NationStates Jolt Archive

Gee ... if all I have is running water, how am I posting on the internet? Guess my computer runs on water. Oh well ... whatever. You're hilarious.

This is what I was refering to:



Step 6: Charity

Give give give. Allah will provide you everything you need. If you have a sturdy roof over your head and running water, then you are already better off than 60% of the world. There are specific requirements for charity outlined in Qur'an and you will learn these as time goes on. You may give as much as you like, of course, but there are minimums based on your income and type of income. Don't worry, though, as nobody but Allah is auditing you. Then again, maybe you should worry. ;)

This is where you say "oh, i c"

But I'm not gonna argue with you. Arguing with an idiot doesn't make sense. :fluffle:

Just how does Iran go against something an "overwhelming majority" of Iranian people want. I mean ... hell ... Iran may have a female President before the US does! Shirin Ebadi is wildly popular and has a chance.

http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/ebadi-bio.html

Do you have any links to sources that can show where the people freely elected a representative, but the Mullahs said no to the choice? Cuz I can show the US doing it at least 3 times.



Let's see ... regulating private lives like Iran does ...

FCC and various indecency acts - tells me, an adult, what I can and cannot hear on the radio or see on TV (mostly because some people are too retarded to actually turn off their TV if something offensive pops up).

Defining Marriage - the government has no right to tell me whether or not my marriage is legitimate.

State liquor laws - because the Baptists don't like it, I can't go buy a bottle of Jack Daniels on Sunday whether or not I want to.

Anti-Assisted Suicide laws - why is it the government's business to tell me when, where, and how I choose to die?

Shall I go on?

Oh, and as for secret police, Iran doesn't have one either. I was being facetious. If it were secret, you wouldn't know about it.
Yeah, notice how the President of Iran is a pro-American guy, who favors a western style government? And notice how Iran is still run? Exactly. The President has no power, and the same goes for all elected officials. As for an example, how about the fact that over 1/3 of the candidates for the legislature were banned by the Mullahs in last year's election? And how come all of these people were liberal reformers?

As for regulating people's lives, I didn't mean that the government should stay out entirely. I meant that Iran tries to control all aspects of peoples' lives, by forcing them to adhere to Sharia law.

FCC-The FCC can only regulate public television, which is technically owned by the government. (They license it, etc.) Private ones, such as HBO, are not limited by the FCC in any way.

Marriage-The government has every right to control marriage, as it is a legal institution! If you are becoming legally married, by very definition you have to go through the government. Private marriages can be done however you want them to.

State Liquor Laws-Those are frankly silly, but they still do not compare to Iran, which bans liquor wholesale.

Suicide Laws-The government's legal duty is to protect people. Even from themselves.

And Iran does have a secret police. That is how they halt pro-democratic movements. Just because its a secret police doesn't mean nobody knows about it; it just means it legally doesn't exist.

Look, you argue for moderation and reconcilliation, yet you support Iran, which is the exact opposite. I can guarantee that the Mullahs in Iran would highly disagree with most of what you said in your first post.

This is what I was refering to:



This is where you say "oh, i c"

But I'm not gonna argue with you. Arguing with an idiot doesn't make sense. :fluffle:
Hee, he never said anything of the sort you inferred there. He said you are better off than 60% of the world if you have running water and a roof over your head.

But I'm not gonna argue with you. Arguing with an idiot doesn't make sense. :fluffle:

Why do you think I'm not arguing with you? :fluffle:

You were doing much better in the abortion thread.

Look, you argue for moderation and reconcilliation, yet you support Iran, which is the exact opposite. I can guarantee that the Mullahs in Iran would highly disagree with most of what you said in your first post.

Look, ok, I don't support the Iranian government. I've often said - even in this very thread - that they are corrupt. What I don't support, however, is the US going in there and "fixing" it.

Iranians will take care of Iran. I say let them.

You were doing much better in the abortion thread.


Oh, that explains everything. I can understand why you dont have morals, you're a muslim. Pro-Death followers and Muslims are so much alike. "Who cares about human life." Bet that is written in your holy book somewhere, eh?

Oh, that explains everything. I can understand why you dont have morals, you're a muslim. Pro-Death followers and Muslims are so much alike. "Who cares about human life." Bet that is written in your holy book somewhere, eh?

Yeah ... Qur'an 10:25 ...

If you're trying to goad me into a flame war, you failed the instant you thought you could.

That's why I say you were doing better in the abortion thread.

Belew, quit flaming. Keruvalia, I hope the Iranians can handle things on their own. I really do. But nuclear weapons are going to force our hand if the Iranian people do nothing.

Election 2000: The electoral college insures that rural areas aren't ignored by candidates only campaigning in high population density areas. Comparing that to a system where the overwhelming majority of the populace support one thing but the government does another is frankly ridiculous.
And how exactly does the US government regulate people's lives in any way that is similiar to Iran? We don't exactly have Sharia law here. What secret police? I don't remember anyone being locked up for dissenting. If we had a secret police, Michael Moore would be rotting in a cell a looong time ago.

How about all the Muslims "suspected" of terrorism still locked up in the US, having no charges yet brought against them. People have fake charges that the prosecution KNOWS are fake brought against them all the time, yet there isn't even enough FAKE proof to charge these guys. How messed up is that? The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, and gives the government the authority to lock up anyone suspected of terrorism. And just so you know, the definition of suspicion in it is saying "We suspect you." No evidence of any kind is required. This is very dangerous. Most Americans say, "Well, it doesn't affect me." Well, all it takes is a really psychotic administration, and locking up political opponents based on this "suspicion" of terrorism will become disturbingly easy.

Oh, that explains everything. I can understand why you dont have morals, you're a muslim. Pro-Death followers and Muslims are so much alike. "Who cares about human life." Bet that is written in your holy book somewhere, eh?But I'm not gonna argue with you. Arguing with an idiot doesn't make sense. :fluffle:
Belew, enough. Drop the trolling and flaming, now. Learn to converse intelligently without insults, or find another place to post.

Next time I have to do this, assuming you don't learn, will be your one official warning. You won't get another after that.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Look, ok, I don't support the Iranian government. I've often said - even in this very thread - that they are corrupt. What I don't support, however, is the US going in there and "fixing" it.

Iranians will take care of Iran. I say let them.

You are going to let the Iranian government, which is corrupt, make n00ks? Which it could then give to Hezbollah? Which could then n00k Israel or it's allies?

I say the Muslim Community shoud take care of Iran. Just get the Muslim powers(like Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia) to bring this rogue state under control. The Iranians wouldn't use WMD's against the attackers, because the Pakistanis would respond. And the Pakistani Army would wipe the floor with the Iranian Army(not to mention the Pakistanis would have Egyptians, Turks, and Indonesians helping them).

I say the Muslim Community shoud take care of Iran. Just get the Muslim powers(like Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia) to bring this rogue state under control. The Iranians wouldn't use WMD's against the attackers, because the Pakistanis would respond. And the Pakistani Army would wipe the floor with the Iranian Army(not to mention the Pakistanis would have Egyptians, Turks, and Indonesians helping them).


Well that makes it tough ... technically, Muslims aren't supposed to go to war against each other.

As for letting Iran have nukes, I don't even trust GWB with them. I think they should all be dismantled and shot into space.

Roma Islamica, you do realize that none of what you said is true? I've read the Patriot Act. Read it. All actions there require a federal warrant. Evidence must be provided to a judge.

Ah, yes, and I had no intention of implying there weren't members of other faiths. Iran is, by vast majority, Muslim, but I do believe that any government should strive to protect the rights of the minority.

For example, the US is 74% (approx) Christian, but that doesn't mean the US should impose Christianity on the remaining 26% nor should it seek to repress other faiths.

Iran should do the same.

Yes, I was sure that you understood the situation in Iran, but not everyone does, and I used the moment to let others understand the situation in Iran.

Yes, I was sure that you understood the situation in Iran, but not everyone does, and I used the moment to let others understand the situation in Iran.

Yes, and I denounce the treatment of the Bah'ai (I think I got that right) in Iran every chance I get. It is a shameful way for Muslims to act.

That last statement is a lie. I know most Muslims aren't fanatics. And I'm told this by my "predominantly christian community'" leaders. George W. Bush, every US senator. The fact is that on record, there was 1, count that 1, anti-Muslim hate crime after 9/11, and it involved a Sikh. I'm guessing you took that story, and tried to BS that it was your uncle. I didn't say there was no real racism. I'm saying its over exaggerated.

not to be an asshole here, but shut the fuck up. i was in 8th grade, my friend Colin (real first name Tejbeer) Parmar came in and told us that his uncle had been shot. i never said it was my uncle (actually read the quote, dipshit) and i definitely didn't fucking make that up. i didn't start reading major news sources regularly until about a year and a half ago, and i'm not one of those idiots who thinks that they can go back and try and get personal and in-your-face with things they had no involvement in. i never met the man, i never even found out his name, but it happened and my friend was his nephew.

so shut the fuck up, tool.

p.s. in case you haven't noticed, i'm a leeeetle bit pissed the hell off.

Oh ... and for those who need to know ...

Iranian government:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/flowchart_imap.gif

There is also a Vice President, who, right now, happens to be a woman.

If Armandian Cheese is an accurate representation of US foreign policy I sure as hell hope that Iran puts one of the things from my sig into practice. Revolution... Evolution and Love would be added bonuses. :D

And I DEFINITELY don't trust GW with nucular weapons... Yes, I spelt it like that on purpose. And AC, do you really believe that Iraq posed a legit threat to the US? Despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Well that makes it tough ... technically, Muslims aren't supposed to go to war against each other.

As for letting Iran have nukes, I don't even trust GWB with them. I think they should all be dismantled and shot into space.

They've gone to war alot of times before (Pakistan-Bangladesh, Iraq-Kuwait, Morocco-Western Sahara).

Oh ... and for those who need to know ...

Iranian government:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/flowchart_imap.gif
:eek:
If I scroll down the page really slowly, that diagram shifts between teal and purple and blinks very fast.
Cooooooool.

Oh ... and for those who need to know ...

Iranian government:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/flowchart_imap.gif

There is also a Vice President, who, right now, happens to be a woman.

Like it matters the VP is a woman? Pakistan has had god knows how many Women Leaders, and so has Bangladesh. It's not rare, y'know.

How about all the Muslims "suspected" of terrorism still locked up in the US, having no charges yet brought against them. People have fake charges that the prosecution KNOWS are fake brought against them all the time, yet there isn't even enough FAKE proof to charge these guys. How messed up is that? The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, and gives the government the authority to lock up anyone suspected of terrorism. And just so you know, the definition of suspicion in it is saying "We suspect you." No evidence of any kind is required. This is very dangerous. Most Americans say, "Well, it doesn't affect me." Well, all it takes is a really psychotic administration, and locking up political opponents based on this "suspicion" of terrorism will become disturbingly easy.

How about the fact that the defense, when one is allowed, isn't able to see the evidence. Yes, you've been arrested or detained, but if by chance you get to see an attorney, he can't defend you. Because he won't be allowed to see any evidence against you.

Like it matters the VP is a woman? Pakistan has had god knows how many Women Leaders, and so has Bangladesh. It's not rare, y'know.

One of the misconceptions in Islam is that women are to be cattle. Having a female VP, Iran - a Muslim theocracy - proves that it isn't true.

not to be an asshole here, but shut the fuck up. i was in 8th grade, my friend Colin (real first name Tejbeer) Parmar came in and told us that his uncle had been shot. i never said it was my uncle (actually read the quote, dipshit) and i definitely didn't fucking make that up. i didn't start reading major news sources regularly until about a year and a half ago, and i'm not one of those idiots who thinks that they can go back and try and get personal and in-your-face with things they had no involvement in. i never met the man, i never even found out his name, but it happened and my friend was his nephew.

so shut the fuck up, tool.

p.s. in case you haven't noticed, i'm a leeeetle bit pissed the hell off.
And I'm supposed to believe some random guy on the internet? Swearing just made you even less believable.

If Armandian Cheese is an accurate representation of US foreign policy I sure as hell hope that Iran puts one of the things from my sig into practice. Revolution... Evolution and Love would be added bonuses. :D

And I DEFINITELY don't trust GW with nucular weapons... Yes, I spelt it like that on purpose. And AC, do you really believe that Iraq posed a legit threat to the US? Despite all the evidence to the contrary?
With the evidence provided before the war, yes I did. Now that it turns out most of the world's intelligence agencies were dead wrong, no. Saddam bluffed, and we fell for it. Saddam was still a threat, as a terrorist sponsor, but without WMD, a minor one, compared to Iran and North Korea.

Nice chart, but you forget what I've said repeadetly: only the nonelected bodies have power. Again, notice how the President is pro-western? Notice how the government is not? The Mullahs still hold an iron grip.

Nice chart, but you forget what I've said repeadetly: only the nonelected bodies have power. Again, notice how the President is pro-western? Notice how the government is not? The Mullahs still hold an iron grip.

Actually, the government hasn't been anti-western since the death of Khomeini. The Mullahs don't hold as iron a grip as you might think.

Want me to send up some pics of women walking around Tehran with their hair uncovered and not getting rocks thrown at them for it? How about some pics of Tehran showing anti-government protests or whatnot?

The Iran of the 80s is not the Iran of today.

Actually, the government hasn't been anti-western since the death of Khomeini. The Mullahs don't hold as iron a grip as you might think.

Want me to send up some pics of women walking around Tehran with their hair uncovered and not getting rocks thrown at them for it? How about some pics of Tehran showing anti-government protests or whatnot?

The Iran of the 80s is not the Iran of today.
So the government radio broadcasts that belt out anti-Jewish propaganda everyday aren't 'anti-western'? Besides, ask the Iranian government itself if it is anti-Western. It'll proudly proclaim "Yes" and proceed to call us the "Great Satan."

So the government radio broadcasts that belt out anti-Jewish propaganda everyday aren't 'anti-western'? Besides, ask the Iranian government itself if it is anti-Western. It'll proudly proclaim "Yes" and proceed to call us the "Great Satan."

"Shaytan" not Satan. "Shaytan" means "adversary" in Arabic and, based on how many people in the west are so ignorant to Iran, it rings true. Satan, or Lucifer, is called "Iblis" in Qur'an. Don't get the two mixed up. Shaytan != Iblis.

As for radio broadcasts, come on ... 3+ million internet user blogs out of Iran and at least 1,000 radio broadcasts I can point to. The Iranian government no more owns them than the FCC owns Clearchannel Communications in the US.

It's one of the big problems. Iran refuses to try to understand the US and that for which it stands and the US does the same to Iran. All it comes down to is petty bickering over pointless details and self-indulged ignorance.

Getting the average citizen of the US to accept that maybe they're wrong about Iran, and vice versa, is like getting Arafat and Rabin to shake hands ... but Clinton managed to get that done.

I'm specifically referring to government owned stations. And it wasn't simply a pronounciation error; it was actually a literal translation of Satan that Khomeini referred to. Now, I'm not dissing the actual people of Iran, but it would be delusional to think that the government is buddy-buddy with the US. After all, they are a major sponsor of terrorism.

Women are absolutely equal to men in Islam.

Keruvalia, with all due respect, I've been to a mosque here in Eastern Kentucky and have spoken with some of Syrian, Iranian, and Pakistani Muslims there. They were very intelligent and articulate--physicians and professors,--and some of the nicest, most humble people I've met, but the women were not equal to the men. They weren't even allowed to shake my hand. I reached to shake one lady's hand after shaking her husband's as I was leaving. She stepped back and he stepped between us. Their dress is a lot more restricted, too. She was allowed to speak to us, but not to let her hair show. Has that Quranian rule been relaxed to meet modern sentiment, or is it still in effect? If it is, doesn't that then tip the scale toward men? I understand that Muslim heaven is even better for the men who would reach it than for women. I don't know jack-poo about Izlam, I'm just asking someone who does know. Thanks.

One of the misconceptions in Islam is that women are to be cattle. Having a female VP, Iran - a Muslim theocracy - proves that it isn't true.

Yeah, but if they looked at Pakistan and Bangladesh they'd see the same thing. And Pakistan and Bangladesh have many times as many muslims.

Keruvalia, with all due respect, I've been to a mosque here in Eastern Kentucky and have spoken with some of Syrian, Iranian, and Pakistani Muslims there. They were very intelligent and articulate--physicians and professors,--and some of the nicest, most humble people I've met, but the women were not equal to the men. They weren't even allowed to shake my hand. I reached to shake one lady's hand after shaking her husband's as I was leaving. She stepped back and he stepped between us. Their dress is a lot more restricted, too. She was allowed to speak to us, but not to let her hair show. Has that Quranian rule been relaxed to meet modern sentiment, or is it still in effect? If it is, doesn't that then tip the scale toward men? I understand that Muslim heaven is even better for the men who would reach it than for women. I don't know jack-poo about Izlam, I'm just asking someone who does know. Thanks.

Actually, in Pakistan Women are very influential. They lead the country, meet with foreign leaders, run buisiness, etc. There are in all sense equal. They are free to shake the hands of whomever they want (however, they usually don't go overboard. Just a handshake here and there.)

After all, they are a major sponsor of terrorism.

Actually, no they aren't.

Now you are denying the truth, Keruvalia. Iran is not only a sponsor of terrorism; they are the sponsor of terrorism. The majority of Palestinian terror groups have headquarters there, etc.

They weren't even allowed to shake my hand. I reached to shake one lady's hand after shaking her husband's as I was leaving. She stepped back and he stepped between us. Their dress is a lot more restricted, too. She was allowed to speak to us, but not to let her hair show. Has that Quranian rule been relaxed to meet modern sentiment, or is it still in effect?

There is nothing in Qur'an that commands the covering of hair. Men and women are commanded to be equally modest in Qur'an. It's tradition, but not law.

As for the shaking hands thing, married men are not allowed to shake hands with a woman either. You did mention her husband. The same is true in traditional Jewish circles. It doesn't mean women are treated as less than men.

Now you are denying the truth, Keruvalia. Iran is not only a sponsor of terrorism; they are the sponsor of terrorism. The majority of Palestinian terror groups have headquarters there, etc.

Show some proof of this, please, with actual governmental backing.

The reason I ask is because I can show you dozens of links where Iranian Mullahs have denounced terrorism as against Islam. However, you first. Show me undeniable proof that the Iranian government sponsors terrorism.

I know that this is embarrassingly out of step with the current... direction of the conversation, but I've decided that it's time finally to satisfy my curiosity and arrange a visit to a local mosque.

In addition to that, I've been reading the Qur'an and researching Islam from many sources, non-Islamic and Islamic alike, as well as researching countries that are primarily Muslim.

I've found that, based on my independent research during my spare time, that much of the fear-mongering that I have observed in the media and here on these boards, is based primarily upon a lack of understanding of what the nature of Islam is really about.

Furthermore, in the course of my readings, I've found that anti-Islamic sources often quote passages from the Qur'an out of context from the scripture that surrounds it. Of course, many of those anti-Islamic commentaries included the specific Surah and paragraph numbers, but I'm sure that many who read such things are of the choir being preached to so to speak and wouldn't dream of even touching a copy of the Holy Qur'an, so attempts to corroborate the claims with the original text are rarely made by the "average joe."

I am fully confident that if one were to simply educate one's self on Islam, probing every resource available, ESPECIALLY the Qur'an itself, one will reach the same conclusion that there is nothing inherently terroristic, backward, or antithetical to peace, freedom, inquiry and reason in the Qur'an.

I am really saddened to hear of you turning to islam, please no offence. I personally think you are probably a good person. For that matter most muslims are probably very good people. It is good that you are striving to learn and to worship but I am sure that no one may enter heaven except through Jesus. We all fall short of the grace of god and since he is perfect, we cannot be in heaven with him except through jesus. I only hope that you keep an open mind and listen to the lord. I will pray for you. Please no one flame me or make negative comments about this post. I am not trolling, it is not out of hate or intolerance but out of love that I am writing this. I fully realize that it is not my place to convert anyone. I have enjoyed reading your informative thread and I will not post again as I am a little off topic. God bless....

And I'm supposed to believe some random guy on the internet? Swearing just made you even less believable.

i swear profusely when i'm angry, which your claim that i'm using a random person's death to gain a point over you in debate or something made me. death is not something i take lightly, especially not a racially motivated one.

random guy on the internet? tell you what. My name is Julian Rowlands. i'm 16 years old, an 11th grader going to high school in new jersey, where i moved after 8th grade. i went to Kent Middle School in Kentfield, California, which is in Marin County (right above San Francisco). If you really want to confirm this, you can do a search on the California and New Jersey fencing websites; as i've been fencing in tournaments for four or five years, my existance and basic location is confirmable through both of their tournament result archives (i think; i haven't checked the california one in about three years).

i have a theory that people only suspect people of doing things that they themselves would do in similar situations. if we go by that, you aren't looking too good hear at all.

Show some proof of this, please, with actual governmental backing.

The reason I ask is because I can show you dozens of links where Iranian Mullahs have denounced terrorism as against Islam. However, you first. Show me undeniable proof that the Iranian government sponsors terrorism.
Viola! Here's a paragraph from the CIA's world factbook. (Note the bold part.)
Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile. Conservative clerical forces established a theocratic system of government with ultimate political authority nominally vested in a learned religious scholar. Iranian-US relations have been strained since a group of Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and held it until 20 January 1981. During 1980-88, Iran fought a bloody, indecisive war with Iraq that eventually expanded into the Persian Gulf and led to clashes between US Navy and Iranian military forces between 1987-1988. Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its activities in Lebanon and elsewhere in the world and remains subject to US economic sanctions and export controls because of its continued involvement. Following the elections of a reformist President and Majlis in the late 1990s, attempts to foster political reform in response to popular dissatisfaction have floundered as conservative politicians have prevented reform measures from being enacted, increased repressive measures, and consolidated their control over the government.
And here are some other sources:
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_f.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/1993/6044087-6046949.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/1993/22044148-22046315.htm

I am really saddened to hear of you turning to islam, please no offence. I personally think you are probably a good person. For that matter most muslims are probably very good people. It is good that you are striving to learn and to worship but I am sure that no one may enter heaven except through Jesus. We all fall short of the grace of god and since he is perfect, we cannot be in heaven with him except through jesus. I only hope that you keep an open mind and listen to the lord. I will pray for you. Please no one flame me or make negative comments about this post. I am not trolling, it is not out of hate or intolerance but out of love that I am writing this. I fully realize that it is not my place to convert anyone. I have enjoyed reading your informative thread and I will not post again as I am a little off topic. God bless....

i understand that you mean well, and that you are most likely a very good person, but i believe that in your absolute faith in christianity as the One True Religion you have forgotten to respect others. I believe that to offer to pray for someone who you believe is on the wrong path in life is almost insulting because muslims themselves hope that you, and all christians/jews/other religions, will find God (at least in the islamic interpretation, rather than the christian one).

p.s. Muslims believe in Jesus, just so you know...

Viola!
Why are we talking about instruments again?
:D

Why are we talking about instruments again?
:D
Glochenspiel!

P.S. I'm not sure if that statement by Blessed Assurance was directed at Keruvalia or myself.

Glochenspiel!
Harpsichord!

Okay, I should probably quit whili I'm ahead before I accidentally killinate this thread with spam.
[/threadjack]

Viola! Here's a paragraph from the CIA's world factbook. (Note the bold part.)
Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile. Conservative clerical forces established a theocratic system of government with ultimate political authority nominally vested in a learned religious scholar. Iranian-US relations have been strained since a group of Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and held it until 20 January 1981. During 1980-88, Iran fought a bloody, indecisive war with Iraq that eventually expanded into the Persian Gulf and led to clashes between US Navy and Iranian military forces between 1987-1988. Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its activities in Lebanon and elsewhere in the world and remains subject to US economic sanctions and export controls because of its continued involvement. Following the elections of a reformist President and Majlis in the late 1990s, attempts to foster political reform in response to popular dissatisfaction have floundered as conservative politicians have prevented reform measures from being enacted, increased repressive measures, and consolidated their control over the government.

just so you know, Sponsor has 5 main definitions. The primary 4 of these do not involve financial aid at all. When Bush says Iran "sponsors terror," he is deliberately exploiting the western assumption that sponsor means finance. 'State Sponsor of Terrorism" means that Iran approves of terrorism, not that it finances it. Lebanon, Syria, and several others in the middle east also approve of terrorism; only difference there is that they actually provide funds to go towards it.

Oh, and to refute an earlier point you made, most Palestinian Resistance groups operate mainly in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan; Iran is almost as far away from Israel as you can get while remaining in the middle east, making it difficult to smuggle arms into Occupied Palestine from there.



P.S. for the record, even if the CIA handbook were meant to be interpreted in the way that you seem to think, just because the CIA say it doesn't mean that its right.

I am really saddened to hear of you turning to islam, please no offence. I personally think you are probably a good person. For that matter most muslims are probably very good people. It is good that you are striving to learn and to worship but I am sure that no one may enter heaven except through Jesus. We all fall short of the grace of god and since he is perfect, we cannot be in heaven with him except through jesus. I only hope that you keep an open mind and listen to the lord. I will pray for you. Please no one flame me or make negative comments about this post. I am not trolling, it is not out of hate or intolerance but out of love that I am writing this. I fully realize that it is not my place to convert anyone. I have enjoyed reading your informative thread and I will not post again as I am a little off topic. God bless....

Likewise. You wouldn't happen to personally know Jesussaves, would you? ;)

just so you know, Sponsor has 5 main definitions. The primary 4 of these do not involve financial aid at all. When Bush says Iran "sponsors terror," he is deliberately exploiting the western assumption that sponsor means finance. 'State Sponsor of Terrorism" means that Iran approves of terrorism, not that it finances it. Lebanon, Syria, and several others in the middle east also approve of terrorism; only difference there is that they actually provide funds to go towards it.

Oh, and to refute an earlier point you made, most Palestinian Resistance groups operate mainly in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan; Iran is almost as far away from Israel as you can get while remaining in the middle east, making it difficult to smuggle arms into Occupied Palestine from there.



P.S. for the record, even if the CIA handbook were meant to be interpreted in the way that you seem to think, just because the CIA say it doesn't mean that its right.
I said that most Palestinian terror groups had a headquarters there. However, they have multiple headquarters. And Iran does actively fund terrorism, in addition to that. I posted other sources, y'know. Not just the CIA.

Viola! Here's a paragraph from the CIA's world factbook. (Note the bold part.)

So the CIA is a good source?

So the CIA is a good source?

Only if you're not trying to figure out if there are biochemical or nuclear weapons in your neighbour's tool shed. ;)

So the CIA is a good source?
You can't disbelieve everything they say over one mistake. And anyway, I included other sources at the bottom.

i understand that you mean well, and that you are most likely a very good person, but i believe that in your absolute faith in christianity as the One True Religion you have forgotten to respect others. I believe that to offer to pray for someone who you believe is on the wrong path in life is almost insulting because muslims themselves hope that you, and all christians/jews/other religions, will find God (at least in the islamic interpretation, rather than the christian one).

p.s. Muslims believe in Jesus, just so you know...

not in quite the same way.. but this fellow your responding to is also slightly misrepresenting his train of thought.. Jesus is Christianity IS god.. apart of the holy trinity... there is only one way into heaven it is through (partly) jesus.. it is through (on a whole) GOD.... And no one can say otherwise. Muslims belive in GOd.. weather they belive in the trinity .. that maybe unimportant in the long run.. the 10 commandments only states that thou shall (short version) belive in the the lord thy god.. period.. never mentioning Jesus in there..

(that is providing this fellow isn't one of those frindge christian groups in which case he may also be beliving in the "elect" (throwing out the idea that we are all gods children)

So the CIA is a good source?

I would say yes the CIA on a whole is quite credible.. seeing how your lacking sources, and their credibilty hence can't be deterimined...

The fact is that on record, there was 1, count that 1, anti-Muslim hate crime after 9/11, and it involved a Sikh.

In researching hate crimes commited after 9/11, to double check your claim that the only hate crime after the hijackings was against a sikh, i came accross this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/

anything you want to say?

not in quite the same way.. but this fellow your responding to is also slightly misrepresenting his train of thought.. Jesus is Christianity IS god.. apart of the holy trinity... there is only one way into heaven it is through (partly) jesus.. it is through (on a whole) GOD.... And no one can say otherwise. Muslims belive in GOd.. weather they belive in the trinity .. that maybe unimportant in the long run.. the 10 commandments only states that thou shall (short version) belive in the the lord thy god.. period.. never mentioning Jesus in there..

(that is providing this fellow isn't one of those frindge christian groups in which case he may also be beliving in the "elect" (throwing out the idea that we are all gods children)

Actually, they do mention Jesus. In fact, Jesus is considered to be one of the divine prophets of Islam.

I would say yes the CIA on a whole is quite credible.. seeing how your lacking sources, and their credibilty hence can't be deterimined...


The same CIA who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

Yeah ... I believe them ...

I would say yes the CIA on a whole is quite credible.. seeing how your lacking sources, and their credibilty hence can't be deterimined...

you trust the cia because they're america's intelligence organization, and therefore the 'good guys.'

whereas I, and i think Keruvalia, note that their 'factbook' contains only so much as you'll find in a history textbook, mixed with the CIA's actions and views. nothing new here besides what they think, and they thought that it was okay to create Death Squads in nicaragua and salvador and thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons. what 'credibilty' do you think they have, and why?

There's no such thing as one reliable stand-alone source of information.

There's no such thing as one reliable stand-alone source of information.

WORD.

i read the BBC, Al Jazeera, the New York Times and CNN on a daily, if not more frequent, basis, and i still don't trust things that i have surmised.

you trust the cia because they're america's intelligence organization, and therefore the 'good guys.'

whereas I, and i think Keruvalia, note that their 'factbook' contains only so much as you'll find in a history textbook, mixed with the CIA's actions and views. nothing new here besides what they think, and they thought that it was okay to create Death Squads in nicaragua and salvador and thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons. what 'credibilty' do you think they have, and why?

How really factual is the CIA's factbook?

Another dumb question.

A website told me.. or maybe it was someone, I dont remember.
But anyway, I heard from somewhere that Islam does not believe there were other religions before Islam, or civilizatitions before it. Something to that effect.
I know it's a vague statement, and I don't believe it, but I was wondering if I could get any clarification, and perhaps a yes/no to it?

Another dumb question.

A website told me.. or maybe it was someone, I dont remember.
But anyway, I heard from somewhere that Islam does not believe there were other religions before Islam, or civilizatitions before it. Something to that effect.
I know it's a vague statement, and I don't believe it, but I was wondering if I could get any clarification, and perhaps a yes/no to it?

As far as I know, when the statement is made about there being no religions before Islam, it's meant in the rhetorical rather than literal sense, i.e., putting "A before B in importance."

Another dumb question.

A website told me.. or maybe it was someone, I dont remember.
But anyway, I heard from somewhere that Islam does not believe there were other religions before Islam, or civilizatitions before it. Something to that effect.
I know it's a vague statement, and I don't believe it, but I was wondering if I could get any clarification, and perhaps a yes/no to it?

i haven't read the entire qu'ran, so i'm not sure if there are any mentions of that. perhaps you're confusing it with the statement "there is only one god, and Mohammad is his prophet" or in its more formal translation "I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, the One, without any partner. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger."

if the qu'ran does in fact mention Islam being the first civilization or something, bear in mind that the christian bible permits people to own slaves so long as they are purchased from other countries.

No, it was quite clear that Islam rejects the idea that anyone predated Islam, or any civilizations existed before it.

As I said, I don't believe it, nor do I believe whatever source I got it from was correct at all, but I decided to ask it.

No, it was quite clear that Islam rejects the idea that anyone predated Islam, or any civilizations existed before it.

As I said, I don't believe it, nor do I believe whatever source I got it from was correct at all, but I decided to ask it.

That is nonsense. The Qur'an tells you the "story of civilization".. It describes in detail the Egyptian civilization and the Pharoahs in the story of Moses. It also makes references to the Persian Empire, and of course the Roman Empire, both the Old Roman Empire in the story of Isa (Jesus Christ) and the Byzantine Empire, Islam's biggest enemy in the first century or so after its creation.

And even before that, it tells us of the Sumerians during the time of Abraham, Noah's civilization, etc.

It accepts, actually it endorses, the idea that there were many many religions before Islam, and many many civilizations that existed before it.

That's why it's the "final revelation". Saying that Islam rejects the notion that civilizations and religions pre-dated it would be, in essence, undermining Islam itself and causing severe contradictions within it. :)

This is a very nice essay, well written and very informative.

I applaude you!

No, I don't want to be a Muslim. Islam eats up people's grey matter and makes them do horrible things. A bit like rabies, except that rabies kills the people who has it while Islam makes the people who has it kill or abuse other people. Want a link to a stoning to death in Iran before dinner? (won't post it, it's too graphic). I also have tons of docs about women's rights and minorities' rights in Pakistan... Not to talk about saudi Arabia of course.

No, I don't want to be a Muslim. Islam eats up people's grey matter and makes them do horrible things. A bit like rabies, except that rabies kills the people who has it while Islam makes the people who has it kill or abuse other people. Want a link to a stoning to death in Iran before dinner? (won't post it, it's too graphic). I also have tons of docs about women's rights and minorities' rights in Pakistan... Not to talk about saudi Arabia of course.

Guess who LIVED in Pakistan?


Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Sure, there are cases of Mistreatment in the border areas(mostly in the N.W.F.P,the province along the Afghani Border, and in Baluchistan, on the border of Afghanistan AND Iran), but in Punjab and Sindh(which don't touch those countries), there are plenty of women rights. The Minority is also very powerful in those areas, and everyone is united by their love of Pakistan and Islam. That makes sense, seeing how Pakistan was the first Islamic Republic.

Keruvalia, an amazing thread, I'm sorry I discovered it so late, so I haven't read it all. You've been very enlightening ;)

So, I have a question (appologies if it has been asked before). Also appologies for the roundabout way in which I ask it.

The impression you have given me is that Qur'anic Islam is the purest possible, and geopolitical/authoritarian interpretations such as those of Iran lead to regrettable incidents such as:

a) Stoning to death of adulterous women
b) Burning to death of girls who were prevented from escaping a burning building because they didn't have the appropriate headgear
c) Killing of apostates.

Granted that Christianity still has people who would do equally attrocious things, these people are no longer in government in most (if not all) of the western world. They do not control punishments, or the Law. Such a brutal, authoritarian interpretation of the local religion is no longer enforced by societies in the west.

It is my theory that Christianity - by which I mean its interpreted role in western society - has the European Enlightenment to thank for (what I consider to be) an upgrade, to today, where all citizens have equal rights, and religion does not play such a massive role in society, law, or government.

Does Islam need an Enlightenment?

From what you say, the text of the Qur'an itself is perfect, and so does not need to be brought up to date. However in my eyes at least, the governments associated with Islam in the Middle East are far from attaining the liberal, libertarian, secular western ideals I hold.

Is this a problem, and would an Islamic Enlightenment solve it? How would it be solved, if not? Is westernisation (by which I mean the development of a more liberal, libertarian society) bad for Islam?

Sorry for so many vague questions, but thanks so much for the thread.

The same CIA who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

Yeah ... I believe them ...

Well, the CIA screwed up this time, but remember; It's the best out there. The Brit's said Iraq had WMD's. The Russians(the second-best at espionage and info gathering, possibly even better than us) said that Iraq had WMD's. If you can't trust the best intelligence operations, who can you trust?

Bill O'rielly!


J/k

Does Islam need an Enlightenment?

From what you say, the text of the Qur'an itself is perfect, and so does not need to be brought up to date. However in my eyes at least, the governments associated with Islam in the Middle East are far from attaining the liberal, libertarian, secular western ideals I hold.

Is this a problem, and would an Islamic Enlightenment solve it? How would it be solved, if not? Is westernisation (by which I mean the development of a more liberal, libertarian society) bad for Islam?

AWESOME question..

Islam itself, as in the religion, the text, needs no enlightenment.

Muslims need to be enlightened.

Their are two major problems with Islam:

1) The deliberate mis-interpretation of the text to suit a group's political agenda.

2) The massive expansion of Islam made the ARABIC CULTURE flourish in Muslim territories. Islam is a religion by God, for His people. It should never be bound to a single culture, and its rites and rituals must NEVER be confused with that of the culture it sprang from.

Unfortunately, that is the case today, in the Arab World at least.

The Arab World, which Westerns seem to tie with Islam all the time, is in desparate need of a renaissance. The religion is not. The mentality of the people needs such an enlightenment. And it needs it FAST, or else it'll slip into a more acute and active form of fundamentalist Islam.

And change can only come from within. So the future of the Middle East counts on the will of a few, select individuals to really change the political landscape of the region. (Through coups to remove primitive dictatorships, introduce democracy and some liberalist ideals (SOME).. expand civil rights, improve economies, and expand political freedoms. "Enlightenment" in the Arab World can only happen when this is established.

AWESOME question..

Islam itself, as in the religion, the text, needs no enlightenment.

Muslims need to be enlightened.

Their are two major problems with Islam:

1) The deliberate mis-interpretation of the text to suit a group's political agenda.

2) The massive expansion of Islam made the ARABIC CULTURE flourish in Muslim territories. Islam is a religion by God, for His people. It should never be bound to a single culture, and its rites and rituals must NEVER be confused with that of the culture it sprang from.

Unfortunately, that is the case today, in the Arab World at least.

The Arab World, which Westerns seem to tie with Islam all the time, is in desparate need of a renaissance. The religion is not. The mentality of the people needs such an enlightenment. And it needs it FAST, or else it'll slip into a more acute and active form of fundamentalist Islam.

And change can only come from within. So the future of the Middle East counts on the will of a few, select individuals to really change the political landscape of the region. (Through coups to remove primitive dictatorships, introduce democracy and some liberalist ideals (SOME).. expand civil rights, improve economies, and expand political freedoms. "Enlightenment" in the Arab World can only happen when this is established.

I agree that Islam itself isn't necessarily the problem but, much like with Christianity or any other religion, its success is dependent upon the society.

An example of a primarily Islamic country that has managed to keep one foot in modernity while keeping the other in its Islamic traditions is Malaysia. The country is 60% Muslim, poverty has been mostly eliminated, and the country enjoys a climate of ethnic and religious harmony among the Malays, Chinese, and South Asians.

Their current prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is currently advocating a rather interesting concept called Islam Hadhari (translated from the Arabic: "Civilisational Islam"), whereby Islamic society is coupled with modernity, economic and social progress, technology, and good government.

In spite of the occasionally imflammatory rantings of Doctor Mahathir, I still think he along with his cohorts in UMNO managed to turn Malaysia into a mostly Muslim country that got it right.

Hi, Keru.

I'd like some comments on my situation. Paradise or Hell.
I am impressed by the essay as it's the first decent script on Islam that I've read.
I've waded through all the stuff to get here and would like to ask a question with some background.
The background:
I was born into a middle class family here in Scotland. They were Church of Scotland (fairly standard protestant) and I was baptised while still too young to shit anywhere except in my nappy let alone make any rational judgements about my soul or spirituality.
At about the age of six I could read quite well and started asking questions at Sunday School (read "protestant indoctrination class").
Questions like "If God made everything, who made God?"
I was disappointed by the answers and so decided to RTFM. It took me a few months to go right through the bible but all it gave me was more questions. I think I started being an atheist at the age of ten or so.

My researches since then have all been towards the big questions. Where did I come from? Why am I here? What happens in the future?

I've looked at most of the world's religions and I've found that most of the stuff has made me more and more atheistic. Nowadays I'm a hard line atheist skeptic. My mind is not closed, it's just not open enough for my common sense to fall out. (some of those New Agers are just WIERD!)

OK, so, born blank but indoctrinated by christians. Becomes atheist believing that all supernatural stuff is bunk and hokum. Have read Qu'ran a bit but find it difficult to get into (should I learn Arabic? Don't have time). So you could say that I've looked at Islam and rejected it just like all the other religions I've looked at.
However, I still have moral values which condense down to.
1) "And it hurt none, do as thou wilt." (wiccan creed, I know, but nevertheless pertinent. And I've met plenty of wiccans who don't follow that one.)
2) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Given this situation, if I am flattened by a bus tonight, am I bound for paradise or hell?

P.S. I hope I can deal with any flamers or trolls as well as you do.

Ecce.

Questions like "If God made everything, who made God?"

Islam encourages such questions. It is always good to question ... even if you're questioning Allah.

Have read Qu'ran a bit but find it difficult to get into (should I learn Arabic? Don't have time). So you could say that I've looked at Islam and rejected it just like all the other religions I've looked at.

You can't reject something until you've studied it thoroughly. No need to learn Arabic. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's "The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an" is an amazingly comprehensive translation on Qur'an with lots and lots of commentary. Time is all you need.

However, I still have moral values which condense down to.
1) "And it hurt none, do as thou wilt." (wiccan creed, I know, but nevertheless pertinent. And I've met plenty of wiccans who don't follow that one.)
2) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."


Good values! However, they do come from that which you say you reject. ;)

Given this situation, if I am flattened by a bus tonight, am I bound for paradise or hell?

Only the truly evil and the apostate go to Hell. As for your place in Paradise, that's not up to me or any man.


P.S. I hope I can deal with any flamers or trolls as well as you do.


I hope someday I don't have to deal with them at all. :D

Another dumb question.

A website told me.. or maybe it was someone, I dont remember.
But anyway, I heard from somewhere that Islam does not believe there were other religions before Islam, or civilizatitions before it.

In the sense that Qur'an is a call to return to the religion of Abraham, who was neither Christian nor Jew, and, thus, a return to the earlier way - before the priests became intercessors between man and Allah and before the law (Torah) was given.

Not in the sense that the world didn't exist until Qur'an was revealed. :)

Only the truly evil and the apostate go to Hell. As for your place in Paradise, that's not up to me or any man.


However, does not my rejection of the supernatural, and thus my rejection of the existance of Allah, not mean that I am apostate and thus bound for a bit of a bone-crushing on some student's dissection table (I intend to leave my body to medicine and thus will be cut up by medic students in anatomy lessons) feeling like hell in my grave?

Or do I have the wrong definition of apostate?

However, does not my rejection of the supernatural, and thus my rejection of the existance of Allah, not mean that I am apostate and thus bound for a bit of a bone-crushing on some student's dissection table (I intend to leave my body to medicine and thus will be cut up by medic students in anatomy lessons) feeling like hell in my grave?


You'd have to become Muslim first, then reject it (openly and maliciously, I might add) in order to be apostate.

I'll give Qu'ran another read and nip down to the mosque to see if anyone can explain the hard parts.

I'll give Qu'ran another read and nip down to the mosque to see if anyone can explain the hard parts.

Couldn't hurt! The brothers at the Mosque will be very helpful. :)

There is a saying by the Prophet, peace be upon him. It goes something like, "Every human, when born, is a follower of Allah's religion. It is his parents who make him a Jew, or a Christian, or a fire worshipper."

A new-born baby who dies at infancy goes to Paradise.

Only the truly evil and the apostate go to Hell. As for your place in Paradise, that's not up to me or any man.

Absolutely true.

So I've gotten the impression that in Islamic terms, Jews and Christians who believe in the one God are acceptable.
Why then, is it necessary for them to convert/revert to the Islamic faith in order to get into paradise?

Guess who LIVED in Pakistan?


Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Sure, there are cases of Mistreatment in the border areas(mostly in the N.W.F.P,the province along the Afghani Border, and in Baluchistan, on the border of Afghanistan AND Iran), but in Punjab and Sindh(which don't touch those countries), there are plenty of women rights. The Minority is also very powerful in those areas, and everyone is united by their love of Pakistan and Islam. That makes sense, seeing how Pakistan was the first Islamic Republic.

Then your position is quite weak for only this very week... between this poor woman whose gang rapers were aquitted, the bill against honor killings that got rejected by the parliament, this pakistani actress who is being harrassed and threatened of death for a kissing scene in a Bollywood movie...
As for minorities, let me laugh: under blasphemy laws any christian (or ahmadi) can be slandered and condemned under any bogus motive; and last time I was there this was going on http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-6-2004_pg7_29 (perhaps you can tell me how it ended and if these little girls found four muslim witnesses to tell they didn't want to be raped?) ... Should I add, I met no one there who wasn't rabidly antisemite. Apart from the food, I hated everything there.

want some more?

http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0302/p06s01-wosc.html

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=33938A26009B592080256A3100529AD9

http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/asia/document.do?id=1DF2FA05A016701B8025690000693498


http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/2003vol13no04-05/2292/

Then your position is quite weak for only this very week... between this poor woman whose gang rapers were aquitted, the bill against honor killings that got rejected by the parliament, this pakistani actress who is being harrassed and threatened of death for a kissing scene in a Bollywood movie...
As for minorities, let me laugh: under blasphemy laws any christian (or ahmadi) can be slandered and condemned under any bogus motive; and last time I was there this was going on http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-6-2004_pg7_29 (perhaps you can tell me how it ended and if these little girls found four muslim witnesses to tell they didn't want to be raped?) ... Should I add, I met no one there who wasn't rabidly antisemite. Apart from the food, I hated everything there.

For the last frigging time, I lived in Pakistan! I had many Christian and Jewish friends who lived there, and they were treated fairly. In fact, there are churches all around Islamabad. They aren't persecuted by the government, shot by the governmnet, etc. They are allowed to own land, be citizens, and have the same rights.

Oh, and to tell you, Anti-semite means being against Jews and Arabs(Arabs are a semitic people). So I guess that means they were dissing their own religion.

Freedomfrize=pwned.

After a long time as an Atheist (pretty much since I was old enough to decide to be one, and again after a brief stint as a Bah'ai at my mother's request), the clarity and conciceness of the explanations and responses to questions in this thread make Islam seem like the right religion for me, if I ever have to choose one. I do have a question, though:
It has already been established that Muslims can take more than one wife as long as all wives and potential wives agree to it, and it has already been established that homosexuality is frowned upon, but what about having sex with both your wives (if applicable) at the same time? It would not be homosexuality for the husband, of course, but would it be classified as such for the wives? If no, then why not? If yes, then is it frowned upon as much as "textbook" homosexuality (to coin a phrase)? I am curious.

Oh, and as I said before, these "honor killings" and stuff happen in the rural border areas! You know who lives there? People who fled from Afghanistan and Iran. They brought those with them! Average Pakistanis are wonderful, kind, and generous people(although they are mostly poor).

... and that's not about Pakistani! They're quite normal people as long as it's not about religion (the problem is, it's most of the time about religion) - it's about Islam! Islam just drives people crazy.

Freedomfrize=pwned.
totally.

Oh, and as I said before, these "honor killings" and stuff happen in the rural border areas! You know who lives there? People who fled from Afghanistan and Iran. They brought those with them! Average Pakistanis are wonderful, kind, and generous people(although they are mostly poor).

Oh yeah? The court that acquitted the gang rapers was in LAHORE... pretty far from NWFP, and not precisely "rural" no?

... and anyway - my parents live in a RURAL area (in Europe) and no one has ever been condemned to be gang raped there, mind you.

... and that's not about Pakistani! They're quite normal people as long as it's not about religion (the problem is, it's most of the time about religion) - it's about Islam! Islam just drives people crazy.

Your partially right. It's not the religion itself, it's the way these cultures use Islam. Different cultures infer Islam differently. Woman-abuse was in Afghanistan(and most of the world, btw)long before Islam.

For the last frigging time, I lived in Pakistan! I had many Christian and Jewish friends who lived there, and they were treated fairly. In fact, there are churches all around Islamabad. They aren't persecuted by the government, shot by the governmnet, etc. They are allowed to own land, be citizens, and have the same rights.

Oh, and to tell you, Anti-semite means being against Jews and Arabs(Arabs are a semitic people). So I guess that means they were dissing their own religion.

Freedomfrize=pwned.

nicely done.

Oh yeah? The court that acquitted the gang rapers was in LAHORE... pretty far from NWFP, and not precisely "rural" no?

... and anyway - my parents live in a RURAL area (in Europe) and no one has ever been condemned to be gang raped there, mind you.

I said Rural PAKISTAN, num nut! Rural PAKISTAN!

Oh, and I can't verify your gang-rape story, due to the fact that your link says "Service unavailable".

Okay. You lived in Pakistan, but you say people there don't hate Jews and women there are well treated out of "rural areas" (as if rural was an excuse). What can I answer to that?
I ignore what pwned means, I suspect it's an insult but honestly I have no further clue .

As specifically to the gang rape story I was referring to you can try this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4314153.stm link

I ignore what pwned means, I suspect it's an insult but honestly I have no further clue .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned
The word pwn, (past tense: "pwned" or "pwnt") as used by the Internet gaming subculture, means to beat or dominate an opponent. While it probably originated as a typing error of the word "own", it is now used intentionally by many members of the subculture. The term has become so ubiquitous in Internet circles that it is often used outside of gaming contexts; for example, "he just got pwned in that debate" or "the hunters pwned that bear."

Okay. You lived in Pakistan, but you say people there don't hate Jews and women there are well treated out of "rural areas" (as if rural was an excuse). What can I answer to that?
I ignore what pwned means, I suspect it's an insult but honestly I have no further clue .

i think now is where you conceed defeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned

Oh, okay (thanks for the explanation)... Well, I admit I'm not a very good debater (I get carried away with emotion too easily), but i'm doing my best

Okay. You lived in Pakistan, but you say people there don't hate Jews and women there are well treated out of "rural areas" (as if rural was an excuse). What can I answer to that?
I ignore what pwned means, I suspect it's an insult but honestly I have no further clue .

By rural areas i mean Baluchistan and NWFP. Where hordes of refugees have fled from Afghanistan and Iran, and have brought their form of Islam with them.

And you know where the "Tribal Council" was? NWFP! The Court in Lahore didn't have enough information because the Tribal Leaders obviously hid the information from the Police(the tribal leaders HATE the government). The court can't come up with magic information.

Oh, okay (thanks for the explanation)... Well, I admit I'm not a very good debater (I get carried away with emotion too easily), but i'm doing my best

thats not a concession, thats you making an excuse.

oh and....


POST 600 BIATCH

thats not a concession, thats you making an excuse.

It's rather discouragement of someoone who is facing a guy pretending Pakistani are not antisemite though it is a blatant lie, who is saying women are well treated after i've sent numerous links to Amnesty International and others saying the contrary, who says Lahore is a rural area (yeah i know you didn't say that, sighs, i'm tired to talk to a wall)...

It's rather discouragement of someoone who is facing a guy pretending Pakistani are not antisemite though it is a blatant lie, who is saying women are well treated after i've sent numerous links to Amnesty International and others saying the contrary, who says Lahore is a rural area (yeah i know you didn't say that, sighs, i'm tired to talk to a wall)...

Hey listen, I never[/u] said that Women are well treated [i]all over the country. I said that in the Rural areas of NWFP and Baluchistan(and in the cities of Quetta and Peshawar), it is rampant and out of control. Also, I know plenty of Pakistanis who aren't antisemite(although I think you are refering to anti-jew, you said Anti-semite which includes arabs, so I will go with anti-semite). Jeez man, I have lived there for years.

And your talking to a wall. At least I say that Pakistan has big problems. You just keep saying that Islam is evil and that it is bad. You don't even listen.

It's rather discouragement of someoone who is facing a guy pretending Pakistani are not antisemite though it is a blatant lie, who is saying women are well treated after i've sent numerous links to Amnesty International and others saying the contrary, who says Lahore is a rural area (yeah i know you didn't say that, sighs, i'm tired to talk to a wall)...

dude.

a) he lived there, he has friends there, he knows what he's talking about. you only know what you see in the news, which only tells you about huge miracles and huge disasters unless they're in america, in which case they also report on amazing talking dogs. obviously there aren't too many massive miracles going on in recent days, so you're just hearing the bad news from the region. other countries only hear that americans are big fat slobs who own guns, eat only at mcdonalds, and are rabidly christian and anti-muslim, while theres so much good in this country that goes unnoticed because its always been there. the same thing applies to everywhere else, you know.

b) for the last time, the term 'semitic' means jews AND arabs. use it correctly.


its pretty easy to see who the brick wall is in this debate, and it definitely isn't him.

dude.

a) he lived there, he has friends there, he knows what he's talking about. you only know what you see in the news, which only tells you about huge miracles and huge disasters unless they're in america, in which case they also report on amazing talking dogs. obviously there aren't too many massive miracles going on in recent days, so you're just hearing the bad news from the region. other countries only hear that americans are big fat slobs who own guns, eat only at mcdonalds, and are rabidly christian and anti-muslim, while theres so much good in this country that goes unnoticed because its always been there. the same thing applies to everywhere else, you know.

b) for the last time, the term 'semitic' means jews AND arabs. use it correctly.



its pretty easy to see who the brick wall is in this debate, and it definitely isn't him.

Thank you!

Anyone Islamic feel like replying to my post? Keruvalia?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8369334&postcount=569

Thanks to the people who did so far :)

Anyone Islamic feel like replying to my post? Keruvalia?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8369334&postcount=569

Thanks to the people who did so far :)


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8369409&postcount=571

What? Not good enough? :( *sob*

It has already been established that Muslims can take more than one wife as long as all wives and potential wives agree to it, and it has already been established that homosexuality is frowned upon, but what about having sex with both your wives (if applicable) at the same time? It would not be homosexuality for the husband, of course, but would it be classified as such for the wives? If no, then why not? If yes, then is it frowned upon as much as "textbook" homosexuality (to coin a phrase)? I am curious.

LOL! :D ..I honestly have no idea.. I don't happen to remember, right off the bat, if there's anything against that in the Qur'an or the Sunnah. Well, as long as the two wives don't go at it and ignore the husband I guess... :p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8369409&postcount=571

What? Not good enough? :( *sob*



Gah, sorry; I was going for Keru as the only person I'd identified as Muslim from what I'd read of this thread (apparently not enough).

Anyway, thankyou, I'm glad you liked the question. It was a very good answer :) I hope lots of people agree with what you say.

I have a few more questions dealing with the whole "suicide" deal.

Question 1. If you jumped on a grenade to save the lives of your felow soldiers would you go to hell?

Question 2. If you volunteered for a mission with little chance of survival(I.E. A suicide mission. Not a blow yerself up mission, but an Alamo kinda deal), would that be considered "suicide"?

Question 3. If you accidentally kill yerself(I.E. you trip on the edge of a cliff, accidentally fall on a knife, or accidentally drink poison) would that be suicide?

Question 1. If you jumped on a grenade to save the lives of your felow soldiers would you go to hell?

Not sure.
Question 2. If you volunteered for a mission with little chance of survival(I.E. A suicide mission. Not a blow yerself up mission, but an Alamo kinda deal), would that be considered "suicide"?
Nope.

Question 3. If you accidentally kill yerself(I.E. you trip on the edge of a cliff, accidentally fall on a knife, or accidentally drink poison) would that be suicide?

Nope.

After a long time as an Atheist (pretty much since I was old enough to decide to be one, and again after a brief stint as a Bah'ai at my mother's request), the clarity and conciceness of the explanations and responses to questions in this thread make Islam seem like the right religion for me, if I ever have to choose one. I do have a question, though:
It has already been established that Muslims can take more than one wife as long as all wives and potential wives agree to it, and it has already been established that homosexuality is frowned upon, but what about having sex with both your wives (if applicable) at the same time? It would not be homosexuality for the husband, of course, but would it be classified as such for the wives? If no, then why not? If yes, then is it frowned upon as much as "textbook" homosexuality (to coin a phrase)? I am curious.
So called group sex (regardless of whether it is done between consenting married partners or others) is an abomination and a grave sin. It is sinful even to entertain such thoughts.

So called group sex (regardless of whether it is done between consenting married partners or others) is an abomination and a grave sin. It is sinful even to entertain such thoughts.

I agree.

Question 1. If you jumped on a grenade to save the lives of your felow soldiers would you go to hell?

No.

Question 2. If you volunteered for a mission with little chance of survival(I.E. A suicide mission. Not a blow yerself up mission, but an Alamo kinda deal), would that be considered "suicide"?

No.

Question 3. If you accidentally kill yerself(I.E. you trip on the edge of a cliff, accidentally fall on a knife, or accidentally drink poison) would that be suicide?

No.

So called group sex (regardless of whether it is done between consenting married partners or others) is an abomination and a grave sin. It is sinful even to entertain such thoughts.

I wouldn't go that far. Qur'an forbids a woman looking at the `awrah of another woman (that being the space between the navel and the knee). Which, in and of itself, would make a threesome, or whatnot, a tad difficult.

However, it is Hadith that forbids group sex, not Qur'an. Qur'an implies that it is forbidden, but does not expressly forbid it.

On the whole, I'd say it's a no-no. However, our thoughts are not sins - it is only by action that we sin - and I think "adomination" is a bit harsh of a word to use.

I got a question: What´s the "Muslims stance on abortion/ birth control"?

I got a question: What´s the "Muslims stance on abortion/ birth control"?

The Qur'an teaches us that life begins at birth, just as Torah does, and not at conception. Abortion is sometimes necessary.

Nothing at all wrong with birth control.

Edit: I don't know what Hadith or Sunnah say about such things, but I am a purist. I believe the Qur'an is the final authority in all things and that to follow Hadith or Sunnah instead of Qur'an to be rejection of Allah.

The Qur'an teaches us that life begins at birth, just as Torah does, and not at conception. Abortion is sometimes necessary.

Nothing at all wrong with birth control.

Thanks for answering!

Personally, I regard the Prophet's Sunnah as the second source for such information. The Qur'an clearly states that it has left out some vital matters concerning Islamic Politics, Islamic Law, Islamic Economy, and social matters. It also commands all Muslims to follow the Sunnah, and it is a very serious matter when a Muslim disregards it.

The Prophet is but a 'wahy'.. He is commanded by God to do the things he does and say the things he says. Therefore, his Hadith are an essential source of info. for Muslims.

Question 1. If you jumped on a grenade to save the lives of your felow soldiers would you go to hell?

Question 2. If you volunteered for a mission with little chance of survival(I.E. A suicide mission. Not a blow yerself up mission, but an Alamo kinda deal), would that be considered "suicide"?

Question 3. If you accidentally kill yerself(I.E. you trip on the edge of a cliff, accidentally fall on a knife, or accidentally drink poison) would that be suicide?

Number 1 - No. Although I have no authority over determining who is a martyr and who is not, I would think that such an action may even be considered a prime example of sacrifice and martyrdom.

Number 2 - No.

Number 3 - Definitely not. That is grounds for martyrdom I would say. An accident is just that -- an accident.

The Qur'an teaches us that life begins at birth, just as Torah does, and not at conception. Abortion is sometimes necessary.

Nothing at all wrong with birth control.

Edit: I don't know what Hadith or Sunnah say about such things, but I am a purist. I believe the Qur'an is the final authority in all things and that to follow Hadith or Sunnah instead of Qur'an to be rejection of Allah.

Hadith says life begins around 120 days of conception. Abortion is sometimes necessary, but it is indeed wrong to kill a child for selfish reasons. You have said gay marriage is ok, but it isn't. These views don't work in Islam. Also, the Qur'an can be vague on matters, and Hadith is there to teach us. Don't reject it.

I wouldn't go that far. Qur'an forbids a woman looking at the `awrah of another woman (that being the space between the navel and the knee). Which, in and of itself, would make a threesome, or whatnot, a tad difficult.

However, it is Hadith that forbids group sex, not Qur'an. Qur'an implies that it is forbidden, but does not expressly forbid it.

On the whole, I'd say it's a no-no. However, our thoughts are not sins - it is only by action that we sin - and I think "adomination" is a bit harsh of a word to use.

I think as a new Muslim, you don't know enough to be speaking for all Muslims. Even if you do not intend to do so, that's how it looks to non-Muslims. Your viewpoints are yours, and regardless of your opinion, Hadith is VERY important in Islam.

I was reading the boards here and decided to write about my own experiences with islam. I for one believe in Nothing but life than death. I do however live in the middle east in a small kingdom known as Bahrain.
In islam the men and women are not on the same level nor or they equal. The man is the head and his final say always goes. Women cannot even where "normal" clothing without the permission of the man. I have also heard the term Infidel on several accounts including when the marines were called in because of an attack on the U.S Embassy. Islam like all religion has its problems but what religion does not? Also while Islam does take a more socialistic view on life it usually leads to the poor people selling watches and washing cars just to make a buck everyday. The exception however is Dubai in the Arab emirates where upon retirement every Dubian is given a pretty nice size house by the king. All in all it's just a group of people and should be looked at the same way you look at christians. Terrorism does seem to be stronger in Islam right now, but it was only ten years ago that americans were blowing up their own buildings like in Oklahoma City, and shooting doctors at abortion clinics.

*shakes head violently*

Ok.. I am from Bahrain..

The reason women are not at same footing with men is because Bahrain is as FAR as could be from being a country with Islamic-oriented policies and viewpoints.

The fundies here are governed by their perception of the Saudi Arabian culture as the "perfect" culture when, in reality, it is far from being so..

As for women's attire.. Your comment is just wrong.. plain wrong. You obviously need to get out more. Perhaps we can arrange a meeting sometime. Bahraini women are so "out-going" and "western" it's disgusting.. The combination of mini-skirts, tight clothing (on both men and women), hideous alocoholism and adultery would be too much to cope with, even for some European countries..

Also while Islam does take a more socialistic view on life it usually leads to the poor people selling watches and washing cars just to make a buck everyday. The exception however is Dubai in the Arab emirates where upon retirement every Dubian is given a pretty nice size house by the king

You just proved my point. You're judging everything according to Arab CULTURE, not Islam. Please, please, for the love of God, try to distinguish between the two!

Unemployment here is running at 20%, the rate of capital outflow is staggering, the economy is suffering from very slow economic growth and the inequality of income distribution is MIND-BLOWING. Some people are desparate to find a dinar for supper. Others are planning round-the-world trips aboard their private jets.

In Dubai, their is capital inflow, a huge budget surplus from tourism, and a rapidly-expanding economy and infastructure. Dubai is thinking of building 10 billion dollar trains. We're thinking of installing sewers in Bahrain!

This has nothing to do with Islam, but everything to do with the economic system and perverted perception of the perfect society. There are thousands of hardcore liberals in Bahrain. But there are thousands of fanatics as well.

Bah! There is no authority above Allah. To follow what the Prophet said when it contradicts Allah (and there is plenty of things in Hadith that contradict or second guess Qur'an) *is* a rejection of Qur'an in favor of the word of a man who is not worthy of worship.

If you reject Qur'an, you reject Allah.

Your viewpoints are yours, and regardless of your opinion, Hadith is VERY important in Islam.

That doesn't mean it should be. The Prophet himself was afraid Hadith would begin to supercede Qur'an and he didn't even want it written down.

His fear is coming true. We must put an end to that and return only to Qur'an.

Thread locked on request of author. *does the lockomotion*