorial regimes. The only exceptions are Lebanon and Palestine that have had fair and transparent elections but we all know how they were rewarded by the west for practicing democracy.
Anyway, some look at that fact and conclude that since they’re all ruled by dictators, there must be something in their system of beliefs that is inherently opposed to democracy. This is a fallacy and a dangerous one at that. The only reason things are that way is the occupations by the West of these countries and there support for the dictatorial regimes that transformed the overt colonization into an economical one. A thorough study of the history of any Arab/Muslim country brings to light that aspect. The few that didn’t comply with the desires of Western powers were so cornered by them that they they ended up putting the survival of their regime above human rights and other concerns. The exact same pattern can be observed in Latin America.
I started frequenting mosques as an adult (i.e: much latter than your average Muslim) and was shocked by the vile language some Imams display against Israel. I actively denounced it as I couldn’t see anything in Muhammad’s message that would condone such hating attitude. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Zionism is a grave threat to humanity (second only to corporatism) and am appaled by the conduct of the Israeli government. It’s just that it didn’t feel right to pray and wish for their deaths.
Back on topic; After the terrorist attacks of 2003 in Casablance (the horror of which I witnessed first-hand), the king&co legitimately felt threatened. I mean, the US toppled Saddam for less. In the Moroccan case, it was evident that fanatic cells were operating in the territory. The Madrid train attacker were in majority Moroccans. That made the regime very nervous and it started cracking down on every single Islamic association, to show that it was an asset in the so-called “war on terror”.
Do I think it was a good idea to ban extremist speeches in mosques? No, for two reasons. First, I believe in freedom of speech in the Voltairian sense and would defend someone’s right to say even things I abhor it. Secondly, banning them will only take the movement underground and radicalize it even further.
I’m not aware of any case where the Imam openly called for Jihad and for killing or harming of innocents. If such speeches took place, then it goes without saying that I support banning them.
Since Christianity existed when Muhammed wrote the Q’uran, why did he not just adopt Christianity? Why start a competing religion that would just cause wars? If the text is the word of God, why would God set up these two religions to kill each other?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
… Women are built for sex. This much is obvious from looking at them. …
As are men. We have our sexual organs exposed and dangling.
Men and women are different. We are not completely interchangeable. We are both capable of great things.
Many of the things you noted are driven by societal differences and some are driven by biology. You blame too much on biology and seem to think that somehow makes women inferior.
I think you are missing out.[/quote]
NP, you DO have quite a low opinion of women. Are you Asian, by chance? Women there are treated like shit, like with the throw-away babies of China. My little girl was found in a Coca-cola cardboard box in a ratshit ghetto.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Do I think it was a good idea to ban extremist speeches in mosques? No, for two reasons. First, I believe in freedom of speech in the Voltairian sense and would defend someone’s right to say even things I abhor. Secondly, banning them will only take the movement underground and radicalize it even further.
[/quote]
Agreed. It’s much better to know who the whacos are and where they are than have them go underground to escape persecution. This way we can judge for ourselves the content of the message.
[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If the text is the word of God, why would God set up these two religions to kill each other?
Why would God create predators to abuse children? Why would God let the evils in Africa happen with the children soldiers?
How could a being of ‘infinite’ wisdom and ‘power’ let things get this bad for so long?
Answer: There is no God. And if he is, he’s more like the kid on the anthill with the magnifying glass and not like the perfect deity we assume.[/quote]
Alternate Answer: God doesn’t care. We are less than ants to him.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since Christianity existed when Muhammed wrote the Q’uran, why did he not just adopt Christianity? Why start a competing religion that would just cause wars? [/quote]
Since Judaism existed when Jesus came with his message, why didn’t his followers just adopt Judaism instead of starting a competing religion that caused wars?
If every one of us took care of an orphan or disfortunate, the world would be a much better place.