Quote:

Saudi women with sexy eyes may be forced to cover them up SAUDI women with attractive eyes may be forced to cover them up, the news website Bikya Masr reported, in a move that could mark the latest repressive measure taken against women by the Islamic state. A spokesperson for Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, said the committee had the right to stop women revealing "tempting" eyes in public. [...] In 2002 the committee refused to allow female students out of a burning school in Mecca because they were not wearing correct head cover, report said. The decision contributed to the high death toll of 15 people who were killed in the fire. http://www.news.com.au/world/saudi-women-with-sexy-eyes-may-be-forced-to-cover-them-up/story-e6frfkyi-1226198481241

What lunacy is this.

Just lucky they are not allowed to drive cars over there then.

It's ridiculous. It's haram. I hope the women of Saudi Arabia and their men revolt against this. When will enough be enough?

More science has been leaked to the Saudi media regarding that ancient Mesopotamian pagan practice of hiding ones face from the Sun so women would look whiter.



Prostitution will Surge if Women Drive: Saudi Clerics

Article

By Aparajita Das | December 2, 2011 6:19 AM GMT



A "scientific" report published in Saudi Arabia has claimed that lifting the ban on women drivers would result in "no more virgins".

The report also warned that such a move would also make more Saudis, both men and women, turn to homosexuality and pornography. The study also predicted a surge in prostitution and divorce.

Such startling conclusions were drawn by Muslim scholars at the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, working in conjunction with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the King Fahd University, according to the Daily Mail.

The study was made to assess the possible impact of repealing the ban in Saudi Arabia. The country is the only place in the world where women are not allowed to drive a vehicle.

The report was submitted to all 150 members of the Shura Council, the legislative body.

Within 10 years of the ban being lifted, the scholars said, there would be "no more virgins" in the Islamic kingdom.

The religious group pointed to is visible "moral decline" in other Muslim countries where women are allowed to drive.


"All the women were looking at me," Subhi writes of how women behave in other Arab countries, while he sat at a coffee shop in an unnamed state.

"One made a gesture that made it clear she was available. ... This is what happens when women are allowed to drive."

The study was undertaken after Shaima Jastaniya, a 34-year-old Saudi woman, was sentenced to 10 lashes with a whip after she was caught driving in Jeddah.

Despite strong protests in the country about the sentence and the law in general, there has been little hope for any reforms among conservative royals


ibtimes.com/articles/259939/20111202/pornography-prostitution-surge-women-allowed-drive-islamic.htm

It just goes to show the eyes have it.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

It's ridiculous. It's haram. I hope the women of Saudi Arabia and their men revolt against this. When will enough be enough?

I hope you have your eyes covered Annie.
You cannot continue to tempt unwary males. :)

This stories in Western newspapers about Saudi Arabia are often fairytales.

I was in Saudi when the fire occurred at the girls school. The Western newspapers made up the story about girls not being allowed out.

Saudi schools have gates and security guards to keep men out not to keep girls in. Sadly, in that case the security had left his post when the fire occurred and there was nobody to open the gate.

Terrible safety management, but not the sort of misogyny that Western Islamophobes would like people to believe.

Adamant wrote on Dec 5^th, 2011 at 10:48am:

More science has been leaked to the Saudi media regarding that ancient Mesopotamian pagan practice of hiding ones face from the Sun so women would look whiter. Prostitution will Surge if Women Drive: Saudi Clerics Article By Aparajita Das | December 2, 2011 6:19 AM GMT A "scientific" report published in Saudi Arabia has claimed that lifting the ban on women drivers would result in "no more virgins". The report also warned that such a move would also make more Saudis, both men and women, turn to homosexuality and pornography. The study also predicted a surge in prostitution and divorce. Such startling conclusions were drawn by Muslim scholars at the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, working in conjunction with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the King Fahd University, according to the Daily Mail. The study was made to assess the possible impact of repealing the ban in Saudi Arabia. The country is the only place in the world where women are not allowed to drive a vehicle. The report was submitted to all 150 members of the Shura Council, the legislative body. Within 10 years of the ban being lifted, the scholars said, there would be "no more virgins" in the Islamic kingdom. The religious group pointed to is visible "moral decline" in other Muslim countries where women are allowed to drive. "All the women were looking at me," Subhi writes of how women behave in other Arab countries, while he sat at a coffee shop in an unnamed state. "One made a gesture that made it clear she was available. ... This is what happens when women are allowed to drive." The study was undertaken after Shaima Jastaniya, a 34-year-old Saudi woman, was sentenced to 10 lashes with a whip after she was caught driving in Jeddah. Despite strong protests in the country about the sentence and the law in general, there has been little hope for any reforms among conservative royals ibtimes.com/articles/259939/20111202/pornography-prostitution-surge-women-allowed-drive-islamic.htm

I wonder if Abu will add that one to his Islam and Science thread?


falah wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 1:18pm:

This stories in Western newspapers about Saudi Arabia are often fairytales. I was in Saudi when the fire occurred at the girls school. The Western newspapers made up the story about girls not being allowed out. Saudi schools have gates and security guards to keep men out not to keep girls in. Sadly, in that case the security had left his post when the fire occurred and there was nobody to open the gate. Terrible safety management, but not the sort of misogyny that Western Islamophobes would like people to believe.

So women are allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia?

Why do they need to turn a girls school into a prison to keep men out? According to Abu all these strict rules prevent that sort of behaviour.

falah wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 1:18pm:

This stories in Western newspapers about Saudi Arabia are often fairytales. I was in Saudi when the fire occurred at the girls school. The Western newspapers made up the story about girls not being allowed out. Saudi schools have gates and security guards to keep men out not to keep girls in. Sadly, in that case the security had left his post when the fire occurred and there was nobody to open the gate. Terrible safety management, but not the sort of misogyny that Western Islamophobes would like people to believe.

I was there also in the company of my wife. She beat me for no reason and boy I enjoyed it.

falah wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 1:18pm:

Saudi schools have gates and security guards to keep men out not to keep girls in. Sadly, in that case the security had left his post when the fire occurred and there was nobody to open the gate.

So what you are saying Falah is that muslim/islamic men cannot keep their perverted hands off young girls. Good to see nothing has changed  after 1400 years. Bloody perverts.

First the raping of a young man by the eyes of Saudi females. I was appalled, but to what depths of depravity will muslim women stoop to next?

CUCUMBERS

Oh stuff it !


Islamic cleric bans women from touching bananas, cucumbers for sexual resemblance

Manar Ammar | 6 December 2011 | 82 Comments


Cucumbers are forbidden for women, says Islamic sheikh.

CAIRO: An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any “sexual thoughts.”

The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Senousa news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.

He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”

He also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women.

The sheikh was asked how to “control” women when they are out shopping for groceries and if holding these items at the market would be bad for them. The cleric answered saying this matter is between them and God.

Answering another question about what to do if women in the family like these foods, the sheikh advised the interviewer to take the food and cut it for them in a hidden place so they cannot see it.

The opinion has stirred a storm of irony and denouncement among Muslims online, with hundreds of comments mocking the cleric.

One reader said that these religious “leaders” give Islam “a bad name” and another commented said that he is a “retarded” person and he must quite his post immediately.

Others called him a seeker of fame, but no official responses from renowned Islamic scholars have been published on the statements


bikyamasr.com/50403/islamic-cleric-bans-women-from-touching-bananas-cucumbers-for-sexual-resemblance/

Notwithstanding that I do not support the underlying intent of this thread to demonisae and vilify Islam and Muslims, I would suggest that it is the Islamic Cleric in question who is having dirty thoughts when faced with the fruit and vegetable at issue!

No doubt, there are Xtian religious leaders who have similar fetishes!

falah wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 1:18pm:

This stories in Western newspapers about Saudi Arabia are often fairytales. I was in Saudi when the fire occurred at the girls school. The Western newspapers made up the story about girls not being allowed out. Saudi schools have gates and security guards to keep men out not to keep girls in. Sadly, in that case the security had left his post when the fire occurred and there was nobody to open the gate. Terrible safety management, but not the sort of misogyny that Western Islamophobes would like people to believe.

You mean the principal and the teachers don't have keys to the gate???

Equitist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2011 at 8:18am:

Notwithstanding that I do not support the underlying intent of this thread to demonisae and vilify Islam and Muslims, I would suggest that it is the Islamic Cleric in question who is having dirty thoughts when faced with the fruit and vegetable at issue! No doubt, there are Xtian religious leaders who have similar fetishes!

How can you possibly stick up for muslims/ islam?
45 out of 48 rapes in Norway this year were committed  by men of "non-European decent".

israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145161#.TtumprLhdGU

Last year 83 out of 186 were committed by men of "non-European decent".

hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/12/05/rape-fatwa-when-will-the-israel-made-them-do-it-excuses-start/

Not bad averages as they only make up 14% of the population

Equitist wrote on Dec 8^th, 2011 at 8:18am:

Notwithstanding that I do not support the underlying intent of this thread to demonisae and vilify Islam and Muslims...

I'm a New Age Muslim and I have learned to turn the other cheek. Pile on your hate because it ain't new to me. Have you read our book? It's stuffed with hate and bile.

Adamant wrote on Dec 8^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

First the raping of a young man by the eyes of Saudi females. I was appalled, but to what depths of depravity will muslim women stoop to next? CUCUMBERS Oh stuff it ! Islamic cleric bans women from touching bananas, cucumbers for sexual resemblance Manar Ammar | 6 December 2011 | 82 Comments Cucumbers are forbidden for women, says Islamic sheikh. CAIRO: An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any “sexual thoughts.” The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Senousa news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve. He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.” He also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women. The sheikh was asked how to “control” women when they are out shopping for groceries and if holding these items at the market would be bad for them. The cleric answered saying this matter is between them and God. Answering another question about what to do if women in the family like these foods, the sheikh advised the interviewer to take the food and cut it for them in a hidden place so they cannot see it. The opinion has stirred a storm of irony and denouncement among Muslims online, with hundreds of comments mocking the cleric. One reader said that these religious “leaders” give Islam “a bad name” and another commented said that he is a “retarded” person and he must quite his post immediately. Others called him a seeker of fame, but no official responses from renowned Islamic scholars have been published on the statements bikyamasr.com/50403/islamic-cleric-bans-women-from-touching-bananas-cucumbers-for-sexual-resemblance/

Obviously a fake. According to Abu Islamic clerics don't exist.

Your obsessed. I suggest you get some councelling...or is this all that makes your pathetic life seem meaningful??

I'm not the one who feels the need to constantly insult people on internet forums because I can't put together a rational argument.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 5:53pm:

I'm not the one who feels the need to constantly insult people on internet forums because I can't put together a rational argument.

Really? So what do you call the tripe above? Certainly not a rational argument.

Any religion is a way forwards, like removing the engine is a great way to increase the speed of a motor car.

Grey wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

Any religion is a way forwards, like removing the engine is a great way to increase the speed of a motor car.

Agreed!

Religion is an inherently human institution. You cannot escape it, as it is part of what makes us human. Human societies all over the world have adopted religions and used them to organise their affairs since time immemorial. I'm afraid atheists are fighting a losing battle on that one.

About the most you can argue is you don't like the religions you've come across, but in effect you live by a religion of some sort, as a religion is merely a system for organising man's affairs, and sanctifying something, if it is not the Creator, then it is something else.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 9:23pm:

Religion is an inherently human institution.

Yes.



Quote:

You cannot escape it, as it is part of what makes us human.

No.


Quote:

Human societies all over the world have adopted religions and used them to organise their affairs since time immemorial. I'm afraid atheists are fighting a losing battle on that one.

People have eaten meat from time immemorial too. Doesn't stop an increasing number of people from becoming vegatarian.


Quote:

About the most you can argue is you don't like the religions you've come across,

No the most I can argue is that there is no evidence for the existence of a 'god'. That religions have had a negative impact on human affairs for as long as they've existed and the fact and origins of so many religions is evidence that they are about the power and exploitation by people over other people with no divinity about them or redeemable qualities.


Quote:

but in effect you live by a religion of some sort,

No I don't.


Quote:

as a religion is merely a system for organising man's affairs, and sanctifying something,

No it isn't. It's a conmans trick of supplying an answer to a question nobody knows the answer to.


Quote:

if it is not the Creator, then it is something else.

There is a Universe, the one poem, who could want for more?

The 'holy land' spot the baby Jesus, Keh ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn90BNz729k

Quote:

That religions have had a negative impact on human affairs for as long as they've existed

Humans have had a negative impact on humans. To ascribe it so simply to religion as so many do is pretty short sighted. Great things have been done in the name of religion and still are.

freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 11:46pm:

Quote: That religions have had a negative impact on human affairs for as long as they've existed [quote]Humans have had a negative impact on humans. To ascribe it so simply to religion as so many do is pretty short sighted.

Not as short sighted as to deny that religion is a major cause of conflict and human suffering.


Quote:

Great things have been done in the name of religion and still are.

Poppycock! Nothing has been done in the name of religion that couldn't be done without religion.

Grey wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 12:00am:

freediver wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 11:46pm: Quote: That religions have had a negative impact on human affairs for as long as they've existed [quote]Humans have had a negative impact on humans. To ascribe it so simply to religion as so many do is pretty short sighted. Not as short sighted as to deny that religion is a major cause of conflict and human suffering. [quote]Great things have been done in the name of religion and still are.

Poppycock! Nothing has been done in the name of religion that couldn't be done without religion.[/quote]


grey - i pretty much agree with you there

Quote:

Poppycock! Nothing has been done in the name of religion that couldn't be done without religion.

I never claimed any different. Likewise, all the evil things that people point out are done in the name of various religions are far more often done for other motives. However, a lot of the good that is done in the name of religion simply would not be done without it, or only to a far lesser extent.

In any case, if you want to discuss further you should start a new thread on a duifferent board as I feel kind of wierd saying this alongside people who want to go back to stoning little girls to death.

Grey, most of the largest massacres in human history have been carried out by atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol pot etc. were all atheists.

Grey wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 12:00am:

Poppycock! Nothing has been done in the name of religion that couldn't be done without religion.

In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document 1763 wars since 3500 BC, of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict.

http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Wars-Library-World-History/dp/0816028516

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 10:01am:

Grey, most of the largest massacres in human history have been carried out by atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol pot etc. were all atheists.

reports of their atheism have been greatly exagaratted.


Quote:

Argument: Stalin had faith, but not religionSome evidence suggests Stalin, although not following a particular religion, may have been spiritual (had personal faith, but did not practice a religion). English historian Simon Sebag Montefiore studied Stalin’s hobbies and personal library, what Stalin liked to read, what kind of marks he left in his books. He found that Stalin liked to quote long quotes from the Bible. Stalin left such mark about God in the book by Anatole France "Last pages. Dialogues under a rose. About God": "Don‘t know traces, don‘t see. There is no Him for them." ("Следов не знают, не видят. Его для них нет."). It seems that Stalin thought he knew God’s traces and saw God, not like others. Stalin "denied categorically to prescribe atheistic literature to his personal library, fastidiously calling it ""antireligious waste-paper (junk)"". ("Secret life of Stalin : By materials of his books and archive : According to Stalinism" by Ilizarov.B.S. 2004) Stalin wrote poems in Georgian language. They are so good that were being published in local magazines. Few fragments sounds so (translation from Georgian to Russian language by L.Kotiukov (Л. Котюков), Newspaper "Duel" N10(101)1999-03-09. "Poet Josef Dzhugashvili" (Газета "Дуель", "Поет Иосиф Джугашвили" N 10(101) 1999-03-09. Б.М. Гунько)): (...) In his burden and song like the beam of the Sun, lived great truth – DIVINE dream. (...) But people who forgot GOD, with darkness in their hearts, instead of wine served poison to him in the cup. And told to him: "Damn you! Drink this cup to the bottom!... And your song is alien for us, and we don’t need your truth!" The above poem is probably a reference to Socrates who history says was made to drink poison from a cup because he "introduced a foreign god into the city gods." "More specifically, Socrates’ accusers cited two ‘impious’ acts: ‘failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges’ and ‘introducing new deities.’ as noted in =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates.]Socrates was not an atheist. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Was_Stalin_an_atheist%3F

What is known for certain is that they were all totallitarian communists with psychopathic personalities and delusions of grandeur. The same type of people have lead fascists, catholics, jews, capitalists, muslims, greeks, romans, and Mexican sun worshippers.

Actually I'd say they were so godless, they had no qualms exterminating people like roaches, because to an atheist, there is no intrinsic value to human life. We're all just a bunch of atoms that have no meaning other than that we supposedly just randomly assembled in this form here.

What value does an atheist have on human life any more than they have on that of a roach? why are the amino acids and other "building blocks of life" in your body any different to that of the amino acids in a roach's? What makes yours any more worthy of preserving?

Honestly, atheism is the most sickening "belief" I can imagine. I truly pity those who have relegated themselves to having such an empty view of existence.

Quote:

What is known for certain is that they were all totallitarian communists with psychopathic personalities and delusions of grandeur. The same type of people have lead fascists, catholics, jews, capitalists, muslims, greeks, romans, and Mexican sun worshippers.

You left out atheists. I've come across plenty of mini-hitlers in my time who are just itching for an opportunity to impose atheism on everyone in the world.

He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”

He also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women.


Maybe Jap pumpkins should be on the list. They may just fit.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 7:25am:

Quote: What is known for certain is that they were all totallitarian communists with psychopathic personalities and delusions of grandeur. The same type of people have lead fascists, catholics, jews, capitalists, muslims, greeks, romans, and Mexican sun worshippers. You left out atheists. I've come across plenty of mini-hitlers in my time who are just itching for an opportunity to impose atheism on everyone in the world.

There's a big difference between making a strong argument and forcing that argument on others by coercive means. Most, if not all, Anarchists are atheists. Yet what is singularly different about Anarchism is its rejection of coercion as a valid means for change.


Quote:

Abu-rashid: Actually I'd say they were so godless, they had no qualms exterminating people like roaches, because to an atheist, there is no intrinsic value to human life. We're all just a bunch of atoms that have no meaning other than that we supposedly just randomly assembled in this form here.

Really?  ;D You should blush at writing such guff. It is religious people who absolve themselves from all fault with the lines "it's gods will", "god is on our side" "they are the heathens" etc. You who have faith in god and abdicate responsibility treat 'others' as cockroaches. We who retain our sovereign responsibility keep faith with common humanity.

Just look at your 'Holy Land'. What are you, dense? Look at what has been done in the name of Abrahamic religion. Show me one death that can be attributed to Atheism. No not what has been committed by somebody who was coincidentally an atheist, show me what has been committed in the name of atheism. Communists don't count. They kill everybody and anybody including each other. A great communist is a great hypocrite.

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 2:39am:

Actually I'd say they were so godless, they had no qualms exterminating people like roaches, because to an atheist, there is no intrinsic value to human life. We're all just a bunch of atoms that have no meaning other than that we supposedly just randomly assembled in this form here. What value does an atheist have on human life any more than they have on that of a roach? why are the amino acids and other "building blocks of life" in your body any different to that of the amino acids in a roach's? What makes yours any more worthy of preserving? Honestly, atheism is the most sickening "belief" I can imagine. I truly pity those who have relegated themselves to having such an empty view of existence.

Being atheist does not automatically make people believe human beings are no more than atoms and amino acids.

I find your type the most despicable imaginable. You do nothing but criticize the West but take full advantage of all the freedoms it has granted you.

Only because Australians have become so pathologically weak are you able to sprout your hate and still reside here.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 12:55pm:

Being atheist does not automatically make people believe human beings are no more than atoms and amino acids.

Yes it does actually. Since an atheist holds that there is no soul, and that life has no intrinsic value. To an atheist, murdering another human being is little different to spraying mortein on a roach or weed killer on your garden. What basis would an atheist use to separate these actions? If we are just a bunch of random chemicals that happened to end up in this "configuration" by chance, then what would be the incentive not to murder others, if it happened to be conducive to your aims in life (like it was for Stalin, Mao & Pol pot)?

By what criteria could an atheist determine that another human's molecules are any more worthy of remaining in their current "configuration" than the molecules that make up a roach?


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 12:55pm:

I find your type the most despicable imaginable. You do nothing but criticize the West but take full advantage of all the freedoms it has granted you. Only because Australians have become so pathologically weak are you able to sprout your hate and still reside here.

If that's the case, then it makes my case for how defective the Western system is then, doesn't it?

A system which, as you claim, does not ensure its own survival is doomed to failure, and is not a system worth preserving, is it? By the great law of evolution, then it _must_ by necessity perish.

Quote:

Since an atheist holds that there is no soul, and that life has no intrinsic value.

You're a big fan of telling other people what they believe, aren't you Abu?


Quote:

then what would be the incentive not to murder others

Does Islam provide you with 'incentives'?


Quote:

By what criteria could an atheist determine

There are plenty Abu. You are creating an absurd dichotomy between Islam and the propaganda you sprout about everyone else.


Quote:

A system which, as you claim, does not ensure its own survival is doomed to failure

It handles itself just fine. It has destroyed the Caliphate and does whatever it wants in the middle east. Which system do you really think is the impotent one Abu?

Quote:

abu rashid wrote Yes it does actually. Since an atheist holds that there is no soul, and that life has no intrinsic value. To an atheist, murdering another human being is little different to spraying mortein on a roach or weed killer on your garden. What basis would an atheist use to separate these actions? If we are just a bunch of random chemicals that happened to end up in this "configuration" by chance, then what would be the incentive not to murder others, if it happened to be conducive to your aims in life (like it was for Stalin, Mao & Pol pot)? By what criteria could an atheist determine that another human's molecules are any more worthy of remaining in their current "configuration" than the molecules that make up a roach?

Atheism is simply to not believe in god; it is simply a negation of god. Any construction after the negation of god, like the quasi-scientific one you're projecting, is of another philosophy. Incidently, Stalin and Pol Pot's philosophy was Marxist, not about atoms or amino acids.
You're arguing with yourself by erecting such a strawman.




Quote:

abu rashid wrote If that's the case, then it makes my case for how defective the Western system is then, doesn't it? A system which, as you claim, does not ensure its own survival is doomed to failure, and is not a system worth preserving, is it? By the great law of evolution, then it _must_ by necessity perish.

Types such as yourself take the classical liberal idea of minimal government interference into the lives of citizens and maximum personal liberty to its extreme. You castigate the institutions that protect your personal freedoms; you will the destruction of these institutions.
The classical liberals did not extend their ideas on personal freedoms to those who set about to destroy society. This includes those of your ilk.
The problem is not Western society, but the white-ants who spend all their time undermining it.

Quote:

but the white-ants who spend all their time undermining it

Plays in nicely with Abu's (hi dad) baygon analogy.

Yeh nice insect analogy there Bolshie, thanks for validating my points about atheism.

Can't keep your true colours from shining through can ya?

So tell us Abu, what is stoning little girls to death an analogy for?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 5:02pm:

Yeh nice insect analogy there Bolshie, thanks for validating my points about atheism. Can't keep your true colours from shining through can ya?

All societies look down upon those who try and destroy it. Just like those you look down upon who don't practice Islam, or the Western world in general.
To claim you don't view your inferiors as "roaches" or "white-ants" or whatever other derogatory term is deceitful.
What did you call atheism again, a "sickening belief," and an "empty view of existence"?

Bolshie,

I view all humans as humans, not as insects. Even the most hostile of enemies of Islam, I still hold hope they will be guided and shown to the straight path.

Quote:

By what criteria could an atheist determine that another human's molecules are any more worthy of remaining in their current "configuration" than the molecules that make up a roach?

If the 'human' was flaying a woman to death and throwing acid over girls for the crime of going to school I'd certainly favour the cockroach.

Happy new year, Abu. I don't know why you bother even replying to these comments. They are not interested in learning, just proving their own misguided points.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 10:18am:

Happy new year, Abu. I don't know why you bother even replying to these comments. They are not interested in learning, just proving their own misguided points.

and you are? Anyone here is? ;D ;D ;D ;D

I've altered my views on quite a lot of things and learnt from what other people have said, yes.

These people know absolutely nothing about Islam and for the most part, they're not engaging Abu to learn, they're engaging him to prove him wrong on a subject about which they're ignorant.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 10:57am:

I've altered my views on quite a lot of things and learnt from what other people have said, yes. These people know absolutely nothing about Islam and for the most part, they're not engaging Abu to learn, they're engaging him to prove him wrong on a subject about which they're ignorant.

Since when is Abu trying to teach us about Islam? All he does is criticize the West. Unless crapping on the West is a central tenet of Islam? 

I challenged him several times a few months ago to a debate on the metaphysics of Islam and he ignored it.

If you are genuinely curious about Islam, I can't see Abu refusing to answer your questions - unless you've got an obvious agenda like FD or the other Islamophobes (which you do, right?)

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 11:18am:

If you are genuinely curious about Islam, I can't see Abu refusing to answer your questions - unless you've got an obvious agenda like FD or the other Islamophobes (which you do, right?)

I reply to what I see. And all I see is someone who hates Australia and the West. He shall be treated accordingly.

You know Abu is a revert, right? He is probably more Australian than you are, Bolshevik.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 11:31am:

You know Abu is a revert, right? He is probably more Australian than you are, Bolshevik.

I know he has converted. He may or may not be "more Australian" (can he trace his ancestry back 7 generations?) Not that this is relevant at the moment.

It is not Islam itself I am attacking, but rather the relentless nihilists which seek to continually undermine the West.

I am ambivalent, about Islam &/or all other religions.

However, they are part of the complex world we live in, so they must be taken into consideration.

That said, religions of all sorts, often present as both part of the solution, but also part of the problem!

Religions of all sorts, are largely a part of the belief systems that many people acquire, as they go thru their formative years.

Many people will continue with those beliefs, religious or other, until the day they die, irrespective of what information may be presented.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that all religions are part of the great dilemma -

"Everything that has ever and will ever happen, is pre-determined, is part of the great plan and therefore choice and freedom of thought, are just an illusion.

There is no god, chaos is the only universal rule and our choices will determine the future of humanity.

Which is more difficult to believe?
Which is more unpalatable?"

I have come to the conclusion that religions are more difficult to believe and that their consequences are more unpalatable.

I'm sure there are many who will not agree with my thoughts!

But, there is a large & growing number of people, who no longer accept the standard religious doctrines!   
 

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 11:51am:

I have come to the conclusion that religions are more difficult to believe and that their consequences are more unpalatable.

It is usually the people who say this that fanatically believe in the religion of Darwinism, which says that the universe and life on Earth somehow mysteriously began without any outside help, and goes on to claim that humans are descended from apes!

http://adrishta.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Darwin-monkey.jpg

falah wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 12:45pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 11:51am: I have come to the conclusion that religions are more difficult to believe and that their consequences are more unpalatable. It is usually the people who say this that fanatically believe in the religion of Darwinism, which says that the universe and life on Earth somehow mysteriously began without any outside help, and goes on to claim that humans are descended from apes! http://adrishta.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Darwin-monkey.jpg

Take out those couple of words and you've got me!

I do find that more believable and platatable, than the alternative that says choice and freedom of thought, are just an illusion, because there is an all knowing, all seeing God/s, which have mysteriously been around, even since before the universe began.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 10:18am:

Happy new year, Abu. I don't know why you bother even replying to these comments. They are not interested in learning, just proving their own misguided points.

Oh and your pal is I suppose Annie? Listen lady when somebody says to me, " Actually I'd say they were so godless, they had no qualms exterminating people like roaches, because to an atheist, there is no intrinsic value to human life." 

They are going to get paid off in kind. You know very well I'm a reasonable person so don't give me any bullshit. >:(

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 11:51am:

I am ambivalent, about Islam .

Islam is not ambivalent about you and so it doesn't validated or reciprocate your ambivalence but sees it exactly for what it is.

Grey wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 10:18am: Happy new year, Abu. I don't know why you bother even replying to these comments. They are not interested in learning, just proving their own misguided points. Oh and your pal is I suppose Annie? Listen lady when somebody says to me, " Actually I'd say they were so godless, they had no qualms exterminating people like roaches, because to an atheist, there is no intrinsic value to human life."  They are going to get paid off in kind. You know very well I'm a reasonable person so don't give me any bullshit. >:(

Must everything be about you? This argument has been going on since way before you joined Grey, so get over yourself.

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 3:05pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 11:51am: I am ambivalent, about Islam .  Islam is not ambivalent about you and so it doesn't validated or reciprocat your ambivalenc but sees it exactly for what it is.

Whatever religion you may wish to raise, Islam or anything else, makes no difference, I decide what I do and what influences me, not Islam or any other religion! 

That said, of course Islam &/or any other religion could impact my life &/or anyone else's life either in a positive or negative way, by the decisions made by its disciples & hierarchy.

Grey wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 4:18am:

If the 'human' was flaying a woman to death and throwing acid over girls for the crime of going to school I'd certainly favour the cockroach.

But the woman is just a bunch of random molecules isn't she? Why would it matter to an atheist if a container of other molecules (in this case sulphuric acid) happened to come into contact with her by means of a catalyst (another organism of random molecules)?

Where's the meaning in it all? What's right? What's wrong? From the viewpoint of an atheist there's nothing intrinsically wrong about any of it.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 10:18am:

Happy new year, Abu. I don't know why you bother even replying to these comments. They are not interested in learning, just proving their own misguided points.

Thanks Annie, I still hold out hope in them bettering themselves and being able to see reason. I am an optimist, I know.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 5:48pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 10:18am: Happy new year, Abu. I don't know why you bother even replying to these comments. They are not interested in learning, just proving their own misguided points. Thanks Annie, I still hold out hope in them bettering themselves and being able to see reason. I am an optimist, I know.

As an Anarchist, I have no problem whatsoever in distancing myself from 'propaganda of the deed' and any other lunacy wrongly attributed to Anarchism. If you want to teach anything useful about Islam, why not adopt a similar posture? Instead of being an apologist for wahabism.

Can I just say that the greater irony about Saudi Arabia is that they are subject to MUCH LESS scrutiny from the United States and the U.N about its practices, primarily because of their Oil.

Why do certain factions in the West think it appropriate to keep their mouths shut about human rights when Oil is involved? It screams of ignorant hypocrisy to me.

All the while, the Saudis are allowed to sit on their gold plated toilet seats, hiding womens eyes because they're enchanting. Please, that's a wank.

Says a lot about the morals of the West doesn't it?

Capitalism is only interested in one thing. It will do whatever it can to get it.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 7:44pm:

Says a lot about the morals of the West doesn't it? Capitalism is only interested in one thing. It will do whatever it can to get it.

While I agree, I don't appreciate you ignoring the actions of Saudi Arabia either.

I don't ignore them at all.

I am one of the most vocal opponents of the Saudi regime that there is.

Quote:

Happy new year, Abu. I don't know why you bother even replying to these comments. They are not interested in learning, just proving their own misguided points.

Annie, can you explain why only people who want to believ Islam are interested in learning?


Quote:

These people know absolutely nothing about Islam and for the most part, they're not engaging Abu to learn

I have learnt wuite a lot from Abu. For some reason it does not reassure me the way it does you.


Quote:

they're engaging him to prove him wrong on a subject about which they're ignorant

I am not trying to disprove Islam or religion. That would be pointless. I would be more than happy to merely find out what Abu believes. There is no right or wrong here, just sane and crazy.


Quote:

If you are genuinely curious about Islam, I can't see Abu refusing to answer your questions - unless you've got an obvious agenda like FD or the other Islamophobes (which you do, right?)

Here we go again. Unless you believe in Islam then Muslims cannot possibly give you a straight answer.... Can you acknowlede Annie that someone can be both genuinely curious about Islam and criticial of it at the same time? Or is this mutually exclusive to you? Abu has refused to give even the most basic answers or clarify any of his glaring self contradictions.  Blaming it all on other people isn't exactly helping his cause. Why are you so keen to excuse Abu's inability to be straight with non-Muslims?


Quote:

You know Abu is a revert, right? He is probably more Australian than you are, Bolshevik.

So he keeps saying, but the Australia he describes sounds like something out of a Wahabbi propaganda book. According to Abu there are only two types of people in Australia - Muslims and degenerates. And you expect us to 'learn' from that?


Quote:

But the woman is just a bunch of random molecules isn't she?

Abu, if you cannot comprehend other people's belief systems you cannot simply substitute your own version and expect to be taken seriously.


Quote:

Says a lot about the morals of the West doesn't it?

LOL - the backwardness of the middle east? I suppose you can blame everything there on the west rather than local Muslims.


Quote:

I am one of the most vocal opponents of the Saudi regime that there is.

Except that you blame the west for it at every opportunity. If you were honest about this Abu then you would not be so frightened of your criticism falling on fellow Muslims. How can Islam be such a poweful force and at the same time so impotent that Muslims are mere puppets of the west who cannot be held responsible for their own actions?

Quote:

Annie, can you explain why only people who want to believ Islam are interested in learning

Can you show me where I said that please?


Quote:

I have learnt wuite a lot from Abu. For some reason it does not reassure me the way it does you.

I'm not surprised. We have been through this before, haven't we? You ask a question, Abu answers and then you pick away at it. You disregard everything he says except the parts you can try to manipulate. If you were genuinely interested in learning about Islam, then you would stop trying to trick Abu and trip him up and actually be respectful and read what he has to say.

You're intelligent enough to know that much of what he says is in retaliation to the crap you and others throw at him. Why can't you admit that you just enjoy the argument rather than the learning? A lot of what he says is in reaction to your provocation.


Quote:

I would be more than happy to merely find out what Abu believes.

Bullshit - you want to tear his beliefs apart.

I make my fair share of mistakes, but at least I'm trying to learn and share. It's all about point scoring with you and it gets old.

I appreciate the forum that you've given us to be able to discuss these things, but debating anything with you personally is like bashing a head against a brick wall.

Change tactics with Abu and I bet you'll find engaging with him a much more productive and rewarding experience.

Or not. If you are genuinely trying to learn, then it's your loss.

Quote:

Can you show me where I said that please?

Your standard response to anyone who is critical of Islam is that they are ignorant or not willing to learn and either way Abu should not bother responding to them.


Quote:

I'm not surprised. We have been through this before, haven't we? You ask a question, Abu answers and then you pick away at it

No picking is necessary. When he does give a striaght answer rather than an excuse for not answering his own words suffice.


Quote:

You're intelligent enough to know that much of what he says is in retaliation to the crap you and others throw at him.

And I generally ignore all his petty BS and propaganda. It is what he says about Islam that I pay attention to. It is pretty rare these days as he is afraid to do anything other than criticise the 'evil west' or post fluff pieces about how nice Muslims are.


Quote:

Why can't you admit that you just enjoy the argument rather than the learning? A lot of what he says is in reaction to your provocation.

I have actually been trying to get him to talk about Islam rather than get personal.


Quote:

Bullshit - you want to tear his beliefs apart.

No I don't. I want to build them up. The fact alone that he believes what he believes is more than enough for my interest.


Quote:

I make my fair share of mistakes, but at least I'm trying to learn and share. It's all about point scoring with you and it gets old

Wrong. I have gone to extraordinary lengths to get a simple answer from Abu. Abu has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid answers and make excuses. I put it to you that it is you who is interfering with genuine learning by facilitating Abu's deflections and constantly changing the subject from Islam to our 'unwillingness to learn about Islam'. Abu is a big boy. He can answer for himself.


Quote:

I appreciate the forum that you've given us to be able to discuss these things, but debating anything with you personally is like bashing a head against a brick wall.

That's because you are trying to prevent debate. I am trying to discuss Islam, and you are trying to prevent discussion of Islam by making it personal. Perhaps it is so frustrating for you because I am genuinely interested in Islam rather than the personal battles you try to substitute. How exactly do you expect to promote debate by telling all of Abu's critics that they are not worthy of a straight answer unless they say nice things about Islam?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 11:18am:

If you are genuinely curious about Islam, I can't see Abu refusing to answer your questions - unless you've got an obvious agenda like FD or the other Islamophobes (which you do, right?)

interperetation : if you ask any question to an islamic you must believe any and every answer.
Any questioning shows you are an islamophile and totally disinterested in being brainwashed.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 5:44pm:

Grey wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 4:18am: If the 'human' was flaying a woman to death and throwing acid over girls for the crime of going to school I'd certainly favour the cockroach. But the woman is just a bunch of random molecules isn't she? Why would it matter to an atheist if a container of other molecules (in this case sulphuric acid) happened to come into contact with her by means of a catalyst (another organism of random molecules)? Where's the meaning in it all? What's right? What's wrong? From the viewpoint of an atheist there's nothing intrinsically wrong about any of it.

If we're to have a meaningful conversation rashid, you have to stop telling me what I think.

Atheists don't believe in gods, in fact religious people don't believe in gods either. The difference between me and you is that you believe in one more god than I don't.  ;D

The number of atheists who have no spiritual feelings at all is vanishingly small. We reject gods because they are a construct of men who use this abstract notion as a means of exercising power and control over other people. The men who constructed gods were often good men, they had the best of intentions, they tried to trick people into being their own best friend. Good people do bad things for good reasons. The problem for religion is that the lie is always there and it grows as lies tend to do.

The religions of today bear no relationship to their founders, not even Buddhism. Even if there were original texts written by the founders, let's say Mohommed, and every effort is made to keep to the direct teachings, the result is still a fail. Time itself corrupts.

Islamic scholars often say that Mohommed was a progressive who tried to limit the inherent misogyny of his culture as much as possible. That makes sense to me. But if his words say 'you may only beat your wife this much' and people take that as a literal truth, then the religion is no longer progressive. You cannot consult 2000 year old texts to gain an insight of how to live today. Move along, nothing to see there. 

Annie it occurs to me that for all your criticism of other people debating incorrectly, you have not actually said what they are doing wrong. So what do you suggest? Should we say nice things about Islam? Should we refrain from discussing anything controversial? Should we pretend we are interested in reverting to Islam? Should we pretend we are not repulsed by all the backwards standards that Islam promotes? Or do we need to go further and help promote Islam in order to get a straight answer about anything?

Quote:

Your standard response to anyone who is critical of Islam is that they are ignorant or not willing to learn and either way Abu should not bother responding to them.

It's not that you are critical of Islam that is the problem, it's the attitude. I am critical of some Islamic teachings myself and often argue with my husband about things like queer rights. We have many...lively debates.



Quote:

When he does give a striaght answer rather than an excuse for not answering his own words suffice.

He has given you straight answers about Islam before. So have I. Your method of debate is to choose a sentence out of a couple and use it as a weapon.


Quote:

It is pretty rare these days as he is afraid to do anything other than criticise the 'evil west' or post fluff pieces about how nice Muslims are.

I've said this before, but I really do think that most  of that is in reaction to some of the bullshit that is posted on here by people like Sprint, Yadda and Salad In. A lot of Muslims have legitimate grievances with some of the things that the West have done and there are many non-Muslims with a sense of fairness who can see and support this. Similar to your stance on niqab. I know that has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of empathy with Muslims on your part, but at least you were fair enough to recognise that a ban would be an assault on their democratic freedom.



Quote:

Wrong. I have gone to extraordinary lengths to get a simple answer from Abu. Abu has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid answers and make excuses. I put it to you that it is you who is interfering with genuine learning by facilitating Abu's deflections and constantly changing the subject from Islam to our 'unwillingness to learn about Islam'. Abu is a big boy. He can answer for himself

Yes he can, but if you're asking a genuine question about the religion, an answer from anybody who knows it should be enough. I have answered you plenty of times with the best intentions and you have never accepted them for what they are and moved on. Your intention is not to learn, but to challenge and change Abu's mind.


Quote:

That's because you are trying to prevent debate. I am trying to discuss Islam, and you are trying to prevent discussion of Islam by making it personal.

I am absolutely not trying to prevent debate.


Quote:

Annie it occurs to me that for all your criticism of other people debating incorrectly, you have not actually said what they are doing wrong. So what do you suggest? Should we say nice things about Islam? Should we refrain from discussing anything controversial? Should we pretend we are interested in reverting to Islam?

You're going to get back what you put in. You don't have to pretend anything - just have a little respect, because after all, you want something from Abu.


If you want him to give you the respect of a straight forward answer, then give him the respect of asking genuine questions without the bad attitude and condescension and attempts at entrapment.

How would you like to be asked if you were a Muslim?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 10:30am:

Quote: Your standard response to anyone who is critical of Islam is that they are ignorant or not willing to learn and either way Abu should not bother responding to them. It's not that you are critical of Islam that is the problem, it's the attitude. I am critical of some Islamic teachings myself and often argue with my husband about things like queer rights. We have many...lively debates. [quote]When he does give a striaght answer rather than an excuse for not answering his own words suffice.

He has given you straight answers about Islam before. So have I. Your method of debate is to choose a sentence out of a couple and use it as a weapon.


Quote:

It is pretty rare these days as he is afraid to do anything other than criticise the 'evil west' or post fluff pieces about how nice Muslims are.

I've said this before, but I really do think that most  of that is in reaction to some of the bullshit that is posted on here by people like Sprint, Yadda and Salad In. A lot of Muslims have legitimate grievances with some of the things that the West have done and there are many non-Muslims with a sense of fairness who can see and support this. Similar to your stance on niqab. I know that has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of empathy with Muslims on your part, but at least you were fair enough to recognise that a ban would be an assault on their democratic freedom.



Quote:

Wrong. I have gone to extraordinary lengths to get a simple answer from Abu. Abu has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid answers and make excuses. I put it to you that it is you who is interfering with genuine learning by facilitating Abu's deflections and constantly changing the subject from Islam to our 'unwillingness to learn about Islam'. Abu is a big boy. He can answer for himself

Yes he can, but if you're asking a genuine question about the religion, an answer from anybody who knows it should be enough. I have answered you plenty of times with the best intentions and you have never accepted them for what they are and moved on. Your intention is not to learn, but to challenge and change Abu's mind.


Quote:

That's because you are trying to prevent debate. I am trying to discuss Islam, and you are trying to prevent discussion of Islam by making it personal.

I am absolutely not trying to prevent debate.


Quote:

Annie it occurs to me that for all your criticism of other people debating incorrectly, you have not actually said what they are doing wrong. So what do you suggest? Should we say nice things about Islam? Should we refrain from discussing anything controversial? Should we pretend we are interested in reverting to Islam?

You're going to get back what you put in. You don't have to pretend anything - just have a little respect, because after all, you want something from Abu.


If you want him to give you the respect of a straight forward answer, then give him the respect of asking genuine questions without the bad attitude and condescension and attempts at entrapment.

How would you like to be asked if you were a Muslim?

[/quote]


1. A pious muslim cannot be critical of Islam - you either submit or you debate, innit. SO there goes a candid debate about Islam.
2. A pious muslim will not be critical of other Muslims when debating a non-Muslim. SO there goes the candid debate about the behaviour and views Muslims.

SO other than having a candid and frank debate about either Islam or Muslims, anything else can be discussed openly.

Then how do you explain all the Muslims who condemned Bin Laden after 9/11?

Quote:

It's not that you are critical of Islam that is the problem, it's the attitude.

So after all this you cannot actually say what anyone is doing wrong. It just comes down to how you interpret what we post?


Quote:

He has given you straight answers about Islam before. So have I. Your method of debate is to choose a sentence out of a couple and use it as a weapon

Some of those straight answers have either directly or indirectly contradicted each other. Neither you nor Abu have been willing to explain those apparent contradictions. Some of those straight answers were rather surprising or disturbing and generated a lot of interest and further questions. Despite Abu's belief in his perfect communication skills, some of his answers were ambiguous and confusing. Again, trying to get clarification has been like trying to get blood out of a stone. We need to go through about 20 pages of excuses for every straight answer Abu gives. Obviously, your 'contribution' is not exactly helping the situation. 

This may come as a shock to you Annie, but quoting what people actually post and addressing what they specifically say is actually the more reasonable debating strategy, rather than waving your arms in the air and addressing what you think the intent or the zattitude of a post is.


Quote:

I've said this before, but I really do think that most  of that is in reaction to some of the bullshit that is posted on here by people like Sprint, Yadda and Salad In.

Abu prefers to respond to BS because he can criticise it while posting his own BS in response. He is scared to respond to simple, straightforward questions about Islam.


Quote:

Yes he can, but if you're asking a genuine question about the religion, an answer from anybody who knows it should be enough. I have answered you plenty of times with the best intentions and you have never accepted them for what they are and moved on

I did accept them. I moved on to the next question. You seem to think that a single answer to a single answer resolves everything and any further discussion is unreasonable and unnecessary. The reality is the opposite. If Abu contradicts himself or you contradict Abu, obviously people are going to ask why. You seem to think you have perfect communication skills or are God and therefor once you have spoken that is the end of the matter. If you and Abu put a tenth as much effort into giving straight answers as you put into your absurd excuses this would actually be over. This is your circus.


Quote:

Your intention is not to learn, but to challenge and change Abu's mind.

As with Abu, if you want to have a sensible debate, you need to stop telling other people what they think. It is you who needs to approach the debate with an open mind, everyone else already is. I have never attempted to change Abu's mind about Islam. My only goal has been to find out what Abu believes, and Abu runs scared from that.


Quote:

I am absolutely not trying to prevent debate.

You continually change the topic from Islam to why we are not worthy of any straight answers about Islam. It is still a debate, but a rather stupid one.


Quote:

If you want him to give you the respect of a straight forward answer, then give him the respect of asking genuine questions without the bad attitude and condescension and attempts at entrapment.

Now you are just being silly Annie. My questions were genuine. Abu just did not like his own answers. Exposing someone's self contradictions and asking for a clarification is not entrapment. It is Abu digging his own hole.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 10:45am:

Then how do you explain all the Muslims who condemned Bin Laden after 9/11?

They were lapsed Muslims.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 11:20am:

Quote: It's not that you are critical of Islam that is the problem, it's the attitude. So after all this you cannot actually say what anyone is doing wrong. It just comes down to how you interpret what we post? [quote]He has given you straight answers about Islam before. So have I. Your method of debate is to choose a sentence out of a couple and use it as a weapon

Some of those straight answers have either directly or indirectly contradicted each other. Neither you nor Abu have been willing to explain those apparent contradictions. Some of those straight answers were rather surprising or disturbing and generated a lot of interest and further questions. Despite Abu's belief in his perfect communication skills, some of his answers were ambiguous and confusing. Again, trying to get clarification has been like trying to get blood out of a stone. We need to go through about 20 pages of excuses for every straight answer Abu gives. Obviously, your 'contribution' is not exactly helping the situation. 

This may come as a shock to you Annie, but quoting what people actually post and addressing what they specifically say is actually the more reasonable debating strategy, rather than waving your arms in the air and addressing what you think the intent or the zattitude of a post is.


Quote:

I've said this before, but I really do think that most  of that is in reaction to some of the bullshit that is posted on here by people like Sprint, Yadda and Salad In.

Abu prefers to respond to BS because he can criticise it while posting his own BS in response. He is scared to respond to simple, straightforward questions about Islam.


Quote:

Yes he can, but if you're asking a genuine question about the religion, an answer from anybody who knows it should be enough. I have answered you plenty of times with the best intentions and you have never accepted them for what they are and moved on

I did accept them. I moved on to the next question. You seem to think that a single answer to a single answer resolves everything and any further discussion is unreasonable and unnecessary. The reality is the opposite. If Abu contradicts himself or you contradict Abu, obviously people are going to ask why. You seem to think you have perfect communication skills or are God and therefor once you have spoken that is the end of the matter. If you and Abu put a tenth as much effort into giving straight answers as you put into your absurd excuses this would actually be over. This is your circus.


Quote:

Your intention is not to learn, but to challenge and change Abu's mind.

As with Abu, if you want to have a sensible debate, you need to stop telling other people what they think. It is you who needs to approach the debate with an open mind, everyone else already is. I have never attempted to change Abu's mind about Islam. My only goal has been to find out what Abu believes, and Abu runs scared from that.


Quote:

I am absolutely not trying to prevent debate.

You continually change the topic from Islam to why we are not worthy of any straight answers about Islam. It is still a debate, but a rather stupid one.


Quote:

If you want him to give you the respect of a straight forward answer, then give him the respect of asking genuine questions without the bad attitude and condescension and attempts at entrapment.

Now you are just being silly Annie. My questions were genuine. Abu just did not like his own answers. Exposing someone's self contradictions and asking for a clarification is not entrapment. It is Abu digging his own hole.[/quote]


You could be right. We shall see. If you ask a question of Abu about Islam and I know the answer, is it okay with you if I provide it?

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 11:36am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 3rd, 2012 at 10:45am: Then how do you explain all the Muslims who condemned Bin Laden after 9/11? They were lapsed Muslims.

They were Islamic leaders.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 7:44pm:

Says a lot about the morals of the West doesn't it? Capitalism is only interested in one thing. It will do whatever it can to get it.

There you go again.

So what do you think about Qatar? Or is it okay to be rich, capitalist and Muslim, but not rich, capitalist and Western?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2012 at 10:45am:

Then how do you explain all the Muslims who condemned Bin Laden after 9/11?

The same Muslims who get tax breaks for being a practicing Religion? What else were you expecting them to say.

I'm not talking about Western Muslims, Goddy.

And I wrote you a big long thoughtful message in that other thread where you got your panties in a bunch and you didn't even bother to read it.

Quote:

You could be right. We shall see. If you ask a question of Abu about Islam and I know the answer, is it okay with you if I provide it?

Sure, Yadda already tries to help me out with this.

This one would be a good place to start. Abu at first claimed that Islamic courts do reject dhimmy evidence. Then said the opposite. Eventually he acknowledged his contradiction and said that his later claims abrogated the earlier ones. Then Les turned up and implied that there is a subtle difference between 'rejecting' the evidence of dhimmies and assuming it to be untrustworthy. It was a pretty big effort just to get Abu to acknowledge what he said so I kind of gave up with Les as he seems incapable of posting anything other than insults.

I am particularly interested in what would lead Abu to believe what he initially claimed. Abu frequently insists that my wiki is full of lies, yet most of it is what he himself posted, so maybe he has adopted a more progressive interpretation of Islam.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317211760

The testimony of a non-Muslim is not accepted in a Shariah court because the most important guarantee of integrity and honesty is fear of Allah. This is not to say that non-Muslims do not have integrity or are dishonest, but that in the case where a person is on trial, then the fear of Allah is important (particularly considering some of the punishments involved).

This is the truth, no going back. I called my local Imam to be sure and they are his words, more or less.


This is the case for criminal matters, not sure on civil matters.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:41am:

The testimony of a non-Muslim is not accepted in a Shariah court because the most important guarantee of integrity and honesty is fear of Allah. This is not to say that non-Muslims do not have integrity or are dishonest, but that in the case where a person is on trial, then the fear of Allah is important (particularly considering some of the punishments involved). This is the truth, no going back. I called my local Imam to be sure and they are his words, more or less. This is the case for criminal matters, not sure on civil matters.

How cringeworthy!!! As if every Muslim was equally Allah-fearing.

This is truly incompatible with our own Enlightenment tradition of law, sociaty and concepts of what the human person is.

I should have asked him where in the Quran it says that. Abu, do you know?

2 women = 1 man
See Koran 2.282; 4:11;
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind."


Compare: Galatians 3:28




Testimony of non-muslims against Muslims is not accepted in sharia because a non-muslim cannot have power over a Muslim in a sharia court.

This is 2:282 in it's entirety:


Quote:

O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah , his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is [grave] disobedience in you. And fear Allah . And Allah teaches you. And Allah is Knowing of all things.

This is 4:11:


Quote:

Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females. But if there are [only] daughters, two or more, for them is two thirds of one's estate. And if there is only one, for her is half. And for one's parents, to each one of them is a sixth of his estate if he left children. But if he had no children and the parents [alone] inherit from him, then for his mother is one third. And if he had brothers [or sisters], for his mother is a sixth, after any bequest he [may have] made or debt. Your parents or your children - you know not which of them are nearest to you in benefit. [These shares are] an obligation [imposed] by Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.

The second is from a Sura called al Nisa. Nisa means women in Arabic. The verse you mention is about inheritance. Because in Islam it is a man's duty to support his wife financially, daughters get a half of what their brothers do. Her brother has to support his family, while she is in turn support by her husband. A man can't touch any money his wife inherits unless she gives it to him freely.

Women are further safeguarded by dowry payments and money that they get if they're ever divorced. I forget what that's called. The money is guaranteed up front in the marriage contract. For example, my old neighbour was given 10k at the outset with a guarantee of 100k should her husband ever divorce her.

If you'd like to read those Suras yourself, here is a link to the entire Quran online that is pretty easy to navigate: 

http://quran.com/4

Quote:

with a guarantee of 100k should her husband ever divorce her

Adjusted for inflation?

lol. No.

Often the up front dowry money is given in the form of gold. This could be cultural, though. Ever been to a Lebanese wedding? They're quite an affair - the gold is placed on the bride during the reception. It's sort of security for her.

Those weddings aren't halal, by the way. Mixing of the sexes and the music and stuff, but everyone I know does it like that.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Because in Islam it is a man's duty to support his wife financially, daughters get a half of what their brothers do. Her brother has to support his family, while she is in turn support by her husband. A man can't touch any money his wife inherits unless she gives it to him freely. Women are further safeguarded by dowry payments and money that they get if they're ever divorced. I forget what that's called. The money is guaranteed up front in the marriage contract. For example, my old neighbour was given 10k at the outset with a guarantee of 100k should her husband ever divorce her.

How is this relevant in Australia (or England or France, or any other western liberal democracy), in 2012? In our legal system, marriage is between a man and a woman who are equal before the law.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 11:49am: Because in Islam it is a man's duty to support his wife financially, daughters get a half of what their brothers do. Her brother has to support his family, while she is in turn support by her husband. A man can't touch any money his wife inherits unless she gives it to him freely. Women are further safeguarded by dowry payments and money that they get if they're ever divorced. I forget what that's called. The money is guaranteed up front in the marriage contract. For example, my old neighbour was given 10k at the outset with a guarantee of 100k should her husband ever divorce her. How is this relevant in Australia (or England or France, or any other western liberal democracy), in 2012? In our legal system, marriage is between a man and a woman who are equal before the law.

Am I advocating Shariah law here? It was a system that worked very well for women through history. It gave women security.

What is relevant is that now people have a choice. If the man works and the woman stays at home to look after the kids, that's fine. If she wants to work and contribute to the household, good for her. The only difference between Muslims and others is that Muslim women can chose whether to keep her money to safeguard her future or contribute it to the household.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 1:06pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 12:57pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 11:49am: Because in Islam it is a man's duty to support his wife financially, daughters get a half of what their brothers do. Her brother has to support his family, while she is in turn support by her husband. A man can't touch any money his wife inherits unless she gives it to him freely. Women are further safeguarded by dowry payments and money that they get if they're ever divorced. I forget what that's called. The money is guaranteed up front in the marriage contract. For example, my old neighbour was given 10k at the outset with a guarantee of 100k should her husband ever divorce her. How is this relevant in Australia (or England or France, or any other western liberal democracy), in 2012? In our legal system, marriage is between a man and a woman who are equal before the law. Am I advocating Shariah law here? It was a system that worked very well for women through history. It gave women security. What is relevant is that now people have a choice. If the man works and the woman stays at home to look after the kids, that's fine. If she wants to work and contribute to the household, good for her. The only difference between Muslims and others is that Muslim women can chose whether to keep her money to safeguard her future or contribute it to the household.

Sorry, I can't agree with you there!

Why not?

I think women are treated equally before the law here, so technically they can't. Or at least, the right has no legal protection.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 9:41am:

The testimony of a non-Muslim is not accepted in a Shariah court because the most important guarantee of integrity and honesty is fear of Allah. This is not to say that non-Muslims do not have integrity or are dishonest, but that..... ......in the case where a person is on trial, then the fear of Allah is important (particularly considering some of the punishments involved). This is the truth, no going back. I called my local Imam to be sure and they are his words, more or less. This is the case for criminal matters, not sure on civil matters.

Annie Anthrax,

Thank you, at least for your own candour above.


+++

'Virtue' and 'truth' to moslems, imo, is whatever moslems say that 'virtue' and 'truth' is.

i.e.
By looking at how moslems behave in the world, we can know that, to moslems, WHATEVER, serves ISLAM's interests, is deemed to be 'virtuous'.



e.g. #1,

Google;
Carnita Matthews is not a liar, her lawyer



e.g. #2,
The Hadith admonishes all moslems....

"Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell."
Google it.


And yet, we find the ISLAMIC principle of Taqiyya [lying, to serve Allah/ISLAM's 'promotion']....

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya



Google,
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives."


Google,
example muslim lying



Lying in Islam
By Abdullah Al Araby
Like most religions, Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell."
However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml




ISLAM is a philosophy which at the same time, seems to both condemn and then encourage falsehood to be used by moslems.

Why is that so ???

Is it because moslems realise that, "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives."

???


No matter how much moslems may deny it, lying is 'sanctified' in ISLAM, whenever lying [deceit] is advantageous to [the promotion and the spread of] ISLAM.





e.g. #3,


Read the Hadith, in the Hadith, Muhammad reveals his 'nature'.

He reveals himself to be an oath breaker, and 'a man for all seasons'.

".....By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' " "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #007.067.427


"......If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.089.260


In the following Hadith, Mohammed himself sets the example, for the use of deceit,

"Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #005.059.369


That account, was of a straight out *political* assassination, organised by Mohammed, the 'prophet' of ISLAM!

Q.
But what about the argument that could be made;
That Mohammed was at war with Allah's enemy [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf], so the deceit is OK ???

A.
Yes. And moslems today, the candid ones, will admit that ISLAM [and therefore ALL 'real' moslems] are engaged in a 'justified' never ending warfare with ALL OF UNBELIEVING MANKIND. [e.g. confirmed in the Koran 9.29] Therefore, moslems justify their deceit, lies, and violence, towards Western peoples [ALL non-moslems].

"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


Mohammed's advice to moslems, upon another assassination quest for Allah.....

Ishaq:365, Tabari VII:94
Google;
"You are absolved, free to say whatever you must."




n.b.
The Koran states...... that Mohammed is a wonderful example for all muslims to follow [his deceit?].
.....[that veracity of such a self-aggrandising statement, seeing that Mohammed himself received this 'revelation' from Allah, about his own virtue, is worth considering].

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. "
Koran 33.021iMy advice to moslems is to consider;
If you yourself follow Mohammed's example, in this life,
.....then when your life is over, surely you can also expect go to that same place, where Muhammad is?

Allah's paradise ???

Remember, that Mohammed was a confirmed liar, and murderer.

ISLAMIC texts, attest to that fact.



And here is the question i always like to ask of moslems about that assassination account in the Hadith [above]....

If Allah is an all powerful god, how could a mere man, Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf, have *hurt* Allah, who is an all powerful god
.....[as was stated by Mohammed in the Hadith]?




Google;
mohammed liar

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

I think women are treated equally before the law here, so technically they can't. Or at least, the right has no legal protection.

Are you referring to the right of the wife to keep her income while her husband supports her?

That sort of thing, yes.

It only works smoothly if everyone is agreeable. And women can contribute if they want to (and most would) - it's just not compulsory for them.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 10:42pm:

It only works smoothly if everyone is agreeable. And women can contribute if they want to (and most would) - it's just not compulsory for them.

And how would the adoption of Islam be a progressive step for women to take in our society? ie be 'the way forwards'.

Ask Yvonne Ridley ;)


I only have a couple of minutes, and I'd like to answer that properly so I'll come back to it when I get home later, Grey.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 8:19am:

Ask Yvonne Ridley ;) I only have a couple of minutes, and I'd like to answer that properly so I'll come back to it when I get home later, Grey.

While you're at it you might like to comment on the way things are 'moving forwards' in Baghdad. Good old time religion, just blisses everybody out don't it? Or is it just cities begining with B, Belfast, Beiruit, Baghdad? Nope, that doesn't account for Sarajevo, Kabal or Cairo; never mind I guess god'll work out who his chosen are eventually. 

Do you mean the same Baghdad that's spent 20 years under U.S siege, sanctions and sorties? and the last 9 or so years under a so called U.S "nation building" project?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Do you mean the same Baghdad that's spent 20 years under U.S siege, sanctions and sorties? and the last 9 or so years under a so called U.S "nation building" project?

Yep that's the one, moving forwards with Islam now those pesky foreigners have left. At least the US has learned why Saddam was the only type to keep things stable. But there was a few other cities in my post with similar difficulties Rashid. It takes religion ton turn people against themselves after a resounding win against an Imperium. Whodda thunk what a shambles Afghanistan would turn into after defeating the Russians. Vietnam never experienced that problem after waving goodbye to the coalition did it?

After Afghanistan fought off the Soviets, they had a brief civil war, which was ended by the mid-1990's, then the next superpower lined up to have its turn.

Comparing their situation to Vietnam is just silly.

Likewise Iraq has been constantly attacked for a good 20 years now, and that was a kick when they were down, after their war with Iran, fought largely at the behest of the kicker.

The Muslim world is getting back on their feet now though, whilst the West are beginning to fall off theirs... so we'll see how things pans out over the next decade or two.

Grey wrote on Jan 7^th, 2012 at 7:04pm:

It takes religion ton turn people against themselves after a resounding win against an Imperium. Whodda thunk what a shambles Afghanistan would turn into after defeating the Russians. Vietnam never experienced that problem after waving goodbye to the coalition did it?

Comparing Vietnam to Afghanistan is like comparing apples and oranges. The civil in Afghanistan was caused by ethnic/language differences not religion.

Considering that nearly 90% of Vietnam belong to the same ethnic/language group, it is not surprising that that the country was unified more quickly after the withdrawal of foreign troops than Afghanistan.

However, in Afghanistan there a large distinct ethnic groups competing for supremacy. Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%.

The Soviet and Chinese-supported resistance in Vietnam was unified under communist leadership which enabled them to quickly take over the country.

Whereas the US and Pakistani supported numerous warlords from different ethnic groups in Afghanistan, ensuring that when the Soviets left civil war would ensue to determine the ultimate winner.