NationStates Jolt Archive

Just read the OP and my jaw hit the floor. WHAT WHAT WHAT???? This is an outrage! This should cause women to riot in the damn streets! Hell, I'd be rioting right now if I was a German. HNNNGGG?? Did this actually happen? Who's reporting this? Holy crap, it's not even Fox News or the Daily Mail or somebody... this is for real.
Well, if that ruling stands it's the most absurd thing ever, but it shouldn't. I think there's a fairly strong case for the summary dismissal of judges who make this kind of ruling. What was she, stoned?

Just read the OP and my jaw hit the floor. WHAT WHAT WHAT???? This is an outrage! This should cause women to riot in the damn streets! Hell, I'd be rioting right now if I was a German. HNNNGGG?? Did this actually happen? Who's reporting this? Holy crap, it's not even Fox News or the Daily Mail or somebody... this is for real.
Well, if that ruling stands it's the most absurd thing ever, but it shouldn't. I think there's a fairly strong case for the summary dismissal of judges who make this kind of ruling. What was she, stoned?typical british rant on everything german...

Just read the OP and my jaw hit the floor. WHAT WHAT WHAT???? This is an outrage! This should cause women to riot in the damn streets! Hell, I'd be rioting right now if I was a German. HNNNGGG?? Did this actually happen? Who's reporting this? Holy crap, it's not even Fox News or the Daily Mail or somebody... this is for real.
Well, if that ruling stands it's the most absurd thing ever, but it shouldn't. I think there's a fairly strong case for the summary dismissal of judges who make this kind of ruling. What was she, stoned?
This is a prime example of why you should read the whole thread and not only the OP before you post. :headbang:

No riot for you. :rolleyes:

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)

now stop saying I don't know of what I speak.

So you are saying that because this woman married a muslim and said muslim was beating the shit out of her, that the German courts should have stayed out of it? Jesus, you are really are a wacko. There is no justification for beating your wife.

Und jetz, Soviestan wa hielten sich für schlaue leute, GN. (sp)

The irony being that Islam law does not, itself, allow for this kind of violence.

I agree entirely.

because its an issue of whether a state has the right to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. Now said 'no', yet you think its ok for the state to step in between the affairs between a man and his wife. double standard much?

SHE WAS GETTING BEATEN. Why the hell shouldn't the law interfere here?

Check the thread again smart guy. I said if he beats her severly it would be wrong. Beating lightly is fine.

Beating even lightly is wrong unless it is in self-defense.

its allowed as a last resort. didn't you not read the verse at all?


"the righteous women are devoutly obedient" an obedient wife wouldn't hit her husband.

If someone hit me, I'd swing back wether or not the Qu'ran forbid it. Its called self-preservation.

I just showed a verse from the Qur'an which clearly shows what Allah wants yet you seem to just put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la can't hear you" instead of admitting your wrong. You said there was nothing in the Qur'an that allows it, I showed you in fact there is. I'm right, so let's just move on.

The treatment that this lady received is forbidden but yet you seem to condone it by saying that the state should not have interferred even though she cried out for help.

the definition varies depending on the scholar but I consider light to be a slap that doesn't leave bruises or something to that affect. I certainly would never just beat up on her and hurt her. That wouldn't be right.

THen why are you supporting the man here when he clearly beaten her severely.

?

Most funniest line ever. Soviestan does not even know that Mohammed was a human being.

1st, you are in no position to call me an infidel. 2nd, the site you linked to basically says the same thing I am, so I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish.

Yes you are an infidel. Anyone that has read your posts can see that you are one. You pig eating pig.

I think you need to settle down there sport. Either have mature responses or don't respond at all. M'kay.

Is this where I say pot meet kettle or did I get the phrase wrong?

IMO the prophets(peace be upon them all) were sinless and examples of how we should be. They wouldn't do something like that.

Now prove that they wouldn't do something like that. Prove that they were also sinless.

On top of that Allah as said that he would protect the Qur'an from any changes or alterations. However I can not expect you, a non-Muslim, to understand or really believe it. But thats just what I feel.

Now how do you prevent that when you TRANSLATE IT?

Now prove that they wouldn't do something like that. Prove that they were also sinless.Like Moses, or Elijah?

Now how do you prevent that when you TRANSLATE IT?It is not meant to be translated. Folks are meant to learn Arabic. Seems you are not too well informed?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

Fuck that shit. National law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Religious law.

Which prophets in particular?
all of them

And what has El said about the Qur'an? And to who?
El?

And what relevance does the supposed sinlessness of prophets have in regard to the fact that a man who beats his wife is a criminal?

Someone mentioned they don't believe the prophets could have taken Allah's message without putting their own spin on it. I believe they could and did.

THen why are you supporting the man here when he clearly beaten her severely.

I'm not defending him if he beat her severely. If he did I certainly don't have any objections to punishing him. The article didn't say he was beating her severely and I think our definition of the word may be a little different.

all of themnames?

El?= Eloh = al-Ilah = Allah, I thought you were muslim, so you should know where the name of your god comes from

Someone mentioned they don't believe the prophets could have taken Allah's message without putting their own spin on it. I believe they could and did.and your belief is based on what? and have you checked your belief?

Anyway, this one's just for you: Print it out, cut it out, glue it to your wall or place it in your wallet!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/TrollScroll.jpg

If I was a troll, there's a lot of things I could say or do that would get everyone riled up(which for the most part is the point to trolling). But I don't, in fact at times there are things I won't say something even if I believe in it because I don't want to have conflict. But on a board thats 98% non-Muslim and most of those atheist, no matter what I say I will invitablely have a few people who will say stuff like "your god isn't real, Islam is teh stupid, etc." I can't help that. All I want to do is to discuss Islam with as little conflict as possible in the hope that someone, even just a lurker on the boards reads something I say, gets interested in Islam, learns about it and InshAllah becomes Muslim. That would make all my time here worth it.

All I want to do is to discuss Islam with as little conflict as possible in the hope that someone, even just a lurker on the boards reads something I say, gets interested in Islam, learns about it and InshAllah becomes Muslim. That would make all my time here worth it.

Then how about you try demonstrating an Islam that doesn't condone violence against women and overriding national law based on religious grounds.

names?

Ihbrahim, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Mohammed(peace be upon them all). I left out a few, but those are the ones most are fimilar with.

= Eloh = al-Ilah = Allah, I thought you were muslim, so you should know where the name of your god comes from
I do, but I never seen name of the Allah refered to as El

and your belief is based on what? and have you checked your belief?

faith I suppose. Thats a hard question to answer.

If I was a troll, there's a lot of things I could say or do that would get everyone riled up(which for the most part is the point to trolling). But I don't, in fact at times there are things I won't say something even if I believe in it because I don't want to have conflict. But on a board thats 98% non-Muslim and most of those atheist, no matter what I say I will invitablely have a few people who will say stuff like "your god isn't real, Islam is teh stupid, etc." I can't help that. All I want to do is to discuss Islam with as little conflict as possible in the hope that someone, even just a lurker on the boards reads something I say, gets interested in Islam, learns about it and InshAllah becomes Muslim. That would make all my time here worth it.Since Islam, or any other "abrahamic" religion, is insubstantial, there is no real need for discussion. No matter what you believe.

The words of Allah swt are never wrong

last resort in the chain of events refered to in the passage of the Qur'an.


?

1st, you are in no position to call me an infidel. 2nd, the site you linked to basically says the same thing I am, so I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish.
... you just agreed that Mohammed was a 'psychotic, woman-beating bastard' but he isn't actually a human being. Did you seriously just say that?

Ibrahim, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Mohammed(peace be upon them all). I left out a few, but those are the ones most are fimilar with.You regard Moses sinless, although he was a murderer? Or Ibrahim, although he sent his wife to prostitute herself?

I do, but I never seen name of the Allah refered to as ElYes, and I guess you have no idea that the Arabic Gulf is the Red Sea...

faith I suppose. Thats a hard question to answer.Faith and belief are the same word really, one is of Latin origin, the other of Germanic. So to base your belief on faith is circular reasoning and completely pointless.

... you just agreed that Mohammed was a 'psychotic, woman-beating bastard' but he isn't actually a human being. Did you seriously just say that?

The question mark was a sign of my confusion at his statement. There was really no point to it. But of course he was human and actually never struck a woman.

You regard Moses sinless, although he was a murderer? Or Ibrahim, although he sent his wife to prostitute herself?
are you basing this on the bible?

Yes, and I guess you have no idea that the Arabic Gulf is the Red Sea...
ok.....

Faith and belief are the same word really, one is of Latin origin, the other of Germanic. So to base your belief on faith is circular reasoning and completely pointless.

Its not pointless. But to explain further. I believe in Allah and the Qur'an being his words. Why I believe in Allah is an entirely different discussion. But since The Qur'an is the words of Allah, I except what is in it. Allah tells us that he would protect the Qur'an from any changes. Also we know the Qur'an has be unaltered since it was 1st written down.

are you basing this on the bible?


ok.....



Its not pointless. But to explain further. I believe in Allah and the Qur'an being his words. Why I believe in Allah is an entirely different discussion. But since The Qur'an is the words of Allah, I except what is in it. Allah tells us that he would protect the Qur'an from any changes. Also we know the Qur'an has be unaltered since it was 1st written down.

I don't know. You could take a pencil and write things into a koran and I doubt Allah (why do people treat Allah as different from God? They're the same guy. Just different names.) would come down and erase it. How do you know if you have the real deal instead of some perverted version written by some nutjob to justify terrorism and such?

I don't know. You could take a pencil and write things into a koran and I doubt Allah (why do people treat Allah as different from God? They're the same guy. Just different names.) would come down and erase it. How do you know if you have the real deal instead of some perverted version written by some nutjob to justify terrorism and such?

To address the question about why they treat them differently, well, frankly it's because they're stupid. They think "God" is God's name in the Bible and in every language for that matter. Arab Christians also call God Allah. Muslims might do it in English (though it varies from person to person) because it's God's personal name as mentioned in the Qur'an.

To address the question about why they treat them differently, well, frankly it's because they're stupid. They think "God" is God's name in the Bible and in every language for that matter. Arab Christians also call God Allah. Muslims might do it in English (though it varies from person to person) because it's God's personal name as mentioned in the Qur'an.

You know, why does God even have a name. One would imagine that an entity who before creating the world, angels, etc. was all alone wouldn't need a self-referential label, as no one would call him by that name anyway until he'd already created the universe, at which point why not just let them call him God?

How do you know if you have the real deal instead of some perverted version written by some nutjob to justify terrorism and such?

There is an original copy of the Qur'an is still in the world today, in Egypt I believe. We can compare it to the copies today and they are the same. Unlike the bible(king james,etc) there are not different versions of the Qur'an. Its the same as it always has been protected by Allah swt.

If I was a troll, there's a lot of things I could say or do that would get everyone riled up(which for the most part is the point to trolling). But I don't, in fact at times there are things I won't say something even if I believe in it because I don't want to have conflict. But on a board thats 98% non-Muslim and most of those atheist, no matter what I say I will invitablely have a few people who will say stuff like "your god isn't real, Islam is teh stupid, etc." I can't help that. All I want to do is to discuss Islam with as little conflict as possible in the hope that someone, even just a lurker on the boards reads something I say, gets interested in Islam, learns about it and InshAllah becomes Muslim. That would make all my time here worth it.
How nice of and very convenient for you that you've picked only the little card to reply to.
Apparently, none of my other arguments have gotten through to you. :rolleyes:

How nice of and very convenient for you that you've picked only the little card to reply to.
Apparently, none of my other arguments have gotten through to you. :rolleyes:

He still hasn't told me if Christians and Jews are exempt from secular laws as well.

The words of Allah swt are never wrong

Maybe not, but YOURS are.

last resort in the chain of events refered to in the passage of the Qur'an.

Ask the Prophet if the woman can use this resource as well, since it wasn't written. Get back to me on that once he answers.

?

No human being would beat someone that can't react, and no god would condone it. There are several passages that mention being good to women in the Quran, passages you conveniently forgot in order to cater to the worst interpretation possible of a book that is, overall, very good.

1st, you are in no position to call me an infidel. 2nd, the site you linked to basically says the same thing I am, so I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish.

1 - Yes, I am, because your interpretation of Islam is NOT Islam. If only you studied it, you wouldn't be spouting this wahhabi-esque crap you spout.

2- No. You said the man has the right to beat his wife and the judge should force her to stay with the accursed non-person her husband is.

IMO, islam is like Nazism. It has, in my mind, no redeemable qualities when compared to it's negative qualities.

Okay, so, bigotry, trolling and godwin in one post. Do you turn into stone permanently when hit by sunlight or just until night?

Its not pointless. But to explain further. I believe in Allah and the Qur'an being his words. Why I believe in Allah is an entirely different discussion. But since The Qur'an is the words of Allah, I except what is in it. Allah tells us that he would protect the Qur'an from any changes. Also we know the Qur'an has be unaltered since it was 1st written down.

Then why were there various versions of the Qur'an before they were all destroyed except one?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

lawl ... gotta love Europe.

To address the question about why they treat them differently, well, frankly it's because they're stupid. They think "God" is God's name in the Bible and in every language for that matter. Arab Christians also call God Allah. Muslims might do it in English (though it varies from person to person) because it's God's personal name as mentioned in the Qur'an.Very funny. Al-Ilah, shortened to Allah, means just "the god". (it's just as funny as people who claim that they believe in jesus christ but don't believe that jesus christ is the messiah)

And the name of the god in the bible is Yah, and where he is referred to as El, Eloh, or Elohim, it's rather used as a title than as a name.

Very funny. Al-Ilah, shortened to Allah, means just "the god". (it's just as funny as people who claim that they believe in jesus christ but don't believe that jesus christ is the messiah)

How exactly is that funny? :confused: Just because I believe Joe had a son that he named Josh who was crucified by the Romans it doesn't mean I think Josh was the son of anyone but Joe and Mary (or possibly someone Mary knew before she met Joe).

How exactly is that funny? :confused: Just because I believe Joe had a son that he named Josh who was crucified by the Romans it doesn't mean I think Josh was the son of anyone but Joe and Mary (or possibly someone Mary knew before she met Joe).what :confused:
so would the sentence "jesus christ is not the messiah" make any sense to you?

what :confused:
so would the sentence "jesus christ is not the messiah" make any sense to you?

It makes perfect sense. Jesus Christ was a title slapped on Joe's son Josh. Josh is widely regarded as the messiah, it is my opinion and the opinion of many others that he was in fact not.

<note: Josh is used here to refer to Yeshua ben Joseph - or as would be said in English Joshua son of Joseph. A person I believe may have existed historically but who was not in my opinion any more than a good man, with a good idea that was perverted by many.>

In response to the OP, this court ruling begs the question of which law is supreme in Germany-Islamic law or German law? (assuming that it is German law for a woman to divorce her husband if she is beaten, or for that matter, for any other reason).

Dhimmi-ism at its finest.

It makes perfect sense. Jesus Christ was a title slapped on Joe's son Josh. Josh is widely regarded as the messiah, it is my opinion and the opinion of many others that he was in fact not.but you are aware that christos is only the greek translation of messiah? so that denying yeshua being the messiah while still calling him christ is pointless?

Dhimmi-ism at its finest.
We need a link to Laerod's explanation of the situation in the OP...

We need a link to Laerod's explanation of the situation in the OP...

Do provide it for me. I'm desperately hoping there is more to this than I've been told.

but you are aware that christos is only the greek translation of messiah? so that denying yeshua being the messiah while still calling him christ is pointless?

His followers call him Christ. I often follow their example for ease of communication.

His followers call him Christ. I often follow their example for ease of communication.guess why they call him thus :rolleyes:

Do provide it for me. I'm desperately hoping there is more to this than I've been told.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12460289&postcount=106

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12460289&postcount=106

That clears things up. Still a messed up decision, though.

guess why they call him thus :rolleyes:

Because it is their belief that he is the messiah. This does not make it true. As I said I refer to him by the title that was given him for ease of communication, not because I believe the title to be accurate.

Because it is their belief that he is the messiah. This does not make it true. As I said I refer to him by the title that was given him for ease of communication, not because I believe the title to be accurate.it's not about what you find accurate, it's about the proper use of words, especially about using words as names when they are not really names, as in "christ" or "allah".

lawl ... gotta love Europe.
Read the whole thread or at least post #106 (link provided above by Neu Leonstein) before you jump to conclusions.
And yes, I do love Europe. :p
We need a link to Laerod's explanation of the situation in the OP...
Oja! :rolleyes:
That clears things up. Still a messed up decision, though.
The decision itself is not messed up - only the judge's explanatory statement.
But she rightfully received a lot of flak for it and got withdrawn from the case.

There is an original copy of the Qur'an is still in the world today, in Egypt I believe. We can compare it to the copies today and they are the same. Unlike the bible(king james,etc) there are not different versions of the Qur'an. Its the same as it always has been protected by Allah swt.

There are copies of the Qur'an that are very old, pieces going back to abu Bakr. Originally thye Qur'an was transmitted orally and scripture was not trusted. That is why the Ijnad is so important.

It seems to me as if the judge was trying to criticize Muslim Law in this ruling by claiming it supported domestic violence. It was really just a very inappropriate way for her to make her statement.

it's not about what you find accurate, it's about the proper use of words, especially about using words as names when they are not really names, as in "Christ" or "Allah".

Um, what? :confused: I think we've been talking at cross purposes for the past few posts. All I have been saying is that while I do think that there was a man who became known to Christians as Jesus Christ (even though the title is in my opinion given inaccurately) I do not believe him to be the actual messiah, and I was confused as to why you thought it was funny that I could simultaneously believe he existed and yet not believe him to be the messiah.

How nice of and very convenient for you that you've picked only the little card to reply to.
Apparently, none of my other arguments have gotten through to you. :rolleyes:

Actually your arguments did get through to a degree. I looked more into the case and it turns out the judge was just a fool. It has almost nothing to do with whether a Muslim has the right to strike his wife in Germany. It seems it was unnecessary for the judge to even bring Islam into the decision.

He still hasn't told me if Christians and Jews are exempt from secular laws as well.

I'm not sure.

Maybe not, but YOURS are.

in your opinion

Ask the Prophet if the woman can use this resource as well, since it wasn't written. Get back to me on that once he answers.
Does it matter?


No human being would beat someone that can't react, and no god would condone it. There are several passages that mention being good to women in the Quran, passages you conveniently forgot in order to cater to the worst interpretation possible of a book that is, overall, very good.
I never said men should treat women poorly, don't put words in my mouth. I look out for my Muslim sisters, and I will protect and provide for my wife as Allah has called on me to do.


1 - Yes, I am, because your interpretation of Islam is NOT Islam. If only you studied it, you wouldn't be spouting this wahhabi-esque crap you spout.
I am far from a wahhabi. If I was I probably wouldn't be on this forum, or I'd be telling you all that you are going to hell.

in your opinion

The opinion of a person that studied Islam.

Does it matter?

Yes.

I never said men should treat women poorly, don't put words in my mouth. I look out for my Muslim sisters, and I will protect and provide for my wife as Allah has called on me to do.

Treating women poorly INCLUDES beating her. And a woman has the right to freely divorce her husband, including according to the book you claim to follow.

I am far from a wahhabi.

Not THAT far, you aren't. You favored the ICU in the Somalia war simply because they claimed to be Islamic while practicing the exact kind of religious prosecution the Quran condemns. As far as muslims go, you're way closer to wahhabi than you are to normal.

Then again, you may really not be any close to wahhabi. Or shia. Or sunni. If you were an actual muslim, you'd refer to Allah as "God", because Allah isn't a proper name, it simply means "God" in Arabic. We are talking in English. Furthermore, it's the same god of the Christian religion. Also, there is no Hell in Islam. No, not even to the wahabbi idiots. This adds a bit to the possibility that you, my friend, are an agent provocateur, and play this charade to make muslims look bad. Especially since you have a habit of showing how utterly little you know about the religion you claim to follow - a religion in which knowledge is highly valued, and seen as something that gets you closer to God. Or is it Allah? Well, that depends, how do you say "I'm beating the crap out of you in an argument" in Arabic?

And I ask to the others that read this: Liked the autopsy I performed?

You know, why does God even have a name. One would imagine that an entity who before creating the world, angels, etc. was all alone wouldn't need a self-referential label, as no one would call him by that name anyway until he'd already created the universe, at which point why not just let them call him God?

You can say God. As I said people do. You seem to be one of the people I was speaking about, who think that the word God is universal. It's an English word. Spanish people say Dios, for instance.

Very funny. Al-Ilah, shortened to Allah, means just "the god". (it's just as funny as people who claim that they believe in jesus christ but don't believe that jesus christ is the messiah)

And the name of the god in the bible is Yah, and where he is referred to as El, Eloh, or Elohim, it's rather used as a title than as a name.

I know everything you just said. However, as Muslims, we believe the Qur'an is the perfect word of God. To call Him God is totally fine, however, I'm just explaining why some Muslims say Allah. Since we believe the Qur'an is the perfect word of God, and in it God is called Allah, this is his personal name. This just the belief of the Muslims. However, as I said, it is fine and accurate to say God when speaking English.

I'm not sure.

Why not? It's a simple question, are other religions exempt from secular law when it conflicts with their teachings or just yours?

And I ask to the others that read this: Liked the autopsy I performed?

Very methodical and detailed.

Of course, Soviestan gets pwned by Corny of all people, so that speaks volumes.

Actually your arguments did get through to a degree. I looked more into the case and it turns out the judge was just a fool. It has almost nothing to do with whether a Muslim has the right to strike his wife in Germany. It seems it was unnecessary for the judge to even bring Islam into the decision.
Well, good.
And just as a reminder: In Germany, nobody has the right to strike anyone but everyone has the right not to be struck and the state enforces that right! That's how it works here.

Actually your arguments did get through to a degree. I looked more into the case and it turns out the judge was just a fool. It has almost nothing to do with whether a Muslim has the right to strike his wife in Germany. It seems it was unnecessary for the judge to even bring Islam into the decision.

There is hope yet for this man people.

And I ask to the others that read this: Liked the autopsy I performed?

Hell yes. Well done Heikoku.

Very methodical and detailed.

Of course, Soviestan gets pwned by Corny of all people, so that speaks volumes.

That's because I've actually studied the Muslim Faith and have a Qu'ran available to use. Of Course, I left the debate mostly to others and added my 2 cents when it was necessary.

There is hope yet for this man people.
If only he hadn't screwed it up with his following post:
He still hasn't told me if Christians and Jews are exempt from secular laws as well.
I'm not sure.
Soviestan, the only acceptable answer would've been "No, of course not." because nowadays, in this society, secular law trumps religious law no matter which religion you follow.

Um, what? :confused: I think we've been talking at cross purposes for the past few posts. All I have been saying is that while I do think that there was a man who became known to Christians as Jesus Christ (even though the title is in my opinion given inaccurately) I do not believe him to be the actual messiah, and I was confused as to why you thought it was funny that I could simultaneously believe he existed and yet not believe him to be the messiah.I found it funny (or rather ridiculous) that someone who does not believe in Jesus being the messiah would still call him Christ.

Soviestan, the only acceptable answer would've been "No, of course not." because nowadays, in this society, secular law trumps religious law no matter which religion you follow.But Soviestan isn't arguing from a secular position, he's arguing from an Islamic position. For him Islamic law is above secular law, which would only apply for Muslims, of course. He only said he wasn't sure if from an Islamic view point Jews' and Christians' laws were also above secular law respectively.
And from an Islamic position secular law is null and void anyways, if it is not in accordance with the Qur'an.

But Soviestan isn't arguing from a secular position, he's arguing from an Islamic position. For him Islamic law is above secular law, which would only apply for Muslims, of course. He only said he wasn't sure if from an Islamic view point Jews' and Christians' laws were also above secular law respectively.
And from an Islamic position secular law is null and void anyways, if it is not in accordance with the Qur'an.

Indeed. I doubt he really is a muslim anyway.

But Soviestan isn't arguing from a secular position, he's arguing from an Islamic position. For him Islamic law is above secular law, which would only apply for Muslims, of course. He only said he wasn't sure if from an Islamic view point Jews' and Christians' laws were also above secular law respectively.
And from an Islamic position secular law is null and void anyways, if it is not in accordance with the Qur'an.

Not that simple. The Quran says the local laws should be respected as well. So, no, divine law does NOT trump local laws in the Quran.

I'm not defending him if he beat her severely. If he did I certainly don't have any objections to punishing him. The article didn't say he was beating her severely and I think our definition of the word may be a little different.

if she was not beaten severely how could she back up she was beaten? she even had the police saying she was beaten. in modern day court you got to be able to prove things for them to be able to be considered afaik. haveing someone just say that she is beaten isnt enough for the court to belive that she was. (and considering your definition of severe is atleast leaving bruises she should be able to prove if it was severe or not)

that she was backed up by the police was been brought up very early in the thread Soviestan.

im worried that somewhere in the middle (page 12-14) you figured out you painted yourself into a corner and are now slowly backing up and waiting for the paint to dry so you can walk out.


at first you were annoyed that the state interfered at all but later on you agreed that if it was severe the state should have a say in the matter as obviously the man couldnt follow the rules.


is there any possibility you could read the whole thread again from the beginning and come back to me about this?

I found it funny (or rather ridiculous) that someone who does not believe in Jesus being the messiah would still call him Christ.

Well, if you came to this forum and started referring to me by the screen name I use in kingdom of loathing, or better yet my real name, then no one would know who you're talking about. This is what I mean when I say that I usually refer to him by the title granted by his followers for ease of communication.

Well, if you came to this forum and started referring to me by the screen name I use in kingdom of loathing, or better yet my real name, then no one would know who you're talking about. This is what I mean when I say that I usually refer to him by the title granted by his followers for ease of communication.

You're in Kingdom of Loathing? I'm in Oxycore right now, but we can chat. Name's The_Weirdo.

(/threadjack)

You're in Kingdom of Loathing? I'm in Oxycore right now, but we can chat. Name's The_Weirdo.

(/threadjack)

/continuedthreadjack

I'm Neverhere, throw me a kmail either of you if you want.

The opinion of a person that studied Islam.


you need to study it more.




Treating women poorly INCLUDES beating her.
my definition of beating is not the same as yours. What I mean by beating is lightly hitting and not on the face as a last resort for wives who don't do what they need to.

And a woman has the right to freely divorce her husband, including according to the book you claim to follow.
I never claimed otherwise.


Not THAT far, you aren't. You favored the ICU in the Somalia war simply because they claimed to be Islamic while practicing the exact kind of religious prosecution the Quran condemns. As far as muslims go, you're way closer to wahhabi than you are to normal.

There were other reasons why I favoured them, and I did not defend things they did like killing those who didn't pray 5x a day.

Then again, you may really not be any close to wahhabi. Or shia. Or sunni. If you were an actual muslim, you'd refer to Allah as "God", because Allah isn't a proper name, it simply means "God" in Arabic. We are talking in English.

In the Qur'an, God is refered to as Allah. It is advised to use Allah as a sign of respect.

Furthermore, it's the same god of the Christian religion.
In other news bears crap in the woods.

Also, there is no Hell in Islam.
I wasn't even going to this post that stinks of arrogance on your part but this statement is the stupidiest thing I have ever heard. As far as I'm concern this totally discredits you as someone capable of speaking about Islam.

There is hell in Islam
http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=islam&cdn=religion&tm=8&f=10&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.islamworld.net/heavenhell.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Islam

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/afterlife.htm

And I ask to the others that read this: Liked the autopsy I performed?
you should have more humility than you do. You just got owned.

Then why were there various versions of the Qur'an before they were all destroyed except one?

I could be wrong on this, because I admit this is something I haven't studied in great detail but from what I know the companions and followers of the prophet(pbuh) memorised the entire Qur'an and would have known if there were any inaccuracies of those who wrote in down. A comittee was set up to make sure the Qur'an that was have today was accurate and complete.

Soviestan, the only acceptable answer would've been "No, of course not." because nowadays, in this society, secular law trumps religious law no matter which religion you follow.

And I could understand why that is a reasonable position to take, that is, to have one uniform law for all people. the only thing I worry about is secular law stepping on the tops of religious practice or law.

And I could understand why that is a reasonable position to take, that is, to have one uniform law for all people. the only thing I worry about is secular law stepping on the tops of religious practice or law.

Are you suggesting that secular law should never made and law or legislation the goes against religious practice and law?

Ok, i support islam, but incouraging domestic violence? And where in the Koran does it say, you are allowed to beat the crap out oif your wife?

I could be wrong on this, because I admit this is something I haven't studied in great detail but from what I know the companions and followers of the prophet(pbuh) memorised the entire Qur'an and would have none if there were any inaccuracies of those who wrote in down. A comittee was set up to make sure the Qur'an that was have today was accurate and complete.

I"m going to hate myself later for saying this but wasn't that what they did with the Bible as well?

And I could understand why that is a reasonable position to take, that is, to have one uniform law for all people. the only thing I worry about is secular law stepping on the tops of religious practice or law.

:headbang:

You are hopeless. No law should be above the law of the nation one is in. Not even religious.

:headbang:

Are you suggesting that secular law should never made and law or legislation the goes against religious practice and law?

Only when it comes to Islam it seems for he had no answer in regards to Jews and Christians being treated the same way.

you need to study it more.

1- I'm an occultist. You are the one that has an obligation to know it.
2- And yet you show yourself as pretty unskilled in it.

my definition of beating is not the same as yours. What I mean by beating is lightly hitting and not on the face as a last resort for wives who don't do what they need to.

You read an article in which the wife got proof that her husband beat her. Light hits don't leave marks, let alone marks that can be used as reasoning for divorce. You either failed to read the article or got proven wrong and are now trying to backtrack it.

I never claimed otherwise.

You did when you supported the judge that wanted to stick her with the abusive scumbag.

There were other reasons why I favoured them, and I did not defend things they did like killing those who didn't pray 5x a day.

You can favor a group "even though" they are pro or against lasseiz-faire. You can't favor a group "even though" they practice religious prosecution. Especially when said prosecution goes against the teachings of Islam.

In the Qur'an, God is refered to as Allah. It is advised to use Allah as a sign of respect.

Which is precisely why the muslims I know always said "deus", which is Portuguese for "God"? Further, which is why these same muslims are way, way more devout than you are?

In other news bears crap in the woods.

Oh, lookie, he's being sarcastic. Innit cute?

I wasn't even going to this post that stinks of arrogance on your part but this statement is the stupidiest thing I have ever heard. As far as I'm concern this totally discredits you as someone capable of speaking about Islam.

There is hell in Islam
http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=islam&cdn=religion&tm=8&f=10&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.islamworld.net/heavenhell.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Islam

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/afterlife.htm

This is purgatory. Hell is a place you go to to suffer torment forever. Purgatory is a place you go to in order to get punished for a while. From your own link: "In any case, there is good reason to believe that punishment in Hell is not meant to actually last eternally, but instead serves as a basis for spiritual rectification."

you should have more humility than you do. You just got owned.

Again, I save my humility to my equals or my betters.

And I could understand why that is a reasonable position to take, that is, to have one uniform law for all people. the only thing I worry about is secular law stepping on the tops of religious practice or law.

I just made up a new religion that entitles me to everything in your city. Religious law trumps local law, according to you.

Indeed. I doubt he really is a muslim anyway.
If he is, he must be considered a bad one. If he is not, he must be considered braindead.

I"m going to hate myself later for saying this but wasn't that what they did with the Bible as well?

Not quite. Even because, while the Catholic Church kept the masses and Bibles in Latin so they could tell the people whatever they wished, Muslims favored learning the Quran well. Also, there was less politics, shall we say. Which is why most Muslims find the kind of Muslim Soviestan plays here to be, at best, laughable, and, at worst, dangerous.

Well, if you came to this forum and started referring to me by the screen name I use in kingdom of loathing, or better yet my real name, then no one would know who you're talking about. This is what I mean when I say that I usually refer to him by the title granted by his followers for ease of communication.
oh, you mean "Jesus" is not sufficient to specify who you're talking about in a religious context? you have to call him messiah in greek, so you won't be mistaken?

I could be wrong on this, because I admit this is something I haven't studied in great detail but from what I know the companions and followers of the prophet(pbuh) memorised the entire Qur'an and would have none if there were any inaccuracies of those who wrote in down. A comittee was set up to make sure the Qur'an that was have today was accurate and complete.
"would have none" ?? ?? :rolleyes: you are worse than i thought

and the committee determined the accuracy of the writing through what?

1- I'm an occultist.

If I had a quarter for everytime I heard you say that, I'd be a frickin millonaire. Its getting quite old. We get it, you are an occultist.


You read an article in which the wife got proof that her husband beat her. Light hits don't leave marks, let alone marks that can be used as reasoning for divorce. You either failed to read the article or got proven wrong and are now trying to backtrack it.

I admit I didn't read the article as well as I should have. I didn't understand the case as much as I do now. I stated this earlier.

You did when you supported the judge that wanted to stick her with the abusive scumbag.
Like I said, I didn't really understand what the case was about at 1st. The judge should have never brought Islam into this case. It has nothing to do with it.


You can favor a group "even though" they are pro or against lasseiz-faire. You can't favor a group "even though" they practice religious prosecution. Especially when said prosecution goes against the teachings of Islam.
I'd rather support Muslims than non-Muslim invaders.


Which is precisely why the muslims I know always said "deus", which is Portuguese for "God"? Further, which is why these same muslims are way, way more devout than you are?

I'm not going to argue with you about names, its chlidish. God, Allah, Dios, Deus, El, whatever. Its all the same God. You shouldn't be so arrogant as to presume my devoution to my faith.


This is purgatory. Hell is a place you go to to suffer torment forever. Purgatory is a place you go to in order to get punished for a while. From your own link: "In any case, there is good reason to believe that punishment in Hell is not meant to actually last eternally, but instead serves as a basis for spiritual rectification."

Hell is hell no matter what spin you put on it. They don't call purgatory for a good reason. Hell is somewhere you go to be punished, no matter for how long. Purgatory is more of a waiting room than anything. There is hell in Islam, anyone who knows anything about Islam knows this.

Again, I save my humility to my equals or my betters.
I'm strongly considering putting to you on ignore. I've been here a year and never put anyone on it. Your arrogance bothers me.

:headbang:

You are hopeless. No law should be above the law of the nation one is in. Not even religious.

:headbang:

Let me spell out my complete position on this. I support the law of Allah above any man made law given a choice between the two. I am however willing to live in a place and follow their laws that are not those of Allah, seeing as there is no true Islamic state today. I just am bothered when national law conflicts with religious law, not that I am unwilling to follow said law.

Let me spell out my complete position on this. I support the law of Allah above any man made law given a choice between the two.

Which makes you a complete idiot if you are going to put religious law above the laws of a nation. No religious law is above that of a national government unless National Government makes religious law the law of the land. That is not the case in Germany, nor is it the case in the US. You want that, move to Saudi Arabia or any other Middle East Country.

I am however willing to live in a place and follow their laws that are not those of Allah, seeing as there is no true Islamic state today. I just am bothered when national law conflicts with religious law, not that I am unwilling to follow said law.

No you just want Islamic Law to replace National Law when it conflicts with National Law. I point to the first part of this post as proof of it.

If I had a quarter for everytime I heard you say that, I'd be a frickin millonaire. Its getting quite old. We get it, you are an occultist.

Just to point out that I "should" know less about Islam than you do, and yet...

I admit I didn't read the article as well as I should have. I didn't understand the case as much as I do now. I stated this earlier.

There's still the fact that a woman is free to ask for a divorce when she wishes in the Quran, so, the judge would STILL be obliged to grant it, according to the book you claim to know anything about.

Like I said, I didn't really understand what the case was about at 1st. The judge should have never brought Islam into this case. It has nothing to do with it.

Or with local laws for that matter, but that doesn't stop you from doing the un-Islamic thing and wanting to force the religion. A religion, I repeat, that does not prozelytize.

I'd rather support Muslims than non-Muslim invaders.

Which would be cute if they were acting like real muslims, instead of - like you - claiming they're muslims in order to back up their crazy ideologies that have squat to do with Islam.

I'm not going to argue with you about names, its chlidish. God, Allah, Dios, Deus, El, whatever. Its all the same God. You shouldn't be so arrogant as to presume my devoution to my faith.

Considering how little you have shown to know about it, it's not arrogant at all to question whether you give a damn about God or you simply want to pretend Islam backs up the kind of crap you back up.

Hell is hell no matter what spin you put on it. They don't call purgatory for a good reason. Hell is somewhere you go to be punished, no matter for how long. Purgatory is more of a waiting room than anything. There is hell in Islam, anyone who knows anything about Islam knows this.

The true muslims I've been with said there is no Hell in Islam. And purgatory is a place you go to PURGE your sins. By, yes, being punished, with limits.

I'm strongly considering putting to you on ignore. I've been here a year and never put anyone on it. Your arrogance bothers me.

Says the guy that wants to push his religion into local laws but isn't sure others should be pushed. How - again - un-islamic. Go ahead and put me on your ignore list, if that's an effective form of running from me. I admit I am arrogant towards people like you. For good reason.

"would have none" ?? ?? :rolleyes: you are worse than i thought

and the committee determined the accuracy of the writing through what?

If your interested I found a wiki article, it seems to be accurate for the most part though I'm not sure its 100%. It could answer most your questions better than I because I admit this is not an area I know very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur'an#According_to_Islamic_scholars

Let me spell out my complete position on this. I support the law of Allah above any man made law given a choice between the two. I am however willing to live in a place and follow their laws that are not those of Allah, seeing as there is no true Islamic state today. I just am bothered when national law conflicts with religious law, not that I am unwilling to follow said law.

How is it then, that you turned from an atheist to a radical Islamic poster in such a short space of time?

Also, you condone any violence against women because a book tells you so?

I admit this is not an area I know very well.

Now if only you would admit that regarding the whole religion of Islam.

Well, perhaps replacing "very well" with "jack sh*t about".

How is it then, that you turned from an atheist to a radical Islamic poster in such a short space of time?

Also, you condone any violence against women because a book tells you so?

The book doesn't even tell him so.

Which makes you a complete idiot if you are going to put religious law above the laws of a nation. No religious law is above that of a national government unless National Government makes religious law the law of the land. That is not the case in Germany, nor is it the case in the US. You want that, move to Saudi Arabia or any other Middle East Country.



No you just want Islamic Law to replace National Law when it conflicts with National Law. I point to the first part of this post as proof of it.

Talking to you feels like this:headbang: It seems like we are going in circles and you not understanding what I'm trying to say. And maybe thats my fault. I'm having trouble finding the words to spell out what I mean.

How is it then, that you turned from an atheist to a radical Islamic poster in such a short space of time?

Also, you condone any violence against women because a book tells you so?

how am I a radical Islamic poster?

how am I a radical Islamic poster?

You support the group that kills innocents just because said group calls itself Muslim. For ONE.

Then again, you probably aren't a radical Islamic poster. Just a radical poster that claims to be Islamic.

Talking to you feels like this:headbang: It seems like we are going in circles and you not understanding what I'm trying to say. And maybe thats my fault. I'm having trouble finding the words to spell out what I mean.

You do not have to. We know that you know shit about Islam. It has been proven in your own words that you support the laws of Allah over those of national law. We do not need more than that to see that you are a blind follower of Islamic fundamentalism

You do not have to. We know that you know shit about Islam. It has been proven in your own words that you support the laws of Allah over those of national law. We do not need more than that to see that you are a blind follower of Islamic fundamentalism

Again, he DOESN'T support the laws of Allah. Because the laws of Allah SAY that it's a religious obligation to, guess, follow the laws of the land. Further, the laws of Allah say that you should not proselytize, let alone execute people for not following Islam.

how am I a radical Islamic poster?

Considering that you seem to support all Islamic laws and policies, and have not spoken out against anything bad done by those of the Islamic faith (this being a point in case) when even the most extreme of Christians have admitted something wrong with their religion/done in the name of their religion seems to show that you're radical.

Even more so compared to the other Islamic poster a few pages back, who actually admitted some wrongs.

And again, you condone any violence against women because a book tells you to?

how am I a radical Islamic poster?

Strong anti-woman beliefs, that you've espoused on multiple threads.

Strong support of things for no better reason than their Islaminess, for instance the annexation of Kashmir by Pakistan.

The well-documented inability to react to arguments you can't answer with a useful source or counter-example (the use of the clitoris for a purpose other than orgasm, as seen in the thread on the NY girls suspended for using the word Vagina)

And I could understand why that is a reasonable position to take, that is, to have one uniform law for all people. the only thing I worry about is secular law stepping on the tops of religious practice or law.
Let me try this again:
Freedom of religion does not mean you get a special treatment or different set of laws or rules applied to you. Nor does it mean you are eligible to demand being treated differently.

It is not a form of religious discrimination. If you don't like it that Germany's secular Basic Law is more important than any religious law, tough shit, too bad, for it breaks down like this:

You must follow the secular law - you have no choice.
You are free to follow your religious law - unless it is contradicted by secular law.
Just like with this:
my definition of beating is not the same as yours. What I mean by beating is lightly hitting and not on the face as a last resort for wives who don't do what they need to.
You don't get to define which beating is fine or appropriate, for (again!):
In Germany, nobody has the right to strike anyone but everyone has the right not to be struck and the state enforces that right! That's how it works here.
You really are a rare case - but don't you think that'll get you any kind of special treatment.
No law should be above the law of the nation one is in. Not even religious.
Especially not religious law!

And in the following quotes, I'll just let you speak for yourself:
Let me spell out my complete position on this. I support the law of Allah above any man made law given a choice between the two. I am however willing to live in a place and follow their laws that are not those of Allah, seeing as there is no true Islamic state today. I just am bothered when national law conflicts with religious law, not that I am unwilling to follow said law.
I wasn't even going to this post that stinks of arrogance on your part but this statement is the stupidiest thing I have ever heard.
You just got owned.

You do not have to. We know that you know shit about Islam. It has been proven in your own words that you support the laws of Allah over those of national law. We do not need more than that to see that you are a blind follower of Islamic fundamentalism

Of course, it is worth remembering that Christianity has a long established history of ignoring. over-riding or rewriting the 'laws of the land'.

I believe you are a Christian, aren't you? Would you stop being one if (somehow) Christianity was outlawed?

Let me spell out my complete position on this. I support the law of Allah above any man made law given a choice between the two. I am however willing to live in a place and follow their laws that are not those of Allah, seeing as there is no true Islamic state today. I just am bothered when national law conflicts with religious law, not that I am unwilling to follow said law.

Again, he DOESN'T support the laws of Allah. Because the laws of Allah SAY that it's a religious obligation to, guess, follow the laws of the land. Further, the laws of Allah say that you should not proselytize, let alone execute people for not following Islam.

read what I bolded that I said. Then read what I bolded you said. Is there a conflict?

Considering that you seem to support all Islamic laws and policies,

I admit that, doesn't make me extremist.

and have not spoken out against anything bad done by those of the Islamic faith
no. I have often and consistently spoken out against terrorism and those who use violence in the name of Islam.


And again, you condone any violence against women because a book tells you to?
I follow what Allah says. He has said lightly hitting to ok in certain circumstances, I'm not going to go against that.

read what I bolded that I said. Then read what I bolded you said. Is there a conflict?

No, there IS a conflic between what you said and your opinions about the judge, though, as Islam accepts subjecting itself to the laws of the land, rather than demanding that said laws subject themselves to Islam. There's also a conflict between what you said before and what's written in the Quran, but let's not let that get into the way of you claiming to be a member of the religion you don't know anything about...

-Snip-

So, not going to bother responding?

I admit that, doesn't make me extremist.

It does if you handpick the worst possible verses of the Quran.

no. I have often and consistently spoken out against terrorism and those who use violence in the name of Islam.

Supporting the ICU being a way to speak out against people who use violence in the name of Islam? They EXECUTED PEOPLE FOR NOT PRAYING FIVE TIMES A DAY!

I follow what Allah says. He has said lightly hitting to ok in certain circumstances, I'm not going to go against that.

You CLAIM to follow what Allah says. He says respect the laws of the land. You want the laws of the land to accomodate you when you "lightly" beat women up.

You don't get to define which beating is fine or appropriate, for (again!):
I did.
I suppose the state would have to step in. The
beating must be light, not to cause injury and the face must be avoided. If its worse than that, its against Islam and state law as well.

the definition varies depending on the scholar but I consider light to be a slap that doesn't leave bruises or something to that affect. I certainly would never just beat up on her and hurt her. That wouldn't be right.

I did.

You don't get to.

It's reasonable to conclude that Sovietstan is really a bitter atheist who's suddenly put on the persona of an action-movie jihadist and spouting all kinds of stereotypical Islamist crap since he wants to join in on the fun of the NationStates General |\/|05l3|\/|5 r 3b1l Bandwagon.

If you're going to condemn religion at least be more original than picking the Flavor of the Day, which of course is Islam. Be an equal opportunity atheist.

It's reasonable to conclude that Sovietstan is really a bitter athiest who's suddenly put on the persona of an action-movie jihadist and spouting all kinds of stereotypical Islamist crap since he wants to join in on the fun of the NationStates General |\/|05l3|\/|5 r 3b1l Bandwagon.

Way ahead of you.

No, there IS a conflic between what you said and your opinions about the judge
My opinions of the judge? What that the judge was stupid bringing Islam into a case that had nothing to do with Islam. Thats a conflict?

though, as Islam accepts subjecting itself to the laws of the land, rather than demanding that said laws subject themselves to Islam.
I said I will follow the laws of the land. How many times do I have to say it? Look in a perfect world there would be an Islamic state and I could chose between living there and living by Islamic law or living in the west. Since this isn't a perfect world I will live in the west(for now) and follow its laws.

There's also a conflict between what you said before and what's written in the Quran, but let's not let that get into the way of you claiming to be a member of the religion you don't know anything about...
you're about one post from my ignore list.

My opinions of the judge? What that the judge was stupid bringing Islam into a case that had nothing to do with Islam. Thats a conflict?

I said I will follow the laws of the land. How many times do I have to say it? Look in a perfect world there would be an Islamic state and I could chose between living there and living by Islamic law or living in the west. Since this isn't a perfect world I will live in the west(for now) and follow its laws.

you're about one post from my ignore list.

I'm sure he's quivering in his boots. :rolleyes:

Still don't plan on responding, eh? Don't worry, not holding my breath.

My opinions of the judge? What that the judge was stupid bringing Islam into a case that had nothing to do with Islam. Thats a conflict?

Yes, you began this charade by complimenting her on doing what you're now complaining she did.

I said I will follow the laws of the land. How many times do I have to say it? Look in a perfect world there would be an Islamic state and I could chose between living there and living by Islamic law or living in the west. Since this isn't a perfect world I will live in the west(for now) and follow its laws.

No, in a perfect world, no state would take religion into account, nor forbid it. Let alone to allow for wife-beating.

you're about one post from my ignore list.

Whatever works for you to run away, I guess, but I will keep on calling on your bullshit. Adding me to ignore won't protect you from the facts. Neither will adding THE FACTS to Ignore.

Strong anti-woman beliefs, that you've espoused on multiple threads.
I'm not against women

Strong support of things for no better reason than their Islaminess, for instance the annexation of Kashmir by Pakistan.
Being against the occupation of Muslim land does make me an extremist

The well-documented inability to react to arguments you can't answer with a useful source or counter-example (the use of the clitoris for a purpose other than orgasm, as seen in the thread on the NY girls suspended for using the word Vagina
Your right. I wasn't able to find a source. Happy?

I'm sure he's quivering in his boots. :rolleyes:

I'm wearing flip-flops. :D

I'm wearing flip-flops. :D

Well I'm sure you're quivering in your girly flip-flops :p

Yes, you began this charade by complimenting her on doing what you're now complaining she did.
I have said a couple times already that I didn't look into the case as much as I should have.


No, in a perfect world, no state would take religion into account, nor forbid it. Let alone to allow for wife-beating.
according to you.


Whatever works for you to run away, I guess, but I will keep on calling on your bullshit. Adding me to ignore won't protect you from the facts. Neither will adding THE FACTS to Ignore.


its not about running away. Its about not listening to your annoying self-righteous whining. Your not one to speak of facts mr. "there's no hell in Islam"

Being against the occupation of Muslim land does make me an extremist.

It is not Muslim land. It was Indian land, attacked by Muslims. You are the aggressors in this conflict.

It is not Muslim land. It was Indian land, attacked by Muslims. You are the aggressors in this conflict.

I'm not going to get into this debate again.

I'm not against women

Which is why you only follow the verses of the Quran that disempower them?

Being against the occupation of Muslim land does make me an extremist

Favoring the ICU, however, does.

Your right. I wasn't able to find a source. Happy?

I think he is, but he'll get happier when you admit you have no evidence.

I'm not going to get into this debate again.

Why not? You can always win by calling them bigots.

Why not? You can always win by calling them bigots.

No, because I debated Kashmir enough. The whole thing just goes in circles.

I did.
Oh for crying out loud (to whichever deity is listening in on this exchange!!!):

Go back to my post and re-read.

Yes, you did make the call. Yet, it wasn't your call to make for the laws of the land clearly say otherwise!

No beating whatsoever!!!!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

I have said a couple times already that I didn't look into the case as much as I should have.

Still doesn't account for the fact that you supported the judge when she went against what the Quran teaches about free divorce.

according to you.

And to the facts.

its not about running away. Its about not listening to your annoying self-righteous whining. Your not one to speak of facts mr. "there's no hell in Islam"

So, it's not about running away, it's about going "neeners-neeners-neeners, I can't heeeeear yooooooou!". So you claim that you're not a coward, just a 6-year old.

Being against the occupation of Muslim land does make me an extremist

Of course not. However your tendency to split the world into the ummah and the non-ummah is a prerequisite for extremism.

Why not? You can always win by calling them bigots.

And yet, Soviestan is not a Muslim.

I'm not going to get into this debate again.

THat's because you'll lose.

Oh for crying out loud (to whichever deity is listening in on this exchange!!!):

Go back to my post and re-read.

Yes, you did make the call. Yet, it wasn't your call to make for the laws of the land clearly say otherwise!

No beating whatsoever!!!!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

I agree no beating in Germany. I wasn't refering to German law about beating. I was refering to Islamic law. Does it make sense know?

THat's because you'll lose.

No, because I debated Kashmir enough. The whole thing just goes in circles.
no, this is why.

THat's because you'll lose.

Ironic, considering you have also dropped arguments in this very thread.

I agree no beating in Germany. I wasn't refering to German law about beating. I was refering to Islamic law. Does it make sense know?

You seem to have conveniently forgotten about the Islamic laws against mistreating women. Come on, now, Soviestan, can't you do better than that?

no, this is why.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Does not matter. You lose most of your debates on these topics anyway.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Does not matter. You lose most of your debates on these topics anyway.

To, might I add, non-muslims. *Points self*

To, might I add, non-muslims. *Points self*

Yep.

Still doesn't account for the fact that you supported the judge when she went against what the Quran teaches about free divorce.


In the beginning I wasn't discussing divorce, I was refering to the issue of wife beating. I never once said she can't seek a divorce.

And to the facts.

How is me saying "I would like a world where there is an Islamic state" and you saying 'there should be no state based no religion' a fact? Those are opinions genius.

So, it's not about running away, it's about going "neeners-neeners-neeners, I can't heeeeear yooooooou!". So you claim that you're not a coward, just a 6-year old.
That appears to be what your doing. you say 'theres nothing in the Qur'an saying wife beating is ok' I show you one, and you run away. you say 'there's no hell in Islam', I give three links that shows there is and you run away. I have no problem debating anyone, I have a problem with people who have a attitude of superiority or thinking he/she is a know-all.

I agree no beating in Germany. I wasn't refering to German law about beating. I was refering to Islamic law. Does it make sense know?
And if you're a Muslim in Germany you're free to follow Islamic law - unless it is contradicted by what German law says on the matter.

And all of the sudden your statement above makes even less sense.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. Does not matter. You lose most of your debates on these topics anyway.

Are you serious? I made an entire thread solely on Kashmir about a week ago and debated the issue ad nausem for page after page. I'm not doing it again.

And if you're a Muslim in Germany you're free to follow Islamic law - unless it is contradicted by what German law says on the matter.

And all of the sudden your statement above makes even less sense.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, no, no.

I was discussing the stance of Islamic law on the issue of wife beating.

Germany, german law, being Muslim in germany, being a german Muslim lawyer, and any other combo you want were not the issue.

Why not? You can always win by calling them bigots.

Little surprise you'd stick up for and help the one "Muslim" who's your poster boy for Islamaphobia.

Extremists scratch each other's backs.

No, no, no.

I was discussing the stance of Islamic law on the issue of wife beating.

Germany, german law, being Muslim in germany, being a german Muslim lawyer, and any other combo you want were not the issue.

You began by saying that the judge was right not to let the woman divorce.

You began by saying that the judge was right not to let the woman divorce.

not once did I say that.

not once did I say that.

the state should stay out of the affairs between a man and his wife me thinks.

You supported the judge. And the state is given by the law of the land (which the Quran tells you to follow) the right to interfere when a woman is being beaten. You're un-Islamic no matter how you cut it. You're being so by defending the idea that Muslim law should trump the law of the land and, worse, by defending the idea that maybe the same shouldn't happen to other religions.

not once did I say that.

I'll add on to Heikoku's pwnage.


the state should stay out of the affairs between a man and his wife me thinks. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12458398&postcount=24)

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12458427&postcount=31)

They are totally different circumstances. If you hit a total stranger, you don't them so most likely your doing it for no reason at all. However within a marriage, the husband is the protector over the woman and has final say on most matters. Hitting a wife(not severely btw) is a form of disipline like spanking your children. It should also be used as a last resort. This is an internal affair of the marriage on how a husband disiplines his wife and the state has no right getting involved. whats next, is the state going to tell you what colour blinds you should have in your house? of course not because its an issue within your home dealing with you alone. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12460292&postcount=107)


What's ironic and funny is that you're applying the same twisted logic to spousal abuse that Albert Gonzalez and the Bush Administration is using to try and redefine torture.

You supported the judge. And the state is given by the law of the land (which the Quran tells you to follow) the right to interfere when a woman is being beaten. You're un-Islamic no matter how you cut it. You're being so by defending the idea that Muslim law should trump the law of the land and, worse, by defending the idea that maybe the same shouldn't happen to other religions.

Again that statement wasn't refering to whether she could get a divorce or not. I already stated at the beginning of this thread I was talking about whether a man has the right to strike his wife. Not about divorce.

It's reasonable to conclude that Sovietstan is really a bitter atheist who's suddenly put on the persona of an action-movie jihadist and spouting all kinds of stereotypical Islamist crap since he wants to join in on the fun of the NationStates General |\/|05l3|\/|5 r 3b1l Bandwagon.
I think Soviestan is a genuine Muslim, but that he still harbours doubts about the truth of his faith.

Just because he may not match up to your idealised image of what a Muslim "should think", does not mean he is a fraud.

It's a lot more reasonable to conclude that you're a closet anti-Muslim. You never talk about anything else, and you apparently have "|\/|05l3|\/|5 r 3b1l" as a hot-key to paste in.

Your kind has been identified in philo-Semitism:
Daniel Goldhagen, Harvard scholar and author of the controversial "Hitler's Willing Executioners", argues that philo-Semites are often closet anti-Semites. His detractor Norman Finkelstein agrees. The thesis is that Jew haters feel a need to talk about Jews, and with anti-Semitism no longer being socially acceptable they must instead make exaggerated positive statements.
It can work the same way with Islamophilia, especially when exhibited by those without any logical reason to do so, such as atheists.

It is not Muslim land. It was Indian land, attacked by Muslims. You are the aggressors in this conflict.
While it is true that official and unofficial Pakistani Muslim elements have done viciously evil things in Kashmir over the past 60 years, history is not quite like you think. In 1947, Kashmir was a semi-independent land. Most of its people were Muslims, but they were ruled by a Hindu monarch. When the decision came to choose to be in Pakistan or India, he unilaterally chose India. If democracy had ruled, Kashmir would be Pakistani.

Again that statement wasn't refering to whether she could get a divorce or not. I already stated at the beginning of this thread I was talking about whether a man has the right to strike his wife. Not about divorce.

Then it'll be even easier.

According to the local laws in Germany (and in all developed countries), beating your wife is forbidden by law. According to the Quran, you must follow the law of the land. Ergo, you do NOT have the right to beat your wife. Not even by the book you claim to follow.

Are we done here? Can I get a respectable opponent?

Then it'll be even easier.

According to the local laws in Germany (and in all developed countries), beating your wife is forbidden by law. According to the Quran, you must follow the law of the land. Ergo, you do NOT have the right to beat your wife. Not even by the book you claim to follow.

Are we done here? Can I get a respectable opponent?

Game!

Set!

Match!

Heikoku

Is this thread done now?

Thank you :)

Do I get to call myself the winner of this thread? :D

Do I get to call myself the winner of this thread? :D

Only if it dies now, Mr. Thread winner ;)

Do I get to call myself the winner of this thread? :D
Just out of spite: No. :D

Just out of spite: No. :D

Bitte! :D

Bitte! :D
Well, okay. :p I think we did pretty well, and you won the thread. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

Has anyone asked the million dollar question? Was the judge a muslim herself? Or just some PC freak? Or both?

Has anyone asked the million dollar question? Was the judge a muslim herself? Or just some PC freak? Or both?

Non-Muslim and regrets her decision.

Has anyone asked the million dollar question? Was the judge a muslim herself? Or just some PC freak? Or both?

Read the thread...

While it is true that official and unofficial Pakistani Muslim elements have done viciously evil things in Kashmir over the past 60 years, history is not quite like you think. In 1947, Kashmir was a semi-independent land. Most of its people were Muslims, but they were ruled by a Hindu monarch. When the decision came to choose to be in Pakistan or India, he unilaterally chose India. If democracy had ruled, Kashmir would be Pakistani.

Except that even before the coming of the British, and before the Muslim invaders, that was Hindu land. It's the same logic for why Israel was given to the Jews. It was our land 2000 years ago, it should be our land now.

Then it'll be even easier.

According to the local laws in Germany (and in all developed countries), beating your wife is forbidden by law. According to the Quran, you must follow the law of the land. Ergo, you do NOT have the right to beat your wife. Not even by the book you claim to follow.

Are we done here? Can I get a respectable opponent?
Why am I your "opponent" are you so competitive that you have to "win" threads? I wasn't really arguing whether you have the right to beat your wife in Germany or not. What I was saying at the beginning of the thread was that to me, a husband has the right to hit his wife lightly in certain circumstances and that it was my hope that the law would allow for it, even it doesn't. Its sort of like a lot of people here would like to see Marijuana legalised, yet don't do it to follow the law.
This thread is about over with though, because as I stated earlier, this case wasn't about that at all and Islam shouldn't have been brought into it at all. I think we are all in argeement here that the judge wasn't that bright.

Do I get to call myself the winner of this thread? :D

Sure because I'm done debating this. You are a troll as far as I can tell and I'm not going to feed you any longer. You masquerade as an occultist but your not. You only do it to give occultists a bad name by being a know it all. But a real occultist would know that there is in fact hell in Islam and that the Qur'an does in fact state it is permissable to strike your wife in certain circumstances.

Sure because I'm done debating this. You are a troll as far as I can tell and I'm not going to feed you any longer. You masquerade as an occultist but your not. You only do it to give occultists a bad name by being a know it all. But a real occultist would know that there is in fact hell in Islam and that the Qur'an does in fact state it is permissable to strike your wife in certain circumstances.

Indeed. And isn't it also true that Qur'an is higher law than any man made law, which was his point.

Frankly, I support your muslim efforts. You are, at least doing it properly, unlike some other people I could mention.

I think Soviestan is a genuine Muslim, but that he still harbours doubts about the truth of his faith.

Just because he may not match up to your idealised image of what a Muslim "should think", does not mean he is a fraud.

It's a lot more reasonable to conclude that you're a closet anti-Muslim. You never talk about anything else, and you apparently have "|\/|05l3|\/|5 r 3b1l" as a hot-key to paste in.

Your kind has been identified in philo-Semitism:

It can work the same way with Islamophilia, especially when exhibited by those without any logical reason to do so, such as atheists.

Consider it an antibody reaction to all the "Evil Muslims" posts that keep cropping up. If and when the fad dies down you won't hear a peep out of me from it. If a "Evil Christians," "Evil Jews" or "Evil Buddhists/Hindu/Etc" posts rise to similar frequency and numbers, then damn straight I'll defend those religions too.

Indeed. And isn't it also true that Qur'an is higher law than any man made law, which was his point.

Frankly, I support your muslim efforts. You are, at least doing it properly, unlike some other people I could mention.

Islam is sorely in need of a reformation and updating as can be seen by many of the Old Testament-flavored verses and passages.

It's people like you with the "True Islam ought to be intolerant and oppressive" mentality that's making it easier for the jihadists to convince young Muslims that their version of the religion is the proper one.

Islam is sorely in need of a reformation and updating as can be seen by many of the Old Testament-flavored verses and passages.

It's people like you with the "True Islam ought to be intolerant and oppressive" mentality that's making it easier for the jihadists to convince young Muslims that their version of the religion is the proper one.

All Abrahamic religions are intolerant and oppressive. I don't like any of them. And no 'version' of religion is the proper one, because all of them are bullshit.

But yes, I am directly involved with with suicide bombing, you are right.:rolleyes:

I am an atheist. I don't like any monotheistic religion. And frankly, you little quisling, I've not seen you once stand up for atheists. So your entire tolerance rap is just bullshit. Just, you know, fuck off for a bit before you criticize other people.

/continuedthreadjack

I'm Neverhere, throw me a kmail either of you if you want.

Erisrising or my multi mkhall, well now that destroys half my argument I just made . . .

[/threadjack]

my definition of beating is not the same as yours. What I mean by beating is lightly hitting and not on the face as a last resort for wives who don't do what they need to.

That would count as treating her badly, and were I witness to it it would be a good way to find out what going through a wall feels like.

oh, you mean "Jesus" is not sufficient to specify who you're talking about in a religious context? you have to call him messiah in greek, so you won't be mistaken?

As the Christians do I usually use either Jesus or Christ alternately, rarely do I just say Jesus Christ (unless I stub my toe).

Talking to you feels like this:headbang: It seems like we are going in circles and you not understanding what I'm trying to say. And maybe thats my fault. I'm having trouble finding the words to spell out what I mean.

You are trying to say that hitting your wife is acceptable behavior. We are saying that makes you subhuman.

All Abrahamic religions are intolerant and oppressive. I don't like any of them. And no 'version' of religion is the proper one, because all of them are bullshit.

But yes, I am directly involved with with suicide bombing, you are right.:rolleyes:

I am an atheist. I don't like any monotheistic religion. And frankly, you little quisling, I've not seen you once stand up for atheists. So your entire tolerance rap is just bullshit. Just, you know, fuck off for a bit before you criticize other people.

So as an atheist you have a grasp of what a proper interpretation of what a religion is. Riiiight. And I can see you're supporting Soviestan, a fellow bitter-ass atheist who's playing the Evil Moslem game that you get off on as well.

And where did I say you were directly involved in suicide bombings? The 60 Minutes article "Jihad.com" points out how the jihadists recruit young Muslims over the Internet by shattering their perception of Islam and saying that their own violent and intolerant version is the true one. And by agreeing with them, you're making it easier for them to convince their targets that blowing people up is the One True Path to Allah and heaven.

Oh, and when do athiests get painted with the 3b1l label as frequently as Muslims have been of late? And paste me a link where I ever said anything bad about atheists besides bitter fucks like you and Soviestan.

You're the one that needs to blow it out your fucking ass.

Consider it an antibody reaction to all the "Evil Muslims" posts that keep cropping up.
But you're there to past that nonsense even when there is no "evil Muslims" content posted. The mention of Muslims is enough for you. Christianity does get bashed around quite a bit here as well.

You also have strong tendency towards flaming.

So as an atheist you have a grasp of what a proper interpretation of what a religion is. Riiiight. And I can see you're supporting Soviestan, a fellow bitter-ass atheist who's playing the Evil Moslem game that you get off on as well.

And where did I say you were directly involved in suicide bombings? The 60 Minutes article "Jihad.com" points out how the jihadists recruit young Muslims over the Internet by shattering their perception of Islam and saying that their own violent and intolerant version is the true one. And by agreeing with them, you're making it easier for them to convince their targets that blowing people up is the One True Path to Allah and heaven.

Oh, and when do athiests get painted with the 3b1l label as frequently as Muslims have been of late? And paste me a link where I ever said anything bad about atheists besides bitter fucks like you and Soviestan.

You're the one that needs to blow it out your fucking ass.

If you honestly think I'm an atheist, you need to get your head checked. I've been a Muslim for 5, going on 6 months. In that time I probably have 1,500+ posts, a good chunk of which were dealing with Islam or related to. I dare you to find one case where I said something false or inaccurate about Islam. You won't find it because unlike you and the troll heikou, I don't say talk about things I don't know and I can admit when I'm not sure or don't know something. I've already pointed out two cases where Heikou was dead wrong and didn't know what the hell he was talking about in this one thread alone. So if I'm such a troll, it shouldn't be hard to find one little thing I said that was wrong, yeah? btw, the 'blow it out your f*ing ass' was over the line.

All Abrahamic religions are intolerant and oppressive. I don't like any of them. And no 'version' of religion is the proper one.

In no way is it possible for any set supernatural beleifs to be inherently intollerant without knowing it's doctorine. There is nothing about religion that suggests that it must produce corrupt doctorine.

If you honestly think I'm an atheist, you need to get your head checked. I've been a Muslim for 5, going on 6 months. In that time I probably have 1,500+ posts, a good chunk of which were dealing with Islam or related to. I dare you to find one case where I said something false or inaccurate about Islam. You won't find it because unlike you and the troll heikou, I don't say talk about things I don't know and I can admit when I'm not sure or don't know something. I've already pointed out two cases where Heikou was dead wrong and didn't know what the hell he was talking about in this one thread alone. So if I'm such a troll, it shouldn't be hard to find one little thing I said that was wrong, yeah? btw, the 'blow it out your f*ing ass' was over the line.

How do we know you are actually a Muslim? We don't. The way you are talking about Islam shows just how little you know about the topic. You have been stood up big time in this thread about it.

In no way is it possible for any set supernatural beleifs to be inherently intollerant without knowing it's doctorine. There is nothing about religion that suggests that it must produce corrupt doctorine.
Lacadaemon said "All Abrahamic religions are intolerant and oppressive." Are those the only religions you can imagine? He did not refer to religion in general.

Lacadaemon said "All Abrahamic religions are intolerant and oppressive." Are those the only religions you can imagine? He did not refer to religion in general.

Aye, but Hinduism and Buddhist are pretty intolerant too.

Aye, but Hinduism and Buddhist are pretty intolerant too.But not as inherently as the "abrahamic" religions.

But not as inherently as the "abrahamic" religions.

Bullshit. *points to the caste system*

How do we know you are actually a Muslim? We don't. The way you are talking about Islam shows just how little you know about the topic. You have been stood up big time in this thread about it.

How do I know you're not gay or a paedophile? we don't. I said it before and I'll say it again. If I know so little about Islam give me one case where I said something that was inaccurate about Islam. I mean if I know so little as you claim, that shouldn't be hard, no? If you can't find anything you need to stop talking or I will just assume you're a gay paedophile. That seems fair.

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: kill 'em we are being rasitsit against Christians now OMG

Bullshit. *points to the caste system*What does the caste system have to do with religious intolerance? It's just a system of society.

Lacadaemon said "All Abrahamic religions are intolerant and oppressive." Are those the only religions you can imagine? He did not refer to religion in general.

It is still impossible to make a link between intollerance and beleif in an abrahamic God inherently. To do so would be retarded.

It is still impossible to make a link between intollerance and beleif in an abrahamic God inherently. To do so would be retarded.So you just have never read the bible.

What does the caste system have to do with religious intolerance? It's just a system of society.

It wasn't a very well thought out ...thought.

It wasn't a very well thought out ...thought.I ... forgive ... you ... ;) *halo*

and why do you call yourself "apple god" ?

So you just have never read the bible.

:rolleyes:

You can interprate the Bible in an almost infinate amount of ways, you don't even have to have read any of it (or at least most of it) to become a Christian. Contrary to your fantasy about all christians following the literal word of every passage in the old testement (even when it is obviously meant to be symbolism), not all Christians will actually act this way. Thus the same as any other religion yet you proove you have an k1ll t3h Chr15t10nS! agenda by immediately choosing Christianity as usual you bigot.

What does the caste system have to do with religious intolerance? It's just a system of society.

The Caste System and
the Stages of Life in Hinduism (http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm)

You can interprate the Bible in an almost infinate amount of ways, you don't even have to have read any of it (or at least most of it) to become a Christian. Contrary to your fantasy about all christians following the literal word of every passage in the old testement (even when it is obviously meant to be symbolism), not all Christians will actually act this way. Thus the same as any other religion yet you proove you have an k1ll t3h Chr15t10nS! agenda by immediately choosing Christianity as usual you bigot.So you just have never read the bible.

...and please learn to type.

The Caste System and the Stages of Life in Hinduism (http://www.friesian.com/caste.htm)And where is the intolerance part against other religions?

OK, ah first off and this is key, does germanyhave seperation of church and state and two were they muslim.

A) If they have seperation of church and state it was COMPLETELY illegal!

B) If they don't but the couple wasn't muslim it was illegal.

and

C) A death threat is illegal period so he should get like cumminity service or something. :sniper:

So you just have never read the bible.


Jesus Christ you are insane. You still proove that you have an extremely predictable 12 year old outcast agenda against Christianity by again dodging the argument and mentioning that I somehow have never read the Bible. Despite the fact that this could not be more irrellavent, even if I hadn't read the Bible (which I have many times) that stops absoultey nothing I said from being true. You have not given one single argument to support your view except this childish rhetoric you continue to spit out as if i'm gonna get "pwned".


...and please learn to type.

I'm very busy. I have to type fast.

I ... forgive ... you ... ;) *halo*

and why do you call yourself "apple god" ?

Apple? Malum means...evil...or rather bad.

And where is the intolerance part against other religions?

You can't even remember your own questions that I answered with specific refutation:

What does the caste system have to do with religious intolerance? It's just a system of society. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12473821&postcount=433)

You assumed that the caste system had nothing to do with religion and I disproved it with that link. Now you're trying to cop out by moving the goalpost.

:rolleyes:

Jesus Christ you are insane. You still proove that you have an extremely predictable 12 year old outcast agenda against Christianity by again dodging the argument and mentioning that I somehow have never read the Bible. Despite the fact that this could not be more irrellavent, even if I hadn't read the Bible (which I have many times) that stops absoultey nothing I said from being true. You have not given one single argument to support your view except this childish rhetoric you continue to spit out as if i'm gonna get "pwned".If you have not read the bible (which is somewhat relevant if you want to discuss the religions based on it), you would know that intolerance is woven into the very fabric the abrahamic religions are made of. Rejection of everything not within the narrow perspective on god and the world as they are described by the bible is at the heart of these ideologies. And if you look and listen closely, you will find that their followers are as are their religions.

If you have not read the bible (which is somewhat relevant if you want to discuss the religions based on it), you would know that intolerance is woven into the very fabric the abrahamic religions are made of. Rejection of everything not within the narrow perspective on god and the world as they are described by the bible is at the heart of these ideologies. And if you look and listen closely, you will find that their followers are as are their religions.

So you just have never read the bible.

You can't even remember your own questions that I answered with specific refutation:

What does the caste system have to do with religious intolerance? It's just a system of society.

You assumed that the caste system had nothing to do with religion and I disproved it with that link. Now you're trying to cop out by moving the goalpost.
We were talking about the tolerance shown by followers of certain religions towards the followers of other religions. And even though the caste system may have roots in religion, it is a system of society, and I do not see how religious tolerance plays a role there. You mean tolerance of one caste against another? Do the different castes have different religions?

So you just have never read the bible.I'm re-reading it right now. :p and it's a really sick book written by sick folks
and i suppose Elijah is your darling?

We were talking about the tolerance shown by followers of certain religions towards the followers of other religions. And even though the caste system may have roots in religion, it is a system of society, and I do not see how religious tolerance plays a role there. You mean tolerance of one caste against another? Do the different castes have different religions?

If you'd bother to read that link, you'd learn that the dalits (Outcastes) are considered by everyone else in the caste system as non-Hindu and thus treated like shit (quite often literally). And this still happens in modern day India.

I'm re-reading it right now. :p and it's a really sick book written by sick folks

From your interpretation. Why would you read it if you hate it so much?

From your interpretation.From an unindoctrinated interpretation. How many of the biblical prophets have anything positive to say or do about other religions than the featured one of the bible?

Why would you read it if you hate it so much?Why would I not?

Sure because I'm done debating this. You are a troll as far as I can tell and I'm not going to feed you any longer. You masquerade as an occultist but your not. You only do it to give occultists a bad name by being a know it all. But a real occultist would know that there is in fact hell in Islam and that the Qur'an does in fact state it is permissable to strike your wife in certain circumstances.

No. A real occultist would know that there are several ways to get to enlightment, for starters. And the difference between hell and purgatory, as "temporary" hell IS purgatory. However, do tell, what would you like to discuss in occultism? LaVey? Crowley? Gardner? John Dee? What techniques? Sigils? Wiccan rituals? Shamanism? The difference between you and me is I KNOW what I'm talking about.

:rolleyes:

You can interprate the Bible in an almost infinate amount of ways, you don't even have to have read any of it (or at least most of it) to become a Christian. Contrary to your fantasy about all christians following the literal word of every passage in the old testement (even when it is obviously meant to be symbolism), not all Christians will actually act this way. Thus the same as any other religion yet you proove you have an k1ll t3h Chr15t10nS! agenda by immediately choosing Christianity as usual you bigot.

And a kill the jews agenda as well.

How do I know you're not gay or a paedophile? we don't. I said it before and I'll say it again. If I know so little about Islam give me one case where I said something that was inaccurate about Islam. I mean if I know so little as you claim, that shouldn't be hard, no? If you can't find anything you need to stop talking or I will just assume you're a gay paedophile. That seems fair.

You can prove a positive. You can't prove a negative. You showed yourself to know jack about Islam. For starters by supporting a group that forces Islam down people's throat, like the ICU, which goes, and I cap it, AGAINST WHAT THE QURAN SAYS. I can talk about occultism without looking like a moron. Because I have skill in it. I can even talk about Islam (and I've read little on it) without looking like a moron. You can't talk about Islam without looking like a moron. And I'd like to see you try to talk to me about occultism without looking like a moron.

From an unindoctrinated interpretation. How many of the biblical prophets have anything positive to say or do about other religions than the featured one of the bible?

Why would I not?

Because if you hate the bible, you cannot read it with a clear head.

No. A real occultist would know that there are several ways to get to enlightment, for starters. And the difference between hell and purgatory, as "temporary" hell IS purgatory. However, do tell, what would you like to discuss in occultism? LaVey? Crowley? Gardner? John Dee? What techniques? Sigils? Wiccan rituals? The difference between you and me is I KNOW what I'm talking about.

I'm not going to discuss occultism with you troll. I've already said I'm not going to feed you any longer.

This link proves you wrong, yet again. Scroll down to the bottom of the page where it says "bad afterlife". Read what it says for Islam. Spoiler, enternal hell. give up already.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm

And a kill the jews agenda as well.;) very nice. do to a jew as a jew would do to you. ;)

same question for you: how many of the biblical prophets have anything positive to say or do about other religions than the featured one of the bible?

;) very nice. do to a jew as a jew would do to you. ;)

same question for you: how many of the biblical prophets have anything positive to say or do about other religions than the featured one of the bible?

Same question to you. Why are you so concerned about this when you hate the bible?

Because if you hate the bible, you cannot read it with a clear head.I do not hate the bible. I do not have emotions about books. Do you?
It's just a text collection like any other from that time, and that's how I treat it.

You can prove a positive. You can't prove a negative. You showed yourself to know jack about Islam. I can talk about occultism without looking like a moron. Because I have skill in it.

You have yet to prove you can talk about anything without looking like a moron. "you can't prove a negative" Jeez, I'm not asking you to disprove God. I'm saying showing me one time I said something that was inaccurate about Islam. If you can't you, you have no right claiming I don't know anything about my faith.

What the hell kind of judge...? It is irrelevant where the victim and the aggressor are from; they live in Germany and therefore the law of Germany should be applied, not the law of the Koran! Why the hell does this woman think she can do that? What a joke!

I do not hate the bible. I do not have emotions about books. Do you?
It's just a text collection like any other from that time, and that's how I treat it.

Except for the fact that you hate the religions that read said text and thats why you can't wrap your mind around what it is saying. As someone said, everyone interprets it differently.

I'm not going to discuss occultism with you troll. I've already said I'm not going to feed you any longer.

This link proves you wrong, yet again. Scroll down to the bottom of the page where it says "bad afterlife". Read what it says for Islam. Spoiler, enternal hell. give up already.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islam_judaism_christianity.htm

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

"One can go to hell in Islam, and then go from there to Heaven after serving your time in Hell. There is a certain ratio for time in earth, to time in hell."

Now see if you can spot a mistake I make about Crowley.

I do not hate the bible. I do not have emotions about books. Do you?
It's just a text collection like any other from that time, and that's how I treat it.

Riiight. A book is a physical storage medium for ideas. Religion is an idea, and since you hate Christianity as a religion it stands to reason you would be biased towards a book containing that religion.

Same question to you. Why are you so concerned about this when you hate the bible?Oh, the Christians here claimed there was tolerance in the bible, and I just wanted to know where exactly. So I might learn, you know. For a start, you could teach me how many of the biblical prophets have anything positive to say or do about other religions than the featured one of the bible, couldn't you?

You have yet to prove you can talk about anything without looking like a moron. "you can't prove a negative" Jeez, I'm not asking you to disprove God. I'm saying showing me one time I said something that was inaccurate about Islam. If you can't you, you have no right claiming I don't know anything about my faith.

You supported the ICU, which did clearly un-Islamic things, in the name of Islam. I said that about sixty times now. I can, and I DID, prove you dead wrong.

What the hell kind of judge...? It is irrelevant where the victim and the aggressor are from; they live in Germany and therefore the law of Germany should be applied, not the law of the Koran! Why the hell does this woman think she can do that? What a joke!

Please read the entire thread.

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

"One can go to hell in Islam, and then go from there to Heaven after serving your time in Hell. There is a certain ratio for time in earth, to time in hell."

Now see if you can spot a mistake I make about Crowley.

Crowley's old hat.

What can you tell me about Dion Fortune? *crosses arms over chest*

same question for you: how many of the biblical prophets have anything positive to say or do about other religions than the featured one of the bible?

If you were a prophet who clearly believed that Jesus was the only way to heaven etc.. why would you then go and promote another religion, completely contradictory to it?

You supported the ICU, which did clearly un-Islamic things, in the name of Islam. I said that about sixty times now. I can, and I DID, prove you dead wrong.

And we know that he can not see that for he's a fundie who supports fundies even if they committ acts that go against the supposed faith they uphold.

Please read the entire thread.

Don't punish the newbies Corny. :D It's almost 500 posts long!

If you were a prophet who clearly believed that Jesus was the only way to heaven etc.. why would you then go and promote another religion, completely contradictory to it?
Oh, so what about the claimed tolerance then? :confused:
And I wasn't aware that Elijah, Isaiah, etc clearly believed that Jesus was the only way to heaven...

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

"One can go to hell in Islam, and then go from there to Heaven after serving your time in Hell. There is a certain ratio for time in earth, to time in hell."

Now see if you can spot a mistake I make about Crowley.

Seems you didn't win the thread - it's still alive :(

Oh, so what about the claimed tolerance then? :confused:

To borrow a line of Jesus:

"The greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor."

Oh, so what about the claimed tolerance then? :confused:

Tollerance =/= promotion of another religion. You don't have to agree with something to tolerate it.

Tollerance =/= promotion of another religion. You don't have to agree with something to tolerate it.So do the biblical prophets, kings, rulers who are considered faithful show tolerance?

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

"One can go to hell in Islam, and then go from there to Heaven after serving your time in Hell. There is a certain ratio for time in earth, to time in hell."

Now see if you can spot a mistake I make about Crowley.

From your own link.

"Jahannam (Arabic: جهنم‎) is the Islamic equivalent to hell" not the same as "there is no hell in Islam" is it?

"When a child reaches puberty an account of their deeds is opened in Paradise. When the person dies, their eventual destination (Paradise or Hell) depends on the balance of their good deeds (helping others, testifying to the truth of God, leading a virtuous life) and their bad deeds."

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_intr.htm

You said "there is no hell" now its "ok yeah there's hell, but your only there a short time so it doesn't count" please.

Seems you didn't win the thread - it's still alive :(

It's like a cockroach. We tried nuking it but the little bastards didn't kick it.

Crowley's old hat.

What can you tell me about Dion Fortune? *crosses arms over chest*

She seems to have influenced Chaos Magick somewhat with her definition of gods as being man-made through thought and with the language and symbols being potentially useful in rituals - sigilization technique is based on that concept.

She seems to have influenced Chaos Magick somewhat with her definition of gods as being man-made through thought and with the language and symbols being potentially useful in rituals - sigilization technique is based on that concept.

And her views on vampirism?

So do the biblical prophets, kings, rulers who are considered faithful show tolerance?

Some of them don't. What is your point? Does the Bible say that you should act in such a way that those rulers did?

Anyway this has nothing to do with my original point so I don't know why I am even discussing this.

You said "there is no hell" now its "ok yeah there's hell, but your only there a short time so it doesn't count" please.

What's the difference between that hell and purgatory? Furthermore, explain your support of the ICU, the un-Islamic organization that does, again, un-Islamic things.

You supported the ICU, which did clearly un-Islamic things, in the name of Islam. I said that about sixty times now. I can, and I DID, prove you dead wrong.

Assuming by some small chance that Soviestan really is a convert and not some bitter atheist playing the Evil Muslim game, I won't be surprised if he goes taking a stroll with a Symtex Windbreaker within the next 10 years.

You supported the ICU, which did clearly un-Islamic things, in the name of Islam. I said that about sixty times now. I can, and I DID, prove you dead wrong.

The fact I supported the ICU is the best you can do? 1st, I never agreed with them on killing people who didn't pray. I thought that was wrong. 2nd, my support for them had the same if not more to do, with the fact that it was a matter of Christian invaders going into a Muslim country, and I felt that was wrong more than that I liked the group itself. Things were at least more stable under them.

And her views on vampirism?

Depends. You mean her views on psychic "parasitism", correct? Though it's an interchangeable term in some views. I'll admit I have yet to read more on her, though.

Some of them don't.Which do?

What is your point? Does the Bible say that you should act in such a way that those rulers did?
Anyway this has nothing to do with my original point so I don't know why I am even discussing this.So the "righteous" rulers are not examples? Their described deeds do not much better illustrate their and their god's intentions than a few vague words of *cough* understanding? You said, I was wrong to claim that the biblical religion was inherently intolerant. That's why you are discussing this, I suppose. Now I ask you where exactly the tolerance is in the bible.

Depends. You mean her views on psychic "parasitism", correct? Though it's an interchangeable term in some views. I'll admit I have yet to read more on her, though.

Psychic vampires in her view were parasites, so yes. Sorry, you asked to be quizzed on the subject of occultism.

The fact I supported the ICU is the best you can do? 1st, I never agreed with them on killing people who didn't pray. I thought that was wrong. 2nd, my support for them had the same if not more to do, with the fact that it was a matter of Christian invaders going into a Muslim country, and I felt that was wrong more than that I liked the group itself. Things were at least more stable under them.

In otherwords, you do not like the fact that an extremist government was being attacked by those who do not want an extremist governmnet next door. YOu support said extremist government over the government that does not want them (and that's not including the UN Backed leader still fighting that Ethiopia is backing up with its own forces). Why do you support the ICU, an extremist un-islamic government, over those that are moderate (UN backed leader for starters) and Christians who do not want that extremism next door?

The fact I supported the ICU is the best you can do? 1st, I never agreed with them on killing people who didn't pray. I thought that was wrong. 2nd, my support for them had the same if not more to do, with the fact that it was a matter of Christian invaders going into a Muslim country, and I felt that was wrong more than that I liked the group itself. Things were at least more stable under them.

No, what I DID in this thread is better than the fact that you supported the ICU, even in the face of the Quran saying that God will not protect an army that only calls His name in words, not in actions. Neither, however, are even CLOSE to the best I can do, because I don't NEED to do my best with you.

Assuming by some small chance that Soviestan really is a convert and not some bitter atheist playing the Evil Muslim game, I won't be surprised if he goes taking a stroll with a Symtex Windbreaker within the next 10 years.

If you honestly think I'm an atheist, you need to get your head checked. I've been a Muslim for 5, going on 6 months. In that time I probably have 1,500+ posts, a good chunk of which were dealing with Islam or related to. I dare you to find one case where I said something false or inaccurate about Islam. You won't find it because unlike you and the troll heikou, I don't say talk about things I don't know and I can admit when I'm not sure or don't know something. I've already pointed out two cases where Heikou was dead wrong and didn't know what the hell he was talking about in this one thread alone. So if I'm such a troll, it shouldn't be hard to find one little thing I said that was wrong, yeah? btw, the 'blow it out your f*ing ass' was over the line.

do you have trouble reading?

do you have trouble reading?

*shrug* with the proliferation of information these days, any nerd sitting behind a desk can become an authority on anything.

So the "righteous" rulers are not examples? Their described deeds do not much better illustrate their and their god's intentions than a few vague words of *cough* understanding? You said, I was wrong to claim that the biblical religion was inherently intolerant. That's why you are discussing this, I suppose. Now I ask you where exactly the tolerance is in the bible.

No I disputed your claim that being a follower of an abrahamic faith is not inherently intolerant, which it isn't. I said you don't have to interpret the Bible in the way you do, or even read the Bible at all to be considered a Christian. You then responded with "you have obviously never read the Bible" or whatever, which had nothing to do with what I had just said even if it was true.

Also, even if the Bible did very vaguely claim that those kings were "righteous", it doesn't mean you have to follow their actions as the Bible never advocates anything of the sort. Secondly, if you are going to take the Bible that literally, you have to believe that all those killings committed by the kings etc.. were justified since those people deserved to be killed.

Psychic vampires in her view were parasites, so yes. Sorry, you asked to be quizzed on the subject of occultism.

I'm aware, and I do know a bit about her, as you can see. I do need to study more, though I do know a bit about her views, if indirectly, on such subjects as sigils and the notion of gods being man-made, so to speak.

In otherwords, you do not like the fact that an extremist government was being attacked by those who do not want an extremist governmnet next door. YOu support said extremist government over the government that does not want them (and that's not including the UN Backed leader still fighting that Ethiopia is backing up with its own forces). Why do you support the ICU, an extremist un-islamic government, over those that are moderate (UN backed leader for starters) and Christians who do not want that extremism next door?

No, what I DID in this thread is better than the fact that you supported the ICU, even in the face of the Quran saying that God will not protect an army that only calls His name in words, not in actions. Neither, however, are even CLOSE to the best I can do, because I don't NEED to do my best with you.



I don't like foreigners invading Muslim countries.
in addition

The call from Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, head of the consultative Union of Islamic Courts' Shura, came a day after Ethiopian troops moved into Baidoa, the seat of the UN-backed Somali government.

Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, chairman of the executive committee of the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia, said: "Somalia is under attack and Somalis must defend their country.

"Anybody who sides with Ethiopia will be considered a traitor."

He was speaking from Mogadishu, the Somali capital, which the Islamists seized from a US-backed alliance of militia commanders last month.

"We are urging Ethiopia to immediately and without delay withdraw its troops and stop interfering in Somali affairs," Sheikh Sharif said.
I may not agreeing totally with their goals or ideas but when a Muslim country is invaded, Muslims have the right to defend themselves.

I'm aware, and I do know a bit about her, as you can see. I do need to study more, though I do know a bit about her views, if indirectly, on such subjects as sigils and the notion of gods being man-made, so to speak.

*nod* I started reading up on her after reading the Psychic Vampire Codex I borrowed from a friend of mine. I don't necessarily buy into it all, but then, I don't need to.

*nod* I started reading up on her after reading the Psychic Vampire Codex I borrowed from a friend of mine. I don't necessarily buy into it all, but then, I don't need to.

No occultist believes EVERYTHING he studies, as some concepts are contradictory. Crowley disagrees with Gardner on some issues, and Gardner disagrees with Dee on others, and so on.

BSnip.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves, including the innocents that the ICU killed. Too bad the ICU are not muslims, or else you'd have anything remotely resembling a point. The sheikh you so proudly quote favors the murder of non-muslims, exactly as the Quran says it SHOULDN'T be. The ICU ATTACKED Somalia and took it over first. Quite unlike the notion of self-defense war the Quran espouses.

I don't like foreigners invading Muslim countries.
in addition

The call from Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, head of the consultative Union of Islamic Courts' Shura, came a day after Ethiopian troops moved into Baidoa, the seat of the UN-backed Somali government.

Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, chairman of the executive committee of the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia, said: "Somalia is under attack and Somalis must defend their country.

"Anybody who sides with Ethiopia will be considered a traitor."

He was speaking from Mogadishu, the Somali capital, which the Islamists seized from a US-backed alliance of militia commanders last month.

"We are urging Ethiopia to immediately and without delay withdraw its troops and stop interfering in Somali affairs," Sheikh Sharif said.
I may not agreeing totally with their goals or ideas but when a Muslim country is invaded, Muslims have the right to defend themselves.

Congratulations, you just totally destroyed your point. Ethiopia is not attacking Somalia as they are going after the ICU. They are supporting the UN BACKED government that is there and they are not attacking the UN Backed troops of the legitamently recognized government of Somalia.

As to the Sheik, he is ICU as you clearly pointed out. That means, he'll say anything to rally people to the ICU. You clearly know jack shit about what is happening on the ground for if ya did, you will see who is supporting whom.

Congratulations, you just totally destroyed your point. Ethiopia is not attacking Somalia as they are going after the ICU. They are supporting the UN BACKED government that is there and they are not attacking the UN Backed troops of the legitamently recognized government of Somalia.

As to the Sheik, he is ICU as you clearly pointed out. That means, he'll say anything to rally people to the ICU. You clearly know jack shit about what is happening on the ground for if ya did, you will see who is supporting whom.

That or he wants to make Islam look bad.