FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why hijab in Islam?





sevo1
Quote:
peace be upon you

The imposition of the veil to the rule of God and the secrets of great, and commendable virtues, and the goals and the interests of large, including:

First: Remember Width: Veil guard to save the legitimacy of the symptoms, and the payment of the reasons for suspicion and strife and corruption.

Second: purity of heart: a farewell to the purity of the veil hearts of the believers, men and women, and architecture piety, and to maximize privacy. And sincerity of God - the Almighty - {that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts}.

Third, good manners: the veil is to provide an advocate morals of chastity and modesty and shyness, jealousy, and the blocking of of pollution and depravity

Fourth, a sign of the chaste: the veil on the sign of the legitimacy of Silks chaste in their chastity and honor, and the distance from the impurity of suspicion and doubt: { (59) O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful }, and the apparent evidence of Salah Salah al-Batin,


Fifth: cutting ambitions and Discussion diabolical: the veil and prevention of social harm, diseases of the hearts of men and women, cut off further ambitions promiscuous, and keeps eyes treacherous, and pay the harm a man in his presentation, and harm women in the view, and male relative, and prevention of throwing chaste , and desecrated the suspicion and doubt, and other passing thoughts diabolical.

Sixth: Remember modesty: it is taken from life, there is no life without him, which create deposited God in the soul that he wanted - Almighty - honored, also cause the virtues, and pay in the faces of vices, one of the human characteristics, and qualities of instinct, and the creation of Islam, and modesty is a branch of people of faith, one of the qualities of Mahmoud endorsed by the Arabs and Islam and called for by the veil only effective way to save the modesty, and take off take off the veil of modesty.

Seventh: The veil prevents the wanton display and unveiling the influence of mixing and communities to the people of Islam.

Eighth: the veil immunity against adultery, pornography, so that the women of each vessel and clear.

IX: Women roughness, and the veil cover her, and that of piety, God said: (26) O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as adornment. But the clothing of righteousness - that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember. . Al-Araf (The Heights) } (custom / 26).

Ten: Remember jealousy

Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/1531-65-hijab-islam
Hello_World
Can you please explain seventh in other words I don't understand.

I'm not sure that chastity, modesty, shyness and jealousy are comendable virtues.

Why do women need to be so distanced from suspicion and doubt? What is it that people are suspecting and doubting about them?

What happens if a woman has no desire to be modest? What if they want to be loud and outrageous and obnoxious?

How will a veil prevent her getting jealous?

How does a veil protect a woman from pollution or depravity?
truespeed
Why don't men wear veils?
Ankhanu
truespeed wrote:
Why don't men wear veils?

While, I agree with Hello's questions, this one seems VERY important to me.
Hello_World
True, I agree. I wish I thought of it LOL.
adnantar
Why dont men wear viel:

In Quran, before, it is suggested for the women to wear/veil them, it is ordered for the men to keep their eyes lower in order to protect them from the FITNA(the wrong or illegal sexual relation with other woman). Ofcourse, first gaze of the eye is allowed. Shaytan/Iblees, who denied to bow before Adam, asked Allah to permit him to take human being into hell fire. So, this world is a place, not to waste/enjoy but also to keep ourselves protected from such FITNAAS. One who believes in one GOD(ALLAH) and therefore, protects his eyes. Because, from eyes, it goes to mind and from there heart. So, a polluted heart never enjoys the blessing of having the LIGHT of ALLAH/GOD, which make him/her satisfied in a way that by obeying the orders of his Almighty Lord ALLAH, does not make him/her any difficulty(provided, its done for the sake of ALLAH and not as custom).

Levels of Modesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5ORAqZIlA

Ofcourse, it depends upon the Taqwa/fearing of Allah's punishment, which make you believe to follow the commandments of Allah.

Peace to everybody!
adnantar
A complete discussion about it:

Veil for the men before it is required by men:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EH3zJy_Uq0

Peace to everybody!
Ankhanu
I dont have the bandwidth to watch Youtube videos, mind explaining the content?
The text you provided does not address why men should not be covered for modesty as women should be.
adnantar
Appreciate your reply. No problem, I have tried to put the contents Smile

The only event you would find in Quran, where Prophet Josef/Yousef was attacked, due to his denial to have illegal relation with his owner "Zulaikha". He was a prophet and due to Taqwah, Allah protected him from the wrong doing. Also, Yousuf was so beautiful, that the women even cut their fingers, while having a gaze at him Smile

Did you see that woman raped a man Smile
So, women have more control than man and as they are strong(physically), therefore, it is a protection for the women to save them from molesty/rape etc. in the society.

Ofcourse, Taqwa depends upon your believe and if you fear Allah, you would not have the desire to show your body to others except your wilfe(legal partner). And, also its worth mentioning, that without Haya(feeling shame, when your body is showed off to the public), Iman(believe) is not completed. Therefore, its like a body without spirit or you may say a dead body.

May Allah reward your soul with the blessings to feel it.

About Women: If you have a diamond, ofcourse, you would not keep it with you open, rather would keep it covered, so that nobody sees it. Ofcourse, this should not be forcefully imposed. "La Ikraha fid Deen", there is no compulsion in the religion. So, you need to understand the difference between what religion says and what people practice (as custom or as per Taqwa/believe).

Private/Sexual parts as punishment: When Adam and Eva first eat in heaven, due to Shataan/Evil mislead statements, the first punishment came, that their private/sexual parts got appeared and they started hiding them with the leaves. In heaven, if someone is successful, he/she would be sent as of the best age(young) and without any private/sexual parts, where he/she would always reside, enjoying/fulfiling his/her wishes without any delay. Food would be digested automatically without need to go to the toilet etc. Eva was made from the rip(near heart), so women is naturally an attraction and love for the men(provided one understands) Smile

Source: http://www.irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=402%3Ahijaab-for-women&catid=71%3Amost-common-questions-asked-by-non-muslim&Itemid=199

HIJAAB FOR WOMEN

Question:

Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?

Answer:

The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam.

1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust

The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:

1. Babylonian Civilization:

The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.

2. Greek Civilization:

Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.

3. Roman Civilization:

When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.

4. Egyptian Civilization:

The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.

5. Pre-Islamic Arabia:

Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.

2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status

Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.

Hijaab for men

People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah An Noor:

“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.”

[Al Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women.

The next verse of Surah An Noor, says:

“ And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons...”

[Al Qur’an 24:31]

3. Six criteria for Hijaab.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:

1. Extent:

The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrists. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’

All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.

2. The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.

3. The clothes worn should not be transparent or translucent such that one can see through them.

4. The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.

5. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

6. The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things

Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.

5. Hijaab prevents molestation

The reason why hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verse of Surah Al Ahzaab:

“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

[Al Qur’an 33:59]

The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.

6. Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands upto the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a miniskirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.

7. Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic Shari’ah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless and barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.

9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to an FBI report, in the year 1990, everyday on an average 1756 rapes were committed in USA alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrists. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

10. Implementation of Islamic Shari’ah will reduce the rate of rapes

Naturally as soon as Islamic Shari’ah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shari’ah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.
adnantar
If somebody is still missing the point, so again, here is some illustration:

Men do wear hijab...but differently than women. Hijab means modesty not veil.

Hijab applies to Muslim men as much as women. These requirements to cover differ from women, but the rationale for Hijab is to fortify modesty between the sexes.

Hijab is often associated with Muslim women – the full dress code for a Muslim woman. Some may find it surprising to know that Muslim men are also required to observe Hijab. The conditions of a man's Hijab differs from a woman's due to the biological, physiological and physical differences between the genders. Here is what the Muslim man's Hijab must entail.

The Basic Requirements of a Man's Hijab
Islam dictates that a Muslim man's basic Hijab is the covering of his body from belly-button to below the knee. Though this sounds like a rather sparse and loose definition of modesty, there are pertinent reasons as to this ruling. Men are required to work in Islam, unlike women, who are given the choice to earn their own income or not. Men are required to support their families financially regardless of their level of education or background.

With this ruling, it is inevitable that most of those who find employment as construction workers, farmers, or in other blue-collar jobs would be men. In some cases, these workers spend most of their time under the hot sun or in extremely dry weather. This provision, the covering of the abdomen to the knee, is the basic requirement that they should observe – this serves as Hijab between themselves.
adnantar
sorry, forgot to give source as reference of my last post:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109194030AAXmCNZ
Hello_World
You have made a long post I will not cover all the points you make. I would like to discuss a couple.

I would like to start by acknowledging that Islam is not the only society in which there is differences in status of women/men. And that early Islam may indeed have raised the status of women from the extreme lows of that era.

However, I think that 1400 years later, the status of women in Islam is not sufficient.

Or, more to the point really, the status of women is such that it denies women freedom.

I would like briefly to mention that number 7. Capital punishment... is not really a criticism of Islam. Some Western countries, notably USA, still have capital punishment. Although I oppose capital punishment, I do not think of it as a particularly Islamic problem. Sometimes the method of death however, is such that it is worse in Islamic countries.

Number 8. I do not think that Western society has entirely rid itself of inequalty and the claims you raise here have some validity. However, it is much better because women have the ability to choose in what manner they wish to live their lives, some women may get caught up in the false glamour of a sexy image, some women may be mistresses and prostitutes, however, other women choose other paths, some women work hard in charity, have powerful jobs, raise children, live modestly or all sorts of other choices, and everything in between.
The key is the freedom to choose how they wish to live. That freedom is not present in most Islamic countries or in what seems like your ideal.

6. wow your words here are offensive really although I can see you don't realise it. If only you knew the uproar that happened here in Australia when an Islamic Imam said a similar thing (only more crudely put). A woman DOES NOT invite teasing or molestation by the way she dresses. if molestation is to happen there is ONE person responsible and that is the person doing the molestation. Any person should be able, IS able, to control their own actions and not do violence to another. NO MATTER how other people dress.
Why do you put blame on the VICTIM when CLEARLY the hooligan or ruffian is at fault???

Quote:
The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law.


It is the women who have to hide behind a veil. Men can wear practical clothing.

The 'hijab' is a symbolic thing, women who wear the hijab can participate in ordinary activities most of the time. But sybmolically it is only the women who have to cover, because symbolically they have a difference in status to men.

Most people don't really have a problem with a hijab. People DO have a problem with a burqa or any face-covering attire. This is not a symbolic but a physical disability. These women are like ghosts, unable to participate in society.

Anyway, as so often happens, my time is cut short and I haven't thought of a good concluding statement...
sevo1
adnantar

gazak allah khiran



Some clarification
Veil
Prevents bad ideas

Hijab is an obligation and a necessity for every Muslim woman
In order to protect them from any harm or assault
Veiled women that encourages you to respect them
Women dressed in scandalous
Encourage you to consider it rudely
And access to
The assault
For perverts
And the number in the many communities rave

Regardless of the laws


yes
The man also
Must be inside
Honor, integrity
And high morals
But
Women are the other half to the man
For adornment and should not be blatant
Her clothes and entice men gross
Because the man
Humans is in the first place
He has feelings and sensations
We can not deny.
Western society
Full of adultery, betrayal, sexual harassment and illegitimate children and family disintegration

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

In ignorance
Hijab for women with high-Shan
Housemaid did not wear veil to signify that a simple


Holy Qur'an and the Hadith
Constitution and the methodology for life
Of the application and implementation
At home benefit in this life and the afterlife
Muslim does not go on the fancies
But
The commands of God in the first place
God says in the Holy Qur'an
(59) O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful

إن نساء العجم يكشفن صدورهن ورءوسهن قال أصرف بصرك عنهن )) رواه الإمام البخاري


Unfortunately

In America
Cases of rape
Of a woman or girl
Every 6 minutes


The punishment for rape in Islam: For the rapist punishment for adultery, which is stoning if he was married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married.
The fact that the rapist was punishment for adultery, that's what you do not rape threat - weapons, it was at gunpoint, it would be a warrior, and applies the limit mentioned in the verse: ((33) Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment) Round / 33.
He chooses the ruling of the sanctions of the four mentioned in the verse as it deems appropriate, and the interest of achieving a common security and safety in the community, the assailants reportedly corrupt.

-Woman does not have any punishment
Condition
Forensic doctor
Punishment for men only

-Rape is taking something by force and injustice, and is now used exclusively to refer to symptoms of abuse of women by force.
Ugly, a crime forbidden in all religions and is at all wise people and owners of the normal mushrooms, and all regulations and laws of this land the laborers, and signed by the most severe penalties, with the exception of some countries that raise the punishment for a rapist if he marries his victim! It demonstrates the reversal of instinct and dementia, as well as the lack of religion or lack thereof when those who Dedua God says in the legislation, we do not know any affection and mercy will be between the executioner and his victim, especially since the pain of rape does not remove days and also just time - as they say - and so I tried many of the suicide and was raped a number of what many of them to Jordan, has proven the failure of these marriages, but not accompanied by humiliation and degradation of women
adnantar
Jazak Allah u bi Khair! (May Allah reward you with the best in return)

Respect to your views, but some points were broken(perhaps formatting) or my English comprehension has weakon, as living in a non-english country Smile

The creation of the (system of) "Death" and "Life" is to testify, who does good deeds. (Surah Mulk: Verse 2)

Peace to Everybody!
sevo1
I had the honor to meet you
adnantar
Salam to you as well.

MashaAllah, people in this forum are rather far better learned and with arguments.

This brain took human being even to other planets. With all the possible information at hand, today atleast (with some exception Smile few people could deny, that he/she was not delivered with the message from Allah.(One-ness of Allah and that Adam till Muhammad(as last prophet) were as prophets, in different ages with different books, according to their needs and ages at that time.

This thing is apparent from this whole universe.

Was-Salam(peace to everybody).
AsadAnsari
truespeed wrote:
Why don't men wear veils?


Its Good For You.. if You Like Too..
Because Bisexual or gay-ism is your society problem.. You can wear if you feel insecure. we don't..
We don't have Male with Male sex requirement..

Gay-ism is never allowed in Humanity / Islam so don't get scared of veils if Islam is surrounding you..
its to protect your women not men .. they just have to lower their eyes if they see other women in markets or anyplace to those women who are not in their family.. and have to respect them.

Ok?
AsadAnsari
Hello_World wrote:
True, I agree. I wish I thought of it LOL.

truespeed wrote:
Why don't men wear veils?

Ankhanu wrote:
I dont have the bandwidth to watch Youtube videos, mind explaining the content?
The text you provided does not address why men should not be covered for modesty as women should be.


I have Answered that above..

Now answer me

Why men wears so many dress like 3piece or 4 piece in Public Occasionaly or even generally in public even they are not or never target of sexual harassment ? exept Vandam's IN THE HELL .. Dont Know about you ppl if anyone ever had any such bad experience...

Why men in west cover there whole body when they don't have sexual attraction to men ?
(bisexual or gays are mentally disorder so I don't count them in Human's Society or in this topic or question)

Why Men's Fashion is Not getting that much advance as much Women's and not shorting the wearing in this decade or previous, neither in Christianity or in Islam .., why only nudity is making women's Free with Freedom. ?

..
AsadAnsari
Hi Adantar And Sevo1..

Thanx for starting a good topic here..
truespeed
AsadAnsari it is clear you are not who you say you are,it is clear you are not muslim,your just here to make provocative statements and create anti islamic reactions,i am sure there will be some that bite but i won't be one of them.
AsadAnsari
truespeed wrote:
AsadAnsari it is clear you are not who you say you are,it is clear you are not muslim,your just here to make provocative statements and create anti islamic reactions,i am sure there will be some that bite but i won't be one of them.



Lolzzz


I am a Muslim and I am I will be a true one .. Just Like to shut some mouths..
You Know what ? Here in Pakistan .. Mostly People are very religious but they don't know much about it ..
but if they ever hear anyone saying anything bad about Islam or any Prophet they will surely kill him ..
But I Think I am not that much but i have few germs of that.

we have only two major matters on what we show aggressiveness ..
1st: when someone irritate our women ..
2nd: When we have to Fight for Islam..

As for our society women .. she likes to be in veil / scarf / Naqab . so why You people or your Gov have problem in that ?
Why you propagate that Islam is Narrow minded .. why don't you consider the reason Islam gives you for the restrictions it gives for his followers or the state where there is Islamic Society or community lives... Why your soldiers come to our land ? to free our women so the media could show them half nude with naked legs and least coverd body? To shave our beard ?

Tell Us ..

to start Your thousand of Nude channels ?
truespeed
AsadAnsari wrote:
.
but if they ever hear anyone saying anything bad about Islam or any Prophet they will surely kill him ..


Only a troll would say something like that. Most Muslims would preach Islam as a religion of peace not threaten death upon anyone with a different opinion.
tingkagol
AsadAnsari wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Why don't men wear veils?

Its Good For You.. if You Like Too..
Because Bisexual or gay-ism is your society problem.. You can wear if you feel insecure. we don't..
We don't have Male with Male sex requirement..

Okay, let me get this straight. Are you saying the whole purpose of covering your body, regardless if you're male or female, is to prevent anyone who sees you from feeling any sexual urges towards you?

Another question: If a woman walks in the streets of Pakistan completely naked, is it guaranteed that she's going to get raped? (If you answer 'yes', then that says a lot about how civilized your country is)

AsadAnsari wrote:
Why your soldiers come to our land ? to free our women so the media could show them half nude with naked legs and least coverd body? To shave our beard ?

Ah... classic American hate. You're quite the presumptuous type, aren't you? Why assume you're talking to Americans here?

truespeed wrote:
AsadAnsari wrote:
but if they ever hear anyone saying anything bad about Islam or any Prophet they will surely kill him ..

Only a troll would say something like that. Most Muslims would preach Islam as a religion of peace not threaten death upon anyone with a different opinion.

I think he meant he's not one of those people, though he admits he still has some of their 'germs' left:
AsadAnsari wrote:
But I Think I am not that much but i have few germs of that.


(I've no problem feeding trolls since I'm bored as hell anyway) Smile
adnantar
Salam to everyone,

ISALAM is derived from SALAM=Peace.
This was the religion of Prophet Adam, Noah,

Abraham
-->Ishaq,Yaqoob,Yousuf...Moses...Jesus/Isa
-->Ismael..................................................Muhammd(saw)

All the prophet preached one-ness of Allah(though, which you could easily imagine, by looking at this huge universe(which is expanding).

Its also not logical that Allah(God) would like more religions, but its people, who benefited, by changing the message of Allah(God) for worldly benefits.

Big Bang:

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/works/28889/A_journey_in_the_world_of_miracles

Allah reveals in Surah(Capital)-Noor(Light) HIMSELF as light. --> "Allahu Noor-us-Samaa Waat-u Wal-Aardh"(Allah is the light of this universe).

We should not follow any Mullah/Moulvi of any particular country, but the last messanger, Prophet (PBUH), who even allowed christians to stay in the Masjid(Mosque) to stay&pray. Also, Prophet(PBUH) sent the first group of muslims to take refuge in a christian country, who protected them.

ISLAM makes you free from the boundries of countries, color, race, prejudices etc. and let you believe in ONE ALLAH(GOD) and to do good deeds, by helping others, to get heaven InshaAllah.

So, good and bad people are in every society, but our effort should be to be on the side of the successful people on the day of judgement InshaAllah.


Peace to everybody
catscratches
adnantar wrote:
ISALAM is derived from SALAM=Peace.
I thought Indi already went over this with you? Not that it seems like you're at all interested in listening or having a discussion, mind.
AsadAnsari
catscratches wrote:
adnantar wrote:
ISALAM is derived from SALAM=Peace.
I thought Indi already went over this with you? Not that it seems like you're at all interested in listening or having a discussion, mind.


Well Indi Is a arguer like the Bkman who just tries to search those perspective views of Muslims those could malke a picture of Islam like its like a Myth or a Black hole.
What ever anyone answer them, they will bring it again in different words instead of getting that message..

Islam was that good news which bring the women in Arab and Asia out of hell where they were Before Prophet Muhammad [P.B.U.H] came..
Islam was that good news People of Arab and surrounding were waiting to hear after Christ ..
Islam Was that Good new .. for this news a women traveled form Hindustan to Arab so she could tell the how worst scenario being going on that time in Hind, the Satti was the culture of Hind. where women had to die and get burned if her man dies..

Islam was the Good news which was brought by a 17 year old Salar Qasim and crushed the Temples of Dark culture.

And you say that Islam is not Peace even we are bearing what is going on with us after the 9/11 ?
Let us come out of this cruel American and Jews media war Attack .. then we will asure You how you will find the peace in Islam .
tingkagol
AsadAnsari wrote:
Islam Was that Good new .. for this news a women traveled form Hindustan to Arab so she could tell the how worst scenario being going on that time in Hind, the Satti was the culture of Hind. where women had to die and get burned if her man dies..

I guess it's an upgrade then...

Quote:
4:15 "As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them."

Quote:
4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."
catscratches
@AsadAnsari:
That's really irrelevant. If you want to argue that Islam IS peaceful, then you'll have to argue with what it IS, not what it WAS.

Perhaps Islam was preferable to certain other alternatives at the time, but it doesn't matter now. I would say ancient Greece democracy was a huge step forward and preferable to alternatives at the time, but in a modern context it is plain barbaric with slaves and women unable to vote (or well... the very fact they had slaves to begin with).

You know, implied anti-semitism is hardly the way to win me over.
adnantar
@AsadAnsari:
I am a new bie for this forum. Your last comments are very reasonable!

Was-Salam,
Ankhanu
So, what it boils down to is: women are forced to cover up because men can't control themselves.

Seems like a bit of a bandaid solution to a deep problem with men. Seems to me that it would be far more sensible to fix men than punish women for mens' crimes.
Bikerman
Quote:
Bisexual or gay-ism is your society problem
It is almost laughable, until you realise that the dude really believes it...So what you are saying is that in Muslim societies, where the death penalty is available to punish homosexuals, you don't see a lot of openly Gay people?
Fancy that? Quelle suprise....
The idea that Muslim countries have less homosexuality is, of course, a myth. What they have is less noticable homosexuality and a lot of repressed, bullied gay people. It's not much different to what went on in more civilised countries not that many decades ago, but it has more of an 'impact' - as in the 18 Nigerian men were arrested after taking part in Gay Marriages. They were, of course, stoned to death, by the local representatives of the religion of peace - so we can't count them now.....
sevo1
AsadAnsari

.Thank you
To illustrate the great truth of Islam

Study of Islam is different already heard from the media
Feel that there is someone fool you
And wants to walk away from the truth

allah says in the Holy Qur'an

157. Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e.Muhammad ) whom they find written with them in the Taurat (Torah) (Deut, xviii, 15) and the Injeel (Gospel) (John xiv, 16) , - he commands them for Al-Ma'ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained); and forbids them from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); he allows them as lawful At-Taiyibat [(i.e. all good and lawful) as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods, etc.], and prohibits them as unlawful Al-Khaba'ith (i.e. all evil and unlawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods, etc.), he releases them from their heavy burdens (of Allah's Covenant), and from the fetters (bindings) that were upon them. So those who believe in him (Muhammad ), honour him, help him, and follow the light (the Qur'an) which has been sent down with him, it is they who will be successful .
adnantar
In Islam, you dont need any religious Father/God Father etc. to pray before Allah(GOD).

Every person is equal before Allah, no matter, what race, color, language, country, one belongs.
The only difference before Allah is Taqwa(God fearing), which only Allah can better judge.

The killing of an innocent people is like killing the whole humanity and saving one is as saving the whole humanity.

The so called civilized nations are a source of selling/bringing weapons/wars to the 3WCs(3rd world countries Smile

The amount of money spent in Football or some other famous event could be served to eliminate poverty in Africa etc. When, these countries are helped to eliminate poverty, then, less danger of migration and problems. But, how could then they sell weapons and other industry. Ofcourse, one would say, that the amount would be wasted in corruption. But, to eliminate corruption, you need first to educate people, so that they recognize their rights. This comes with time.

Why this is suited for western countries to have Monarchy/Dictators in the islamic countries?

If you give people, their rights to chose and we may hope to have a betterment in the society/tomorrow. An example: Egypt!

Peace to everybody.
Bikerman
I don't disagree with anything there, but I think you need to put more responsibility on the people of the countries concerned.
I am the last person to argue that the Western interference in many of those countries has been anything other than disastrous, which is why relying on the West to change dictatorships and monarchies would be a bad idea. It has to come from within the population itself.
sevo1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UdJtJx4SrA
adnantar
@Bikerman: Thanks and I too agree that the change should be come from within. But, because of the interest (black gold), it is not possible to have the will of people realized soon. That's why, I quoted, Egypt as a good example.

People in the West are themselves as nice as in any other part of the world. You have good and bad people everywhere. But, the people who rule and make decisions, play an important role. Like, in Uk, there is a democracy, still, we found Mr. Blair, led to a war with Mr. Bush(US) in Iraq.

Ofcourse, people then watched, how many innocent people died in this war and the treatement of prisoners in the jail(Abu Ghuraib) etc. People around the world then argue, that this is the behavior of civilized people, then what you expect from those, who are hungry and illetrate(worst).

Sorry, I went a bit towards politics. But, you have to admit the fact that the perception in the islamic world is that western countries, after world war II, where millions of people died and had nothing to do with muslims, but became a source of occupying palestine. If you give right to the people of palestine, believe me, the perception would be changed. I know, the people in western countries are rather far aware and sympathetic towards palestinians.

We all are first human being(offspring of Adam(PBUH)) and then something else.

Peace to WEST and Others, as this universe and everything in it belongs to ALLAH!
Bikerman
Hey Dude - I was one of the million people who matched against the Iraq War, and because of that war I have effectively lost my voting franchise. I cannot, morally, vote for my natural party - the Labour Party - until everyone who voted for the war is no longer in the cabinet or shadow cabinet. I cannot vote for the Tory party because they are Tories, and I cannot vote for my second normal choice - the Social Democrat/Liberals because they lied their way into a coalition government with the Tories. I may have to vote for the Monster Raving Loony party at the next election....

I have spent countless amounts of my time speaking, shouting, marching, posting, writing and screaming against both Gulf Wars, the 'war' in Afghanistan and the threat of war on Iran.
Not only are you preaching to the converted, you are preaching to the preacher.

On Islam, nope - I cannot agree there. I have also spent countless amounts of my time talking to Muslims about Salman Rushdie and Jyylands Posten. I saw at first hand huge numbers of BRITISH Muslims screaming for both to be murdered. I saw supposed leaders of state offering their own money to commission the murder of a British citizen. I heard people I had previously thought to be good and civilised justifying the murder of a man who did nothing more than WRITE A BLOODY BOOK - the fact that I also think he is a fantastic author is not important - my reaction would be the same, even if it was a right wing idiot doing the writing.

I'm afraid that Muslims have lost any support or trust that I previously extended to them and until I see a significant change in this barbarous and profoundly dangerous attitude then I will speak out against Islam wherever I see it raise its intolerant head.
And please don't tell me it was just a small bunch of fanatics because we both know that is untrue. I talked to scores of Muslims here and EVERY ONE OF THEM defended the Fatois. That strikes at MY most 'sacred' belief - freedom of expression - and no compromise is either possible or wanted.
adnantar
If someone does good, the reward is naturally be given by Allah and not by any other person.

The important thing is always to try to please ONE. Then, you dont have a problem, whether your argument is heard or not.

An Example:

There was a very famous scholar, who used to give speeches and people used to visit him even from other cities. Once, a person got late and arrived, when the scholar was finished. So, the person requested to repeat the lecture. This is the time, when UK ruled indo-pak sub-continent. So, the followers of the scholar resisted his arguments that it took 1 hour for his lecture. But, the scholar stopped them and delivered his lecture of 1 hour again.

The followers later asked him, why you repeated your lecture for just a single person, whereas before, around 1 million people heard you.

The scholar smiled and said, before I gave the lecture for one(ALLAH) and now again for one(ALLAH).


May Allah give us the light to follow HIS religion i.e. ISLAM.

Peace to all.
Bikerman
I don't really see how that story is relevant....I must be missing something...
adnantar
Quote:

I have spent countless amounts of my time speaking, shouting, marching, posting, writing and screaming against both Gulf Wars, the 'war' in Afghanistan and the threat of war on Iran.
Not only are you preaching to the converted, you are preaching to the preacher.


Quote:

If someone does good, the reward is naturally be given by Allah and not by any other person.


If you have done good things, naturally, the reward could only be given by Allah. As the system of reward/punish could only be done by Allah, especially in cases, where it is difficult or impossible.

An Example:

For example, which court could give justice to jews killed in world war II ?
You might think of hanging a person, but that would be the justice for 1 person or?

Whereas, Allah would punish by giving that person life again and again till the justice is done.

Most of the people heard stories from media and believe it. What about drone attacks ? Thousands of innocent women and children die for few wanted persons. But, this would never be highlighted and the way it would be told as the target was achieved Smile

There is always one LAW in the world: Might is right Smile

Also, there is a difference between a Muslim and Moemin. A person without driving licence, has an accident with Ferrari or Porsche. But, you would not then stop buying Ferrari or Porsche, but you would blame only the person, who did not know how to drive.

Change would come with the education and eliminating poverty around the world. For this, western countries would be required to stop the double standards. Solution for a Palestinian state. Solution to the problems in other parts of the world like Kashmir(India), Chechnia(Russia). Poverty problems in Africa, Asia etc.


Peace to everybody.
Bikerman
And you don't see any problem with that ? Amazing....
According to your beliefs Allah is IN CHARGE NOW. Allah is the one one whose watch all this is happening.

I agree that education is important - hell, I AM a teacher after all - but I would also abolish theocracy as an acceptable form of government because that is even more critical IMHO. Theocratic states are ALWAYS backward and poor. I'm afraid that this would mean an end to Islamism as quickly as I could push it through and a completely secular and civilian representative democracy in all countries. If I could I would use foreign aid and trade to push this agenda quite hard. Obviously many Muslims would object because the goal of Islam is not just Islam as a world religion, but Islam as a world governing system. I think the sooner Muslims realise that this would be disastrous the better for everyone - but in any case it is not going to happen, so Muslims need to get used to the idea, just as Christians have had to accept their loss of power and influence in the west - a major reason for the more rapid social and economic progress we see here.
adnantar
Quote:

I'm afraid that this would mean an end to Islamism as quickly as I could push it through and a completely secular and civilian representative democracy in all countries. If I could I would use foreign aid and trade to push this agenda quite hard.


I hope you are just kidding, otherwise this would be another/new colonial era Smile
There are more practicing muslims in UK/Canada/US (West) than in other countries. Why? because, here, they improved their learning about Islam without any pressure from the society. In muslim countries, in some cases, people follow customs and are not literate/aware about the difference between religion and custom.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the west. Because, people here are learned and therefore, it is easy for them to learn about Islam. Though, this is only religion of Allah from Prophet Adam till Prophet Muhammad(Peace to all of them). Islam provides the system, in which representatives who govern people, are selected(as per Democracy).

Unfortunately, people misunderstand it, as currently, monarchy or dictators are ruling at the moment.

I am not a teacher but a student and open to learn anytime from anybody, even, if he/she is a child.

Peace to all.
Bikerman
adnantar wrote:
I hope you are just kidding, otherwise this would be another/new colonial era Smile
There are more practicing muslims in UK/Canada/US (West) than in other countries. Why? because, here, they improved their learning about Islam without any pressure from the society. In muslim countries, in some cases, people follow customs and are not literate/aware about the difference between religion and custom.
No I was not kidding and it is ridiculous to say that this would lead to colonialism. People should be free to believe whatever they like, but government should be for ALL citizens, not just for and by one particular religion.
Quote:
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the west. Because, people here are learned and therefore, it is easy for them to learn about Islam. Though, this is only religion of Allah from Prophet Adam till Prophet Muhammad(Peace to all of them). Islam provides the system, in which representatives who govern people, are selected(as per Democracy).
Democracy means that EVERY citizen of a country gets to choose - not just Muslims. The fastest growing 'belief system' is the lack of belief - atheism.
The claim that Islam is the 'fastest growing religion' is dubious and in any case depends on how you define the term 'growing'.*
Quote:
Unfortunately, people misunderstand it, as currently, monarchy or dictators are ruling at the moment.
Straw-man argument - I said representative democracy, not monarchy or dictatorship.
Quote:
I am not a teacher but a student and open to learn anytime from anybody, even, if he/she is a child.
Untrue. Since you are already committed to Islam then you are clearly NOT open to learn anything, unless it is within the framework of that existing belief.

* I did a little more research on this. Good data is hard to come by and the best available data seems to be the Pew Forum research. This indicates that the number of people converting to Islam is about the same as the number leaving.
http://www.pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-related-factors-conversion.aspx
http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/
adnantar
Perhaps, I belong to the part of the world, which has been a colony. Still, people unofficially say, we belong now to the new colonial power like US. However, these days, ony the countries with "black gold" or minerals(resources) are going to be occupied or being controlled by a dictator/kingdom, which are accepted by the west. I wrote you already, there has always been a single law in the world: Might is right

You may still dream or wish to be living with this "secular" system.

Also, I dont think, you have a say in the policies of the parties you select(I wish you find a party soon Smile Because, this is a bi-product of imperialism/capitalism (being controlled by the think tank serving the jewish state).

How many muslims have being killed by the coallition especially US and UK since 2001 like in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world using drones etc.
Inspite of the all the protests from within west, do you feel, you have any say in this so called imperialist/capitalist societies?

Islam is the most secular(per Oxford definition) religion.

I know, it would be difficult for you to believe. There, please watch full version(also the Q/A session, so as to have yourself cleared for many misconceptions about Islam)

Islam and Secularism(by Dr. Zakir Naik, a student of comparison studies):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGMeCy8MaoY


Peace to everybody
truespeed
adnantar wrote:


How many muslims have being killed by the coallition especially US and UK since 2001 like in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world using drones etc.



There is a war in Afghanistan,also there was a war (In hindsight one which should not of been waged) in Iraq,in wars people get killed,if it is a Muslim country then the chances are that muslims are more likely to be killed than non muslims,but i am sure there were many non muslims killed also,it wasn't a war against muslims.
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
Islam is the most secular(per Oxford definition) religion.


You're just lying. The reason why you're lying is that you said "per Oxford definition" which implies that you looked up the Oxford definition of "secular." If you actually had, you would have noticed that the word secular means "Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis". Giving the actual definition of secular, then it should be obvious that it is impossible for any religion to be secular (let alone more secular than another religion) when the actual definition is that it is separate from religion. How can religion be separate from religion?

The idea, perhaps, that Islam countries are the most secular countries is possible but laughable and not true. An Islam country could not be more secular than a country with no official religion by definition. And even, for arguments sake, if you're comparing it to a country such as the U.S. which is practically a Christian country, then you still cannot make that argument when every Muslim country that I know of is oppressive and has no idea of secularism in any sort of law. Sure the U.S. has Christian based laws, but countries such as Saudi Arabia have actual religious police walking around arresting people for drinking and giving out death penalties to homosexuals (i.e. MURDER) and countries like Iran actually have religious police going around arresting people for listening to western music or arresting people for not having an approved haircut (I proudly have hair that doesn't meet that criteria):



http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-06/news/27069212_1_mullet-conservative-clerics-hairstyles

Quote:

I know, it would be difficult for you to believe. There, please watch full version(also the Q/A session, so as to have yourself cleared for many misconceptions about Islam)

Islam and Secularism(by Dr. Zakir Naik, a student of comparison studies):



Zakir Naik is a complete joke. Nobody with any measurable amount of intelligence takes him seriously. Nobody here will take you seriously if you quote or suggest any of the following people:

Zakir Naik
Kent Hovind
Ken Ham
Ray Comfort
Other people can add more...
adnantar
Christianity is not followed and just celebrated as a culture/holiday on easter/christmas.
Whereas, a muslim dont require father/pop etc and may pray to Allah(provided, its a clean place).

The connection is per WLAN (high speed) possible and without cable Salat Smile
Its simple and most importantly, one enjoys it in heart, the sweatness of the Sakeena(calmness and blessing) in heart as well as the Noor(light) in it.
Taqwa? Watch yourself and please note the translation in English is available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqFWr6h4qc

Growth of Islam and World Religions
http://www.30-days.net/muslims/statistics/islam-growth/

May Allah guide us all to follow the right path, so as to enter into the paradise and to save us from the tornaments of hell fire.
truespeed
adnantar wrote:
Christianity is not followed and just celebrated as a culture/holiday on easter/christmas.
Whereas, a muslim dont require father/pop etc and may pray to Allah(provided, its a clean place).

The connection is per WLAN (high speed) possible and without cable Salat Smile
Its simple and most importantly, one enjoys it in heart, the sweatness of the Sakeena(calmness and blessing) in heart as well as the Noor(light) in it.
Taqwa? Watch yourself and please note the translation in English is available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqFWr6h4qc

Growth of Islam and World Religions
http://www.30-days.net/muslims/statistics/islam-growth/

May Allah guide us all to follow the right path, so as to enter into the paradise and to save us from the tornaments of hell fire.


Your just preaching,your not engaging in conversation with the people replying to your posts.

Can i also just add,looking at your link,79% of religious people in the world aren't Muslim,statistics can be twisted anyway you want.

Major Religions of the World

Quote:
Christian – 2,038,905,000 – 32% (dropping)
Roman Catholics – 1,076,951,000
Protestants – 349,792,000
Orthodox – 217,522,000
Anglicans – 81,663,000
Other – 537,135,000
Muslims – 1,226,403,000 – 21% (growing)
Hindus – 828,130,000 – 13% (stable)
Chinese folk religionists – 389,543,000 – 6%
Buddhists – 364,014,000 – 6% (stable)
Sikhs – 23,821,000 – < 1%
Jews – 14,535,000 – < 1%


Shouldn't the above add up to 100%?

Not that it matters,you linked to a Muslim propaganda website,it will only highlight the positives of Islam and like you will ignore the many negatives.
adnantar
Definition of secular:
Source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular?q=secularism#secular__12
not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

Please watch Dr. Zakir Naik per my given link. If you disagree to someone, does not mean that he is banned to be referenced on this forum, though you believe in Secularism Smile

I already accepted that I am a student(not a teacher) and just shared my opinion about Islam. You have every right please to disagree, but not to ban giving some references, just as if you disagree with someone.

Peace to everybody
adnantar
Quote:
I proudly have hair that doesn't meet that criteria
Smile
BTW, prophet Muhammad(PBUH) too had long hair.

The reason to refer Dr. Zakir Naik, he is a muslim, living in India(a secular country).

I already gave the example of Porsche or Ferrari. So, if the driver makes a mistake or cannot drive, you dont leave buying the precious auto.

I write here for ONE (please check my earlier post about this ONE).

Allah has blessed us with mind and heart. The real blessing is if someone could share/help others, which is the reason of this death and life system(Quran: Surah Mulk, verse 2).

So, I dont want to indulge in any competition with the teacher(s) Smile, but to bring everybody to a common term, which is oneness of ALLAH, our creator(even if someone denies in ignorance).
Also, if someone enjoys Sakeenah(joyness of heart) from ALLAH, then its a blessing from Allah. But, this comes only, if someone remembers HIM.

[url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zteu56sFL4k&feature=related
[/url]


Peace to everybody!
Hello_World
Quote:
Bisexual or gay-ism is your society problem


Bisexual or gay-ism is not much of a problem here. In most areas, gay people are quite safe to be open about who they are. They still can't get married but that will come.

Bisexual or gay-ism is a HUGE problem in most of the Islamic countries, they are harrassed and beaten and even murdered within the law. Gay-ism (as you put it) is a WAY bigger problem for Islamic countries than it is for us.

My heart honestly goes out to all gay people who are born in Muslim countries. They have a long and hard journey.

Secular - in common usage it is usually refering to a secular political order. Religion should not interfere with politics or law.

The opposite of secular is an Islamic country which has Sharia Law. Or Rome.


Quote:
We all are first human being(offspring of Adam(PBUH)) and then something else.


I agree. Muslims, Christians, athiests, Buddhists.... and... men and women, gay, straight, lesbian... all equal, all human first. Equality and respect to all.
Bikerman
Nakir is a joke - as has already been pointed out by Afaceinthematrix.

I HAVE watched his videos - I even got so annoyed by his bullshit that I prepared a response to one of them. This was made a while ago when he was busy defending the attempts to murder cartoonists - he hasn't changed and his hypocritical cant is quite sickening. What a fantastic advert for the 'religion of peace' - a man who defends killing anyone who converts and anyone who criticises his beloved prophet.



EDIT - I've replaced the soundtrack with something of my own, so it should now be legal in all countries. If it is still blocked anywhere it will be because the cowardly 'Dr' has complained to youtube - in which case please let me know and I'll get it mirrored where he can't block it.
Bikerman
adnantar
Quote:
this video is not available in ......


so dr. Zakir is another muslim terrorist who has scared lot of people here.

Ok i leaarned about secular.

Peace to every body secul + relig.
Bikerman
a) I didn't say he was a terrorist - he is an apologist for acts of terror which is pretty much as bad.
b) He certainly bloody does NOT scare me - he disgusts me.
c) The video is restricted in some countries because of the soundtrack - I'll knock up a version without that soundtrack and post it ASAP.
d) I wish it were true but unfortunately I DON'T think you are learning much about secularism.
adnantar
Freedom of speech should accompany responsibility, per your secular definition(where people with different believes may live in peace and harmony).

BTW, you have laws against anti-semitic in West, why?

I certainly did not hear any word "bloody" from the student's debate, another secular example.

Certainly, I would respect and support the people, who would like to see peace in the world, instead of running for wishes of some particular "Think tanks".

Peace to all.
Bikerman
adnantar wrote:
Freedom of speech should accompany responsibility, per your secular definition(where people with different believes may live in peace and harmony).
That is NOT a condition. There IS no condition - otherwise it ISN'T free speech. Of course I prefer to see people act reasonably, but I consider writing a book or drawing a cartoon to be perfectly reasonable. It isn't the secularists who are being unreasonable. It is the murderous hysterical Muslims - and yes, they DID murder at least 2 people, including a translator working for Salman Rushdie.
If you think that is acceptable then you are quite simply wrong - it isn't up for debate and it isn't a matter of opinion - just WRONG. One cannot live in 'peace and harmony' with people who threaten to kill you if you upset their superstitions.
Quote:
BTW, you have laws against anti-Semitism in West, why?
No we don't. Germany does, and I think France and Switzerland have explicit laws, but we do not and most other countries do not. Some countries have anti-racism laws but they are not specific to anti-Semitism. I am against any such legislation but I can see why people might think it a good idea - anti-Semitism has a long and sordid history - and be clear that I am NOT talking about anti-Zionists - in which number I include myself. I am talking about hatred of Jews for being Jewish, and the small matter of 6 million Jewish people murdered. I'm not talking about hatred of Israelis for the crimes of that particular state.
(Israel is on my list of theocracies, since the state discriminates based on religion, and I am happy to condemn that, and much more besides. Israel has some sort of rationale for its atrocities at least - however imoral and basically wrong they are. It may be self-serving and ultimately wicked, but I don't think Mossad would come after you for drawing a cartoon of Abraham, which is what I am talking about).
Besides, you are seeking to switch the point and I'm not going to switch. 2 wrongs do not make a right and Muslims are wrong here, and it makes any claim to be a religion of 'peace' absolutely absurd.
I notice that you haven't condemned these zealots for their actions. Do you support the notion that people should be murdered for expressing themselves? Or are you prepared to say that Muslims who behave in that manner are WRONG? Simple question....should be easy for a 'man of peace'....Yes or no?
Quote:
I certainly did not hear any word "bloody" from the student's debate, another secular example.
Aww, did I offend your sensibilities? 'Bloody' is used in England quite routinely as an expression of exasperation or annoyance. It is an extremely mind expletive, for which I make no apology. If it offends you then I'm afraid that is tough.
Quote:
Certainly, I would respect and support the people, who would like to see peace in the world, instead of running for wishes of some particular "Think tanks".
What have 'think tanks' got to do with it? Nakir defends KILLING people for no other reason than they don't wish to be a Muslim any more.
He is scum.
deanhills
Bikerman, I don’t think your video has given credit to Muslims in Western countries who are working towards peaceful solutions. Nor Muslims in the Middle East who are living peaceful lives and are actively contributing to global peace. You've focused only on people who are trouble makers and are obviously not for peace.

I agree with adnantar that with freedom of speech there comes some responsibility. Sort of does not make it that free for me when you are dictating the terms of free speech.

As for your fighting for my right to follow any religion I choose. That’s not true. There are more than enough discussions in this Forum to prove that you or on a mission to save the world from religion. So how bogus is it to say that you are fighting for my right to choose what religion I want to follow when you are on a campaign to get rid of religion period? Does sound impressive however.
Bikerman
You are a joke Dean and I can't even be bothered to respond other than to point out that I haven't threatened anyone with anything and the notion that I can 'dictate' free speech is comically idiotic.
This, from the person who was scared that his life was in danger over a few postings on Frih - breathtaking.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
No we don't. Germany does, and I think France and Switzerland have explicit laws, but we do not and most other countries do not. Some countries have anti-racism laws but they are not specific to anti-Semitism. I am against any such legislation but I can see why people might think it a good idea - anti-Semitism has a long and sordid history - and be clear that I am NOT talking about anti-Zionists - in which number I include myself. I am talking about hatred of Jews for being Jewish, and the small matter of 6 million Jewish people murdered. I'm not talking about hatred of Israelis for the crimes of that particular state.


Germany does have those laws but from what I understand, they don't really enforce them. I spent a couple of weeks in Germany a couple months back and essentially every night was spent in a pub drinking and talking with locals (who luckily mostly spoke English because my friend was getting sick of translating everything for me - which I understand because I got sick of translating everything for him in Spain) and I asked a few about those laws. They said that they exist but are rarely enforced. People could probably get away with walking around with a Swastika and probably get nothing more than very dirty looks. But what I do find interesting along the lines of Germany and free speech is that up until 2006, the band Cannibal Corpse had most of their albums banned in Germany and couldn't play many songs live while touring there.

It wouldn't surprise me if Switzerland enforced their laws on anti-racism because they are a police state by almost every standard. I am with you in that I am against racism laws (although definitely not against laws preventing people from acting out on their racism i.e. hate crime laws) even though I despise racism. It is almost impossible to offend me. I listen to disgusting music (hence Cannibal Corpse was banned from Germany), I use more swear words than a sailor when talking, I watch gruesome horror movies and obscene porn but one of the few ways to truly offend me is racism, homophobia, or sexism i.e. two out of three are routinely breached by the religious extremists.

Quote:
Aww, did I offend your sensibilities? 'Bloody' is used in England quite routinely as an expression of exasperation or annoyance. It is an extremely mind expletive, for which I make no apology. If it offends you then I'm afraid that is tough.


I thought everybody knew that term! But then again, I guess that it's because I live in the States and so I have always been exposed to British slang. I must have been pretty small the first time I heard the song "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" and since I am only 22, I was 7 in 1997 when the first Harry Potter book came out and probably 14 before I lost interest in those and so I had a few years of being exposed to the slang there and I was even younger when I read the Chronicles of Narnia. I assume that British pop culture makes it over hear much easier than other countries.

Deanhills wrote:
Bikerman, I don’t think your video has given credit to Muslims in Western countries who are working towards peaceful solutions. Nor Muslims in the Middle East who are living peaceful lives and are actively contributing to global peace. You've focused only on people who are trouble makers and are obviously not for peace.


I think Bikerman was responding to a specific individual that was brought up as well as a group of individuals responsible for violent crimes. I watched the video and in the beginning he specifically states that he is for people's rights to have a religion and has no problem with that as long as they don't murder for their beliefs or commit other atrocities.

Quote:
I agree with adnantar that with freedom of speech there comes some responsibility. Sort of does not make it that free for me when you are dictating the terms of free speech.


If there are restrictions then it isn't free speech. And when has he dictated the terms of free speech?

Quote:
As for your fighting for my right to follow any religion I choose. That’s not true. There are more than enough discussions in this Forum to prove that you or on a mission to save the world from religion. So how bogus is it to say that you are fighting for my right to choose what religion I want to follow when you are on a campaign to get rid of religion period? Does sound impressive however.


I don't think any of us are against the right to have a religion; we're against theocracy. We want people to be able to go to church and worship; we don't want that forced into our school systems; we don't want laws based on religion; we don't want a society based on religion. People can follow their religion in their private lives but when they try telling people that they can't get married to someone of the same sex because it is against their religion, or that we need to teach their religion to everyone in our public schools that should be for people of every religion and not just of one religion, or that we can't speak out against their religion and that we should die because of it then we have a problem. I am against religion and society mixing.

Bikerman wrote:
This, from the person who was scared that his life was in danger over a few postings on Frih - breathtaking.


I think that the statement there was just ad hominem and that it did nothing to contribute to this conversation. The first sentence did contribute, though, because it answered (albeit briefly) his accusation.
Bikerman
I cannot be doing with hypocrisy, which is why it ticked me off.
It actually wasn't ad-hom because it relates directly to the issue of free speech in Muslim countries, but I can't elaborate further.
Bikerman
Quote:
I assume that British pop culture makes it over hear much easier than other countries.
Yes and no. You have to remember that we had the biggest empire ever, not THAT long ago, so you find odd concordances where one might not otherwise expect them - such as India, Ozz, NZ etc.
The US 'gets' a lot of our pop culture but completely misses some that surprise me (when I say 'misses' - I'm sure that many people over there get them, but they don't get sufficient audiences to 'take off).

Quote:
he specifically states that he is for people's rights to have a religion and has no problem with that as long as they don't murder for their beliefs or commit other atrocities.
Well actually I go further and I WILL defend people's rights to believe what they like. I've done so, at personal cost, several times, despite what DH thinks.

Of course, I make no secret of my distaste for religion and I am pretty sure we would be better off without it. What DH doesn't seem able to understand is that there is no contradiction (and, in fact, very little tension) between the two positions.

My arguments in this thread in particular, but also in some similar threads, is with the assertion that religion X (here Islam) is x,y,z (here the religion of peace, sexual harmony, and science). It is none of those things and if such claims are made then you can bet your ass that I will attack such blatant misrepresentation pretty strongly. Not only do I see nothing wrong with that, I actually consider it to be both morally justified, and practically sensible to do so, since most of the major religions are not content with following their own versions of morality and 'the good life' - they wish to impose their views on me and other secularists. In fact they DO impose their views on us, although their ability to do so is, thankfully, declining and will, hopefully, soon be naught but a bad memory.
Why has the hateful and deeply undemocratic influence of religion declined? Because people who feel like me have and will continue to challenge that influence wherever we can.
It takes a particular kind of brainwashing, bigotry or idiocy for any person to wish to see this reversed, but unfortunately such people exist and would cheerfully see us return to superstition intolerance ignorance - which is what we find in all theocracies both geographically and historically.
sevo1
I am really surprised

Attention to the application of laws set by humans

As for the laws of God

Find high voices and objections

And invent a religion interpolated
Appropriate to the whims of personal

In the end

Everyone will die and meet God face to face

What will you say?
And you know the truth!!!!!

(46) And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.
(47) And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.


(49) And judge, [O Muammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away – then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient.
(50) Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain [in faith].
truespeed
Sevo your another that doesn't really answer or respond to posts,preaching Islam isn't going to help non islamists to understand your religion,discussing Islam and how you think it relates to the modern world will.

So maybe

If

You type

and talk in a

more normal


fashion

we can get past

the preaching and

reach some kind of understanding each

others











viewpoints.
Afaceinthematrix
sevo1 wrote:
I am really surprised

Attention to the application of laws set by humans

As for the laws of God

Find high voices and objections



Quote:
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16) This is my own comment: (I might add that the animal is innocent here because it wasn't consenting)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a ******, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)


http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm

Let's also look at the first commandment given to Moses from God:
1. You are to have no other gods before God

Not only does that imply that other gods exist (which is a major contradiction to all of the Abrahamaic religions), but it implies that God is childish and jealous.



Now let's look at some of the best human laws:
1) Any society worth living in has laws against murder. Although I should add that a woman was just murdered a few days ago in Afghanistan while people were cheering on the blatant murder. The woman was accused of adultery. And the U.S. just made them a major non-NATO ally why?

2) We have laws against abusing women.

3) We have laws against discrimination (especially in the U.S. where we have a history of it).

4) We have laws against stoning homosexuals, non-Muslims, adulterers, etc. (again, I'm only referring to societies that are actually functioning anywhere near the 21st century and that are actually worth living in).


So... Do we follow laws set out by men for reasons that make sense - such as creating a less violent and hostile society where you cannot infringe on the rights of other people or do harm to them? Or do I follow the laws of a god who is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully?"

P.S. That last quote came from Richard Dawkins in his book titled The God Delusion.
Bikerman
Most religious people are shockingly hypocritical and/or ignorant about the 'laws of God' - all 613 of them.Here's a reasonably comprehensive list
Most Christians try to wheedle out of it by claiming that there was a 'New Covenent' after Jesus died - but that is just made-up and, in any case, Jesus is reported to have said that the law must be obeyed until heaven and earth end.The hypocrisy is easy to see - they ignore all the commands about killing and sacrificing (over 30), because they are Old Testament but....where do they think the 10 commandments come from? Not Jesus....They are never mentioned directly in the NT.

Islam cannot claim to be much better. The Quran has slightly less barbarism because it was re-written much later. Basically the Arabs felt left-out - the Jews had a religion, the Romans and Mediterranean Europeans had Christianity - their version of Judaism, so the Arabs had to have their own version - which they got with Mohammed. It is a reworking of the Old Testament, nothing more, and therefore includes much of the same atrocity.
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch7.html

I notice that our Muslim friend 'adnantar' has very pointedly ignored my invitation to say that he believes that killing cartoonists and authors is wrong and that Muslims who call for that are also wrong. Surprise Surprise - exactly what I expected....another 'man of peace' who seems to have a definition of peace that includes murder and conspiracy to murder....
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
You are a joke Dean and I can't even be bothered to respond other than to point out that I haven't threatened anyone with anything and the notion that I can 'dictate' free speech is comically idiotic.
This, from the person who was scared that his life was in danger over a few postings on Frih - breathtaking.
Throw insults any way you like Bikerman, I don't care. I was referring to your years of campaigning against religion in this Forum and there is PLENTY of evidence of it. Then saying in that video that you are fighting for my right to choose any religion I wish to have. There is plenty of evidence where you indicated the religious are unenlightened about their own religion to the extent that you have to teach them how little they know about their religion and teach them how harmful their religion is to them. And now you are saying that you want to fight for my right to choose my religion. That does not make sense to me at all. I most certainly don't want you to fight for my right to choose any religion any way as in doing so you're creating conflict, not peace.
tingkagol
Question:

If religion is indeed fundamentally harmful to humanity, should it then be illegal in an ideal society? i.e. People no longer have the right to religion?
Bikerman
Insult? It was not an insult to point out that you begged me to remove a posting on Frih because you were scared that it might upset the UAE Royals where you live, which, you said, would put your life in danger. Yet here you are sticking your unwelcome nose into a thread on freedom of expression, with the downright cheek, telling ME that I'm being too harsh on Muslims.
THAT is what I call hypocrisy and THAT is why I think you are two-faced.

I didn't say I WANT to fight for anybodies right to religion - I said I WOULD if needed, because freedom of religion is part freedom of expression and I am committed to defend that - even if that expression IS idiotic.
Afaceinthematrix
tingkagol wrote:
Question:

If religion is indeed fundamentally harmful to humanity, should it then be illegal in an ideal society? i.e. People no longer have the right to religion?


No. The reasoning is that religion brings in a bunch of ills to our society that we would be better off without but it doesn't have to. Creationists keep trying to get their bullshit placed into our science classes over actual science, Christians keep trying to use legislation to openly discriminate against homosexuals, Muslim extremists kill people who don't agree with them, etc.

But the fact of the matter is that they don't have to. Many Christians don't attempt to get Creationism into classrooms and do not discriminate against homosexuals. Many Muslims (or at least some) don't murder people. Therefore, since it is proven that people can follow a religion (or parts of it), without bringing in the social ills, then it is not justifiable to impede personal liberties. We have a set of laws that are set out for the good of everyone. Not murdering people is one major example. Now Christianity orders people to murder adulterers. That conflicts with our laws against murder. Therefore, that part of the religion should be made illegal for obvious reasons. Parts of a religion should be illegal if they conflict with our currently standing secular laws. However, if a religion does not conflict with any of our laws, then there is nothing illegal about it. Furthermore, laws should only be created to protect personal rights and definitely not with the intention of making it harder for a religion to exist.

What we really need to do, as a society, is increase secular thinking so that people develop the mindset of "screw you; we're not going to let you use legislation to discriminate against homosexuals" or "screw you; we're teaching science in science classrooms rather you like it or not" etc.
Bikerman
tingkagol wrote:
Question:

If religion is indeed fundamentally harmful to humanity, should it then be illegal in an ideal society? i.e. People no longer have the right to religion?

No. Freedom of expression is, IMHO, the cornerstone of civilised society. I think it was Indi that expressed it in a way which resonated best with me:
You can take all my freedoms, but the one I will fight for until the end is freedom of expression, because with that one freedom I can get all the rest back.
For that reason, if no other, then we should ALWAYS be extremely suspicious of ANY attempt to limit that freedom. There are, of course, some limits that we DO have to impose. I agree that we cannot have people standing up and exhorting others to acts of violence. In an ideal world people would be 'wise' enough to resist any such call, but in the real world there are many who are not, and I therefore support the resitrictions on free expression such as 'incitement' laws. We also have contractual limits, such as the 'official secrets' act or 'commercial confidentiality' clauses - but the individual concerned signs away that freedom for a particular reason and that is their choice.
Aside from those limits I resist the imposition of any others and I would want to see compelling reason to accept any such additional restriction. That includes laws against racism, homophobia etc.
Once we go down the route of trying to police thoughts then we are in real trouble. Only religions and religion-type movements think that thought crime is a good idea as far as I know.
tingkagol
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Many Christians don't attempt to get Creationism into classrooms and do not discriminate against homosexuals.

The thing is, 'spreading the Good News' is at the very core of being Christian. This includes:
a. teaching creationism as valid 'science'
b. discrimination against LGBTs
c. ... etc ... ( basically everything in Bikerman's link: http://www.therefinersfire.org/original_commandments.htm )

Good thing most people just make a haphazard effort of being Christian these days, selecting just the few socially palatable rules to follow while disregarding the rest. But considering how religion can affect people, what if Christians start following all of those rules? What if one day they all decide they should be trying harder to be 'better' Christians?

Let me take one 'commandment' to illustrate my point: Christianity basically tells people to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13, Matthew 5:17/Roman 3:31). Isn't that already incitement to murder, therefore should be illegal?
truespeed
tingkagol is making a good point,one which i have never really considered,if sections of a holy book whether it be the koran or the bible incite violence towards others,whether it be homosexuals or women,because lets face it ,it is always homosexuals or women,then shouldn't those passages be removed? Wouldn't it fall under hate speech under law or something?
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
I think it was Indi that expressed it in a way which resonated best with me:
You can take all my freedoms, but the one I will fight for until the end is freedom of expression, because with that one freedom I can get all the rest back.


Actually, it was me that said that. Of course it is entirely possibly that Indi has also said that - I won't deny it. But I specifically remember saying that a few years back in a topic on Frih. The freedom of speech is the most important freedom because I can use my speech to fight for the rest of my rights.

tingkagol wrote:
[The thing is, 'spreading the Good News' is at the very core of being Christian. This includes:
a. teaching creationism as valid 'science'


There is nothing illegal about lying, unfortunately. It is illegal to lie in a court, but not to lie to your children. That is all that religion is doing. What we need is laws preventing this garbage from coming into public spaces i.e. not to be taught in public schools. To stop people from spreading this to their children is to stop free speech.

Quote:
b. discrimination against LGBTs
c. ... etc ... ( basically everything in Bikerman's link: http://www.therefinersfire.org/original_commandments.htm )

...

Let me take one 'commandment' to illustrate my point: Christianity basically tells people to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13, Matthew 5:17/Roman 3:31). Isn't that already incitement to murder, therefore should be illegal?


Again, that is why we have laws against these types of things (stoning, discrimination, etc.). Our laws should be based on secular reasoning to prevent taking away the rights of others. If someone is taking away that right then that is the infraction - not what inspired it. I hear these sames types of arguments by prohibitionists. What if you do something bad when you're drunk? Well if I get drunk and punch you in the face then the crime is assault - not drunkenness. If you murder someone because of your religion then the crime should be murder - not religion.
Bikerman
The point is valid - nearly ALL Christians are really 'christian-lite' insofar as just about every sect/denomination has watered down and cherry-picked what they do and do not believe almost beyond recognition from the earliest church.
I would also like to emphasise the other point made. Saying 'it's my religion' does NOT change bigotry into non-bigotry.
A good example is the current Church of England debate on women. Women can be priests - and that took 30 years of fighting. They CANNOT, yet, become bishops, and they were supposed to sort this out this very week. As nearly always happens, they have postponed any decision. Still, there has been plenty of coverage on the radio 4 channel which I listen to a great deal, so I have heard the debate. A typical evangelical/'high' Anglican would be against ordaining women priests and bishops. Their given reason will be scriptural. It matters not - They are BIGOTS. I could argue that one selects ones position (as in moderate, progressive, evangelical etc) based on one's extant prejudices, but my argument is even simpler and more devastating than this, and can be illustrated with a simple example.

Charlie is 18. For as long as he can remember his parents beat him. He did badly at school because he got no support at home. Charlie is an angry, penniless, unemployable young man who has just been arrested for shop-lifting.
In court Charlie's lawyer will plead that his client is the product of his environment and is not totally to blame for his actions. Personally I would tend to agree.

What the lawyer cannot and will not argue is that Charlie did not commit a crime.

Now, I trust the analogy is clear? Bigotry is not suddenly cancelled-out, whatever the motivation or 'justification'. Not one single media reporter has challenged any of these bigots in those terms and I think it is time they did.

Having said all that, I am STILL agai8nst any legislation in this area. It is not needed. If someone is a bigot and says bigoted things then they are revealing themselves as such and will be treated accordingly by most people. That should suffice. If we try to legislate for the spoken word then when does a joke become bigoted? Who decides whether a statement is ironic or literal? I do not want to hand that power to any part of the executive.

In my example above, a crime IS committed by the CofE - discrimination on grounds of gender. They are allowed to get away with it on the grounds that the law does not apply to religion in this case - that is certainly wrong and I would open them up to all existing civil and criminal laws. I would NOT extend those laws to cover people expressing options, no matter how distasteful.
Hello_World
Quote:
I am really surprised

Attention to the application of laws set by humans

As for the laws of God

Find high voices and objections


Absolutely.

The only possible way we can all live together in peace, freedom and equality is within secular law with the freedom of religion.

If we were to apply Islamic law, then all people who are not Islamic will not be free or equal and there will be no peace.

If we were to apply Christian law, then all people who are not Christian will not be free or equal and there will be no peace.

If we were to apply Hindi law, then all people who are not Hindi will not be free or equal and there will be no peace.

And so on.

Secular law is the only possible way forward.
Quote:

In the end

Everyone will die and meet God face to face

What will you say?
And you know the truth!!!!!


Yes, I know the truth. As much as you do. And as much as the Pope does. As much as anyone. Which is to say, nobody KNOWS the truth.

My truth is that I will NOT die and meet God and nor will you.

IF I am the wrong one, I have no fear. My concious is clear.

tingkagol:
Quote:
Let me take one 'commandment' to illustrate my point: Christianity basically tells people to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13, Matthew 5:17/Roman 3:31). Isn't that already incitement to murder, therefore should be illegal?


Indeed, the Bible does contain things which are illegal. It is illegal to murder anyone. It is illegal to stone people. And so on. Even if some psycho acts upon the words of the bible, they will still be found guilty of a crime.

I do support laws enforcing equality, but not of removing sections of books. I find that worrying. I should be able to read what I like, as an adult I can make up my own mind on it.

Indeed I think if people actually read the bible and saw what rubbish it contains, they are more likely to see it for what it is, a fantasy novel.
deanhills
kaza2 wrote:
When walking in the street and I see Muslim women wearing the hijab I feel admiration . And prestige of internal Really nice article

thank you sevo1


kaza2
Must be some truth in that admiration. If a Muslim woman should cross a street at a pedestrian crossing where I live in the UAE all cars would come to a stop and she would then slowly and graciously cross the street. If it's any body else, they have to sprint the crossing for their dear life - cars even seem to subconsciously speed up when they see any one else in their way - even when it's a pedestrian crossing. Also in Banks and any public places women are always served first in a separate line, or if there is only one line, they will always go to the front and men will move out of their way. Women also get preferential seating in public transport and men would never be allowed to sit next to them. So usually seats in the front are reserved for women only. At some Banks they have separate branches serving only women - you'll often come across the sign "Female Branch" or "Ladies Branch". If a taxi should stop, he will always give preference to serving a Muslim woman first. Sort of the rule of the land over here.

Not all of the Muslim countries are the same however. Some countries are still seriously behind in development and their women folk are still very much restricted and even fearful to move out of their homes.
AsadAnsari
salamz..Thank you sevo1 for the participation and adnantar for admiration. I was away from frihost .. I am sorry but i was feeling guilt for not being in this conversation for a long, actually I am on a road trip and tour of pakistan for a month so I was totally away from internet. Today i am at sister home who lives in Islamabad and she is also a frihost member, as for her she introduced me the frihost.
So back to the topic.
As for my trollness about killing any men saying bad about Islam, Prophet or Allah.. Its not a trollness at all. When there is a war going on there all is fair in love and war. We notice when caretakers of Islamic state hang a person insult islam but we dont when 20k people got killed in 6 days in Burma because they were Muslim. Or not even when a loby making a lame excuse of 911 and attacks over a belt of muslim states/countries for their guilt just being muslim and living in Islamic fundamentals..
We know n belive that the Allah almighty has leaved the person on his wil. So he or she could choose any path for religion they like.But we Muslims dont want them to say bad for that Rab (God) who lives inside us or even in them..As sevo1 said and code a verse noor-us-samawat.Light of universe..I personally believe my Allah everywhere even inside of me in every atom of my body.. In my soul..So giving abuse to Allah or his order is same.. And its same as giving abuse to my existance.And the most respected person are our prophets so even we dont bare abuse on them.. No joke or poke..So understand this we Muslims are mature and agressive in this matter.. So don't think we are uncivilized or living in a jungle.Its our fundamentals we relay on.This was the reason we ruled europe for 800 years .. Untill we started not to follow it..Dont think us uncivilized by rejecting your new religion (the civilization you called it) or our clothes or living standard we like to remain live in it.We still have strong family system .. We still live with our parents and serve them till they die .. Our children still respect us when we punish them.. They dont call police .. anything we do we believe we are in watch by Allah so we do care before doing sin.. (not 100 percent of us but most)Thats the reason we still dont scared of any settalite and technologies because we know where this all gets failed he (Al-Mighty Allah) never.We believe we are on true path so we take stand in front of a jews/nato tank with a rock in our hand..The same God feeds us.., feeds you.. But difference of acceptance is matters which create religions.. Where neither there is any., everywhere is Islam. Few accepts few or more not.. Few follow within its name few follow standing out of it..
truespeed
AsadAnsari wrote:

As for my trollness about killing any men saying bad about Islam, Prophet or Allah.. Its not a trollness at all. When there is a war going on there all is fair in love and war.


There is no war on Islam.
deanhills
I don't particularly agree with the title of this video, however I do find the contents most enlightening and thought provoking. The speaker was able to highlight in very simple to understand language how very finely tuned the advancement of science and technology had been during the period of roughly 800 to 1100 in Bagdad,which had been an intellectual mecca of the world at that time. He further points out that the brilliance of a civilization in science and technology is usually revealed through naming places, like during 800 to 1100 most of the stars were named in Arabic. However after 1100 all of the brilliance in advancement in the Muslim world had come to a rapid halt.

He also points out that there are maybe one or two Nobel Laureates who are Muslim, in spite of their overwhelming number of people in the world. Israel has about 25% of the Nobel Prize winners however a fraction of that population. Why is this?

And what has caused the almost darkness in advancement of brilliant minds in the Islamic world from 1100 to date?

deanhills
kaza2 wrote:
I hope the reform of the Arab and Muslim nations forward in the light of Islam

And distance from lying on Islam unjustly and that all can live in freedom and peace
Not sure what you mean by reform. What reform is taking place in the Arab and Muslim nations specifically?
Bikerman
AsadAnsari wrote:
As for my trollness about killing any men saying bad about Islam, Prophet or Allah.. Its not a trollness at all. When there is a war going on there all is fair in love and war. We notice when caretakers of Islamic state hang a person insult islam but we dont when 20k people got killed in 6 days in Burma because they were Muslim. Or not even when a loby making a lame excuse of 911 and attacks over a belt of muslim states/countries for their guilt just being muslim and living in Islamic fundamentals..

Salman Rushdie is not 'at war' with Islam. He wrote a book - that is all. He has been strongly critical of Israel and of western interventions in the middle-east, but Muslims wanted him dead because he wrote a book.
THAT is why your claim that Islam is a 'religion of peace' is laughable, and your refusal to condemn people who would murder authors is a measure of your hypocrisy.
Quote:
And the most respected person are our prophets so even we dont bare abuse on them.. No joke or poke..So understand this we Muslims are mature and agressive in this matter..

Well, here's the thing - I DON'T respect your prophets, and I don't care how 'mature' (laughable) and 'aggressive' (certainly true) you think you are, I WILL say what I like about those prophets. Threatening to kill people who 'abuse' your prophets simply emphasizes what a sick joke your protestations of 'peace' really are.
As for 'mature' - in my belief system you are free to worship who you like and say what you like. In your belief system anyone who says things that you disapprove of is to be killed. I think it is pretty obvious which the more 'mature' system is.
AsadAnsari
i m on mobile..

@ barkingman
Why the F--- you always try to exploit every topic related to essence of Islam?
Who gave you this right to say that you dont respect my / Our any Prophet?
If you have a mind against Islam you should try to realize that its not forcing you to accept it and become Muslim but I am sure no one has allowed you to say this here that you dont respect Muslims Prophet . If bonding is promoting you then he should come to the front of this community.
Why do you always quote my few lines with aggression but not with the message?
Why you try to exploite muslim Members here?
You have a very nasty attitude of irritating Muslims and i vote you down as for the Mod.
You are just a hound type person who can appose any matter as i have seen once and many time .. When someone discussed a scientific matter and you apposed him and argued untill he quite. As for you .. You never had belonged to that feild he discussed and you argued. I saw this whole matter in Your history and your diary .. And i judged you as a Barking hound with no bone.
Got it? Well I hate when you.. bark bark!
So keep away from Islamic discussion . You smell like a Hound.
As for sulman rushadi.. Have yoy read that book ? i am sure you didnt.
he deserved to be hanged .. God knows better who killed him and why? Jews, Christian, any loby or Muslim but it points to Muslims..

I dont want you discussing Islam .. If you have any question try it for once to ask from DR. Zakir Naik. He might help you.
watersoul
AsadAnsari wrote:
Who gave you this right to say that you dont respect my / Our any Prophet?

It's a public forum discussing philosophy & religion, which allows difference of opinion to be declared openly.
I also feel no respect for any alleged prophets or gods, so should I be allowed to state this, or are you advocating that my thoughts and feelings be censored because they do not agree with yours?
Bikerman
[Mod Hat]If you can't keep it civil then don't contribute at all. Personally I have no problem with your childish insults - they simply serve to emphasize my basic point - but the TOS are pretty clear and as a moderator I have a duty to uphold them.[Mod Hat]
I don't need permission to say that I don't respect Mohammad, Jesus, Yaweh or any other figure from history - that is my RIGHT - it is what we call freedom of expression.
BTW - yes, I have a copy of 'The Satanic Verses' on the bookshelf over my head and yes, I have read it from cover to cover. You, on the other hand, have not, so what is your point?
tingkagol
AsadAnsari wrote:
As for sulman rushadi.. Have yoy read that book ? i am sure you didnt.
he deserved to be hanged .. God knows better who killed him and why? Jews, Christian, any loby or Muslim but it points to Muslims..

Nobody ever deserves to be hanged just by expressing himself... including you, Asad. In Rushdie's case, he wrote a book.

A genuine question... Why does the 'penalty' have to be death? Is it because that's what the Quran says? (I honestly do not know if indeed it says that). Regardless what the Quran says, can't it be something less grave? Preferably something that still respects human rights and freedom of expression?

Why must they DIE?

AsadAnsari wrote:
Dont think us uncivilized by rejecting your new religion (the civilization you called it) or our clothes or living standard we like to remain live in it.

Imagine this: what if this 'new religion' you are rejecting specifically commands its followers to kill anyone who rejects/disrespects it. Apparently you have been condemned to death by its high priests for speaking badly about it and its practices. Do you seriously think that your death is warranted in this case?

I think not.

No one deserves to be killed just because he/she disrespected any religion. Surely you could find it in yourself to at least understand that? If not, then I'm afraid you're exactly what you say you aren't. (Uncivilized)
Bikerman
Err..hang about....Less grave? What sort of talk is this? Since when has writing a book deserved ANY punishment?
One does not compromise on principles or they aren't principles.
tingkagol
Bikerman wrote:
Err..hang about....Less grave? What sort of talk is this? Since when has writing a book deserved ANY punishment?

I was thinking more of a demerit on a hypothetical Islamic scorecard.
Bikerman
tingkagol wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err..hang about....Less grave? What sort of talk is this? Since when has writing a book deserved ANY punishment?

I was thinking more of a demerit on a hypothetical Islamic scorecard.

And you would find that acceptable?
The pain fact of the matter is that Islam is simply WRONG about this issue. It isn't a matter of throwing it a bone to keep it quiet.
tingkagol
Bikerman wrote:
tingkagol wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err..hang about....Less grave? What sort of talk is this? Since when has writing a book deserved ANY punishment?

I was thinking more of a demerit on a hypothetical Islamic scorecard.

And you would find that acceptable?

Yes.

Likewise, Muslims have the right to express their discontent over a book they find disrespectful of their religion.
Bikerman
tingkagol wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
tingkagol wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err..hang about....Less grave? What sort of talk is this? Since when has writing a book deserved ANY punishment?

I was thinking more of a demerit on a hypothetical Islamic scorecard.

And you would find that acceptable?

Yes.

Likewise, Muslims have the right to express their discontent over a book they find disrespectful of their religion.

Absolutely - we call it free speech. What they do NOT have the right to do is incite murder, or any act of violence, let alone pay for it - as one Muslim Head of State did (Iran - Khamenei).
But you suggested a 'demerit' on an Islamic 'scorecard'. Given that Islam tends to deal with 'demerits' in variously barbaric ways, then I see no real difference between that form of wording and the current situation.
tingkagol
I used the word 'demerit' metaphorically with no attachments. Just a simple 'X' on a piece of paper. Of course if that demerit were used to determine who's next for execution, it's no different.
Bikerman
Well, since Muslims seem to believe that their belief system takes precedence over other belief systems, national and international law, I find it hard to imagine that putting a mark on a piece of paper would satisfy anyone.....
Bondings
Everyone please get back on topic! And keep it civil without insulting moderators or this topic is going to close.
Bikerman
Quite right, and to the extent that I have sidetracked this I apologize (for the sidetrack, not for the content).
The sibject was 'why the Hijab' I believe.
The main reason seems to be to protect the 'modesty' of the woman and to protect women from assault - at least that is the gist of what Nakir seemed to be saying.
I notice that he also chucked-in a huge straw-man argument about western attitudes to rape (basically arguing that rape in the west is not so serious and westerners regard the Islamic punishment of 'death' as barbaric). On the contrary, rape is an extremely serious crime in my country - second only to murder with regard to sentencing (it carries a maximum life term). The attitude to the death penalty is a distinct and entirely separate issue which Nakir conflates disingenuously.

My response to this 'justification' is:
a) It is surely wrong to impose restrictions on potential victims rather than demanding that men behave properly.
b) I believe that Islam does not recognize rape within marriage as a crime at all.
c) I also believe that 4 witnesses are needed to get a conviction for rape under Sharia.
Now, it will no doubt be pointed-out that this only applies when the 'Hadd' punishment is being applied, which is claimed to be a minority of cases. It will also probably be said that DNA evidence suffices where lesser punishment is being sought. I have seen this stated on many Islamic sites to rebut the idea that 4 witnesses are required.
This seems, however, to be largely a matter of which Islamic scholar one asks. For example:

Now - I don't speak the language but I am told that this scholar - Munawar Hassan - is saying that women should not report rape without 4 witnesses.
I am, of course, willing to be corrected if I am wrong....


We also have Fox news reporting on Pakistan law:

Now - I am no fan of Fox and I certainly wouldn't believe their reports without secondary confirmation...so I checked with the most reliable source available to me - the BBC....and it seems to check out OK.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6148590.stm

The BBC article also states that
Quote:
A woman is raped every two hours and gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan, according to the country's independent Human Rights Commission.

And that is the REPORTED figures - even with the 4 witness rule in force.....

So, I'm afraid I don't buy into the justifications on either principled or pragmatic grounds.
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
The main reason seems to be to protect the 'modesty' of the woman and to protect women from assault - at least that is the gist of what Nakir seemed to be saying.

...

My response to this 'justification' is:
a) It is surely wrong to impose restrictions on potential victims rather than demanding that men behave properly.

This was my main point a couple pages back... I noticed the supporters had no response to the idea of fixing the problem rather than a symptom.
Bikerman
Yes, didn't mean to knick your argument Smile It does seem to me, however, that it is indicative of a pretty low opinion of both sexes. In fact it seems to fit with a mindset that is basically 'thus it was and ever shall be'....
Ankhanu
No worries, glad it got brought up again for another go... That and it's certainly not an unique line of inquiry, I'm sure Wink
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Yes, didn't mean to knick your argument Smile It does seem to me, however, that it is indicative of a pretty low opinion of both sexes. In fact it seems to fit with a mindset that is basically 'thus it was and ever shall be'....
For me the low opinion of women is associated with lack of education more than religion. Pakistan has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world. According to Wikipedia it is 42%. Added to one of the worst education systems any country could have, to which its citizens have unequal access; a great disparity in distribution of wealth with a large percentage of the population being dirt poor; and huge corruption in Government ensuring very unstable Government and very little infra structure. I'm almost certain if something could be done about the stability and corruption of Government and through that the education system in Pakistan, so that education could be accessible to all citizens of the country, illiteracy would be reduced, particularly among women and that would go a far way to solving the problem of low opinion. Those educated women of course will be teaching their own children too. Etc. etc.

If you are arguing that Islam is responsible for the problem, then why is rape not as prevalent in the other Islamic countries? I'm sure some of it is unreported, but rape is considered a very serious crime in the Arab countries. Families for the greater part are very protective of their daughters, so if they should be mistreated, then the whole family would rally behind her. Family members are very protective of one another. It's not like in the Western world where the woman leaves her family, daughters never really leave their families. Apparently the divorce rate in the Arab world is increasing fast. It is currently 46% in the UAE (40% in 2010). Women aren't as submissive as they used to be and are completely supported by their families if they should find themselves in an abusive relationship or incompatible relationship - and the other way round. To me that is proof of how education can empower both men and women, i.e.the steep rise in divorce rates. As the Arab countries have been investing huge amounts in improving education of both men and women over the last decades.
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/society/study-shows-alarming-increase-in-uae-divorce-rate-1.1036107
http://english.sina.com/world/2010/0111/298987.html

Please note I'm not saying that women are in great shape equality wise in the Arab countries, I'm responding to your points about rape.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
If you are arguing that Islam is responsible for the problem, then why is rape not as prevalent in the other Islamic countries? I'm sure some of it is unreported, but rape is considered a very serious crime in the Arab countries. Families for the greater part are very protective of their daughters, so if they should be mistreated, then the whole family would rally behind her.
You have to be joking. You do know that so called 'honour killing' is common - particularly in Pakistan?
Families are protective of their standing in the local community and rape is often blamed on the girl, which brings shame to the family. The result is that the rape victim is killed by her own family.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If you are arguing that Islam is responsible for the problem, then why is rape not as prevalent in the other Islamic countries? I'm sure some of it is unreported, but rape is considered a very serious crime in the Arab countries. Families for the greater part are very protective of their daughters, so if they should be mistreated, then the whole family would rally behind her.
You have to be joking. You do know that so called 'honour killing' is common - particularly in Pakistan?
Families are protective of their standing in the local community and rape is often blamed on the girl, which brings shame to the family. The result is that the rape victim is killed by her own family.
Why are you singling Pakistan out so much? It's almost like identifying all of the shortcomings of Greece as part of the European Union, and holding Greece's negatives as the "norm" for the European Union?

You're going for extreme examples of a country that is not doing that very well socially. It has a high level of illiteracy, is poor, and has a corrupt and unstable Government most of the time. Not much infrastructure to talk about, especially outside the borders of the large cities. I'd say the average educated Muslim any where in the world would be as shocked as you are at the examples you have quoted. You still have not answered my question though. What has Islam got to do with it?
Bikerman
YOU mentioned Pakistan, not me. I just used YOUR example.
Quote:
I'd say the average educated Muslim any where in the world would be as shocked as you are at the examples you have quoted.

I doubt it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/30/honour-killings-spreading-alarming-rate
Afaceinthematrix
AsadAnsari wrote:
42% Illiteracy doesn't mean we are living in wildness 55% Pakistan land is used for farming and producing so pakistan is an agriculture country and its is not neccesary for poor people to get educated for the task of land farming and cattle farming which is being done by their ancestors from so many decades.


And that is the mind of a fundamentalist nutjob... We don't need any education! It doesn't matter if anyone wants to better their life! In fact, what has education done for anyone? It's not as if studying chemistry ever did anything useful - such as creating the Haber–Bosch process which is a method used in FARMING which is responsible for feeding 1/3 of the population which is about 2.3 billion people (which is about 8 times the population of the United States)! It's not as if all this chemistry about sustainable farming, fertilizers, and such are aiming to reduce and eventually eliminate famine. It's not like the human lifespan hasn't increased about three times in the developed world because of this stupid thing called education and the medical and technological advantages that it brings... No... We don't need any education. You can just farm the way you have farmed for thousands of years and then when a drought comes hope it goes well... Education is for people in the West that actually care about improving our world and solving problems.

The fact of the matter is that the whole scientific output of the entire Islam world is about equal to the output of a single good university in the West. We're solving problems - including problems that you have. We care about the prosperity of people and don't want them to starve. My Alma Mater has produced quite a bit of important research in agriculture that have improved our world.

On a side note, I am against religious education at all in public education (pre-college) because if you teach one religion then you must teach a wide variety of religion myths and I really just see this as a waste of time as it is quite unnecessary. Stick to the usual core subjects (math, science, language, history, elective). I suppose that it would be okay to offer it as an elective instead of a music class or something...
AsadAnsari
oh WTF.
That's mean you are giving me a right to say you a barking man because I have a right to express my self. Same thing you are doing, spreading your philosophy like you say our Prophet(Peace be upon him) had spread his philosophy.
Killing a man is wrong on his sin as per you.. but killing a race for evil deeds is right ?

still we are strong in our culture and society .. you imagine us in slum because we like to stay on our fundamentals as we believe your culture is actually in it by getting impressed by Media.
The media war which was targeting east n Muslims has also destroyed your ethics as compare to our society.
Still we are better. Sulman Rushdi didn't express his self for free. he done that to pleased american NGOs and government. It doesn't matter if he was Muslim and it doesn't matter if you are MOD Christian or whatever, I still claim you don't have right to say a single word on Muhammad(Peace be upon him), Esaa(Peace be Upon Him)/Christ and etc. No Muslim will bare it. You are making an irritation and war between Mu slims and other religions here on Frihost.
Bikerman
You don't know anything about Rushdie - that much is obvious. The idea that he was somehow acting for Government is completely ridiculous - his book caused massive problems for all western Governments.
You can claim what you like about my rights - doesn't mean a thing. I'll say what I like about Mohammad. In fact, in common with many others, I recently participated in DrawMo day III - a specific response to Muslim attempts to interfere with freedom of expression and demonstrate that we will NOT be intimidated or dictated to by zealots, whatever their belief system.

You continually rant on about western plots as though this were some justification for advocating murder. As I said previously, I actively campaigned against the wars and invasions you talk about and I have condemned the actions of Israel on many occasions. That doesn't change the fact that you advocate murder - not because of Western invasions of Arab countries, but because people won't obey your commands to not say bad things about your prophet. Trying to confuse the two issues fools nobody.

Nor will there be any war here on Frih. If you cannot express yourself in a civil manner then you can find somewhere else to take your 'war'.
AsadAnsari
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If you are arguing that Islam is responsible for the problem, then why is rape not as prevalent in the other Islamic countries? I'm sure some of it is unreported, but rape is considered a very serious crime in the Arab countries. Families for the greater part are very protective of their daughters, so if they should be mistreated, then the whole family would rally behind her.
You have to be joking. You do know that so called 'honour killing' is common - particularly in Pakistan?
Families are protective of their standing in the local community and rape is often blamed on the girl, which brings shame to the family. The result is that the rape victim is killed by her own family.
Why are you singling Pakistan out so much? It's almost like identifying all of the shortcomings of Greece as part of the European Union, and holding Greece's negatives as the "norm" for the European Union?

You're going for extreme examples of a country that is not doing that very well socially. It has a high level of illiteracy, is poor, and has a corrupt and unstable Government most of the time. Not much infrastructure to talk about, especially outside the borders of the large cities. I'd say the average educated Muslim any where in the world would be as shocked as you are at the examples you have quoted. You still have not answered my question though.



I am agreed with deanhills.
The corruption and bribe culture has ruin our country.. A sinner can get rid of Law n justice by giving some money easily..
But the ratio You gave about Hourly rape rate is not true but its 6 in every minute in America is true.. gang rape is not a joke here in Muslim country.. a women is very much protected here until she is out of hijab and producing a chance to have that attemp.
like if a girl is hiding from her parents about her relation with man it could lead her to a sin, getting raped by him or group of his friends. The second big reason which could lead a women to rape is women are labor in factories and Industries. An alone women is unprotected as much as an eye pupil without eyelids. Islam says its a worst sin then its true but if this still happens in this worst conditions of our country where there is no Islamic Law but Democracy then What has Islam got to do with it?
it is very common in west just because the law is weak on human rights and women are modern.
High Level of illiteracy is different matter .. 42% Illiteracy doesn't mean we are living in wildness 55% Pakistan land is used for farming and producing so pakistan is an agriculture country and its is not neccesary for poor people to get educated for the task of land farming and cattle farming which is being done by their ancestors from so many decades.
As compare To any europ or American states we have a small state but with a huge population of 20 billion .. how could you compare this with the crime ratio ? and why don't you see India's crime ratio ?
crime is common when society or justice is weak..
Bikerman
Quote:
The ratio You gave about Hourly rape rate is not true

Ah, so on the one hand we have the BBC's professional jounalism saying it IS true, and on the other we have.....err......some anonymous poster saying it isn't. Hmm...I think I know which to believe....
No doubt you think the BBC are lying because they are part of the Western conspiracy again Islam?
Quote:
As compare To any europ or American states we have a small state but with a huge population of 20 billion .. how could you compare this with the crime ratio ?
Don't be ridiculous. The world population is 7 billion so how can Pakistan have 20 billion? In fact Pakistan has a population of around 171 million as compared to 310 million for the US.
Quote:
a women is very much protected here until she is out of hijab

Really? So when various groups based in the Middle-East, who represent women from those countries, say that they believe that 20 THOUSAND WOMEN KILLED by their families EACH YEAR, they are just making it up are they?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html

Now, of course I did NOT say that this was an all-Muslim problem. What I DID say is that it provides a very strong disincentive for ANY women to make an accusation of rape.
#
And don't tell me it is all to do with poverty because it JUST ISN'T. Here is the UK we get similar acts of barbarism, though thankfully much less common, and nobody is starving here.
Quote:
15-year-old Tulay Goren, a Turkish Kurd from north London, tortured and murdered by her Shia Muslim father because she wished to marry a Sunni Muslim man; of Heshu Yones, 16, stabbed to death by her father in 2005 for going out with a Christian boy; of Caneze Riaz, burned alive by her husband in Accrington, along with their four children – the youngest 10 years old – because of their "Western ways". Mohamed Riaz was a Muslim Pakistani from the North-West Frontier Province. He died of burns two days after the murders.


But, in any case, none of this has anything to do with the fact that YOU condone killing people for writing books or drawing cartoons and that has EVERYTHING to do with Islam.
deanhills
AsadAnsari wrote:
55% Pakistan land is used for farming and producing so pakistan is an agriculture country and its is not neccesary for poor people to get educated for the task of land farming and cattle farming which is being done by their ancestors from so many decades.
That I don't agree with. I often talk to people from Pakistan who ended up in the work force in the UAE (virtual slaves). Just this weekend I was talking to a Taxi driver from Faisalabad. He works 12-hour days 7 days of the week as a Taxi Driver in Dubai. College education in agricultural methods is no longer a luxury but a necessity. There was only the University of Agriculture available and he could not get in. So ended up as a slave in the UAE instead. Whereas he could have made a meaningful contribution in Faisalabad if there had been an intermediate training stage available for those who did not qualify for the University because of limitation in number of students.

Any way, the kind of education I'm talking about is that of an enlightened mind. The learning does not have to qualify you for a career, but when you're literate and a mother of children, you can help them open their minds for studying and aspiring to greater things. If uneducated, then her children will remain impoverished as there are only so many farmers needed. The more mechanized farming is getting the less workers are obviously needed as well. By having an educated mother attending to her children she could provide them with a chance of advancement that she otherwise would not have been able to provide when she is uneducated.

By the way, this taxi driver said that there were plenty of programs under way in Pakistan to combat illiteracy, Pakistan just needed more resources and infrastructure to expand those programs. Those being taught are starved for education. Ironically this taxi driver loves math and science and if there had been resources available he could have been a teacher himself. Since there are limited opportunities for tertiary education in Pakistan there must be many people like him who have fallen through the cracks, ending up as taxi drivers in the Middle East - 12 hours a day, 7 days of the week!
Bikerman
I don't disagree with you on this issue, you may be surprised to learn. However, I maintain that the lack of education is very much tied up with religion. You will have probably heard of 'Madrassars' - Islamic schools ? They are, of course, generally for boys, not girls, and the primary focus of the curriculum is normally rote-learning the Quran.
And to prove that I'm not just 'down' on Islam, the only reason that we don't have a generation of cretinous Christians, educated by people who believe that the world is 6000 yrs old and that 20 million species of animals took a trip on a wooden boat, is because the STATE intervenes and makes them teach real subjects.
Whilst I have no problem with, and actually support, education ABOUT religion, education BY religious fundamentalists is an oxymoron.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I don't disagree with you on this issue, you may be surprised to learn. However, I maintain that the lack of education is very much tied up with religion. You will have probably heard of 'Madrassars' - Islamic schools ? They are, of course, generally for boys, not girls, and the primary focus of the curriculum is normally rote-learning the Quran.
And to prove that I'm not just 'down' on Islam, the only reason that we don't have a generation of cretinous Christians, educated by people who believe that the world is 6000 yrs old and that 20 million species of animals took a trip on a wooden boat, is because the STATE intervenes and makes them teach real subjects.
Whilst I have no problem with, and actually support, education ABOUT religion, education BY religious fundamentalists is an oxymoron.
I know too many educated people from Pakistan to be able to agree with you. Nor with your take on Christianity.

You probably know Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan in a day and age when very few women had made it to that office in the West?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

She also received part of her education at a Roman Catholic School.
Hello_World
Quote:
like if a girl is hiding from her parents about her relation with man it could lead her to a sin, getting raped by him or group of his friends. The second big reason which could lead a women to rape is women are labor in factories and Industries. An alone women is unprotected as much as an eye pupil without eyelids. Islam says its a worst sin then its true but if this still happens in this worst conditions of our country where there is no Islamic Law but Democracy then What has Islam got to do with it?
it is very common in west just because the law is weak on human rights and women are modern.


It may be your English skills, but I want to point out... that in "leading her to a sin" of getting raped by him or a group... is not HER sin. Perhaps, this is what you meant.

I also want to point out just how much you are asking her to give up in order to protect her from rape... when you say women are labour in factories and industries. You are essentially here asking her to give up her INDEPENDENCE and LIVELIHOOD!!! You are suggesting that a woman should not WORK so that she may escape the possibility of getting raped!!!!!

Really, that is laughable. Forced into dependency is as much a sin as being raped, really. Such a situation puts her at such a disadvantage. She essentially becomes the property of her father or husband because she has no other options. Put in these terms, getting raped seems less of a risk than a life of dependency/slavery.

If that is the tradeoff for living in Western society, so be it.

But in fact it isn't. Working does not put you at any greater risk of being raped than any other activity.

I also want to ask what exactly you are inferring when you suggest the west is weak on human rights? Because... it seems to me very much EXACTLY the OPPOSITE. Whilst we have very strong human rights, at least, within the bounds of our own countries (I appeciate that the west have denied human rights to people in other countries). Is that what you are refering to? Because the Islamic countries seem to me to be EXTREMELY weak on human rights WITHIN your own countries as well as to foreigners.

You here blame women for being MODERN as the reason for the increase in rape. AGAIN, the VICTIMS of rape are not the CAUSE of rape. The causes of rape lie SOLELY with the offender. Perhaps, men are too modern... but there is nothing that a victim could possibly have done to cause the rape.

Let me be clear here. A PROSTITUTE who had an abortion that earlier that day, after spending time with her lesbian lover, may walk down a back alley at midnight, visibly drunk, STARK NAKED, with "I love sex" tattooed to her forehead, and she does NOT cause a rape. She MAY be more likely to have something happen to her than a woman who never leaves her house, but she is the VICTIM if she gets raped and HAS NOT CAUSED IT TO HAPPEN.

The RAPIST caused it to happen.

Quote:
crime is common when society or justice is weak..


What about the crime of having such a huge proportion of your population illiterate? What about the crime of punishing people for their consentual sexual behaviour? What about the crime of forcing women into dependency? Of stoning someone? Of forcing someone to share your religious beliefs?
Afaceinthematrix
Hello_World wrote:

It may be your English skills, but I want to point out... that in "leading her to a sin" of getting raped by him or a group... is not HER sin. Perhaps, this is what you meant.


The sad and f***ed shit about it is that I think he DID mean what he said. If a woman gets raped then obviously she is guilty of adultery and should be stoned. Don't believe me? This happens all of the time in countries like Pakistan - where this poster is from. There was actually an article in the news recently (within the past month) and if I was able to find it (I did a quick google search and didn't) I would post that. That area of the world is completely backwards when it comes to any kind of freedom or humanity.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=woman+stoned+for+getting+raped+in+pakistan&oq=woman+stoned+for+getting+raped+in+pakistan&gs_l=hp.12...651.651.0.3933.1.1.0.0.0.0.100.100.0j1.1.0...0.0...1c.Xp3pG5TzZ5k&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ca48f0cb99392581&biw=1024&bih=629
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I know too many educated people from Pakistan to be able to agree with you. Nor with your take on Christianity.

You probably know Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan in a day and age when very few women had made it to that office in the West?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

She also received part of her education at a Roman Catholic School.
What utter utter rubbish.
I don't think you can ever see WHY it is rubbish.
a) You don't have to AGREE with statistics - they are true whatever you think.
b) I don't believe you know that many Pakistani people; I'm pretty sure the ones you DO know do not form a representative sample of the general population; and I'm absolutely certain that you cannot generalise from that group to make blanket statements about the general population - such a claim is laughable. I know about 50 Americans from working at Corning. They were mostly 40-55 yrs old, therefore the US must be made up of 40-55 yr olds....ROFLMAO.
c) Bhuto was born into political aristocracy - Just as was her Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi. The fact that she became Prime Minister tells you precisely NOTHING about rape statistics and honour killings and I'm astonished that you not only think otherwise, but apparently believe it is of such importance that it somehow negates hard data.
d) I received ALL of my education in a Roman Catholic school - so what? What possible relevance do you think that has to the fact that most Pakistanis (or Brits) do NOT? The chap 5 doors down from me didn't go to school at all. Just what conclusions do you think can be drawn about the English Education system from that particular fact?

It is a FACT that thousands of women every year are killed by family in honour killings in the region. The only thing up for debate is how much of an underestimate the UN figures are.

If you had bothered to read you OWN citation properly and follow a few links, you would have also read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudood_Ordinance
which is, of course, PRECISELY the point I was making.

Still, I suppose we should rejoice in the fact that now the US has a black president that means there is no problem with racism in the South....
Hello_World
Quote:
The sad and f***ed shit about it is that I think he DID mean what he said.


Yeah, that is what I am afraid of... but prepared to give the benefit of the doubt because it is SUCH an INSANE idea that makes no sense whatsoever either in terms of logic or even in terms of religious concepts.

Scary and I wish there was some real way to help the women in places like this.

Although I generally don't support imperialist wars, I had hoped the war in Afghanistan would improve the life of women there but the improvements seem to have been minimal at best, so it seems that too is a failed war.
Hello_World
It appears to me that Islam is obessessed with sex.

Going back to the idea of hajibs for women and the idea expressed here earlier on about men's requirements in terms of this.

The whole of Islamic society is structured around sex, or the denial of sex.

The women have to wear ridiculous clothing so the men don't get distracted by the idea of sex... but the men too are asked to lower their eyes and so on if they get an idea about sex in their heads.

So what happens when a man's boss is a beautiful women? He needs to lower his eyes, avoid talking to her and so on... what a disadvantage to him.

Whereas in Western society, men seem perfectly able to have a perfectly good relationship without needing to resort to lowering their eyes and so on and somehow manage not to have sex...

Not every interaction between Western men and women is about sex but it seems that it is in Islam. What is wrong with Islamic men that they need to resort to these kind of measures? Islamic men have no willpower? They haven't learnt to control their dicks and they get embarrassing boners?

Seriously Muslim people, ITS NOT ALL ABOUT SEX get your minds out of your pants.
tingkagol
I've always believed the more sexually repressed a society is, the more increased its sexual desire. Sexual repression, I believe, is one of the main ingredients of seduction.

In this case, sexual repression is centered around fully clothing the human body. This increases sexual arousal ten-fold with the slightest hint of skin. That's how sexually repressed these people are - the mere sight of skin switches them into 'mating mode'.

This also explains why men are so obsessed with women's breasts, but not vice versa.
Bikerman
You might find the following interesting:
http://bikerman.co.uk/images/books/ValuesOfSexOffenders.pdf
Hello_World
That is a fascinating article. The conclusions make a lot of sense when you read the rationale behind the claims. Thankyou for that Bikerman.
adnantar
Quote:
I notice that our Muslim friend 'adnantar' has very pointedly ignored my invitation to say that he believes that killing cartoonists and authors is wrong and that Muslims who call for that are also wrong. Surprise Surprise - exactly what I expected....another 'man of peace' who seems to have a definition of peace that includes murder and conspiracy to murder....


If you obey TOS of this forum and obey every other agreements, then you also should accept that the fact that freedom of expression bitterly needs a responsibility to leave peace and harmony in the society. Would you allow your drunk(as is common in western societies) neighbour to use his "FREEDOM of Expression" to keep you awake and listen his abusing language the whole night or you would call the "Law of the land" to protect your rights Smile

Regarding my opinion to your question, in Islam, one does not require a PRIEST/Father, who would take him to paradiese or hell. I will be held responsible for my sins and not for the sins of Dr. Zakir and vice versa. Blasphemy is a law, which is valid for all the prophets(From Prophet Adam till Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). If it would be an Islamic country, the law would come into force. If its a non-islamic country, then the law of that particular land would/should come into action to stop hurting people's believe.

If you play with the fire, its your choice. For me, its another civilized act of terrorism. Why UK hands over "Terrorists/Wanted people" to US? Should not UK hand over such "Rushdees/Terrorists" to the OIC lead or even Internal Court of Justice(must be based on a mix poeple, not only by west)?

What I have observed, people with their little understanding blame religion, for if someone does something wrong. Was Hitlor a muslim or a european crusador, who killed so many innocent jews and as a reward, European(especially gross britain Smile ) rewarded the jews in excuse/SORRY, Israel. I am not against jews, but zionisim, who are killing innocent women and children in their own land "Palestine" and are under sieg for years, in this secular world Smile

There has been or is a single law : Might is Right

The biggest terrorist are those, who are staging wars against religions and let people fight with each other and making unrest in their countries. They are just cold blooded killers and have no respect for the humanity. Media is a very effective weapon in such wars and we see such "dummy agents" who provoke further hate amongst people/societies.

People have seen, the worst non believer in Allah/God, starts praying, if the plane, they are flying in, loses control and starts falling down. So, then, everybody starts believing Allah/God. Even, Pharo, while claiming himself as god, just started begging forgiveness, when he was first thrown/drowned in the river Niel.


You are indirectly supporting such a system and live in a country, who is supporting US for every illegal occupation. Look at the moral values of Abu-Ghurab jail of your civilized(secular) society.

I appreciate Deanhils realistic arguments and Asadansari responses(except some harsh wordings ... Bik...)

Ramdhan Mubarak to every muslim and peace to everybody.
Bikerman
adnantar wrote:
If you obey TOS of this forum and obey every other agreements, then you also should accept that the fact that freedom of expression bitterly needs a responsibility to leave peace and harmony in the society. Would you allow your drunk(as is common in western societies) neighbour to use his "FREEDOM of Expression" to keep you awake and listen his abusing language the whole night or you would call the "Law of the land" to protect your rights Smile
That is a completely fallacious analogy. Salman Rushdie did not force you to read his book, and nobody 'imposed' the Danish cartoons on you. Neither did you ANY harm in ANY way. In fact you haven't even READ the Satanic verses, so the analogy is not just false, it is ridiculous.

But, to answer the false analogy, I would use the LAW of THIS land to shut my neighbour up. I would NOT incite others to kill him. If I were in a Muslim country and the law of THAT country said it was OK for my neighbour to disturb me, I would move. Simple.
Quote:
Regarding my opinion to your question, in Islam, one does not require a PRIEST/Father, who would take him to paradiese or hell. I will be held responsible for my sins and not for the sins of Dr. Zakir and vice versa. Blasphemy is a law, which is valid for all the prophets(From Prophet Adam till Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). If it would be an Islamic country, the law would come into force. If its a non-islamic country, then the law of that particular land would/should come into action to stop hurting people's believe.
That does not answer the question. I asked YOU if YOU believed it was OK to kill Rushdie, even though he is in MY land with OUR laws and has committed NO crime. We do not kill people for writing books or drawing cartoons in THIS country. In fact we do not consider it a crime of any sort - even if they draw cartoons of Jesus sodomising Mary and sticking two fingers up at Yaweh. I know this for a fact, having seen that exact cartoon.
Quote:
If you play with the fire, its your choice. For me, its another civilized act of terrorism. Why UK hands over "Terrorists/Wanted people" to US? Should not UK hand over such "Rushdees/Terrorists" to the OIC lead or even Internal Court of Justice(must be based on a mix poeple, not only by west)?
Play with fire? Terrorism? So free speech is terrorism now is it? Here's the news - YOU don't get to hold people in MY country to YOUR laws. People in MY country, and in the rest of the countries that have free speech, are subject to the laws of their own country. You don't get to make the laws here.

Rushdie is not a terrorist, he is an author who wrote a book - and a damn good book IMHO. In the secular, civilized world he has committed no offence and has no crime to answer for, so why the hell would we hand him over, just because some people from other countries don't believe in our values? Get real.
Quote:
What I have observed, people with their little understanding blame religion, for if someone does something wrong. Was Hitlor a muslim or a european crusador, who killed so many innocent jews and as a reward, European(especially gross britain Smile ) rewarded the jews in excuse/SORRY, Israel. I am not against jews, but zionisim, who are killing innocent women and children in their own land "Palestine" and are under sieg for years, in this secular world Smile
Once again you try to change the subject. This is not about Hitler, or Zionism, or Crusaders. It is about YOU condoning the killing of someone for nothing more than exercising freedom of speech.
Quote:
Ramdhan Mubarak to every muslim and peace to everybody.
Rank hypocrisy. You should have been honest and said 'peace to everyone who doesn't upset us'.
I condemn the US and I condemn my own country for the illegal and immoral wars they have waged in Iran and Afghanistan. I condemn Israel for the deliberate policy of 'waiting out' the palestinians and the refusal to consider any serious peace plan. But I condemn YOU and anyone else who would destroy the cornerstone of modern democratic countries by abolishing free speech and enforcing homophobic, sexist, theocratic, dogma-driven, laws on everyone, like it or not.
You are no better than those you condemn.
Ankhanu
Bikerman wrote:
You are no better than those you condemn.

This is pretty much the crux of the situation, isn't it?

Peace is a pretty selective illusion in Islam, it seems. Bringing it to the concept of the thread, and the hijab, "peace" is applied as some sort of distraction, a slight of hand deflecting away from the core problem (as identified by our friendly Frih Muslims) of men being violent, without peace, in regard to women. Rather than striving to develop peaceful men, they choose instead to shackle their women, enforcing limits upon them so that the criminal men can control themselves. It's the easy way out, even if it's not the moral way out.
It brings the illusion of peace, not actual peace... and only peace for (some) men*. The net result is imposed limitation, underlying angst and no real increase in peace.


* Yes, I recognize that many Muslim women accept or "enjoy" the idea of the hijab, but, fact is, the imposition of its necessity is an infringement upon their rights, a limitation, whether they're accepting of the idea or if they're forced into compliance.
adnantar
Ok, if we take another example, let's say, you are travelling with your friend "Cartoonist" on a boat.
To get water on boat, the travellers, residing in the basement, must go to the terrace to bring the stored drinking water.
Now, your friend "Cartoonist", with every "Freedom of Speech/Action" thought, it would not be wise to disturb you and others in the basement and started breaking the ship to get (the fresh) water from the basement.

So, the people with least mind, would resist his idea (not verbally), but rather physically and some might even quarell with your "Freedom Cartonist". Now, if he resists to his right of "Freedom", even if you allow, others would not take the risk and would (with a warning) take his (even existing) freedom to move and restrict him to a place, where he is not harmful to the society and peace of the people.

This world is a global village and to prevail the peace and harmony amongst people of different believe. This is a must that certain responsibilities are followed with the freedom of speech.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations
Limitations:
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[40] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[41]

If you believe in the harmony and peace in this world, then do start respecting others rights to be maintained or you would move to the other planet(I suppose MARS Smile

BTW, I am happy that you are against the on-going wars, which are being fought with your tax money. Are you not (partially) responsible for the killing of innocent women/children...

First, we are human being and the peace should be wished to every human being.
As per Quran: "And (Allah) sent Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as a blessing to the whole worlds.(Universe)"

Other prophets(peace be on all of them) were sent to different parts/time in the world. But, Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) is sent for the whole humanity and even to the whole universe.

Where is your freedom of Speech and media, when thousands of muslims are slaughtered in Myanmar?
For western media, only muslim fundamentalist are portrayed as terrorist. So, who is hypocrate?

So, if one wishes peace, we should not be biased to reject it and leave the intention to be judged by almighty ALLAH.

Peace to everybody.
Ankhanu
adnantar wrote:
Ok, if we take another example, let's say, you are travelling with your friend "Cartoonist" on a boat.
To get water on boat, the travellers, residing in the basement, must go to the terrace to bring the stored drinking water.
Now, your friend "Cartoonist", with every "Freedom of Speech/Action" thought, it would not be wise to disturb you and others in the basement and started breaking the ship to get (the fresh) water from the basement.

So, the people with least mind, would resist his idea (not verbally), but rather physically and some might even quarell with your "Freedom Cartonist". Now, if he resists to his right of "Freedom", even if you allow, others would not take the risk and would (with a warning) take his (even existing) freedom to move and restrict him to a place, where he is not harmful to the society and peace of the people.

This world is a global village and to prevail the peace and harmony amongst people of different believe. This is a must that certain responsibilities are followed with the freedom of speech.

This is nonsensical strawman. Your analogy does not reflect issues of freedom of expression at all. Do not confuse freedom of speech/expression with freedom of action, they are not the same. Surely you can see the difference between actions which immediately infringe upon the well being of others and words that might hurt their feelings, but otherwise have no other effect upon their ability to survive/thrive.

Active oppression of thought and expression is abhorrent to any civilized, free society. Peace is not simply freedom from physical harm, it is also the ability to explore thoughts and share them without oppression.

Oppression is not peace.

adnantar wrote:
If you believe in the harmony and peace in this world, then do start respecting others rights to be maintained or you would move to the other planet(I suppose MARS Smile

I like the idea of peace and harmony... however, it is not a human right to be protected from offense. You are allowed to be, have the right to be, offended.

adnantar wrote:
BTW, I am happy that you are against the on-going wars, which are being fought with your tax money. Are you not (partially) responsible for the killing of innocent women/children...

Red herring of a strawman.
Are you responsible for the deaths surrounding the war in North-West Pakistan?

adnantar wrote:
Where is your freedom of Speech and media, when thousands of muslims are slaughtered in Myanmar?
For western media, only muslim fundamentalist are portrayed as terrorist. So, who is hypocrate?

Bullshit.
First off, this has nothing to do with free speech. If thousands die, how does this impact the concept of freedom of speech? Many exercise their freedom of speech to speak out against such deaths on a daily basis... some even exercise their freedom of speech to support the operations.

To suggest that only Muslim fundamentalists are portrayed as terrorists in western media is extremely shortsighted, and informs the reader that you have no idea what you're talking about. Terrorists are terrorists, they are defined by the actions they undertake, no matter the religious background. Terrorism is also highly contextualized by perspective; one reporting entity's terrorist is another reporting entity's hero.

Yes, it is true that more often than not these days, reports of terror in western media involve Muslims... but that's because the regions of focus and activity are largely Muslim lands. But, that doesn't mean they're the ONLY source. There are other atrocities occurring, and they are reported as well, including acts committed against Muslims, and other groups, such as Sikhs.



<^>

More to the point, adnantar, you're very good at distracting from the topic; what has all this to do with the topic of the Hijab and Muslim male oppression/violence against women?
Bikerman
There is little for me to add to Ankhanu's posting.
You continually construct straw-man arguments to cover the fact that the essential question is simple.
Do you, or do you not, believe that inciting people to kill someone, simply because what they have said or written offends you, is OK? You have answered this in the affirmative. That is your view - to which you are entitled*. To then say that the belief system upon which that view depends is somehow a 'religion of peace' is utter hypocrisy.

Quote:
BTW, I am happy that you are against the on-going wars, which are being fought with your tax money. Are you not (partially) responsible for the killing of innocent women/children...
No, I am not responsible. I AM responsible for my own actions - active or passive. I am NOT responsible for the actions of others, although I do have a responsibility to challenge those actions where I believe they are wrong. That I have done, and continue to do and there my responsibility ends.
One could take the view that I should, therefore, not pay tax - since some of that money funds illegal wars. I do not believe that is correct. The fundamental reason for taxation is to pay for, in common, those things which we cannot provide as individuals. If we allow that people should only contribute to things that they, personally, agree with then the whole basis of such 'commonality' is destroyed. What I SHOULD do, and what I ACTUALLY do, is to use my influence - such as it is - to oppose the illegality. That means speaking and writing against it and voting accordingly.

* You are NOT entitled, by the way, to express that view in terms of the original (ie you are NOT entitled to urge other people to kill Rushdie). That crosses a line which we can generally call 'incitement'. I am not saying that you HAVE done so - you haven't to the best of my knowledge - I am simply explaining where the boundary is.
adnantar
@Ankhanu:
My post related to the earlier post of Bik....

Inspite of the differences with him, I too am of the opinion that there should be freedom of speech (especially in societies, where Dictorships governs people against their will), but with a responsibility.

BTW, you did not read the mentioned wikipedia-link: Freedom with responsibility

If you believe in man-made laws, then how would you allow some "..." to ruin the peace and harmony amongst the people of different religions/beliefs, by hurting/insulting someone's belief's/religious.

The more you kill, the more resistance you would experience from people (not only from within those countries), but also within your own countries.

There is no compulsion in religion and those who do, are either following culture and has nothing to do with religion.

I have seen reverted women in Europe with Hijab. So, who is forcing them to wear Hijab?

In many european countries, Adhan(calling for prayer) in Islam is not allowed to be propogated per Loudspeaker, why? Same is true for Halal meat. Hijab is banned in France...

Reporting Myanmar situation is of no importance to the western media.
It seems, people forget that they have to be answerable for their actions(even not in this life but hereafter). This situation would escalate, if everybody starts believing that they are free to do in their actions in this only life, thus hurting others (and some follow the path of violence).

What would be the result of hurting "religious beliefs" of billions of muslims around the world?
Some might get the law into their own hands and this is what some people would love to see, who are staging and manipulating these incidents.


Peace to everybody.
Bikerman
Quote:
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[40] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography, religious belief or hate speech. Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[41]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the 'Freedom Forum Organisation' and nor have they got any mandate on this matter. But even if I did, the FACT is that neither Rushdie nor the Danish cartoonists broke any law - so the question of legal sanction does not apply. Of course they may be subject to 'social disapprobation' - and many people HAVE expressed their opinion. That is entirely different to saying that they should be put to death - or exported to a country which would do so.

adnantar wrote:
@Ankhanu:
My post related to the earlier post of Bik....

Inspite of the differences with him, I too am of the opinion that there should be freedom of speech (especially in societies, where Dictorships governs people against their will), but with a responsibility.
And who decides what that 'responsibility' is? You?
Quote:
If you believe in man-made laws, then how would you allow some "..." to ruin the peace and harmony amongst the people of different religions/beliefs, by hurting/insulting someone's belief's/religious.
Yes of course I would. THAT IS WHAT FREE SPEECH MEANS.
Quote:
The more you kill, the more resistance you would experience from people (not only from within those countries), but also within your own countries.
Kill? Who said anything about killing? Another straw-man.
Quote:
There is no compulsion in religion and those who do, are either following culture and has nothing to do with religion.
No true Scotsman again.....
Quote:
I have seen reverted women in Europe with Hijab. So, who is forcing them to wear Hijab?
Nobody, AND THAT IS THE POINT. You support the COMPULSORY wearing of the Hijab. If it is OK for women to CHOOSE to wear the Hijab, then why is it NOT OK for women to CHOOSE NOT to wear it?
Quote:
In many european countries, Adhan(calling for prayer) in Islam is not allowed to be propogated per Loudspeaker, why?
Name one. I suspect that is just a lie. Of course, there ARE laws concerning noise nuisance. I cannot, for example, set up a loudspeaker system outside my house and broadcast music if that would cause nuisance to other people. Quite rightly so. That is completely different to banning a particular TYPE of broadcast and I do not believe ANY European country bans Adhan.
Quote:
Same is true for Halal meat.
Another lie. France requires Hilal meat to be labelled as such. That is hardly the same as banning it. Actually I think it SHOULD be banned - on grounds of animal cruelty, not religious grounds.
Quote:
Hijab is banned in France...
In public. Wear what you want in private. This issue is finely balanced and I still oscillate between supporting the ban and not doing so. I can totally see the reason for the ban - many women are compelled to wear the Hijab against their will, by family and community. Banning it in public removes that infringement of personal rights. The question is whether banning it to protect individual rights is justified or not.
Quote:
Reporting Myanmar situation is of no importance to the western media.
It seems, people forget that they have to be answerable for their actions(even not in this life but hereafter).
Nope - you cannot suddenly introduce 'the hereafter'. People are responsible for their actions IN THIS LIFE. What you believe about the hereafter is up to you, but I will NOT be bound by it. You attempt to impose YOUR views about the hereafter on others - that is religious fascism.
Quote:
This situation would escalate, if everybody starts believing that they are free to do in their actions in this only life, thus hurting others (and some follow the path of violence).
Nonsense.
Quote:
What would be the result of hurting "religious beliefs" of billions of muslims around the world?
Some might get the law into their own hands and this is what some people would love to see, who are staging and manipulating these incidents.
More nonsense. Nobody 'staged' the Danish cartoons or Salman Rushdie's book. If Muslims then commit CRIMINAL acts because of it then THEY are responsible for that - as you have just said.
Afaceinthematrix
Before someone reports me again (probably this time for going off topic), I will start with a disclaimer that this topic is about forcing women to wear hijab and I believe that free speech and forced clothing are two highly related concepts. Censoring clothing is no worse or no better than censoring free speech. It is probably done for the same reasons, has the same results, and has the same consequences. Clothing can be seen as a form of expression anyways. Now that I've gotten that taken care of, I will talk about an article (I will copy and paste selected parts and provide a link to the entire article) in the BBC News this morning (yes, I'm an American but I read the BBC News because I find it superior to any other news source that I know of):

Quote:
The three members of the punk band Pussy Riot played a song attacking Russian leader Vladimir Putin in front of an altar on 21 February.

They told the court their performance was a political act, not aimed at hurting the feelings of believers.

Maria Alyokhina, 24, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, 29, could have faced a maximum sentence of seven years.

There are fears among Russian opposition activists that the trial is part of a crackdown on dissent since Mr Putin's return to the Kremlin, following the biggest anti-government protests in modern Russian history.

Feelings about the case within Russian society, where the Orthodox Church has enjoyed a revival since the collapse of the atheistic USSR, have been mixed.
'Abuse of God'

"The actions of the accomplices clearly show religious hatred and enmity," state prosecutor Alexei Nikiforov said in closing arguments.

"Using swear words in a church is an abuse of God."

He said the women had "set themselves up against the Orthodox Christian world".

Given the "severity" of the crime, he argued, the "requisite punishment must be a real deprivation of freedom".

Wearing their trademark coloured balaclavas, the women danced and sang a song which parodies a Christian prayer, imploring the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Mr Putin.

The song, which has an obscene chorus, also appears to mock Patriarch Kirill himself.

US singer Madonna, who is due to perform in Moscow's Olympic Stadium on Tuesday and St Petersburg on Thursday, told reporters it would be "a tragedy" if the women were sentenced to prison.

"I am against censorship and my whole career I always promoted freedom of expression, freedom of speech, so obviously I think what's happening to them is unfair," she said.

However her words have angered some Church supporters, who accused the singer of interfering in the country's internal affairs, and other religious figures vowed to stage protests outside the concerts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19163042

So these women are going to get arrested because they spoke out against both the church and against a political leader? So in Russia you apparently can't have a political opinion different from who's in charge nor can you really choose your own religion (they were also charged with using swear words in church)...

I am completely for free speech and freedom of expression. I do not believe that, in principle, there are any restrictions. However, it must be noted that freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want; it means that you can say whatever idea you want (I quote that from Indi). Those cartoons were doing nothing more than sharing an idea - which is acceptable. They weren't going into a crowded movie theater and shouting "fire!" knowing that it will cause a riot. They also weren't giving away government secrets that, by contract, they swore and agreed to not share and that can lead to the deaths of many people.

The main "restriction" (I don't really see this as a restriction) to the freedom of expression/speech is in schools (and given Bikerman's job position, I wouldn't be surprised if he agreed). Students don't have the right to wear whatever they want or say whatever they want during school. School is designed to prepare students for the job market and part of that is teaching them that you sometimes have to dress for the job and speak to authorities correctly. I would have no issue with a school requiring a school uniform or a school teacher/administrator using disciplinary action (whatever the school does: detention, extra homework, lines, whatever) to handle a student who cussed out a teacher. That is the primary purpose of school - to teach students how to handle themselves in the job market.
Bikerman
Yes, I pretty much agree.
re reporting - the objection was to the language, not the subject. Now it is true to say that I sometimes use language that is 'strong' when emphasizing a point, but I try to exercise a little self-control and not go overboard. That is all helios was asking for methinks, so don't get fixated on it.

On the subject - I am personally in favour of 'enforced' school uniforms where a school wants them for a number of reasons:
a) It identified pupils with a school - for good OR ill.
b) It lessens the amount of bullying and general mickey-taking, particularly of those with poorer parents.
c) By the same token it lessens the 'show off' effect with richer kids flashing their designer clothes.
d) It ameliorates, at least to some extent, the perpetual problem of 'decency' with clothes. Teens love to push the boundaries and some will, if left to it, push them to the extent where something has to be done. I know I did, and I don't blame the kids, but having a uniform reduces the amount of 'pushing' that can be done.

I don't really see it as much different to wearing a uniform at work. The only real difference is compulsion, in that you can leave your job but not necessarily your school. Children do not, however, have the full rights that adults have. We accept, as a society, the right of parents and other bodies to restrict the personal freedoms of children for their own good, in the same way that we also restrict the responsibilities that we impose on them.
We can argue about how far this should go, but personally I see school uniforms as a reasonable case in point.
Bikerman
And that is a pretty good summary, methinks, of where we are.
However, let's push this a bit further.
Let's say that Muslim countries DID have a significantly lower rate of rape and other violent crime against women. Would that make it OK to make the Hijab compulsory?
Can it EVER be justified for one (adult) section of a community to impose restrictions on another 'for their own good' ?
deanhills
Digby wrote:
Considering that women in Eastern countries get attacked and raped all the same as Western women, that will tell you that the hijab is useless in protecting women. If all women wear it, it won't stop rape. Therefore, the fault is on the men who are doing it. Not only that, telling women to wear physical veils and all over covering while men don't even have to cover their arms, does not help a man an his self control, only he can. This means women are being punished for having to cover up because men can't control themselves, implying that women are at fault for tempting them
Sounds a bit bizarre that Muslim women's motivation for wearing a hijab is not to get raped. That suggests by definition that every woman who doesn't wear a hijab in a Muslim country gets raped. Doesn't make sense.

Not all Muslim women wear hijabs either. There is plenty of literature on this on the Web, but this is a quick one that I pulled from eHow.
Quote:
However, hijab is not a universal Islamic practice, as many Muslim woman do not practice hijab, according to Muslim Culture Magazine's website. Belief behind the hijab is that men cannot judge a woman's appearance if she's covered, according to Islam For Today's website. The focus will instead be on a woman's character, morals and personality.

Source: http://www.ehow.com/about_6516934_do-people-wear-hijab_.html

Here is another short article as well about the motivation for wearing a hijab.
http://www.knowswhy.com/why-do-muslims-wear-hijab/
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Digby wrote:
Considering that women in Eastern countries get attacked and raped all the same as Western women, that will tell you that the hijab is useless in protecting women. If all women wear it, it won't stop rape. Therefore, the fault is on the men who are doing it. Not only that, telling women to wear physical veils and all over covering while men don't even have to cover their arms, does not help a man an his self control, only he can. This means women are being punished for having to cover up because men can't control themselves, implying that women are at fault for tempting them
Sounds a bit bizarre that Muslim women's motivation for wearing a hijab is not to get raped. That suggests by definition that every woman who doesn't wear a hijab in a Muslim country gets raped. Doesn't make sense.

My motivation for wearing a crash helmet is to avoid brain injury. By your bizarre logic that means that everyone who doesn't wear a crash helmet gets brain damage....duh!
Quote:
Not all Muslim women wear hijabs either. There is plenty of literature on this on the Web, but this is a quick one that I pulled from eHow.
Where they HAVE THE CHOICE they often don't. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT of this debate.
Bikerman
Well no, that it not actually a good way to look at it, and that argument is dangerous. It is wrong regardless of the numbers and type of attacks. Even if EVERY woman who wore a mini skirt WAS attacked, and NO woman who wore the Hijab was attacked - even then it would be wrong. The reason it is wrong is not contingent upon the actions of men. That would mean that what is right is simply a matter of pragmatism - whatever works. The reason it is wrong is because it is ALWAYS wrong for any group to impose restrictions on another group without the consent of that group (barring the special case, already described, of children and adults who are not able to take responsibility for themselves).
It confuses the issue to say it is wrong because it doesn't work. That means that if it DID work then it would be right. You can, I hope, see where that argument ultimately takes you.....

This is actually a very good example to use to illustrate a basic point. What you have done is show (I would say successfully) that the argument used to underpin the policy is fallacious. But you cannot then go on to deduce that the policy itself is therefore also wrong. You HAVE shown that it is built on, or supported by, false argument and it is, therefore, LIKELY to be wrong. I know this might seem nitpicky, but it IS important.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Digby wrote:
Considering that women in Eastern countries get attacked and raped all the same as Western women, that will tell you that the hijab is useless in protecting women. If all women wear it, it won't stop rape. Therefore, the fault is on the men who are doing it. Not only that, telling women to wear physical veils and all over covering while men don't even have to cover their arms, does not help a man an his self control, only he can. This means women are being punished for having to cover up because men can't control themselves, implying that women are at fault for tempting them
Sounds a bit bizarre that Muslim women's motivation for wearing a hijab is not to get raped. That suggests by definition that every woman who doesn't wear a hijab in a Muslim country gets raped. Doesn't make sense.

My motivation for wearing a crash helmet is to avoid brain injury. By your bizarre logic that means that everyone who doesn't wear a crash helmet gets brain damage....duh!
Great to hear you are wearing a crash helmet. However I was making the exact same point as a comment to Digby's post.
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Not all Muslim women wear hijabs either. There is plenty of literature on this on the Web, but this is a quick one that I pulled from eHow.
Where they HAVE THE CHOICE they often don't. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT of this debate.
Oh, good to hear Bikerman. I didn't pick up on that. I thought the general discussion so far was that they don't have that freedom of choice. Digby's post showed lack of insight with regard to why women are wearing the hijab and I thought I would help him out.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Oh, good to hear Bikerman. I didn't pick up on that. I thought the general discussion so far was that they don't have that freedom of choice. Digby's post showed lack of insight with regard to why women are wearing the hijab and I thought I would help him out.
But you only confused the issue. Read your posting again - it is daft, and didn't clear anything up or add anything useful.
Summary:
Digby : the notion that the Hijab protects women from rape is wrong because women wearing the hijab also get raped.
You : Sounds a bit bizarre that Muslim women's motivation for wearing a hijab is not to get raped. That suggests by definition that every woman who doesn't wear a hijab in a Muslim country gets raped. Doesn't make sense.


Digby did not say that WOMEN wear the Hijab to avoid rape. You completely missed the point there. He was saying that, wherever it comes from, the notion itself is obviously wrong.
The rest of your paragraph is a logical absurdity as pointed out.

Back on point - women actually wear the Hijab either because they want to or because they are compelled. If they want to then they should and if this was true then France would have no justification for banning it in public. The FACT is, however, that many women do NOT want to and are, instead, forced to by violence, threats, peer pressure and bullying. The insistence of Islam (and this is the case in EVERY Islamic state) that women 'cover up' is simple wrong. End of...
The fact that some more 'enlightened' states may relax this slightly, or even not apply it to non-Muslim women, is a red-herring.
adnantar
Qs: You propogate Secularism, still full of hypocratic denials!

-The bell of the chruch in European countries(Secular) is allowed as compared to a beautiful human voice praising Allah/God is banned as noise.

-Its not permissible to have the sacrifation of animal per Halal way in many non muslim countries. Blood is a container of germs and with Halal way, all the blood is cleaned, thus getting the hygenic meat.
Check yourself:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/misc/an/an_slaughter.htm
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4605

- Hijab: In France, they did it only for muslim. Why the nuns cover their heads, wearing of crosses, Sikhs pagris etc. Why not all the religion signs are not banned and only "Islamic Hijab". This again shows...

and so on....

One of my US friend told me that they had to fight decades for their rights in US. The same thing applies for UK, where govt. try to dictate Zimbabwe and other past colonies.
BTW, I visited the Queen's palace(from outside), lol Smile

There is no compulsion in Islam, if someone forces women, it would be wrong. Because, if some action is not done from heart, its useless. I myself would call it a hypocracy. For this, Shaitan is to be blamed, who is human's biggest enemy.

But, if you deny women for wearing Hijab(whereas, in Europe, there is no compulsion from the families), then you are not following your own secular rules or?

Your argument regarding children uniform, to upgrade the moral of the poor children, is highly appreciable. Islam shows this practically, everyone for pilgrimage(Hajj, in remembrance of Prophet Ibrahim(a.s)), wears the same two piece of clothes. Rich and poor, all are together and equal before ALLAH, asking for the forgiveness.

Anything regarding eliminating poverty, illetracy is of highly noble cause.

Peace to everybody.
catscratches
adnantar wrote:
-The bell of the chruch in European countries(Secular) is allowed as compared to a beautiful human voice praising Allah/God is banned as noise.
There is no law against/for either. Churches do get complaints of noise nuisance and sometimes have to seize the bells. Churches don't get any kind of special treatment.

adnantar wrote:

-Its not permissible to have the sacrifation of animal per Halal way in many non muslim countries. Blood is a container of germs and with Halal way, all the blood is cleaned, thus getting the hygenic meat.
It might be that it's more hygenic. It doesn't matter since it's also animal cruelty.

adnantar wrote:

- Hijab: In France, they did it only for muslim. Why the nuns cover their heads, wearing of crosses, Sikhs pagris etc. Why not all the religion signs are not banned and only "Islamic Hijab". This again shows...
You seem to be ill-informed on this issue. If you're refering to the law against religious symbols in public schools then that DOES ban crosses, pagris etc.

If you're referring to the 2010 ban on face covering in public then that bans face covering regardless of religious affiliation (if any).
Hello_World
Quote:
Qs: You propogate Secularism, still full of hypocratic denials!


secularism is the only choice. It isn't hypocratic.

Quote:
-Its not permissible to have the sacrifation of animal per Halal way in many non muslim countries. Blood is a container of germs and with Halal way, all the blood is cleaned, thus getting the hygenic meat.


Whatever. We export halal meat all over the world. We have special McDonalds and KFCs that only serve halal and no bacon.

If the animal suffers the meat becomes dirty and gross. So in many places halal meat is the dirtiest meat of all but here they stun the animal before they bleed it so I guess it is okay.

Quote:
In France...


What does that prove? France has a rule. On what basis does that prove secular ideas are wrong?

Quote:
One of my US friend told me that they had to fight decades for their rights in US.


You have SO GOT THAT RIGHT. We ALL in Western countries had to fight for rights. We fight long and hard for equality and we aren't finished yet but we have come a long way. And may I add that women WILL NEVER give up the rights our ancestors and we fought so hard to obtain. And ISLAMIC countries haven't got very far yet to getting any rights at all.

Or hardely any.

I agree eliminating poverty and illiteracy is of the highest noble causes.

Who is Shaitan?

Finding an example or two of how a given Western country is not secular or fair is not any proof that secularism doesn't work. Secularism is the only real option. Believe me, if the Western countries weren't secular, you will find they treat Muslims the way Christians, gays and athiests are treated in places like Iran. We wouldn't be having a discussion about how France doesn't let you wear hajibs.

If you don't believe in secularism you believe in war. Simple.
Bikerman
adnantar wrote:
Qs: You propogate Secularism, still full of hypocratic denials!

-The bell of the chruch in European countries(Secular) is allowed as compared to a beautiful human voice praising Allah/God is banned as noise.

You have already told so many lies in this thread that I suppose this is just one more.
As for the rest - just repetition of basic untruths.
a) Hilal meat is NOT banned - though I think it should be - in ANY European country.
b) Nuns do cover the head but NOT the face. It is perfectly OK for Muslim women to do the same - ie to wear a head-covering that does not cover the entire face. Therefore the allegation of religious discrimination is once again false.
Quote:
There is no compulsion in Islam, if someone forces women, it would be wrong. Because, if some action is not done from heart, its useless. I myself would call it a hypocracy. For this, Shaitan is to be blamed, who is human's biggest enemy.
Yea yea yea...just more of the same fallacious 'No true Scotsman' argument. Totally untrue as well. EVERY country which enforces Sharia law also enforces the wearing of the Hijab. Go tell THEM that they are not 'true' muslims.
Quote:
But, if you deny women for wearing Hijab(whereas, in Europe, there is no compulsion from the families), then you are not following your own secular rules or?
France is not Europe and I don't live in France.
Quote:
Peace to everybody.
Except people who piss-off Muslims and death to them eh?
adnantar
Quote:

France is not Europe and I don't live in France.


http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm

I have respect for the teaching profession, though illetrate people might not like :
Quote:

Except people who piss-off Muslims and death to them eh?


By Yousuf Islam, a teacher, from UK, Respect!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ
Peace to everybody
Bikerman
adnantar wrote:
Quote:

France is not Europe and I don't live in France.


http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm

I have respect for the teaching profession, though illetrate people might not like :
What is this supposed to show? I know where France is. France is IN Europe, it is not Europe. Understand the difference? You talk about things being banned in Europe - such as the Hijab. The Hijab is NOT banned in Europe - it is banned in public in France. There is a difference.
Quote:

By Yousuf Islam, a teacher, from UK, Respect!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ
Peace to everybody

So what has a Cat Stevens video got to do with the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie?
Related topics
islam is...
"Why I published those cartoons" [mocking fascism]
truth about Islam's violent teachings, .. depraved founder
Images of Islam - "Death to America, Death to Denmark&a
A resonable comparison between Christianity and Islam
Most peaceful religion
The Middle East Conflict
Anything you want to know about islam??
what if you like/love somebody who has a boy/girlfriend?
So much for freedom of religion
THE WORLD WILL END IN 2012...
Man as God's Messenger
The "Muslim World"
Proof that Islam is man-made
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.