PDA

View Full Version : Ladyboys may get a lashing - Saudi Arabia



Pages : [1] 2

Harpy
22nd June 09, 12:07 AM
67 expatriat workers having a party in Saudi Arabia get arrested for drinking and cross-dressing (but fortunately not for homosexual activity):

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/828405/67-face-whipping-for-cross-dressing

The men have been released while charges are being drawn up. This could mean prison time and/or lashings for the men involved.

I'm all for being culturally sensitive but where do the Saudi get off by whipping people for what they do in their spare time? What a disgrace. There are millions of expatriat workers in the country, why should their private activity be judged against sharia law?

Aphid Jones
22nd June 09, 12:38 AM
Jane Austen would give the local Saudi warlord the dilemma of choosing between his harem and the strapping young lads gracing his prison.

But the head concubine has plans of her own!

AAAhmed46
22nd June 09, 12:44 AM
Saudi arabia isn't sharia law anyway. Remember, islamic law can only be applied in a caliphate, caliphates are not monarchies. There hasn't been a caliphate for nearly a thousand years(more or less). Shiites may have a bit more claim since their selection of leaders is more based on bloodline.


That said, based upon the statement i have heard by many people who have lived in saudi arabia, lots of shit goes on closed doors that are 'against moral law' in saudi arabia. Their well aware it goes on, but largely ignore it. EVery now and then they need to make some silly examples though.

Also, the more rich you are, the more you can get away with.

I could be getting a totally wrong picture, people tend to exaggerate with their tounges, or maybe it's worse. Who knows, i have yet to visit to go to hajj or Umra.


Also, im assuming they are filipino men, so....really, sharia can't touch them(unless they murdered or raped or anything else that serious) unless of course they are muslim filipinos. If their your run of the mill catholic Filipino's, then thats different.

But like anything, what i just said can be disputed, some muslims are of the veiw that even non-muslims must follow islamic law. Muslims can't agree to anything in their own religion.

AAAhmed46
22nd June 09, 12:48 AM
Oh and saudi arabia and the royal house of saud suck balls.

HappyOldGuy
22nd June 09, 12:57 AM
Oh and saudi arabia and the royal house of saud suck balls.

Let the whippings commence!

Harpy
22nd June 09, 01:27 AM
http://www.littleredbook.cn/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/littleredbook_dot_cn_ladyboy2.jpg

elipson
22nd June 09, 02:00 AM
It's Suadi Arabia!!! WTF did they expect?


You don't go to another country and then expect that their laws don't apply to you, no matter how fucked the laws are. That's just arrogant.

Adouglasmhor
22nd June 09, 10:47 AM
Saudi arabia isn't sharia law anyway. Remember, islamic law can only be applied in a caliphate, caliphates are not monarchies. There hasn't been a caliphate for nearly a thousand years(more or less). Shiites may have a bit more claim since their selection of leaders is more based on bloodline.


That said, based upon the statement i have heard by many people who have lived in saudi arabia, lots of shit goes on closed doors that are 'against moral law' in saudi arabia. Their well aware it goes on, but largely ignore it. EVery now and then they need to make some silly examples though.

Also, the more rich you are, the more you can get away with.

I could be getting a totally wrong picture, people tend to exaggerate with their tounges, or maybe it's worse. Who knows, i have yet to visit to go to hajj or Umra.


Also, im assuming they are filipino men, so....really, sharia can't touch them(unless they murdered or raped or anything else that serious) unless of course they are muslim filipinos. If their your run of the mill catholic Filipino's, then thats different.

But like anything, what i just said can be disputed, some muslims are of the veiw that even non-muslims must follow islamic law. Muslims can't agree to anything in their own religion.

True but not just some but some in power believe this. Plenty of places say they have Sharia law, some say Sharia can not be changed because there is no caliphate any more.

kracker
22nd June 09, 11:19 AM
I have 3 thoughts regarding this:

1) I would very much like to see the Saudis get their asses kicked by Nong Tum.
2) Saudi Arabian cops suck even more than ours
3) You are all (me included) a bunch of racists for implying a non-Western society is less than perfect, at least according to the douchebags at my university.

Cullion
22nd June 09, 01:36 PM
My understanding from british expats who've worked in the oil industry over there is that if you live in one of the compounds for foreign professionals, then home-brewed alcohol will be ignored as long as you don't go out in public drunk/smelling of booze, you keep the noise down, and you do not invite local Saudis to partake with you.

Arabs from more affluent backgrounds I've met studying in the UK have often loved to drink alcohol (more often the men than the women).

Apparently there's a local black market of date wine in Saudi Arabia that some Saudis drink, but it's more underground and risky to get involved in than crack is here.

Virus
22nd June 09, 02:05 PM
I'm all for being culturally sensitive but where do the Saudi get off by whipping people for what they do in their spare time? What a disgrace. There are millions of expatriat workers in the country, why should their private activity be judged against sharia law?

There's no such thing as a private life to people who believe in a puritanical celestial dictatorship and have nominated themselves as his agents.

elipson
22nd June 09, 02:09 PM
3) You are all (me included) a bunch of racists for implying a non-Western society is less than perfect, at least according to the douchebags at my university.

Only if we imply that our society is better in some way. If we admit that everyone is fucked up, we're in the clear.

I've known a few Suad's through school. Some of them came drinking with us, but some of them didn't want to risk anything even though they were in Canada, for fear that it would get reported back home through the other students.

I am seriously waiting with huge anticipation for the day when oil doesn't matter anymore and the house of Saud can collapse back into the sand.

elipson
22nd June 09, 02:11 PM
Lily's social values are based on liberal western philosophy of Liberty and some kind of Victorian bullcrap. She doesn't realize that this stuff doesn't apply all over the world.

HappyOldGuy
22nd June 09, 02:13 PM
Only if we imply that our society is better in some way. If we admit that everyone is fucked up, we're in the clear.

I've known a few Suad's through school. Some of them came drinking with us, but some of them didn't want to risk anything even though they were in Canada, for fear that it would get reported back home through the other students.

I am seriously waiting with huge anticipation for the day when oil doesn't matter anymore and the house of Saud can collapse back into the sand.

A few Saud's or a few Saudi's?

Partying with the Saud's sounds like a great idea.

kracker
22nd June 09, 02:27 PM
Only if we imply that our society is better in some way. If we admit that everyone is fucked up, we're in the clear.
.

I'm not implying shit. Our society is better, whether the politically correct House of Douche likes it or not. It would be nothing short of dishonest of me to pretend that Canada, while far from perfect, is somehow on the same or even a similar level of fucked up.

Shawarma
22nd June 09, 03:00 PM
There's no such thing as a private life to people who believe in a puritanical celestial dictatorship and have nominated themselves as his agents.
Both in Iran and Saudi, there is a lot of turning the blind eye to crimes against Allah, although more in Iran - Generally, from what I hear, the only people who're allowed to partake in whoremongering and boozing in Saudi are bigwigs, who're pretty much untouchable by authorities. See the case of that Saudi prince torturing and trying to murder a grain vendor on camera without as much as a slap on the wrist.

In Iran, the mullah's realise that Man has natural urges and that fucking with them is NOT well received. For instance, they have "temporary marriages" which kids have carried out when they just want to fuck for a bit without being arrested, and as a relative of mine told me, it is forbidden to have a satellite dish in Iran to receive unislamic programming. Except you see satellite dishes all over the place - Authorities don't dare fuck with it.

Saudi Arabia is vastly different from Iran, though. Different ethnic makeup and social structure.

Saudi Arabia should be assraped, hard. And then whipped for homosexual activity.

HappyOldGuy
22nd June 09, 03:03 PM
OTOH Iran is the country that has executed several thousand people for Homosexuality. Not the Saudis (although I believe they have executed a handful)

elipson
22nd June 09, 04:16 PM
They don't have gay people in Iran. Thats a western thing.

At least thats what someone said....

Virus
23rd June 09, 01:32 AM
The people who set social policy is SA think like this guy:

TsLo55H_krI

Robot Jesus
23rd June 09, 01:59 AM
I thought the punishment was to collapse a wall on them.

Lebell
23rd June 09, 05:10 AM
dont look at me, ive been advocating a 21st century crusade for years now.
the muslims have strayed away from the true religion and need to be brought back into the loving arms of our Savior.

If we have to bomb some cities and slaughter some women and children...well i guess that God Wills it.

amirite?

Virus
23rd June 09, 06:22 AM
Don't look at me, I've been advocating a 21st century atheist crusade for years now.

The religious have strayed away from reason and need to be brought into the loving arms of scientific rationalism.

If we have to bomb some cities and slaughter some women and children...well more fun for me.

PS: Let's start the rationalist inquisition on Lebel. It's not moral, it's not right, but it sure will be fun torturing him to give up the names of fellow gnostics. We need to pay the faithful back for all the stupid shit we've had to listen to about hurricanes being divine punishment for th3 gh3y.

amirite?

Lebell
23rd June 09, 07:21 AM
hurricanes arent divine punishment for the gay.
they're divine puishment for the jews.

read more, noob.

Virus
23rd June 09, 08:11 AM
If th3 lebell and myself can agree on little else, at least we both despise Islam.

Lebell
23rd June 09, 10:22 AM
dude....you want a fathwa on your ass?

do not speak of the religion that must not be named...

i dont DESPISE it.
i dont take it seriously.

for lots of people islam is the religion by which their parents got born, married and got burried.

counts for something.

Virus
23rd June 09, 01:43 PM
People of your own faith are being killed and driven out of Iraq by jihadists and you think it's worth something?

Lebell
23rd June 09, 02:43 PM
People of your own faith are being killed and driven out of Iraq by jihadists and you think it's worth something?

you think in black and white.
im aware of the situation.

not every muslim is a jihadist, i know tons of muslims who live ' in their religion' on a small scale.
so what i mean by that is: Islam is relevant for their marriages, their newborn, their funerals etc.

They're not too pre-occupied with sharia or jihad etc.
They just live life under the conditions they are born into and are basically clueless about their own book.

The real problem with islam is that islamic theology condones if not encourages an agressive/excluding/ concquering attitude towards other people who are not muslims.

where in christianity you would have to do some magic with words(jesus' words ot excluded) and twist them in such a manner that it would look like its okay to kill in the name of God, the quran is way easier and more clearer in these things.

i sometimes have these discussions with somewhat more liberal muslims from egypt, Lebanon and sudan and some actually agree on this.

the others keep yapping about how islam is about peace and justice.
what they leave out is that islam means peace and justice for the fellow muslim, not others.

oh well.

Antifa
23rd June 09, 08:03 PM
Wow... that thread got shitted right the fuck up before a second useful thing was said. Epsilon burbles "law and order mumble mumble wish I could do that here mumble mumble"

Lebell.. "what is the biggest pile of racist stupid I can troll with today"

and then they were off round the backstretch to the nihlism wire.

elipson
23rd June 09, 08:09 PM
Uh what did I say?

I'm sorry, was it insensitive of me to suggest that foreigners actually learn the fucking laws of the country they are travelling too?

You're right, how ignorant of me. Everyone should just assume that the laws are identical all over the world.

My brother is going to Saudi Arabia to build prefab buildings. And you damn straight he is going to know the laws of the place so that he doesn't end up getting lashed and tossed in jail!

Antifa
23rd June 09, 08:12 PM
Uh what did I say?

I'm sorry, was it insensitive of me to suggest that foreigners actually learn the fucking laws of the country they are travelling too?

You're right, how ignorant of me. Everyone should just assume that the laws are identical all over the world.

My brother is going to Saudi Arabia to build prefab buildings. And you damn straight he is going to know the laws of the place so that he doesn't end up getting lashed and tossed in jail!

How do fillipino dudes get to Saudi Arabia and why?

Harpy
23rd June 09, 08:24 PM
PS: Let's start the rationalist inquisition on Lebel. It's not moral, it's not right, but it sure will be fun torturing him to give up the names of fellow gnostics. We need to pay the faithful back for all the stupid shit we've had to listen to about hurricanes being divine punishment for th3 gh3y.

amirite?

Rite! Isn't your Torture Expert (Syberia) in Lolland right now? Send her forth to find Lebell.

Antifa - somewhere in the news report it stated that there are 1 million Phillipino workers in Saudi.

elipson
23rd June 09, 09:18 PM
Antifa are you asking rhetorically or out of genuine curiousity?

And how does that apply to knowing the laws of the country you are living in?

socratic
24th June 09, 03:46 AM
How do fillipino dudes get to Saudi Arabia and why?

Filippinos get imported into the UAE for labour so I bet Saudi does the same.

Fun fact! Al-Wahabi was a client of the Saud family! That's why Wahabism is the official state doctrine and heaps of international (and often violent) wahabi movements are funded by the Saudis. Double fun fact! Being a shiek or anyone of religious authority (and preferably a rich bitch as well, but these tend to prerequisites for one another) means you don't have to follow the law!

I'm guessing these workers will be charged on the following 'crimes'- 1. drinking alcohol [big no-no if you're a Muslim, although the Indonesians drink like fish for lols] 2. crossdressing 3. homosexuality, although who knows if the Filippinos view themselves as homosexual.

And FYI, Lebell? A fatwa isn't a death sentance. A fatwa is a pronunciation by a religious authority on a (usually religious) topic. The content of the fatwa may be a death sentance, but then again people pick and choose the shit out of whichever fatwas they want depending on who they owe loyalty to.

Lebell
24th June 09, 04:41 AM
Wow... that thread got shitted right the fuck up before a second useful thing was said. Epsilon burbles "law and order mumble mumble wish I could do that here mumble mumble"

Lebell.. "what is the biggest pile of racist stupid I can troll with today"

and then they were off round the backstretch to the nihlism wire.


hey now sonny, dont forget your own part now, y' hear?

antifa: ' zomg the white men!! its all their fault'

Lebell
24th June 09, 04:44 AM
And FYI, Lebell? A fatwa isn't a death sentance. A fatwa is a pronunciation by a religious authority on a (usually religious) topic. The content of the fatwa may be a death sentance, but then again people pick and choose the shit out of whichever fatwas they want depending on who they owe loyalty to.

yes i knew tat you poopoohead.
but instead of the nuanced smug story i chose to just use the word without the whole explanation to make a point.
please forgive me.

Lebell
24th June 09, 04:45 AM
Rite! Isn't your Torture Expert (Syberia) in Lolland right now? Send her forth to find Lebell.
.

But no hard feelings, right?

elipson
24th June 09, 04:51 AM
Saudi people don't really do work, especially menial labour. They import people from all over the place to do the shit jobs Saudi nationals refuse to do. Lots of Egyptians, pakistanis, filipinos, indonesians, Africans. Basically any country with a large population of poor muslim workers can send workers to Saudi Arabia.

Just picture Mexican migrant workers in the Southern US states.

socratic
24th June 09, 05:26 AM
Saudi people don't really do work, especially menial labour. They import people from all over the place to do the shit jobs Saudi nationals refuse to do. Lots of Egyptians, pakistanis, filipinos, indonesians, Africans. Basically any country with a large population of poor muslim workers can send workers to Saudi Arabia.

Just picture Mexican migrant workers in the Southern US states.

I hear the story's the same in the UAE. Immigrants make money hand-over-fist in Dubai apparently.

Lebell
24th June 09, 05:47 AM
guess who's been offered a job in Qatar?

socratic
24th June 09, 06:03 AM
guess who's been offered a job in Qatar?

I hope you like sand, sun and burkas.

Lebell
24th June 09, 06:25 AM
no but i do like a big fat paycheck.

socratic
24th June 09, 06:52 AM
no but i do like a big fat paycheck.

Do you like big fat beards?

Lebell
24th June 09, 07:23 AM
growing one as we speak, halfway there.

Ajamil
24th June 09, 11:39 AM
Is it big or fat then?

socratic
24th June 09, 07:41 PM
growing one as we speak, halfway there.

Sorry, scraggly fluff won't get you far. We're talking serious Khomeini beardage here. Respect in these places is measure in beard.

Antifa
25th June 09, 07:58 AM
So let me get this straight...

67 imported low-paid workers, all dressed in womens clothing, in 1 building in Saudi Arabia?

Anybody want to think about how something like this might happen in the first place?

Virus
25th June 09, 08:51 AM
I hope they weren't drinking Pepsi at the party or they'll really be in trouble:

WLJ8Xb8267g

Lebell
25th June 09, 03:10 PM
bebsi.
they pronounce it as bebsi.

elipson
25th June 09, 05:40 PM
So let me get this straight...

67 imported low-paid workers, all dressed in womens clothing, in 1 building in Saudi Arabia?

Anybody want to think about how something like this might happen in the first place?

I'm not following you.

Sounds like it was a theme party. I would have suggested a toga theme...

Antifa
26th June 09, 03:36 PM
I'm not following you.

Sounds like it was a theme party. I would have suggested a toga theme...

guest workers in SA dont have time or money for parties.

think again.

HappyOldGuy
26th June 09, 03:38 PM
guest workers in SA dont have time or money for parties.

think again.

I assume the question becomes which royal?

elipson
26th June 09, 03:39 PM
And you know this from first hand experience? Or is this just something else you have induced?

They are not slaves over there. And even slaves had parties.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
26th June 09, 03:40 PM
in women's clothes?

Antifa
26th June 09, 03:40 PM
I had a few friends that lived and worked there.

They didnt do much but work and sleep. They made mad bank. They also told me that the Fillipinos that work there have it pretty bad.

Zendetta
26th June 09, 04:06 PM
Dubhai is apparently even worse - straight up indentured servitude in a lot of cases.

Antifa
26th June 09, 04:08 PM
yeah the practice of taking people's passports and holding them for the length of the contract is another little bit of niftiness that goes on there too....

Shawarma
26th June 09, 05:03 PM
Not to mention that Filippina housemaids are very commonly in for involuntary sexytime with the master of the house.

My cousin had an Indian nanny for her kids who used to work for a Saudi princess as a maid. She literally had to beg her mistress to let her go because she got sick of having to fight off constant rape attempts from royalty who treated their non-Arab servants like subhumans. The princess had a rare flash of compassion and let her go.

Saudi is one of the few places on earth that would greatly benefit from a communist revolution. It seriously couldn't get any more disgusting than it is now.

elipson
26th June 09, 05:08 PM
It would benefit from a Libertarian revolution. Hell, it would benefit from ANY revolution that involved the royal family being destroyed, regardless of the ideology behind it.

Saudi Arabia isn't even close to any kind of capitalist society.

Shawarma
26th June 09, 05:15 PM
I-Dd5Wm2kY0
Fuck the UAE too.

bob
26th June 09, 05:50 PM
I had a friend who worked as a personal retainer to a member of the Saudi royal family. He made crazy money to do fuck all and the most onerous part of the job was the fact that the family got out of bed at 2.30 in the afternoon and had dinner at 3 in the morning. He was expected to be present at family dinners so he never saw his own family.

Antifa
26th June 09, 08:03 PM
It would benefit from a Libertarian revolution. Hell, it would benefit from ANY revolution that involved the royal family being destroyed, regardless of the ideology behind it.

Saudi Arabia isn't even close to any kind of capitalist society.


But revolutions are against the law.....

elipson
26th June 09, 09:06 PM
Grow up dude.

Antifa
26th June 09, 09:15 PM
Well... I'm sorry, but you left your consistant arguement parked outside this thread.

First you were saying, "gosh these little brown crossdressers really ought to be more aware of DA LAW and so I dont feel sorry for them"

then you rave about the place needing a revolution.

Which is it?

Law and Order? or Land and Liberty?

Do you believe that some regimes are legitimate and some are not? Do you think some revolutions are justified?

Which is it?

AAAhmed46
26th June 09, 10:48 PM
you think in black and white.
im aware of the situation.

not every muslim is a jihadist, i know tons of muslims who live ' in their religion' on a small scale.
so what i mean by that is: Islam is relevant for their marriages, their newborn, their funerals etc.

They're not too pre-occupied with sharia or jihad etc.
They just live life under the conditions they are born into and are basically clueless about their own book.

The real problem with islam is that islamic theology condones if not encourages an agressive/excluding/ concquering attitude towards other people who are not muslims.

where in christianity you would have to do some magic with words(jesus' words ot excluded) and twist them in such a manner that it would look like its okay to kill in the name of God, the quran is way easier and more clearer in these things.

i sometimes have these discussions with somewhat more liberal muslims from egypt, Lebanon and sudan and some actually agree on this.

the others keep yapping about how islam is about peace and justice.
what they leave out is that islam means peace and justice for the fellow muslim, not others.

oh well.

What do you mean? read the old testament.

If your talking about Surah nine, remember, surah eight sets the limits to warfare, surah 9 talks about treason and what to do with treason. It's primarily for the pagan tribes that made peace with the muslims, then when the byzantines were coming, basically turned cloak(weee im using a Song of ice and fire term).

Is islam super peaceful? No, Dar al harb and dar al islam are in the hadith.

Is it more inherently violent then christianity? No, this is where i disagree with you. You have to mince the quran to justify violence. Hell those anti-muslim sites do it all the time. Surah eight makes it clear that the rules of war apply to non-muslims as well, infact it talks about war with non-muslims.

AAAhmed46
26th June 09, 10:50 PM
I hope they weren't drinking Pepsi at the party or they'll really be in trouble:

WLJ8Xb8267g

Guess what, it's arguably the most popular brand of pop they drink!

AAAhmed46
26th June 09, 10:53 PM
I had a friend who worked as a personal retainer to a member of the Saudi royal family. He made crazy money to do fuck all and the most onerous part of the job was the fact that the family got out of bed at 2.30 in the afternoon and had dinner at 3 in the morning. He was expected to be present at family dinners so he never saw his own family.

Knew a dude who's sister was invited into a rich household. She came in a burka, but was the only one doing it. EVeryone did whatever they wanted, she was also the only non-arab there.

It's strange, it's a strange silent type of racism. The belief is super arabism.

elipson
26th June 09, 11:02 PM
The fucking place needs to get burned down but I'm not going to absolve these idiots for doing something that would OBVIOUSLY get them in shit. Of course Saudi Arabia is fucked up, and it needs a good ass kicking. But do you actually want me to feel sorry for these idiots? It's a fucked up law, but its an openly fucked up law, meaning they probably should have known this would end up badly.

It's not like Saudi Arabia HIDES any of this shit. It should be common fucking knowledge that cross-dressing in that country will get you in shit. My point isn't that this was justified in any way, my point is why the fuck would these idiots think it would be ok for them to have a cross dressing party??? It's not like they were standing up to authority with this, they're NOT heros.

You seem to want to turn these guys into martyrs, as if they donned womens clothing in defiance of an oppressive and archaic regime. That's not what happened. They got drunk, put a dress on, and forgot where the fuck they were. I'm not going to treat these guys like heros just because they were stupid and got caught.

It's like people who jump into a Lion cage. Of course I will help them get out, but I'm still going to call them a fucking moron for jumping in in the first place!

AAAhmed46
26th June 09, 11:07 PM
Well, it's one of america's closest allies, as long as it bows to big brothers orders, it does what it wants.

Do you realize, lots of scholars are jailed(or atleast have been jailed, throughout saudi history? Many mainstream) some were truly crazy and deserved it, other just deemed the regime very unislamic in it's application of laws.

elipson
26th June 09, 11:15 PM
Hence why the ruling regime should be burned to the ground. 50 years from now when SA is either out of oil or oil doesn't matter anymore, they won't have so much US support to keep them afloat. I eagerly await watching that event.

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 12:17 AM
Hence why the ruling regime should be burned to the ground. 50 years from now when SA is either out of oil or oil doesn't matter anymore, they won't have so much US support to keep them afloat. I eagerly await watching that event.

Shouldn't it go both ways? Why the hell does the states support such regimes? Saudi arabia isn't the only one.

Fact it, the royal house of saud isn't exactly super religious. Oh some of them are, but it's just a face really.

Why wish for it's distruction when you could wish for it to modernize or become democratic?

THe only people who will suffer from a lack of american support is the people. Those in power will always have full stomachs and go to night clubs and such. Why not wish for a democratic Saudi arabia?

elipson
27th June 09, 04:59 AM
Because I dont think it will happen.

Judging by the arrogance of the royal family and the level of coercion required to keep the people in line, I think once the US stops supporting them they will see a revolt, one which they won't want to give in to. It's just my personal opinion here, but I don't think they will allow for a peaceful transition to democracy. I'm all for it if it happens, I just don't think it will.

Also, the regime doesn't deserve a peaceful transition. It deserves to be ripped up by the roots and left to whither.

And yes, it's completely hypocritical of the US to support such a regime while tar-and-feathering other regimes which are likely less worse to its people.

Lebell
27th June 09, 05:55 AM
What do you mean? read the old testament.

OT is for judaism, nothing to do with xtianity.


If your talking about Surah nine, remember, surah eight sets the limits to warfare, surah 9 talks about treason and what to do with treason. It's primarily for the pagan tribes that made peace with the muslims, then when the byzantines were coming, basically turned cloak(weee im using a Song of ice and fire term).

Uhm..the byzantines werent coming, they were already there.
The islamic hordes entered their terrotory and waged a savage war against them.
dont make them look innocent.


Is islam super peaceful? No, Dar al harb and dar al islam are in the hadith.

yes.
which sura again? 'cursed be the christians and jews'?
probably out of context right?





Is it more inherently violent then christianity? No, this is where i disagree with you.


LOL!
fucking hell mate...compare the teachings of jesus with mohammed and come back to me.
not the scarse passages in the quran but the ones in the bible plz.



You have to mince the quran to justify violence.

*nods head*




Hell those anti-muslim sites do it all the time. Surah eight makes it clear that the rules of war apply to non-muslims as well, infact it talks about war with non-muslims.

oh okay, my bad then...i thought that in the world i live in there are at least a dozen wars waged by nutcases who use islam to justify their actions and who use the islam to validate their claims on a theocracy, trying to force the views of the minority on the majority.

thats why you'll always have dictatorship in your average muslim country: its still better then having to live under those sharia creeps.


*disclaimer: for what its worth: eventhough i critisise islam in no way means i got a personal problem with you or whomever.
that was the point i was also trying to get across in that posted you quoted.

Cullion
27th June 09, 06:11 AM
Fact it, the royal house of saud isn't exactly super religious. Oh some of them are, but it's just a face really.

In my relatively limited experience of Islamic cultures in the UK, the most likely people to maintain strict adherence to Islamic rules about dress, alcohol etc.. are recent immigrants from less wealthy backgrounds from countries further east like Bangladesh or Pakistan, or new converts to the religion. The few arabs from affluent backgrounds I've met (always in the context of them studying at British universities) wore western clothing, the men didn't have beards, they drank alcohol and had casual sexual relationships with non-muslims (I've met arab men and women who both behaved like this).

I don't know whether they carry on like this in private when they're back in Oman, Saudi Arabia etc.. or whether they suddenly dress up traditionally and behave like traditional muslims when their older relatives are around.

For reference, here's Osama Bin Laden as a young man studying in Oxford:-

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1595000/images/_1595205_laden300.jpg

Lebell
27th June 09, 06:29 AM
they drank alcohol and had casual sexual relationships with non-muslims (I've met arab men and women who both behaved like this).

I didnt know you swing both ways!




For reference, here's Osama Bin Laden as a young man studying in Oxford:-

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1595000/images/_1595205_laden300.jpg

zomg!! thats a forged picture provided by the zionist jews!!! shame on you!! how dare you!!! jihaaaaaaad!!

socratic
27th June 09, 06:55 AM
Dubhai is apparently even worse - straight up indentured servitude in a lot of cases.

I heard Dubai is the least shit part of the buttfuck-wing of the ME.

I wouldn't trust the House of Saud as much as I would trust Putin or Tito [or any other rich, psychotic oligarchs/plutocrats/dynastic autocrats/fascists/theocrats etc etc] not to stick the knife in my back [or in Putin's case, nail me with a kata guruma, onto the knife] when my back is turned. Not nice people, not worth trusting, and hey, they FUND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS on the daily... And fuck Wahhabism, and fuck their ol' buddy, al-Wahhab.

Lebell
27th June 09, 08:36 AM
i love it how this commercial pops up at the top of the screen: ' looking for nice muslima's?'


LOL!

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 04:41 PM
[QUOTE=Lebell]OT is for judaism, nothing to do with xtianity.



Uhm..the byzantines werent coming, they were already there.
The islamic hordes entered their terrotory and waged a savage war against them.
dont make them look innocent.


If you read history, the mohammed ordered the muslims to turn back y found out the byzantines were not doing anything.


yes.
which sura again? 'cursed be the christians and jews'?
probably out of context right?
I think your talking about a sura when some jews and christians did not follow devine law that was revealed to them(Bible, Torah) so they got turned into Monkeys and pigs. That said, there is a surah(i think it may be surah five, but i could be wrong) that talks about the jews that disobeyed moses were cursed. Not the ethnicity or even the religion as a whole.






LOL!
fucking hell mate...compare the teachings of jesus with mohammed and come back to me.
not the scarse passages in the quran but the ones in the bible plz.
Most of jesus's teachings don't come from his mouth. Just because islam advocates defensive violence doesn't make it violent. Ive talked to pastors, they say that the old testament IS a part of Christianity. Hell there are even parts of the new testament that could be considered violent, unfortunatly, i have to go look for it. And well....that takes time and effort.




*
nods head*





oh okay, my bad then...i thought that in the world i live in there are at least a dozen wars waged by nutcases who use islam to justify their actions and who use the islam to validate their claims on a theocracy, trying to force the views of the minority on the majority.

thats why you'll always have dictatorship in your average muslim country: its still better then having to live under those sharia creeps.


*disclaimer: for what its worth: eventhough i critisise islam in no way means i got a personal problem with you or whomever.
that was the point i was also trying to get across in that posted you quoted.

Read eric margolis and Tariq Ali(athiest apostate)edward said and many many others. These nutcases were not nearly so powerful until the cold war, oh they always existed, but were no worse or common then an abortion bomber of some sort.

Tariq ali talks about how whenever a muslim country modernizes or becomes secular, western powers some how retard the progress. Tariq ali hates islam, but hates all religion(he's like virus, but he quotes things right) and thinks that people like manji and SPencer are hate mongers, talks about how outside powers are what keeps the dictatorships and religious extremism high.
Pakistan for instance, in the seventies wasn't very hijabi/beardy. Then came in our pro-american but corrupt politicians. Guess what, Bhutto helped create the taliban(the daughter) and the father sucked balls too. So did the dude with the mustache and space between his teeth. Supported by the west, he tried to radicalize the country.

Margolis met osama bin laden and spent time with the mujahideen in Afganistan, as well as lived and travelled th emiddle east for fifty years. His thing is that religion is the vehicle for political griviences. A significant number wanted to put a caliphate into power, but just as many wanted an islamic democracy like Isreal is a jewish democracy. His findings atlest.

Matthew alexander(not real name) in his book 'how to break a terrorist' interrogated Iraqi al-queerda, with the exception of two men he interviewed, most joined up for one of two reasons: Protection against Shias pissed off at Saddams sunni minority oppressing the shiites and MONAAAAYYYY. He found that his training said they fought to establish a caliphate and forsoke family etc, etc, you've read about it. Yet found the reality is that they joined because they feared for their families against the shiite or (in case of "imams'') wanted to get loaded.


Jared COhen, intern for condeleeza rice and very pro isreal, pro-bush, pro-war on terror, a practicing jew, went and interviewed Hezbelllah and hamas for

He was scared that they would kill him if they found out he was a jew, to his surprise, they didn't care, they said to him they understood the difference between people, religions, races, politics. THey told them they hated isreali government and they hated bush. Oh he did end up meeting an authentic al-queerda member, and it was bad, but most TERRORISTS he talked to were willing to talk to him and were curtious.
He talks about how he would ask them about the quran, many would repeat speeches and whats told to them, but could not properly quote the quran when it came to terrorism or violence other then a few. He went to an imam in Syria, and the two went over the quran together. Though the Imam was anti-american, he made it clear he didn't hate the people. Jared cohen thought he was just eating propoganda against bush, but thought the imam was a good man and a solid guy.


Bernard lewis is one of the worlds oldest scholars of the middle eastern history. He's studied it for nearly sixty years. He's very very pro-isreal, very pro-colonialist, he thinks that terrorists are religiously motivated. YET HE BELIEVES THIER ACTIONS CONTRIDICT ISLAMIC TEXTS: Here are some quotes of his from his book(wikipedia)

Primer on Islam

Lewis's latest book is called Islam: The Religion and the People.[14] From his research, Lewis draws the following conclusions regarding the history of Islamic culture:[15]

1. "At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition)."
2. "Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities; and to honor agreements."
3. "The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion." [16]
4. "The fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible."[17]
5. "Generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[18]




My dad is a very very religious man, knows the quran, can quote it by heart(no he's not a hafiz, but has lots memorized) ive talked to wahabi muslims, liberal, and progressive muslims.

Im not a scholar, lots of spaces in my knowledge, but i know whats the norm in muslims societies as to what they believe. Yes they believe in some quirky ass stuff, but i can say without a doubt that non-muslims are not supposed to be treated like shit by muslims.

Cullion
27th June 09, 04:48 PM
Ahmed, does what I've described about my experience of Islamic culture in the UK as an outsider make any sense to you ?

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 06:23 PM
Lots of sense.

The poor find comfort in religion, therefore have greater religiosity is inside them. The rich don't need that, so their beardless and love the sauce.

(The engineers and docters and educated young Muslims that become extremists are different, many were raised by religious parents, or simply were outcasts wanting to fit in and fall into a bad crowd...a very bad crowd. Like that hook hand dude in england)

Cullion
27th June 09, 06:28 PM
Ahhmed, this is a personal question you don't need to answer, but..

Have you ever stepped outside the boundaries of the Islamic tennets, perhaps when younger?

Do you stay away from things like alcohol because you know it's bad from experience, or out of respect from what your elders teach you?

Let me be clear, I think alcohol can cause terrible problems for many people, much moreso than many illegal drugs. I'm not trying to persuade you to drink it.

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 06:43 PM
Both.

My uncle was an alcoholic according to my dad, so he always made it a very very strong thing for me to stay away from.

I also have an addictive personality, i really do, i spend to much(well used to, i get my brother and parents to hide the modem from me) on the internet, irrationally.

Im pretty sure if i start drinking, id get really really into it.


Ive stepped outside by smoking weed(i got weak lungs so i never got into it) Woman are awesome too, ive never actually fucked yet, but ive touched.

socratic
27th June 09, 06:58 PM
Don't worry about Lebell's view of religion, Ahmed, he has a pretty skewed view of Christianity that isn't in line with... well... any significant Christian movement. The Old Testament is in the Bible and is part of Christianity.

I always liked how Mohammed generally suggested Christians and Jews were to be respected; 'people of the book'. One of my teachers [an Indonesian Muslim, so I'm guessing Sunni] suggested Mohammed was raised Jewish and formed the religion so that the disparate peoples [he lived in a region with large Jewish and Christian populations, amongst others] could be united under the 'new religion'. Funny, lots of religions get founded that way.

The worst of Islam is in the Hadith. The best in the Quran. They tell very different stories. I'm told neither have an instance that says 'Women must cover up', just that Mohammed was chatting with a friend and said "Where's your daughter?" "Oh, she's in the other room behind the screen." "Oh, that's good, otherwise she'd be pretty distracting, eh?"

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 07:05 PM
Don't worry about Lebell's view of religion, Ahmed, he has a pretty skewed view of Christianity that isn't in line with... well... any significant Christian movement. The Old Testament is in the Bible and is part of Christianity.

I always liked how Mohammed generally suggested Christians and Jews were to be respected; 'people of the book'. One of my teachers [an Indonesian Muslim, so I'm guessing Sunni] suggested Mohammed was raised Jewish and formed the religion so that the disparate peoples [he lived in a region with large Jewish and Christian populations, amongst others] could be united under the 'new religion'. Funny, lots of religions get founded that way.

The worst of Islam is in the Hadith. The best in the Quran. They tell very different stories. I'm told neither have an instance that says 'Women must cover up', just that Mohammed was chatting with a friend and said "Where's your daughter?" "Oh, she's in the other room behind the screen." "Oh, that's good, otherwise she'd be pretty distracting, eh?"


Oh hadith...the most confusing of islamic texts...well one of them.

The quran pretty much says for woman not to wear revealing cloths and cover the boobies. THe rest is mostly in the hadith(Apparently in pre-islamic arabia, when a Bedouin woman wanted to attract a guy, she wore some sort of long skirt, a scarf on the back of her head and her breasts were totally exposed, my soarce is Dr.Jeffery Lang and my comp lit professor)

The surrounding areas where mohammed lived had many jews and christians, but the most time he spent with jews and christians was a month in his childhood.

THat said, many biblical stories were probably commonly known throughout the desert.

Burqa is one heavy topic. You can find hadith that as a topic have nothing to do with seperation of men and woman, but in the narration it's obvous that men and woman interacting together.

There is alot of hadith on modesty, but what that is really varies. There is one where a blind man came into the prophets house. He told his wives to go to another room, they asked why since the guy is blind, but mohammed said that THEY are not blind, that they can see the blind man.

Other hadiths have Omar walking with a woman and helping her, it had nothing to do with modesty it's about how Omar would disguise himself among the common people to observe them. But clearly him walking with a woman shows no seperation of the sexes. Others where mohammed would be talking to a woman while she was breastfeeding.



And thats why hadith can be really confusing....as you can tell.



There are some core islamic values that are not in tune with western liberal values. Homosexuality for instance, and though it can be easily and heavily debated, some mainstream scholars say that in a caliphate, apostates are enemies of the state and should be executed (this is heavily argued against however, views on this are 50/50, it isn't a core value) all agree, from your super liberal irshad manji's to your super conservative wahabbi's that you cannot force someone at swordpoint to convert.

Gender roles for instance, woman are allowed to work in islam, though she gets less of inheretence, she doesn't have to pay taxes and does not have but share her wealth..... that said, if she has kids, the opinion is that she should stay at home and care for them and educate them. A woman is considered the spiritual center of the musilm hosuehold, and core spirtuality within children is believed to come from the mother. Not something a radical feminist would agree with. A woman would not be sinning if she worked and had kids, but it would be seen that she isn't doing her duty(unless she was a midwife, gynocologist, doctor or a baby sitter or something)

Now, with the exception of homosexuality, most of this stuff comes from hadith, and thus can be disputed.

socratic
27th June 09, 08:04 PM
Didn't Mohammed marry a friend's [who was a merchant] daughter so she could practice business without prejudice? Something like the desert peoples would not typically allow a woman that kind of liberty, but a husband could grant that to her, and so Mohammed basically married her so she could do her own thing. I'm not sure, I haven't read the Quran or the Hadith, I'm just repeating what few Muslims I know have told me.

AAAhmed46
27th June 09, 08:08 PM
Didn't Mohammed marry a friend's [who was a merchant] daughter so she could practice business without prejudice? Something like the desert peoples would not typically allow a woman that kind of liberty, but a husband could grant that to her, and so Mohammed basically married her so she could do her own thing. I'm not sure, I haven't read the Quran or the Hadith, I'm just repeating what few Muslims I know have told me.


If your going to read the quran, make sure it has some sort of commentary like mohammed Asad's or Ibn Kathir or something. Otherwise it just gets annoying, confusing, and boring.


He married for different reasons. Most of his wives were old widows of high birth from different tribes, mostly to create kinship between most of the tribes so the muslims would not get crushed. Unfotunatly with the exception of what haters pick on, i tended not to pay much attention to his wives. They did end up playin a large role after his death. Aisha and Ali clashed politically for example. They certainly were more free then they were in pre-islamic arabia(female infanticide was fairly common, the quran outlawed it) Some will argue more then judeo-christian tradition(bernard lewis thinks so), but that is up for debate.

Virus
28th June 09, 02:10 AM
Was it a fringe handful of extremists that conquered the Middle-East, North Africa and Spain after Muhammad died?

Lebell
28th June 09, 05:11 AM
The thing that ircks me with Islam is how to me it is obviously constructed to fit a goal(s).

I've read dutch translations so im not familiar with either most arabic or english terms, but i'll try.

For example: what ive heared a lot is: ah you're christian? well we have isa too he's in our book aswell! (aka it must be true then)
he's only mentionned rarely and doesnt get ' much lines' in the quran.

they just incorporated him.

then you have the intreaging part of the devils verses.
in short for those who dont know: Muhammed got texts dictated that later on would have been from the shaitan instead of from God.
i think it was the sura of the cow?
horrible memorie, sorry.

what i also dont like is the whole covering things up.
instead of truely being religious and look temptations in the eye, they rather muffle things away and avoid all temptations.

imo thats a very childish level of understanding.

like when you cover the hair of a woman, certain countries have girls from age 10 wearing headscarfs...would it mean the men are pedophiles over there?
i hope not.


I've been having several very interesting conversations with Sufi's and im aware of the alevites etc so i know a liberal islam can be done, the problem however is that the quran is constructed in such a way its very easy to follow the ' wahabi' style of islam.

and the widespread belief that every word in the quran is directly from God (and the devilsverses then?) and arabic is the chosen language of God.

Personally i hate people who take their books literally because i am sure they are not meant as such, they are way more complex.
ive read the bible since i could read (religious schools etc) and ive read them when i was 20, im almost 30 now.
each period in my developent i read different things into them.
im sure i'll read it different by the time im 40 or 50.

ive also seen the stupidity from my own background, some examples: in my school it was strictly fobidden to use cusswords or normal words that involved God, we got punshed if we said something tasted ' devine' (in dutch its a specific word that incorporates the word for Lord and often used to indicate something tastes good or feels good).

ive heared people say how a stillborn is an act of mercy from God so that the child is spared the life on earth.

ive had the most idiotic experience when my grandfather died.
70% of the family didnt show up because we didnt get the right minister for the funeral sermon.

Virus
28th June 09, 09:25 AM
each period in my development i read different things into them.

Exactly.

elipson
28th June 09, 01:50 PM
The muslims who ruled Spain were actually the best occupiers Spain had until maybe the death of Franco.

Literate, tolerant, intellegent. Conquering Iberia was more of a political thing than religious. They didn't care who was jewish or christian.

The christians on the other hand, they fucked everything up, and tried to kill everyone who wasn't christian.

AAAhmed46
28th June 09, 09:30 PM
Was it a fringe handful of extremists that conquered the Middle-East, North Africa and Spain after Muhammad died?
Way back when, pretty much any empire/nation that wasn't gaining territory was losing territory. What do you think the romans and byzantine were doing at the time? How did they control so much territory? Or in that case, any empire or nation. What did they do?

The conquest of persia, i have read quotes from Omar saying how he forbid his men to burn down temples and forbid them to pillage and rape, telling them only to kill combatants.

Ill trya nd find the book about the caliphs.

Moses Maimonides, look him up. Lived and died in egypt.

AAAhmed46
28th June 09, 09:39 PM
The thing that ircks me with Islam is how to me it is obviously constructed to fit a goal(s).

I've read dutch translations so im not familiar with either most arabic or english terms, but i'll try.

For example: what ive heared a lot is: ah you're christian? well we have isa too he's in our book aswell! (aka it must be true then)
he's only mentionned rarely and doesnt get ' much lines' in the quran.

He doesn't talk much, but the quran talks about Mary and talks about christ being a prophet, a major prophet.




then you have the intreaging part of the devils verses.
in short for those who dont know: Muhammed got texts dictated that later on would have been from the shaitan instead of from God.
i think it was the sura of the cow?
horrible memorie, sorry.

The satanic versus. that is what your talking about. I myself don't know much about it, but here, ill give you a link im too lazy to read:


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html


what i also dont like is the whole covering things up.
instead of truely being religious and look temptations in the eye, they rather muffle things away and avoid all temptations.

imo thats a very childish level of understanding.

like when you cover the hair of a woman, certain countries have girls from age 10 wearing headscarfs...would it mean the men are pedophiles over there?
i hope not.


I've been having several very interesting conversations with Sufi's and im aware of the alevites etc so i know a liberal islam can be done, the problem however is that the quran is constructed in such a way its very easy to follow the ' wahabi' style of islam.

and the widespread belief that every word in the quran is directly from God (and the devilsverses then?) and arabic is the chosen language of God.

Personally i hate people who take their books literally because i am sure they are not meant as such, they are way more complex.
ive read the bible since i could read (religious schools etc) and ive read them when i was 20, im almost 30 now.
each period in my developent i read different things into them.
im sure i'll read it different by the time im 40 or 50.

ive also seen the stupidity from my own background, some examples: in my school it was strictly fobidden to use cusswords or normal words that involved God, we got punshed if we said something tasted ' devine' (in dutch its a specific word that incorporates the word for Lord and often used to indicate something tastes good or feels good).

ive heared people say how a stillborn is an act of mercy from God so that the child is spared the life on earth.

ive had the most idiotic experience when my grandfather died.
70% of the family didnt show up because we didnt get the right minister for the funeral sermon.

Being truly religious depends on the strength of the person(this is the philosophy behind avoidance.) I don't know about the new testament, but when joseph in the quran is about to be seduced by the pontifers wife, he literally ran away, because he didn't want to risk it. A crack head should probably stay away from a crack house, an alchoholic should stay away from bars. Those guys who cover girls heads when their ten do so to make it a habit(thats the philosophy behind it atleast)
That said, yes there are peadophiles, they are everywhere actually, my parents can tell some scary stories. Thats not to say it's justified.

Thats the philosophy behind it. Thats not to say it's right or even accurate to the quran, there are lots who argue it talks about covering the breasts mostly, many, as ive stated before who don't believe in the seperation of the sexes based upon the hadith and the quran.


As for taking texts literally---im in complete agreement there. A total moron should be able to look at the quran or the bible and figure out it's layers, it's filled with theme, symbolic and poetic langauge. If it was meant to be taken literally, i doubt it would have themes in it's surahs. Alot of the quran actually isn't full of commands, you can put all the devine commandments on one or two pages really.

The reason so many muslims and christians take theier texts to literally is because either they are used to reading ALL texts literally without thinking about themes, meanings, or context they were written in. So they take it literally, also often it has to do with the fact they just believe what htey are told without really thinking about it, without critiques of the belief and it's aspects.

Ajamil
28th June 09, 09:40 PM
Way back when, pretty much any empire/nation that wasn't gaining territory was losing territory. What do you think the romans and byzantine were doing at the time? How did they control so much territory? Or in that case, any empire or nation. What did they do?
Vedic kings would send out a horse with a note attached to it reading, "Wherever this horse goes, I own. Stop this horse, and we fight. Otherwise, pay tribute."

AAAhmed46
28th June 09, 10:03 PM
No rider?

socratic
28th June 09, 11:28 PM
What Lebell doesn't realise is that the Satanic Verses are the apocrypha of the Muslim faith; they're the stuff that no one takes seriously and the authorship of which is dubious.

AAAhmed46
28th June 09, 11:44 PM
Vedic kings would send out a horse with a note attached to it reading, "Wherever this horse goes, I own. Stop this horse, and we fight. Otherwise, pay tribute."

Didn't know that. Anything sourced?

Lebell
29th June 09, 03:54 AM
What Lebell doesn't realise is that the Satanic Verses are the apocrypha of the Muslim faith; they're the stuff that no one takes seriously and the authorship of which is dubious.
You are stu[pid arent you?
i think there's a lot you don't realise, instead of trying to look clever get educated, then come back to argue with the big boys okay?

its nice that you like the coloured people, you're a good white boy, but thats not what its about right now.
less p.c. more actual knowledge plz.

Virus
29th June 09, 05:29 AM
Way back when, pretty much any empire/nation that wasn't gaining territory was losing territory. What do you think the romans and byzantine were doing at the time? How did they control so much territory? Or in that case, any empire or nation. What did they do?

The conquest of persia, i have read quotes from Omar saying how he forbid his men to burn down temples and forbid them to pillage and rape, telling them only to kill combatants.

Ill trya nd find the book about the caliphs.

Moses Maimonides, look him up. Lived and died in egypt.

You didn't answer the question.

Ajamil
29th June 09, 07:33 AM
No rider?
More details. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha)


The horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse) to be sacrificed must be a stallion, more than 24, but less than 100 years old. The horse is sprinkled with water, and the Adhvaryu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhvaryu) and the sacrificer whisper mantras into its ear. Anyone who should stop the horse is ritually cursed, and a dog is killed symbolic of the punishment for the sinners. The horse is then set loose towards the North-East, to roam around wherever it chooses, for the period of one year (or half a year, according to some commentators). The horse is associated with the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun), and its yearly course. If the horse wanders into neighbouring provinces hostile to the sacrificer, they must be subjugated. The wandering horse is attended by a hundred young men, sons of princes or high court officials, charged with guarding the horse from all dangers and inconvenience. During the absence of the horse, an uninterrupted series of ceremonies is performed in the sacrificer's home.
ISKCON does not suggest or condone the practice of the ashvamedha or any other animal sacrifice in this day and age.

More on topic, what does the Muslim empire building have to do with anything? That they were doing it in the name of Allah? Is it so much of a problem when another nation decides to do things for God, Gold, and Glory that they put a bit more emphasis on God than Gold or Glory?

Virus
29th June 09, 07:39 AM
Hey Ahmed, can I ask you a question? Do you believe in heaven?

Antifa
29th June 09, 07:43 AM
Hence why the ruling regime should be burned to the ground. 50 years from now when SA is either out of oil or oil doesn't matter anymore, they won't have so much US support to keep them afloat. I eagerly await watching that event.


Lets keep working with this shall we?

Okay, ladyboys aside (I'll get back to my line on that) what kind of revolution in SA do you advocate? What kind of revolution is it likely to be?

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Then I'll share mine.

socratic
29th June 09, 08:10 AM
You are stu[pid arent you?
i think there's a lot you don't realise, instead of trying to look clever get educated, then come back to argue with the big boys okay?

its nice that you like the coloured people, you're a good white boy, but thats not what its about right now.
less p.c. more actual knowledge plz.

What I just told you is 100% true. The Satanic Verses are the Muslim apocrypha, they aren't included in the standard texts, and you bringing it up in a discussion of canonical Islam was just stupid anyway, so either you didn't know or you really are just stupid. Talking about modern Christianity and me bringing up Christ's sheer assholeishness [such as switching himself for Peter on the cross, then laughing about it] in the apocrypha would be equally pointless.

Lebell
29th June 09, 08:24 AM
no you dont get it, you are a young boy with an awful big mouth.
remind me to look you up when im in Sydney.

the difference is this: those verses were in the quran but then they went like: oh oops! it was the devil!

hence they became apocrives.

now please go read a book, educate yourself and try again, this is getting old.

elipson
29th June 09, 02:10 PM
Okay, ladyboys aside (I'll get back to my line on that) what kind of revolution in SA do you advocate? What kind of revolution is it likely to be?

Well if we are talking hypothetically and constructively, I very much see Saudi Arabia running out of oil at some point. When that happens all the political ties with the US and Europe will start to weaken, causing the world to start being more critical of the human rights situation in that country.

With the oil running out, the royal family and other rich Saudi's won't be able to afford their lavish lifestyle, won't be able to bring in outside workers, and the employement situation will deteriorate further. I wouldn't be suprised if their were food riots at some point. Other basic services, especially ones NOT done by Suadi's but by ex-pat workers, will go to hell as they can't afford to keep immigrants working their.

With such huge expenditures on massive palaces and sports cars, the regime won't be able to continue spending massive amounts of money on internal security. They will have to choose between maintaining their police state but losing a lot of their wealth, or keeping the wealth and relaxing on security. If they maintain their police state it would likely get more and more oppressive as the situation deteriorated, and would draw world condemnation. If they underfund their police apparatus, you wil see an increase in civil revolt, and likely problems within the security apparatus. Generals and police chiefs don't like being fired or having their funding slashed, and might just take matters into their own hands, especially if their arrises a general who is concerned with the common man (re: Venezuela).

I don't see it being a communist revolt. The opposite actually. They are currently living under a government that is supposedly looking out for "their interests", but in reality isn't, and I don't think they will accept a new government that is parroting the exact same mantra. People will want their freedom.

This is one way it could happen. There are many. The US could maintain its political ties long after its profitable to do so (re: Isreal), the regime could reform, although I REALLY doubt it. Of all the countries in the region, Saudi Arabia is reforming more slowly than anyone, in terms of democracy, personal freedom, free press. They are not going to like letting go. It could also maintain its police state effectively, such as Egypt. I really hope that does NOT happen, but its possible.

Saudi Arabia is enjoying massive oil profits (rents) with the only diversifying being on different kinds of gigantic palaces. The economy is based on oil and nothing else. An example of how to diversify would be Dubai, which a major business/financial center for the region. They should be spending the money on educating the people, providing them with enough services and opportunities so they don't HATE YOU, and trying to invite foreign business to the country by kissing their ass with a generous tax structure and a society that doesn't FUCKING SUCK to live in. Saudi's are fairly racist and don't really WANT the rest of the world living there. This is preventing business from really taking an interest in the country, especially when they can live in the relative paradise and tolerance of the Emirate states.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 04:33 PM
You didn't answer the question.

No they were not extremists, they were normal people simply acting out what was percieved as acceptable political behavior of many nations across the world.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 04:36 PM
no you dont get it, you are a young boy with an awful big mouth.
remind me to look you up when im in Sydney.

the difference is this: those verses were in the quran but then they went like: oh oops! it was the devil!

hence they became apocrives.

now please go read a book, educate yourself and try again, this is getting old.


Well, it doesn't exactly show up in any authentic traditions(kind of). The narrators of the hadith were not eyewitnesses like other transmitters of hadith, and their own reliablitity was questioned on other hadith as well. No muslim scholar, whether they are liberal or conservative believes in them. Many professors of Islamic studies don't believe in them, though some do. Besides, the versus themselves don't really have much to do with the overall message of the quran.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 04:37 PM
Hey Ahmed, can I ask you a question? Do you believe in heaven?
Ill answer your question with a question since you don't don't answer my question when i asked if you has muslim friends.

Do YOU Believe in heaven?

How is that relevant to the discussion?


That is your response when i asked if you had any muslim friends. Lebell actually does, and when asked he explained, i then understood where he was coming from. Despite my disagreements with him, he doesn't claim 90% of muslims are frothing from the mouth waiting to kill.


So i say to you, what does your question have to do with the relevance of this discussion?

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 04:45 PM
Well if we are talking hypothetically and constructively, I very much see Saudi Arabia running out of oil at some point. When that happens all the political ties with the US and Europe will start to weaken, causing the world to start being more critical of the human rights situation in that country.

With the oil running out, the royal family and other rich Saudi's won't be able to afford their lavish lifestyle, won't be able to bring in outside workers, and the employement situation will deteriorate further. I wouldn't be suprised if their were food riots at some point. Other basic services, especially ones NOT done by Suadi's but by ex-pat workers, will go to hell as they can't afford to keep immigrants working their.

With such huge expenditures on massive palaces and sports cars, the regime won't be able to continue spending massive amounts of money on internal security. They will have to choose between maintaining their police state but losing a lot of their wealth, or keeping the wealth and relaxing on security. If they maintain their police state it would likely get more and more oppressive as the situation deteriorated, and would draw world condemnation. If they underfund their police apparatus, you wil see an increase in civil revolt, and likely problems within the security apparatus. Generals and police chiefs don't like being fired or having their funding slashed, and might just take matters into their own hands, especially if their arrises a general who is concerned with the common man (re: Venezuela).

I don't see it being a communist revolt. The opposite actually. They are currently living under a government that is supposedly looking out for "their interests", but in reality isn't, and I don't think they will accept a new government that is parroting the exact same mantra. People will want their freedom.

This is one way it could happen. There are many. The US could maintain its political ties long after its profitable to do so (re: Isreal), the regime could reform, although I REALLY doubt it. Of all the countries in the region, Saudi Arabia is reforming more slowly than anyone, in terms of democracy, personal freedom, free press. They are not going to like letting go. It could also maintain its police state effectively, such as Egypt. I really hope that does NOT happen, but its possible.

Saudi Arabia is enjoying massive oil profits (rents) with the only diversifying being on different kinds of gigantic palaces. The economy is based on oil and nothing else. An example of how to diversify would be Dubai, which a major business/financial center for the region. They should be spending the money on educating the people, providing them with enough services and opportunities so they don't HATE YOU, and trying to invite foreign business to the country by kissing their ass with a generous tax structure and a society that doesn't FUCKING SUCK to live in. Saudi's are fairly racist and don't really WANT the rest of the world living there. This is preventing business from really taking an interest in the country, especially when they can live in the relative paradise and tolerance of the Emirate states.


The saudi's have ruined entire generations, now these days some of them actually have to work. One of my dads friends lives there as a foreign worker, and he tells me that they spend most of their time talking and not working...because they spent their lives never really HAVING to work.

Yes they are racist...and they suck in so many different ways....


Yes they are slowest to reform. Which sucsk.Well, atleast they finally got a woman driver!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB8vP3XW_oM&feature=channel_page

She's kind of hot too!

Cullion
29th June 09, 04:59 PM
An old friend of mine married a very liberal muslim (who drinks in moderation ,occasionally, when his grandparents aren't around). I once shared a taxi with him. The driver was a muslim too. The two of them spent the whole journey talking about when the precise date of a particular festival which is somehow based on the phase or position of the moon (I don't know which exactly, and I can't remember the name of the festival).

Neither of them were of arab ancestry and a lot of the conversation (all in English) was them complaining about how they don't like the way the Saudis dictate the date of this festival.

I dunno if this makes any sense to you Ahmed, but your post just reminded me of anti-Saudi sentiment I've heard from other muslims.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 05:13 PM
My dad butts head with alot of other muslims over the date of eid, on how alot of arabs like to follow saudi arabia in eid celebrations while the pakistani's tend to go with moon sightings in their own continent.


BTW, have you ever had a muslim trying to convince of the 'badassery' of islam?

I find that tends to creep and annoy alot of people out, it creeps muslims out as well(kind like super conservative evangelical christians)

Cullion
29th June 09, 05:24 PM
I once had a taxi driver talk to me about it late at night when I was a bit drunk. He was polite and unaggressive, so I listened for a bit and just said that I wasn't religious and I didn't want to stop being allowed to drink beer or eat certain foods. He just nodded and said 'okay'.

There was nothing creepy or forceful about it, I think him seeing that I'd had too much to drink made him feel sorry for me.

socratic
29th June 09, 05:45 PM
BTW, have you ever had a muslim trying to convince of the 'badassery' of islam?

I find that tends to creep and annoy alot of people out, it creeps muslims out as well(kind like super conservative evangelical christians)

There's some excellent quotes from Malcolm X about that... I do think it's notable that Islam advocates defensive violence, which perhaps Judaism aside doesn't really exist in modern religion.

Shawarma
29th June 09, 05:50 PM
What about Sikhism? I was under the impression that they never had a problem with warfare.

And of course, fundamentalist Christians and Hindus as well.

Harpy
29th June 09, 05:50 PM
BTW, have you ever had a muslim trying to convince of the 'badassery' of islam?

I find that tends to creep and annoy alot of people out, it creeps muslims out as well(kind like super conservative evangelical christians)

Unfortunately I have been at the end of talks and lectures on how 'badass' Islam is from two former colleagues. They are both wonderful women and great friends to me but sometimes I struggle to keep a straight face at the things they say, email forwards they send me, some of their totally whacked out beliefs etc.

Shawarma
29th June 09, 05:51 PM
Yes, smile and nod at the heathens, well knowing that their false moon-god can not compare to the divine glory of Jane Austen.

Cullion
29th June 09, 05:57 PM
What about Sikhism? I was under the impression that they never had a problem with warfare.

And of course, fundamentalist Christians and Hindus as well.

Don't have to be Biblical literalists by any stretch for a Christian to justify war.
We have Army chaplains in the UK, just as they do in the US. Until recently they were almost entirely Christian, and they mostly still are here.

Ajamil
29th June 09, 06:02 PM
I have the lovely pleasure of being able to counter-badass and repeatedly try to convince any proselytizer that we have the same God. They don't like to share.

Harpy
29th June 09, 06:12 PM
Yes, smile and nod at the heathens, well knowing that their false moon-god can not compare to the divine glory of Jane Austen.

I've only had this experience with two people, not enough to brand the followers of a religion as 'heathen'.

I posted this on MAP a long time ago:

I just got an email from my evangelist colleague at work who is trying to convince me about the superiority of her religion. Its titled '20 greatest inventions by muslim scientists'. There are some hilarious things in there, here's a sample:

04. Parachute - ...A thousand years before the Wright brothers ....Abbas ibn Firnas jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba
using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts. He hoped
to glide like a bird. He didn't...'

08. Metal armour - Quilting is a method of sewing or tying two layers of cloth
with a layer of insulating material in between. It is not
clear whether it was invented in the Muslim world or whether
it was imported there from India or China.

10. Surgery - ....It was he who discovered that catgut used for internal
stitches dissolves away naturally(a discovery he made when
his monkey ate his lute strings)

15. Soup


I am so close to conversion

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 06:12 PM
Lots of muslims are totally ignorant of what hinduism really is.

Ajamil
29th June 09, 06:50 PM
Soup? They invented soup?? Hot damn.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
29th June 09, 06:59 PM
What were the Romans and Greeks wearing if Muslims invented metal armor?

Cullion
29th June 09, 07:04 PM
You'll note that the entry about 'metal armour' actually explains 'quilting', and they aren't even sure if that came from further east or not. i.e. it's gibberish.

Antifa
29th June 09, 07:13 PM
Well if we are talking hypothetically and constructively, I very much see Saudi Arabia running out of oil at some point. When that happens all the political ties with the US and Europe will start to weaken, causing the world to start being more critical of the human rights situation in that country.

With the oil running out, the royal family and other rich Saudi's won't be able to afford their lavish lifestyle, won't be able to bring in outside workers, and the employement situation will deteriorate further. I wouldn't be suprised if their were food riots at some point. Other basic services, especially ones NOT done by Suadi's but by ex-pat workers, will go to hell as they can't afford to keep immigrants working their.

With such huge expenditures on massive palaces and sports cars, the regime won't be able to continue spending massive amounts of money on internal security. They will have to choose between maintaining their police state but losing a lot of their wealth, or keeping the wealth and relaxing on security. If they maintain their police state it would likely get more and more oppressive as the situation deteriorated, and would draw world condemnation. If they underfund their police apparatus, you wil see an increase in civil revolt, and likely problems within the security apparatus. Generals and police chiefs don't like being fired or having their funding slashed, and might just take matters into their own hands, especially if their arrises a general who is concerned with the common man (re: Venezuela).

I don't see it being a communist revolt. The opposite actually. They are currently living under a government that is supposedly looking out for "their interests", but in reality isn't, and I don't think they will accept a new government that is parroting the exact same mantra. People will want their freedom.

This is one way it could happen. There are many. The US could maintain its political ties long after its profitable to do so (re: Isreal), the regime could reform, although I REALLY doubt it. Of all the countries in the region, Saudi Arabia is reforming more slowly than anyone, in terms of democracy, personal freedom, free press. They are not going to like letting go. It could also maintain its police state effectively, such as Egypt. I really hope that does NOT happen, but its possible.

Saudi Arabia is enjoying massive oil profits (rents) with the only diversifying being on different kinds of gigantic palaces. The economy is based on oil and nothing else. An example of how to diversify would be Dubai, which a major business/financial center for the region. They should be spending the money on educating the people, providing them with enough services and opportunities so they don't HATE YOU, and trying to invite foreign business to the country by kissing their ass with a generous tax structure and a society that doesn't FUCKING SUCK to live in. Saudi's are fairly racist and don't really WANT the rest of the world living there. This is preventing business from really taking an interest in the country, especially when they can live in the relative paradise and tolerance of the Emirate states.


How did the House of Saud come to rule Arabia?

What social forces exist in Saudi Arabia that are capable of struggling for state power against the monarchy?

The oil will last 40 years or more and they will always have some oil and always have more oil than everyone else... You need to understand the concept of peak oil to trace this revolutionary trajectory.

So, please elaborate in these directions.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 07:17 PM
How did the House of Saud come to rule Arabia?
.


A question Faux news never asks....

Harpy
29th June 09, 07:28 PM
You'll note that the entry about 'metal armour' actually explains 'quilting', and they aren't even sure if that came from further east or not. i.e. it's gibberish.

Your comprehension skills are much better than MJS'

I recall another email forward where the two former colleagues sent me something about how one of the prophets put a crack in the moon. I can't recall why but I am 100% sure that they believe this to be proof of Allah's power and existence.

elipson
29th June 09, 07:29 PM
You're right that they will always have more oil then most other nations, but at some point that won't matter anymore. As oil prices start to climb due to scarcity, other products will replace oil as an everyday fuel source. Whether its electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, or some other new sources of power is beyond me, but it will happen at some point. And when this new fuel source replaces oil and gas, Saudi Arabia will start loosing all its resource rent that it is currently hoarding away. That's when shit will go wrong.

Foundations of the house of Saud. Middle-Eastern history isn't my strong point, so I will just link to the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud

As for the forces capable of contending with the royal family, I think the strongest forces ARE the royal family. As can be seen in their history, infighting isn't an uncommon occurence. When the profits start to fall and civil unrest starts to rise, that's when squabbling between family members will start to take off. In particular, if the king dies, arguments of succession can split the country quite powerfully. And like I said, internal differences between the security apparatus', especially those which have Royal members in control of them, could potentially take political action.

The Saudi people really are the wildcard in the future. If a force inside the government can sway the people and influence the security apparatus, the result will be very profound. Again, Chavez is a good example of how that happen. It is also possible that a coup could occur while ignoring the population. This will depend entirely on the disposition of the relevant players, and if any of the key personal actually have a concern for the common Saudi person (or if they recognize the power of pretending to care about the common man).

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
29th June 09, 07:30 PM
I didn't miss the part about quilting, I'm just curious what they think the Romans and Greeks were wearing or when they think Islam was founded.

Harpy
29th June 09, 07:31 PM
You'll note that the entry about 'metal armour' actually explains 'quilting', and they aren't even sure if that came from further east or not. i.e. it's gibberish.

Your comprehension skills are far better than MJS'.

I recall another email forward where my friends sent me something about a prophet of Islam putting a crack in the moon. Don't ask me how or why but they believe this 100% and it is used as further 'evidence' when they talk to me about Islam.

I love them though, they're intelligent, modern women in their own right except for these beliefs. I was equally entertained, bludgeoned with lectures, pushed to the limits of my patience when they used to get started with some daily tidbit on Islam.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 07:37 PM
Ive never liked that hadith(the crack in the moon, then mending it again)

Because the whole arguement that muhammeds miracle is the quran, was that one doesn't need miracles to prove the existence of god because miracles are forgotten, that the quran is the miracle that was supposed to last ages.

That hadith contridicts the quran.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 07:38 PM
Your comprehension skills are far better than MJS'.

I recall another email forward where my friends sent me something about a prophet of Islam putting a crack in the moon. Don't ask me how or why but they believe this 100% and it is used as further 'evidence' when they talk to me about Islam.

I love them though, they're intelligent, modern women in their own right except for these beliefs. I was equally entertained, bludgeoned with lectures, pushed to the limits of my patience when they used to get started with some daily tidbit on Islam.


Just show them sociocide, and let them read your posts. Im sure that will make them really change how they approch you. Ive never seen active evangelical work ever actually work for any religion, unless your giving food to starvin marvin in africa.

Harpy
29th June 09, 07:46 PM
I'm not here to change people's beliefs Aaahmed, they are my friends, I like them the way they are and now that we don't work together any more I don't have to put up with it daily.

Funny thing though, the younger of the two is 27, born in Australia and has been wearing the hijab since she was 13. She is strong minded, professional in her field and has a wonderful sense of humour and one of the foulest mouths I have come across.

The other is in her mid-30's, gorgeous, does not wear the hijab and in fact prefers tight clothes and cleavage baring tops. She always says she'll take up the hijab after some time but her husband doesn't mind (he is a Muslim, born and raised in Canada). The younger girl is quite disgusted by this lady's lack of 'modesty' so when they both talk to me its like a competition to prove who is more faithful.


P.S. - so I wasn't imagining that moon story! Sometimes I really doubt myself after they've plied me with information and I wonder if I heard things correctly.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 08:03 PM
I'm not here to change people's beliefs Aaahmed, they are my friends, I like them the way they are and now that we don't work together any more I don't have to put up with it daily.


Not asking you to change their beliefs, but i wonder if they are aware that their attempts to convert you are irritating you. I know you probably don't want to tell them off, since they are your friends, but im sure your relationship would be much improved if they didn't try to convert you.

I could be very wrong though, so don't try to go off of my advice.

Harpy
29th June 09, 08:12 PM
Usually these things come up when we're talking about every day life, It is interesting to me that Islam is intertwined in their very actions. As they tell me, the Koran shows them a way to live. That is actually quite a beautiful idea in its own way.

It doesn't affect my friendship with them in the sense that I have never avoided conversation with them (I'm laidback enough about my beliefs and don't exactly fear having new ideas introduced that I can self-analyse). I wasn't so much irritated as sometimes surprised at their fervent belief without much self-reflection. I will admit to being bored at times too.

Ajamil
29th June 09, 09:05 PM
Ive never seen active evangelical work ever actually work for any religion, unless your giving food to starvin marvin in africa.

http://krishna.org/images/Kirtana/VisnujanaKirtan2.jpg

I've known plenty who said Vishnujan Swami's kirtans were what brought and kept them in ISKCON.

Virus
29th June 09, 11:02 PM
Ill answer your question with a question since you don't don't answer my question when i asked if you has muslim friends.

Do YOU Believe in heaven?

How is that relevant to the discussion?


You know I don't believe in heaven, I'm asking you because I want to lead up to something.



That is your response when i asked if you had any muslim friends. Lebell actually does, and when asked he explained, i then understood where he was coming from.

Yes.



Despite my disagreements with him, he doesn't claim 90% of muslims are frothing from the mouth waiting to kill.



Nice piece of straw there.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 11:17 PM
Nice piece of straw there.

ive argued the whole 'what do the majority believe' shit so much with you, do we really want to do it again? Ive already thrown out all my points.

I wasn't trying to insult you, rather i was trying to point out the realism in his responses. He doesn't generalize.

AAAhmed46
29th June 09, 11:19 PM
I wasn't so much irritated as sometimes surprised at their fervent belief without much self-reflection. I will admit to being bored at times too.

It's a pretty hard thing though(self reflection) not impossible, but it can be unpleasant.

They sound like very good people, good friends.

Harpy
30th June 09, 02:08 AM
They are excellent friends, loyal, loving, protective and a lot of fun :)

Lebell
30th June 09, 04:06 AM
Well, it doesn't exactly show up in any authentic traditions(kind of).

exactly, kind off.
additional information is lost about how long it took for the prophet to realise the texts came from satan.

BUT it sort off undermines the whole thing, one could argue that the prophet admitted to being under the influence of satan, who says he cant do it again?
(if you want to be a dick)



The narrators of the hadith were not eyewitnesses like other transmitters of hadith, and their own reliablitity was questioned on other hadith as well.

eyewitnesses to what?
Muhhamads life? the process of the creation of the book?
imo thats not a problem, unless you take stuff literally.



No muslim scholar, whether they are liberal or conservative believes in them. Many professors of Islamic studies don't believe in them, though some do. Besides, the versus themselves don't really have much to do with the overall message of the quran.

yeah i never quite understood the overall message of the quran, it makes me feel uncomfortable, the overall idea i get is an image of an angry god who is called the forgiving and the mercifull, yet there arent that many concrete examples of that god actually doing acts of mercy.

there's also a lot of threaths in the quran: hellfire unimaginable pains etc.
it must be nervewrecking being a muslim who takes the quran literally.

funny story: i once saw a program on tv, it was aired by the dutch muslim network (we actually got 2 nowadays and i watch them as much as i can, interesting backgrounddocu's and stuff) so there was this scolar, nice enough guy, and he was really down to earth, talking about science etc.

i was thinking to myself: ha! thats nice to see, a normal muslim for once, not just the nuttheads who get all the attention.
so the scolar continues his story: islam and science shouldnt exclude eachother, its okay to be scientific and a muslim at the same time....but you see, western scientist discriminate us...(i raised an eyebrow)...when muslim scientists discovered there is a direct link in jeruzalem towards heaven!
thats why the prophet ascended from jerusalem, but the western scientists try to hide these facts!

facepalm...

Lebell
30th June 09, 04:08 AM
They are excellent friends, loyal, loving, protective and a lot of fun :)

go look up dhimmi on wikipedia.

hope you got money for additional taxes.

Virus
30th June 09, 07:50 AM
Hey Ahmed I know some Muslims from university and my partner for a class was one. Most of the Middle-Easterners I know are Christian for some reason. The reasons I don't like the question:

It's a non-sequitor: Couldn't I say your opinion on Islam is skewed because you don't know any jihadists or Taliban members? No. Both are irrelevant.

False attribution: The idea that someone can only be critical of Islam because they hate Muslims is a false one. I'll rub shoulders with almost anyone.

I dislike the idea that you can use Muslim friends as some sort of Islamic str33t-cred bargaining chip in discussions on the intardnet.

I think we should be above such fallacies and be willing to focus on whether specific claims made are true or not. I hope you don't think I was being a dick I just didn't want to legitimize the fallacy by being drawn into it.

Lebell
30th June 09, 09:38 AM
Virus, if i may add something: having muslim friends does not give you str44tcred BUT it gives you some idea how some muslims actually look at things in day to day life.

its better then only look at the theoritical part.

if it werent for the dudes i play pool with, drink with and discuss nice asses with i would have bought the idea that all arabs are A:all muslim and B: are foaming at the mouth jihadists.

instead they're girly when it comes to clothing and haircuts and are pre-occupied with their reputation and appearance.

LOL!

Shawarma
30th June 09, 01:48 PM
And many could do with a punch in the face on a regular basis, just to remind them that they aren't all that.

AAAhmed46
30th June 09, 03:25 PM
And many could do with a punch in the face on a regular basis, just to remind them that they aren't all that.

Totally agree.

AAAhmed46
30th June 09, 03:30 PM
Hey Ahmed I know some Muslims from university and my partner for a class was one. Most of the Middle-Easterners I know are Christian for some reason. The reasons I don't like the question:

It's a non-sequitor: Couldn't I say your opinion on Islam is skewed because you don't know any jihadists or Taliban members? No. Both are irrelevant.

False attribution: The idea that someone can only be critical of Islam because they hate Muslims is a false one. I'll rub shoulders with almost anyone.

I dislike the idea that you can use Muslim friends as some sort of Islamic str33t-cred bargaining chip in discussions on the intardnet.

I think we should be above such fallacies and be willing to focus on whether specific claims made are true or not. I hope you don't think I was being a dick I just didn't want to legitimize the fallacy by being drawn into it.


I understand your arguement. But you kept talking as if 90% of them believe that insanity is caused by jinn possesion and all want to secretly have some sort of caliphate errected. I always get the impression you lay things out like they are not complex(people's behavior i mean) They are. You assume that muslims lives are so dominated by religion they are totally irrational and frothing from the mouth.

ANd i have talked to some FUCKED muslims, believe me. But even their fucked up attitudes are not what conservative news networks and anti-islamic sites would have you believe.

AAAhmed46
30th June 09, 03:35 PM
go look up dhimmi on wikipedia.

hope you got money for additional taxes.


Remember was Arjuna wrote about vedic kings? Tribute?

Dhimmitude has always varied from different governements historically. To say an oppressive example of dhimmitude in history is reflective of the entire theory is the same as comparing Charlemagne's expulsion of moors and jews as a reflection on christianity and minorities.

AAAhmed46
30th June 09, 03:46 PM
exactly, kind off.
additional information is lost about how long it took for the prophet to realise the texts came from satan.

BUT it sort off undermines the whole thing, one could argue that the prophet admitted to being under the influence of satan, who says he cant do it again?
(if you want to be a dick)
Don't be a dick! ;)





eyewitnesses to what?
Muhhamads life? the process of the creation of the book?
imo thats not a problem, unless you take stuff literally.
Eyewitnesses to the satanic versus and about mohammed getting tricked by it, to it even happening. No real chain of narration.
Hadith is different from the quran. It's meant to be something that records the prophets life. Still, i view hadith very critically.





yeah i never quite understood the overall message of the quran, it makes me feel uncomfortable, the overall idea i get is an image of an angry god who is called the forgiving and the mercifull, yet there arent that many concrete examples of that god actually doing acts of mercy.

there's also a lot of threaths in the quran: hellfire unimaginable pains etc.
it must be nervewrecking being a muslim who takes the quran literally.
The quran focusses on the meaning of life and arguements for the existence of god and existence. Forgiving and merciful due to the fact he can forgive almost anything someone does, and the ease in which paradise can be accessed(how easy is in dispute depending on conservative vs liberal) such as belief in one god and a higher power of some sort, hellfire often will not be eternal, just a certain amount of time to 'cleanse' peole before entering paradise. Problem is, different translations can give different impressions. Thats why you hear all these arabs talk about having to understand it in arabic to get it, and even then it's hard because the language is thick and complex of the quran with words that have changed meaning over 1400. I know white guys who can read arabic look at the quran and say it's quote 'very layered' and takes time to read though.

And to add classical and modern tafsirs to the mix....layered indeed.


funny story: i once saw a program on tv, it was aired by the dutch muslim network (we actually got 2 nowadays and i watch them as much as i can, interesting backgrounddocu's and stuff) so there was this scolar, nice enough guy, and he was really down to earth, talking about science etc.

i was thinking to myself: ha! thats nice to see, a normal muslim for once, not just the nuttheads who get all the attention.
so the scolar continues his story: islam and science shouldnt exclude eachother, its okay to be scientific and a muslim at the same time....but you see, western scientist discriminate us...(i raised an eyebrow)...when muslim scientists discovered there is a direct link in jeruzalem towards heaven!
thats why the prophet ascended from jerusalem, but the western scientists try to hide these facts!

facepalm...

Oh my god........wtf.


why can't we see stuff like this on muslim T.V.:



XW61lZKT1io


Talks about issues in the community that need to change, critical of current practices. Challenging the status quo of the muslim community and an academic's methodology at looking at scripture. HIs more critical thinking approche to religion is something that really is needed among the intellectual stagnation in the muslim community.

Maybe it's because he used to be an athiest(tend to be critical thinkers)

Cullion
30th June 09, 07:14 PM
I've got to be honest, the guy in that video sounds like a sophist trying to bend Islam into something his secular & permissive upbringing feels comfortable with rather than bending himself to suit Islam.

Virus
30th June 09, 09:05 PM
I understand your arguement. But you kept talking as if 90% of them believe that insanity is caused by jinn possesion and all want to secretly have some sort of caliphate errected. I always get the impression you lay things out like they are not complex(people's behavior i mean) They are. You assume that muslims lives are so dominated by religion they are totally irrational and frothing from the mouth.



I've never said any of these things. Hyperbole.

AAAhmed46
30th June 09, 11:04 PM
I've got to be honest, the guy in that video sounds like a sophist trying to bend Islam into something his secular & permissive upbringing feels comfortable with rather than bending himself to suit Islam.

A little. But then i read his books, and presents his arguements well referenced and argued, acknowleding the conservative approche. I think he's still bending a bit, but his main points are well argued.

Virus
1st July 09, 12:03 AM
Do you need to accept Islam to be admitted to heaven in your opinion?

AAAhmed46
1st July 09, 12:59 AM
No,i don't think so. but there are muslims who do believe this.

Virus
1st July 09, 01:19 AM
Ok good, and I take it you don't believe suicide killers and jihadists go to heaven?

This is just the set-up for a knotty theological point I thought up recently.

Virus
1st July 09, 05:34 PM
If heaven existed, and there were exclusion criteria based on moral conduct, then getting there is pretty much based on where you happen to be born. If you happen to be born into a basket-case country in Africa, where people burn witches and rape little girls in the belief that it cures AIDS, then your odds of engaging in that behavior are several magnitudes greater than if you're born into a middle-class family in Sweden.

Born in the middle-east? Sent to a madrassa and fall in with the jihadist crowd? Not much chance of a middle-class Swede doing that. Born in Palestine to Hamas parents? Get indoctrinated into the ideology of martyrdom? Sorry, you lucked out of the life lottery and now you have to get tortured when you die. We should be glad that none of this stuff is true because what an absurd and unjust system that would be.

Also, people used to be less moral than they are now. Slavery and the right to violent conquest were taken for granted. The Romans thought it was amusing to watch people get slaughtered in the Arena. Does this mean that more people are getting into heaven now than 2000 years ago? Luck of the draw again. Sorry you happen to be born at the wrong period of history. Now you get tortured when you die.

Cullion
1st July 09, 05:45 PM
Virus, do you believe in free will ?

Virus
1st July 09, 05:48 PM
Don't know. Whether we have it, or don't or we sort of do it's undeniable that your chances of becoming a suicide killer are much greater if you are born in Palestine to Hamas parents watching Hamas TV and listening to Hamas clerics. Therefore heaven is pretty much based on chance.

Cullion
1st July 09, 05:52 PM
Are you about to say 'it isn't fair!' if somebody says that yes, you can go to hell due to the circumstances you were born into ?

Careful now.

Cullion
1st July 09, 05:53 PM
BTW, why are you a herbivore?

Virus
1st July 09, 06:03 PM
Are you about to say 'it isn't fair!' if somebody says that yes, you can go to hell due to the circumstances you were born into ?

Careful now.

If it were true, which it thankfully isn't, then it would not be a fair system. You want to believe in a celestial lottery, believe that if you want.

Cullion
1st July 09, 06:07 PM
If it were true, which it thankfully isn't, then it would not be a fair system. You want to believe in a celestial lottery, believe that if you want.

Oh, my.

Are you categorically stating that you don't believe in a celestial lottery?

I want you to take your time now.

Cullion
1st July 09, 06:08 PM
p.s. Why are you a herbivore?

Virus
1st July 09, 06:41 PM
Oh, my.

Are you categorically stating that you don't believe in a celestial lottery?

I want you to take your time now.

For someone who studied logic you sure love your red herrings.

Cullion
1st July 09, 06:47 PM
No, it's certainly not a red herring. You haven't thought this through.

Virus
1st July 09, 07:13 PM
What's wrong with the argument?

Cullion
1st July 09, 07:28 PM
You were trying to argue against the unjustness of hell without having a definition of hell or an explanation or why your vision of how the universe works was more just.

You profess to not even know if people have free will.

Are you about to condemn somebody elses conception of God because it involves firm punishment for transgression, when your own conception of the world does too?

Step away from your religion.

Virus
1st July 09, 07:46 PM
All of those things are irrelevant Cullion. The argument establishes that admission to heaven on the basis of moral conduct would be largely based on chance. You're hacking at strawmen.

Lebell
2nd July 09, 05:16 AM
okay virus, i read your post with the you dont get to chose where you were born etc.

i suggest you first get a more mature concept of heaven and hell before you come up with these ' clever theories' i already thought about those when i was 14.


allow me to leave you with 2 zen stories:

Somewhere up in a temple there was a famous zenmonk, reknowned for his sharp mind and awesome advice.
This samurai came up to the temple to get some advice.
He announxced himself with the servants, refused to hand over his sword and armour and just barged into the tempel.
The zenmonk was sitting there and asked the samarai if he could help him.
The arrogant samurai said:' yes! i like to learn about heaven and hell and all their secrets!'

The zenmonk smirked and replied:' you stupid baboon, did you really think i would teacha peasant like you? barging in here all arrogant?'

The samurai goes berserk and draws his sword, he's ready tpo chop that monk into sushi, but the monk is quite fast and dissapears behind a curtain.
The templedoors closed and its all dark now, the samurai is going ballistic, he cant see and he's just hacking and slashing in the dark screaming and cursing!

suddenly the monks voice echoes through the dark: THIS IS HELL!!!
the samurai freezes...puts down his sword and is very very remorsefull abbout his conduct...he begs to be forgiven for his awful behaviour.
The monk comes forward from the dark and say: you are forgiven, this is heaven.

Lebell
2nd July 09, 05:23 AM
story no2:

a zenmonk travels alongside a bowmaster, and they are touring across the land visiting villages.
on a nice sunny day they visit this coastal village on a cliff.

Now the bowmaster and the zenmaster are constantly in competition, and soon the bowmaster wants to impress the villagers and make the zenmaster look stupid atthe same time.

he asks for the tiniest teacup there is to be put on a bench on the other side of the market square...
the bowmaster then puts on a blindfold!!
all the people are holding their breath...the bowmaster shoots...and hits it!!!
The bowmaster cries out: SCORE! he's quite happy with himself.
so now the bowmaster smiles at the zenmaster and says so everyone can hear: you want to give it a try old man?
zenmaster: oh yes please! so how does it work?
bowmaster:well, you pick a target and try to hit it, that way you score.
the zenmaster puts on the blindfold...strings the bow....turns around towards the cliff and shoots his arrow...in the ocean...

everybody's quiet, the zenmaster removes his blindfold and says:SCORE!

Virus
2nd July 09, 07:12 AM
I'm sorry I didn't use a "mature concept of heaven" and picked on the one that millions of theists actually believe in.

Virus
2nd July 09, 07:32 AM
The problem I have with people who criticize the theory that Elvis is alive is that they use simplistic and primitive concepts of Elvis. There's so much deeper meaning and nuance to Elvis theory than just some guy in a white suit singing Honky-Tonk Man. A-Elvisists always pick on the cretins and simpletons in the movement without looking at the sophisticated and mature Elvis theories out there.

Lebell
2nd July 09, 09:47 AM
no virus, the problem is you.
you are in fact like your average fundamentalist.
having problems with this, and that, feeling superior to others because unlike those millions outthere you have the real truth.

when confronted with more nuances you try to ridicule the moderate approach, because in your mind it can either be one or the other.

the only problem you have is yourself.

Virus
2nd July 09, 10:51 AM
If by "nuance" you mean the vague, half-baked, cherry picked nonsense that people make up as they go along then yes.

AAAhmed46
2nd July 09, 10:29 PM
If heaven existed, and there were exclusion criteria based on moral conduct, then getting there is pretty much based on where you happen to be born. If you happen to be born into a basket-case country in Africa, where people burn witches and rape little girls in the belief that it cures AIDS, then your odds of engaging in that behavior are several magnitudes greater than if you're born into a middle-class family in Sweden.

Born in the middle-east? Sent to a madrassa and fall in with the jihadist crowd? Not much chance of a middle-class Swede doing that. Born in Palestine to Hamas parents? Get indoctrinated into the ideology of martyrdom? Sorry, you lucked out of the life lottery and now you have to get tortured when you die. We should be glad that none of this stuff is true because what an absurd and unjust system that would be.

Also, people used to be less moral than they are now. Slavery and the right to violent conquest were taken for granted. The Romans thought it was amusing to watch people get slaughtered in the Arena. Does this mean that more people are getting into heaven now than 2000 years ago? Luck of the draw again. Sorry you happen to be born at the wrong period of history. Now you get tortured when you die.


I haven't read actual texts yet, but ive continuously heard from multiple scholars, both leftwing and right wing theologons that say that a person is always judged by their circumstances a natural shortcomings/strengths. Just got to find the basis for it, since i never really treated it like much of an issue(sorry i didn't reply sooner, but ive got limited internet access)

You'll hear lots of muslims say that. Whether this individualized, flexible to circumstance judgement theory is 't3h r3al Islam' textually is something i have to study.

AAAhmed46
2nd July 09, 10:34 PM
A little. But then i read his books, and presents his arguements well referenced and argued, acknowleding the conservative approche. I think he's still bending a bit, but his main points are well argued.

*Shudders at his own grammer*

Virus
2nd July 09, 11:30 PM
So when Hamas say that blowing yourself up gets you into heaven that's not strictly speaking untrue given the right circumstances.

AAAhmed46
2nd July 09, 11:40 PM
So when Hamas say that blowing yourself up gets you into heaven that's not strictly speaking untrue given the right circumstances.

How the hell should i know? Im not the judge.

Cullion
4th July 09, 03:14 PM
All of those things are irrelevant Cullion. The argument establishes that admission to heaven on the basis of moral conduct would be largely based on chance. You're hacking at strawmen.

No, I'm pointing out your an idiot for trying argue against a religious concept on the grounds that it's unfair.

Virus
4th July 09, 03:29 PM
Isn't it near universally claimed that god is perfect good?

Cullion
4th July 09, 03:32 PM
Why do proselytising Atheists insist on finding contradictions in a religion they appear to have made up themselves ?

Virus
4th July 09, 05:46 PM
Who is "they" in that sentence? The believer or the atheist?

Cullion
4th July 09, 05:48 PM
The atheist. You're trying to construct an argument about God by attacking a description of God which you made up for yourself.

Virus
4th July 09, 06:05 PM
So the claim that god is benevolent is a fringe position in modern Christianity?

Cullion
4th July 09, 06:28 PM
So the claim that god is benevolent is a fringe position in modern Christianity?

If interpreted to mean that God always makes sure that nasty things don't happen to nice people, then its not a position espoused by mainstream Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

DAYoung
4th July 09, 06:41 PM
We live in the best of all possible worlds.

Virus
4th July 09, 08:09 PM
That's the thing, Christians claim that god is omnibenevolent yet this claim is inconsistent with the way the world is. A god that is indifferent to suffering or malicious is consistent, but that's deism not theism.

Cullion
4th July 09, 08:41 PM
That's the thing, Christians claim that god is omnibenevolent yet this claim is inconsistent with the way the world is.

You haven't spent any time actually studying Christian theology, have you?

Virus
4th July 09, 09:03 PM
You claim to have. Can you solve that problem?

Lebell
5th July 09, 05:50 AM
no, virus, your question is flawed.

in the question you stated that the way world is is inconsistent with God being omnibenevolent.

you cant say know that.

perhaps looking at the world from a ' divine' perspective there's a reason the world is how it is and we fail to see the world as perfect or benine because the fault lies with us.

Cullion
5th July 09, 06:50 AM
You claim to have. Can you solve that problem?

Yes. The human condition on Earth will involve injustice and suffering as a test of faith. God allows mankind free will and that's why we often make life miserable for one another. And don't forget the Devil's influence.

The only 'problem' here is that you've invented your own religion to argue against where God is supposed to make it nice for everybody all the time. It doesn't have much relationship with actual Judeo-Christian thought. You really should know this by now.

Virus
5th July 09, 06:50 AM
The question is flawed? The answer is flawed. That's just asserting that you're right, full-stop, close the book on the question. That wouldn't be considered a valid answer for anything.

Lebell
5th July 09, 06:52 AM
^^^ read your own reaction, it is in fact exactly what you are doing.

in other words: NO, YOU.

Cullion
5th July 09, 06:56 AM
The question is flawed? The answer is flawed. That's just asserting that you're right, full-stop, close the book on the question. That wouldn't be considered a valid answer for anything.

You may not accept the answer as a description of reality but it's internally consistent. You really ought to make some attempt to find these things out for yourself. Attempting to argue against a theology without actually knowing what it says just makes you look stupid.

Virus
5th July 09, 06:57 AM
Yes. The human condition on Earth will involve injustice and suffering as a test of faith. God allows mankind free will and that's why we often make life miserable for one another. And don't forget the Devil's influence.


The free-will defense doesn't account for suffering that is independent of will such as viruses and earthquakes.



The only 'problem' here is that you've invented your own religion to argue against where God is supposed to make it nice for everybody all the time. It doesn't have much relationship with actual Judeo-Christian thought. You really should know this by now.

No I haven't invented anything. It is almost unanimously claimed that god is omnibenevolent, yet this is not consistent with the suffering he permits to happen. It has nothing to do with being nice all the time. Saying that it's not supposed to be nice all the time does nothing to solve the problem, it's just shrugging your shoulders at the question.

Imagine a group of scientists that injected a person against their will with a virus, just to see how he'd react. Would you accept "Science isn't about making things nice for all people, all the time." as a moral defense?

Lebell
5th July 09, 06:59 AM
"Why are you injecting that person with a virus?"

"Just to see what he'd do."

"But that's unethical!"

"Well, science isn't about making things nice for everybody all the time."

This is exactly where you go wrong.
Theology speaks of a GOD.
your example speaks about a flawed human.

you cant compare the two like that.

Cullion
5th July 09, 07:01 AM
[QUOTE=Cullion]
The free-will defense doesn't account for suffering that is independent of will such as viruses and earthquakes.

Virus, have you actually read the Bible? It's full of examples of God doing horrible natural disaster movie-like shit to people for reasons like testing their loyalty, or because they were 'asking for it'.

Only an idiot would read the Bible and conclude that God doesn't do nasty things to nice people, or allow them to happen.





"Why are you injecting that person with a virus?"

"Just to see what he'd do."

"But that's unethical!"

"Well, science isn't about making things nice for everybody all the time."

I don't see what you're trying to say here.

Cullion
5th July 09, 07:03 AM
It is almost unanimously claimed that god is omnibenevolent, yet this is not consistent with the suffering he permits to happen.

No it isn't. This is the whole point. You're simply massively ignorant of what Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologians actually believe on these issues and instead of going away and learning something, you're just displaying your ignorance in a repetitive, almost autistic, manner.

Lebell
5th July 09, 07:04 AM
Only an idiot would read the Bible and conclude that God doesn't do nasty things to nice people, or allow them to happen.


Story of job anyone?
God probably had pms back then.
rough deal.

Virus
5th July 09, 07:12 AM
You can claim that he tests people with suffering all you want. No dispute. The logical problem is rectifying that with the concurrent claim that he is perfectly good.

DAYoung
5th July 09, 07:15 AM
Hey, Cullion: would you agree that theodicy (e.g. Leibniz's 'best of all possible worlds', Rousseau's 'all is well', Pope's 'Of systems possible it is confess’d, that Wisdom infinite must form the best') is a waste of time?

That is, it's what someone like Ayer would call a false problem: you only need to explain away the relationship between a good God and a nasty world if you assume the former. When you delete God (or a perfect God), the equation suddenly makes sense.

And many theologians have described God in superlative terms...

For the record, I don't think it's a waste of time - but not always for its obvious, intended contribution to the debate (sometimes the ideas or art are suggestive or beautiful or provocative along the way).

Lebell
5th July 09, 07:16 AM
You can claim that he tests people with suffering all you want. No dispute. The logical problem is rectifying that with the concurrent claim that he is perfectly good.

who says he's perfectly good?

read moar.

Cullion
5th July 09, 07:17 AM
You can claim that he tests people with suffering all you want. No dispute. The logical problem is rectifying that with the concurrent claim that he is perfectly good.

It's because you misunderstand what 'perfectly good' means. Goodness doesn't exist indepently of the Judeo-Christian God, Goodness is essentially the degree to which you adhere to his wishes. If Jehova tells you to slaughter a million canaanites, then it's immoral to refuse.

Lebell
5th July 09, 07:18 AM
Look knuckledraggers, i try to explain the obvious here:

if you talk about good and bad worldly things and divine things AND want to add logic you're on your way to FAIL.

the only logic one could apply is that we can not understand God nor can we say that the things we perceive are perfect, imperfect good or bad.
WE see them as such.

DAYoung
5th July 09, 07:21 AM
omg u is channeling Pope crazee dutchmanz

Virus
5th July 09, 07:21 AM
It's because you misunderstand what 'perfectly good' means. Goodness doesn't exist indepently of the Judeo-Christian God, Goodness is essentially the degree to which you adhere to his wishes. If Jehova tells you to slaughter a million canaanites, then it's immoral to refuse.



That's a good point and probably the best reason why religion is dangerous nonsense.

Granting this premise would mean that morality is just an arbitrary set of commands.

.

Cullion
5th July 09, 07:21 AM
Hey, Cullion: would you agree that theodicy (e.g. Leibniz's 'best of all possible worlds', Rousseau's 'all is well', Pope's 'Of systems possible it is confess’d, that Wisdom infinite must form the best') is a waste of time?

That is, it's what someone like Ayer would call a false problem: you only need to explain away the relationship between a good God and a nasty world if you assume the former. When you delete God (or a perfect God), the equation suddenly makes sense.

If I were a Christian, I would take the line that human reason is limited and we shouldn't expect to be able to intellectually grasp all of God's intentions all the time. Our role is to aspire to serve him faithfully.

I'd also say that attempting to define morality in humanistic terms indepently of God's wishes was blasphemous.

DAYoung
5th July 09, 07:25 AM
If I were a Christian, I would take the line that human reason is limited and we shouldn't expect to be able to intellectually grasp all of God's intentions all the time. Our role is to aspire to serve him faithfully.

I'd also say that attempting to define morality in humanistic terms indepently of God's wishes was blasphemous.

Have a read of Pope's 'Essay on Man' (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_Man), if you've not already. Tell me what you think.

He puts all this poetically, in crisp, memorable English.

(Not a great philosopher, but a good mouthpiece for those of his time.)

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind and body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.

(I love that line: "a being darkly wise, and rudely great")

Lebell
5th July 09, 07:25 AM
if i was christian i'd say: ZOMG jerusalem is in hands of the infadels!!!get ur swordz and lets pwnz0rs for G0d!!!!'

Virus
5th July 09, 07:27 AM
Look knuckledraggers, i try to explain the obvious here:

if you talk about good and bad worldly things and divine things AND want to add logic you're on your way to FAIL.

the only logic one could apply is that we can not understand God nor can we say that the things we perceive are perfect, imperfect good or bad.
WE see them as such.

If you can't understand god then you can't claim he's benevolent. In fact, you can't claim anything about him at all.

DAYoung
5th July 09, 07:30 AM
If you can't understand god then you can't claim he's benevolent. In fact, you can't claim anything about him at all.

Don't get all epistemological, sonny boy.

They have faith.

Adouglasmhor
6th July 09, 12:33 PM
no, virus, your question is flawed.

in the question you stated that the way world is is inconsistent with God being omnibenevolent.

you cant say know that.

perhaps looking at the world from a ' divine' perspective there's a reason the world is how it is and we fail to see the world as perfect or benine because the fault lies with us.

Or perhaps the world as is is our problem and we should grow up and do something about it instead of passing of responsibility to some made up sky fairy.

Adouglasmhor
6th July 09, 12:36 PM
"The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know
this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't see her."

Ajamil
7th July 09, 02:13 PM
Or perhaps the world as is is our problem and we should grow up and do something about it instead of passing of responsibility to some made up sky fairy.
a) Finally!!

b) This is not inconsistent with a Theistic notion.

c) How do you worship your Deity, The Pink Unicorn?

Lebell
7th July 09, 02:32 PM
you guys are all fucking dumbasses, i swear.

Ajamil
7th July 09, 02:58 PM
Yeah, but I don't like to point it out and insult her.

Cullion
7th July 09, 03:29 PM
If you can't understand god then you can't claim he's benevolent. In fact, you can't claim anything about him at all.

You can pass on what he directly told you.

AAAhmed46
18th July 09, 12:31 PM
if i was christian i'd say: ZOMG jerusalem is in hands of the infadels!!!get ur swordz and lets pwnz0rs for G0d!!!!'
Quote worthy.

socratic
19th July 09, 05:32 AM
You can pass on what he directly told you.

Unless he was lying. Which he did a couple of times in the OT, if memory serves.

socratic
19th July 09, 05:46 AM
Virus, have you actually read the Bible? It's full of examples of God doing horrible natural disaster movie-like shit to people for reasons like testing their loyalty, or because they were 'asking for it'.

Only an idiot would read the Bible and conclude that God doesn't do nasty things to nice people, or allow them to happen.
Yeah, but it says right there that God is Love, which really doesn't fit with how much of a sour cunt he really is, nor with the existence of evil. This whole 'problem of evil' thing isn't unsolvable for no reason.


No it isn't. This is the whole point. You're simply massively ignorant of what Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologians actually believe on these issues and instead of going away and learning something, you're just displaying your ignorance in a repetitive, almost autistic, manner.
That's funny, a lot of Christian theologians assumed God was good when they created theodicies. You're telling me Aquinas didn't mean it?


It's because you misunderstand what 'perfectly good' means. Goodness doesn't exist indepently of the Judeo-Christian God, Goodness is essentially the degree to which you adhere to his wishes. If Jehova tells you to slaughter a million canaanites, then it's immoral to refuse.
Really? I thought the whole 'which came first? Good or God's Will?' thing wasn't set in stone, which is again why it's a big philosophical dilemma.
omg u is channeling Pope crazee dutchmanz
Forgive him DAYoung, he knows not what he does. Also Leibniz is a bitch and his theodicy is weak. In fact all theodicies are. I liked what Pope wrote about Newton though.

Cullion
19th July 09, 05:51 AM
Yeah, but it says right there that God is Love, which really doesn't fit with how much of a sour cunt he really is, nor with the existence of evil. This whole 'problem of evil' thing isn't unsolvable for no reason.

It's been solved multiple times by different Christian denominations. If you think that Christianity doesn't make sense because sometimes bad things happen to good people, then you haven't understood it.



That's funny, a lot of Christian theologians assumed God was good when they created theodicies. You're telling me Aquinas didn't mean it?

I'm telling you that you don't understand Aquinas.



Really? I thought the whole 'which came first? Good or God's Will?' thing wasn't set in stone, which is again why it's a big philosophical dilemma.


It's not a big enough philosophical dilema sufficient to disprove Christianity.

Cullion
19th July 09, 05:52 AM
Unless he was lying. Which he did a couple of times in the OT, if memory serves.

Only when he was testing people's faith. He filled them in on the truth later.

socratic
19th July 09, 06:29 AM
Only when he was testing people's faith. He filled them in on the truth later.

I know. But he still lied to them. Considering you're our resident Christian strawman, what makes you think he's not lying to you right now?

socratic
19th July 09, 06:31 AM
It's been solved multiple times by different Christian denominations. If you think that Christianity doesn't make sense because sometimes bad things happen to good people, then you haven't understood it.

Just because you think you've solved a problem doesn't mean you have. I'm yet to read a theodicy I (and others before me) have not disproven.


I'm telling you that you don't understand Aquinas.

Neither did Cambridge, Routledge, Blackburne, etc, apparently.


It's not a big enough philosophical dilema sufficient to disprove Christianity.

No, but it makes one wonder. You can't 'disprove' Christianity anyway, religion isn't about proof. If it were it wouldn't exist.

socratic
19th July 09, 06:33 AM
I always liked how differently God was always characterised. You know, the jump from iron-age Hebrew Fire God to Greek-influenced Idea God Made of Awesome And Love.

Cullion
19th July 09, 06:34 AM
Just because you think you've solved a problem doesn't mean you have. I'm yet to read a theodicy I (and others before me) have not disproven.

If you're attempting to disprove it by going 'OMG, sometimes this god does mean things!' then you haven't understood them.



Neither did Cambridge, Routledge, Blackburne, etc, apparently.

No, they didn't.

socratic
19th July 09, 06:41 AM
If you're attempting to disprove it by going 'OMG, sometimes this god does mean things!' then you haven't understood them.

Well, first of all we need to remember that a theodicy is an attempt by a theoligian to reconcile the existence of evil with Christian tenets, usually 'God is Good'. So when it gets to theodicy stage we're past 'Christianity is actually okay with saying God is Love and God will fuck you in the ass at the same time'. So then the ball's in the theoligians' court, in which they say "Okay, there's a problem, but here's the solution" and then someone else ays "Actually, that isn't a proper solution because of flaws x, y, and z." Common answers are 'god did the best he could' and 'free will mmkay'. In so far as God is defined in superlatives [as theologians are wont to do, even if the text doesn't] then both of those are easily defeated. Most arguments tend to be variants on those.


No, they didn't.

No wonder all I got was a credit.

DAYoung
19th July 09, 06:46 AM
You've not mentioned Pope's theodicy (cobbled together from 18thC thinkers, and a bit of Neo-Platonism):

1. God has a plan.

2. God's plan is perfectly good.

3. You're small and stupid. You don't get 1. or 2. Live with it.

4. STFU and get on with everyday human stuff.

socratic
19th July 09, 06:48 AM
You've not mentioned:

1. God has a plan.

2. God's plan is perfectly good.

3. You're small and stupid. You don't get 1. or 2. Live with it.

4. STFU and get on with everyday human stuff.
Any big names proposed those or are those generic plebeian responses?

You forgot 5. I'm the Pope motherfucker and if you say that shit again I will fucking kill you.

DA, are you a Lecturer or Tutor? You'd just love marking my shit...

Edit: I said big names, Pope's best work was Newton's tombstone.

EuropIan
19th July 09, 06:56 AM
vHxr1WUUhNg

DAYoung
19th July 09, 06:56 AM
Any big names proposed those or are those generic plebeian responses?

You forgot 5. I'm the Pope motherfucker and if you say that shit again I will fucking kill you.

DA, are you a Lecturer or Tutor? You'd just love marking my shit...

Edit: I said big names, Pope's best work was Newton's tombstone.

Dude, Pope was the greatest, most popular poet of the eighteenth century - a century that LOVED poetry. Voltaire, who didn't like him, saw him as the greatest poet in the world.

A FRENCHMAN...NO: THE FRENCHMAN SAID THIS. CAN YOU SEE THE AWESOMENESS OF THIS?

I have lectured and tutored. I'm mostly writing now.

EuropIan
19th July 09, 07:02 AM
Now I like Pope because Voltaire liked Pope.

I am a sheep.

but a cultured one.

socratic
19th July 09, 07:03 AM
Dude, Pope was the greatest, most popular poet of the eighteenth century - a century that LOVED poetry. Voltaire, who didn't like him, saw him as the greatest poet in the world.

A FRENCHMAN...NO: THE FRENCHMAN SAID THIS. CAN YOU SEE THE AWESOMENESS OF THIS?

I have lectured and tutored. I'm mostly writing now.
Voltaire was simply dazed by his aura of glamour. Pope was like that one player on a team who everyone goes "How'd he make it all the way up here to the Big Leagues?", especially when you consider who were his contemporaries. You're an intellectual in the 18th century and your brains aren't so big they're exploding out of your head, you aren't good enough for the cut, sorry.

I'm mostly pulling your leg. I haven't read much Pope beyond his meagre contributions to some lectures I've sat, in which he was there to show off the zeitgeist and not really make much of a contribution. :D

DAYoung
19th July 09, 07:07 AM
Voltaire, on Pope:

- "Mr. Pope is the best poet in England, and at present the world."

- "He is...the most elegant, the most correct Poet."

- "Pope's 'Essay on Man' seems to me the most beautiful didactic poem and the most useful and sublime that has ever been written in any language. [...] When a Frenchman and an Englishman think the same thing, they must be right."

socratic
19th July 09, 07:19 AM
Cool.

Lebell
19th July 09, 10:21 AM
I have lectured and tutored. I'm mostly writing now.

Get a real job.

socratic
20th July 09, 12:36 AM
Get a real job.

He's like a double hippy. First he's on the Uni circuit then he drops that for writing. Daaaaaaayum.

Lebell
20th July 09, 04:14 AM
some people have it all...

socratic
20th July 09, 06:15 PM
some people have it all...

You're a uni student too, aren't you? What's your degree?

Harpy
20th July 09, 06:43 PM
Burn.

Virus
20th July 09, 11:30 PM
That's a good question. What is your degree Lubell because I remember you talking about college before.

Arhetton
21st July 09, 12:23 AM
The idea that you are randomly dealt cards when you are born is flawed.

It implies some kind of statistical fairness which is totally untrue.

You know evolution isn't a random process virus.

Apart from that, I liked your point. And I was a christian for a long time.


That's a good question. What is your degree Lubell because I remember you talking about college before.

When someone makes a statement that is true or false it is the statement that is true or false, not the person. It's not important to deal which each others professional background in my opinion. That is why people take up anonymous handles to discuss things on the internet IMO.

Virus
21st July 09, 02:55 AM
The idea that you are randomly dealt cards when you are born is flawed.

It implies some kind of statistical fairness which is totally untrue.

You know evolution isn't a random process virus.

Apart from that, I liked your point. And I was a christian for a long time.

Sorry, what's this in response to?




When someone makes a statement that is true or false it is the statement that is true or false, not the person. It's not important to deal which each others professional background in my opinion. That is why people take up anonymous handles to discuss things on the internet IMO.

I'm just asking out of interest, this has nothing to do with any argument.

socratic
21st July 09, 04:15 AM
Maybe Middle Eastern Studies, Majoring in Arabic? I dunno, Lebell mentioned he studies Arabic and I'm guessing he does it through Uni.

Arhetton
21st July 09, 09:53 AM
sorry its a response to a post back on page 15 or 16, I hadn't read this thread in ages and started there, I'll find it tomorrow. I might not have been addressing your post correctly anyway. Cullion was talking about a celestial lottery.

Lebell
21st July 09, 10:17 AM
Maybe Middle Eastern Studies, Majoring in Arabic? I dunno, Lebell mentioned he studies Arabic and I'm guessing he does it through Uni.

yes and no.
i study the language part (we call it modules) but not the whole middle eastern and islamic studies as a whole.

so i wont be doing bachelors or masters, but after some 4 to 6 years i am eligable to apply for the test of translator.
The test takes 6 hours and your knowledge of both dutch and arabic must be near to flawless.
After that you get sworn in like anyone with a job that includes sensitive information.
basically if i should yap about what i would hear during work they'll throw me in prison.

so am i a student?
meh..wouldnt want to call myself that as im actually working my ass off and learning a concrete skill, without having a nice fund or mommy or daddy to back me up.


should have studied when i was 18 like normal kids.

Virus
21st July 09, 04:47 PM
sorry its a response to a post back on page 15 or 16, I hadn't read this thread in ages and started there, I'll find it tomorrow. I might not have been addressing your post correctly anyway. Cullion was talking about a celestial lottery.

Maybe the stuff about admittance to heaven being based on chance? Do you disagree that a child born in Palestine or Sudan is more likely to be a killer than one born into middle-class Sydney?

Cullion
21st July 09, 04:54 PM
Maybe the stuff about admittance to heaven being based on chance? Do you disagree that a child born in Palestine or Sudan is more likely to be a killer than one born into middle-class Sydney?

You're chasing up this lottery theory angle for all it's worth. Let me explain something that you've proved to your own satisfaction many, many times before, but which bares repeating:-

Some people have harder lives than others. Christian theology takes this into account in various ways according to denomination.

You could prove to your own satisfaction that God was capricious, but this would not constitute a proof of non-existence. You can bang your head against this argument as hard as you want. Christians who've thought about all this and still believe what they believe, believe in it for the same reason it 'feels right' for you to be a vegetarian, at essence.

You aren't constructing an argument which hasn't been countered by some strand of Christian theology, and nor, am I afraid to say, are you capable of doing so, because you simply won't read any of the source material. You're just shouting into the dark.

EuropIan
21st July 09, 06:49 PM
yes and no.
i study the language part (we call it modules) but not the whole middle eastern and islamic studies as a whole.

so i wont be doing bachelors or masters, but after some 4 to 6 years i am eligable to apply for the test of translator.
The test takes 6 hours and your knowledge of both dutch and arabic must be near to flawless.
After that you get sworn in like anyone with a job that includes sensitive information.
basically if i should yap about what i would hear during work they'll throw me in prison.

so am i a student?
meh..wouldnt want to call myself that as im actually working my ass off and learning a concrete skill, without having a nice fund or mommy or daddy to back me up.


should have studied when i was 18 like normal kids.

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6459/arroww.png

Virus
21st July 09, 09:27 PM
You could prove to your own satisfaction that God was capricious, but this would not constitute a proof of non-existence. You can bang your head against this argument as hard as you want. Christians who've thought about all this and still believe what they believe, believe in it for the same reason it 'feels right' for you to be a vegetarian, at essence.



Nice strawman but I've never said the problem of evil proves non-existence. And a personal choice about diet is completely different to claiming that you know how the universe started, that you know what happens when you die and that you know how the creator of the universe wants you to behave. Religion makes all these grand claims for itself and more so your attempt at equivocation fails.

socratic
21st July 09, 11:02 PM
'Original sin' is a catholic-only doctrine isn't it? Either way I'd debate whether crime is heriditary, and would most certainly suggest that punishing children and innocents through bad birth or natural disasters would most certainly be an act of evil on God's part. By any reasonable standards the Biblical God is in no way Love at all; if you approach a God, in-so-far as it is describe as omnipotent, existent and Good, then that concept is in itself by definition at odds with the world we live in. By the sounds of it a Christian weasels out of the Problem by not admitting God is any of these thing to a superlative degree, even if that's exactly how his religious practice treats the Entity; that or quietly ignores the apparent contradiction in his thinking and defaults to faith, the latter of which I'm guessing is most prominent.

If memory serves the Hallowing of Hell isn't considered entirely canonical to all sects of Christianity. That means, if you believe in Original Sin but not the Hallowing, that there are people who are being punished eternally simply because they were born at the wrong time. In fact, the existence of Hell itself begs the Problem of Evil like crazy: What kind of even remotely nice guy creates a system designed to punish you endlessly, without any hope of ever being rehabilitated?

The Problem of Evil doesn't necessarily prove God does not exist, but it indicates there is a systemic flaw in the definition of any supernatural entity which is absolutely Good, Omnipotent and Existant; it means certainly however that attempts to allege the existence of such an entity are unsound. You could certainly say "Sure, God is omnipotent, but he's also a horrifically terrible cunt" and you'd be fine. It really only stings anyone who thinks God = Good.

Ajamil
21st July 09, 11:54 PM
'Original sin' is a catholic-only doctrine isn't it?
Not really. While not entirely the same, my sect of Vaishnavism says it was our choice to come here - similar to original sin, though it isn't passed down from an original couple.


if you approach a God, in-so-far as it is describe as omnipotent, existent and Good, then that concept is in itself by definition at odds with the world we live in.
BG 4.11 As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā (http://vedabase.net/p/prtha).
The souls in the material realm are here because they want to go it alone. As much as we ignore Him, He will ignore us.


What kind of even remotely nice guy creates a system designed to punish you endlessly, without any hope of ever being rehabilitated?
Can't comment there because it's not in our philosophy. The closest I've come to juxtapose this with Vaishnava belief is this entire realm is Hell (where Krishna has turned His back to us, I've heard it put in christian sermons), and while not eternally sent here, it might as well be for those who never choose to leave.


The Problem of Evil doesn't necessarily prove God does not exist, but it indicates there is a systemic flaw in the definition of any supernatural entity which is absolutely Good, Omnipotent and Existant; it means certainly however that attempts to allege the existence of such an entity are unsound. You could certainly say "Sure, God is omnipotent, but he's also a horrifically terrible cunt" and you'd be fine. It really only stings anyone who thinks God = Good.

Yes, you could easily say that about Krishna. I'd say the mistake in the equation is Good = God. You are placing your own values on things, and your opinion is inconsequential outside of your own dealings.

Lebell
22nd July 09, 03:59 AM
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6459/arroww.png

yes but i get totally different adds, i got one that says: learn hebrew in the holy land and a second one that says: there are secret messages for you.

but i dont believe it though.