DescentBB

It's amazing people apologize for islam's treatment of women as 'cultural.'

Called Nikah al-Mutah ("short-term marriage") in Arabic, the union consists of a verbal or written contract in which both parties agree to the length of time and conditions for the marriage. The union can last for a few minutes or a few years and when the contract ends so does the marriage. The "wives" in such unions are not counted toward the maximum of four, and the offspring, if any, are often the exclusive responsibility of the woman.

Also known as a "pleasure marriage," Mutah was established within Islam by the Muslim prophet Mohammed himself as a way to reward his jihadists for services rendered to Allah. Although Mutah is sanctioned by the Koranic verse 4:24, the practice was later outlawed by the second Muslim Caliph, Omar I (634-644), who said he viewed temporary marriage as legalized adultery and fornication.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3748/ ... -marriages

I HIGHLY doubt that many of these so-called marriages are 'agreed to' and actually wanted by the women involved. There is a pimp- which can be a family member, most likely the father or brother.

what seemingly has 'no end' is your odd obsession with the arcane aspects of small subsets of the Muslim population on the planet......

Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside, plus your arguments hold no consistency Slick. You are willing to disarm a whole country, leaving them with archaic weapons, for a much, much smaller subset

A good example of how Mohammed was not a prophet of God. It's a great big cult--it's just older than most of them.

And, I know some guns that got violent.

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside, plus your arguments hold no consistency Slick. You are willing to disarm a whole country, leaving them with archaic weapons, for a much, much smaller subset

touché

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside, plus your arguments hold no consistency Slick. You are willing to disarm a whole country, leaving them with archaic weapons, for a much, much smaller subset

OUCH

pretty funny, but I don't see where I ever came close to suggesting that we disarm ANY country......

And the munchkins never told Dorothy to go to Oz...

disagree with your analogy, Thorne, but as colorful descriptives go, first-rate!!

Thank you. I look at it this way. These folks that you're backing will not see fit to stop short of total disarmament except as a temporary setback en route to what we see in Great Britain or Australia, and they're not even done yet. In fact there are post WWII era governmental plans to disarm even our military and law enforcement (in favor of an international authority), which certainly is next. So until you have some sort of substantive disagreement with them--I suppose I can only speak for myself--I really don't care how you prefer to think of yourself, you're pulling for the same ends.

The fact that you agree with Biden on this doesn't help...
[youtube]A0IVSGctQIg[/youtube]

callmeslick wrote:pretty funny, but I don't see where I ever came close to suggesting that we disarm ANY country......

What guns would you ban and why?

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside

So what would you say about someone if they judged all americans based on the stories of school shootings, animal lab bombings, taco bell firebombings and McDonalds order 911 calls?

Ferno wrote:

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside

So what would you say about someone if they judged all americans based on the stories of school shootings, animal lab bombings, taco bell firebombings and McDonalds order 911 calls?

American founding documents don't establish forced prostitution upon women for the pleasure of men.

flip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:pretty funny, but I don't see where I ever came close to suggesting that we disarm ANY country......

What guns would you ban and why?

I would like not to ban anything....my main call has been for sensible control over distribution(sales). I see no NEED for a citizenry with assaut weapons, but so long as there were tight, common-sense background checks and documentation for ownership, I'm good with anything.

ThunderBunny wrote:

Ferno wrote:

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside

So what would you say about someone if they judged all americans based on the stories of school shootings, animal lab bombings, taco bell firebombings and McDonalds order 911 calls?

American founding documents don't establish forced prostitution upon women for the pleasure of men.

neither do Islamic ones. What is your point?

callmeslick wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

Ferno wrote:

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside

So what would you say about someone if they judged all americans based on the stories of school shootings, animal lab bombings, taco bell firebombings and McDonalds order 911 calls?

American founding documents don't establish forced prostitution upon women for the pleasure of men.

neither do Islamic ones. What is your point?

The Koran vs The Bill of Rights/Constitution? You sure you want to take the side of the Koran in a debate of which is more respectful of equal rights?!?

callmeslick wrote:...

I would like not to ban anything....my main call has been for sensible control over distribution(sales). I see no NEED for a citizenry with assaut weapons, but so long as there were tight, common-sense background checks and documentation for ownership, I'm good with anything.

Who's definition of "need" will America's new 'Slicks Bill of Rights' be using to decide what our new rights will be?
Talk about a slippery slope! 'Needs based rights'! I think that concept deserves oxymoron of the century award!

I can think of at least 2 Slick:

[youtube]LX5f01Qf3yU[/youtube]

and if we lose the world reserve currency. The latter being the most likely threat. Everyone knows that as long as we hold the world reserve currency, we can always cover our debts, because we can always print the money to cover them , but there is a huge push from many industrialized nations to change that little racket of ours. With the way the Federal Government is borrowing and spending money, it will be impossible to pay our debt. Would we need assault weapons then?

Ferno wrote:

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside

So what would you say about someone if they judged all americans based on the stories of school shootings, animal lab bombings, taco bell firebombings and McDonalds order 911 calls?

They do

flip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside

So what would you say about someone if they judged all americans based on the stories of school shootings, animal lab bombings, taco bell firebombings and McDonalds order 911 calls?

They do

+1

Will Robinson wrote: The Koran vs The Bill of Rights/Constitution? You sure you want to take the side of the Koran in a debate of which is more respectful of equal rights?!?

I am. in no way, choosing one over the other. What I am using the analogy for is to equate that folks interpret both in ways that look, to the rest of the world, bad. A fairer comparison, IMO, would be the Bible and Koran. Folks have used the Bible as justification for everything from the Crusades, to the Ku Klux Klan, to killing doctors outside a church. A reflection on Judeo Christian religion as a whole? Of course not. So, with Islam. You can't, as TB persists in trying to, paint a few billion people with such a broad brush of generalization.

TB isn't actually painting with a broad brush here. He's talking about Islam. Talking about Islam VS Christianity is apparently some kind of auto reaction. First you're changing the subject. He's not comparing the merits of various religions, he's talking about the cultural implications of Islam. Second, he's using Islamic law to do it, not the historic misapplication of a law to justify evil people's desires and actions.

I think it might speak well of Calif Omar that he changed it, perhaps, but being a Christian I believe that if the root is bad it won't do any good to prune or modify the plant that comes from it. He might have been bothered to realize that if their Prophet instituted the practice, that speak badly of Islam because it means Islam was started by this "prophet" who prophesied these things for his own purposes.

ThunderBunny wrote:

Ferno wrote:

flip wrote:Heh, small subsets given an ok and look away by the greater populations from which they reside

So what would you say about someone if they judged all americans based on the stories of school shootings, animal lab bombings, taco bell firebombings and McDonalds order 911 calls?

American founding documents don't establish forced prostitution upon women for the pleasure of men.

I asked flip. I don't even consider this junk as a reply.

flip wrote:They do

I asked what would you say. Don't evade the question. And playing cute is simply an annoyance.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: The Koran vs The Bill of Rights/Constitution? You sure you want to take the side of the Koran in a debate of which is more respectful of equal rights?!?

I am. in no way, choosing one over the other. What I am using the analogy for is to equate that folks interpret both in ways that look, to the rest of the world, bad. A fairer comparison, IMO, would be the Bible and Koran. Folks have used the Bible as justification for everything from the Crusades, to the Ku Klux Klan, to killing doctors outside a church. A reflection on Judeo Christian religion as a whole? Of course not. So, with Islam. You can't, as TB persists in trying to, paint a few billion people with such a broad brush of generalization.

Exactly. It is simply illogical to assume the actions of an entire population is dictated by a small group.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: The Koran vs The Bill of Rights/Constitution? You sure you want to take the side of the Koran in a debate of which is more respectful of equal rights?!?

I am. in no way, choosing one over the other. What I am using the analogy for is to equate that folks interpret both in ways that look, to the rest of the world, bad. ....

Yes, but here in America where there are a few wacky christians that do similar bad things they don't get to run the country and declare Jesus Law: 'Jesus wants you to rape the girls for your pleasure.' The christian wackos really are a 'fringe element. You can't call the ayatollah in Iran and his loyal followers in that country, his Hezbollah group in Lebanon and his Hamas branch in Israel/Palestine a fringe element....
Likewise with the Saudi fundamentalists...Yemeni fundamentalists...etc. etc.

In some Islamic countries the wacky ones have that kind of authority...and do make those kind of declarations...
You start talking a few hundred thousand here a million there and give them modern weaponry and 'nation status' in world politics and all of a sudden you are talking about some real organized hard core trouble!

So when you try to dismiss a person's point by making such weak equivalences as you just did you come off as disingenuous at the very least.
A clue for you is, you need to rewind christian based cultures back more than a few centuries to get it to parallel some modern Islamic cultures with regard to equal rights and thus support your assertions.

That is a distinction that shouldn't be ignored, it could blow up in our faces. Oh....dear...uh...well, you get the picture.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TB isn't actually painting with a broad brush here. He's talking about Islam. Talking about Islam VS Christianity is apparently some kind of auto reaction. First you're changing the subject. He's not comparing the merits of various religions, he's talking about the cultural implications of Islam. Second, he's using Islamic law to do it, not the historic misapplication of a law to justify evil people's desires and actions.

you, too, are painting with a broad brush, sad to say one loaded with ignorance. If you knew, and discussed the matter with Muslims, you would realize there is no one thing such as "Islamic Law". Each mosque, each Imam, is free to interpret as seen fit. The variations are vast, and range from the virtually pacifist, egalitarian Ba'hai, to the off-the-wall repressive sub-sects of Sunni Islam.

Will Robinson wrote:[es, but here in America where there are a few wacky christians that do similar bad things they don't get to run the country and declare Jesus Law: 'Jesus wants you to rape the girls for your pleasure.' The christian wackos really are a 'fringe element. You can't call the ayatollah in Iran and his loyal followers in that country, his Hezbollah group in Lebanon and his Hamas branch in Israel/Palestine a fringe element....
Likewise with the Saudi fundamentalists...Yemeni fundamentalists...etc. etc.

if you are suggesting such a Christian strain couldn't dominate US politics, I would be hopeful and agree. Proves nothing, however, about Muslims as a whole.

So when you try to dismiss a person's point by making such weak equivalences as you just did you come off as disingenuous at the very least.
A clue for you is, you need to rewind christian based cultures back more than a few centuries to get it to parallel some modern Islamic cultures with regard to equal rights and thus support your assertions.

That is a distinction that shouldn't be ignored, it could blow up in our faces. Oh....dear...uh...well, you get the picture.

that much of the Islamic world is culturally and socially behind the west is a fact, however, the 'whys' behind that fact are complex, and can be partially rooted in the actions by Christians in the past.

callmeslick wrote:
you, too, are painting with a broad brush, sad to say one loaded with ignorance. If you knew, and discussed the matter with Muslims, you would realize there is no one thing such as "Islamic Law". Each mosque, each Imam, is free to interpret as seen fit. The variations are vast, and range from the virtually pacifist, egalitarian Ba'hai, to the off-the-wall repressive sub-sects of Sunni Islam.

Any of those decision making imams female? Do females have any say in the Muslim faith? Do they have 70 virgins waiting for them?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:[Yes, but here in America where there are a few wacky christians that do similar bad things they don't get to run the country and declare Jesus Law: 'Jesus wants you to rape the girls for your pleasure.' The christian wackos really are a 'fringe element. You can't call the ayatollah in Iran and his loyal followers in that country, his Hezbollah group in Lebanon and his Hamas branch in Israel/Palestine a fringe element....
Likewise with the Saudi fundamentalists...Yemeni fundamentalists...etc. etc.

if you are suggesting such a Christian strain couldn't dominate US politics, I would be hopeful and agree. Proves nothing, however, about Muslims as a whole.

But I'm not trying to say anything about muslims as a whole. You, on the other hand, were trying to equate two unequal factors. While a Christian strain could dominate american politics, highly unlikely, in the muslim world the islamo-fascists are much bigger and much more powerful than their wacko Christian counterparts and they do dominate politics in a number of those countries and are taking more of them today! And that is what I was trying to say...

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So when you try to dismiss a person's point by making such weak equivalences as you just did you come off as disingenuous at the very least.
A clue for you is, you need to rewind christian based cultures back more than a few centuries to get it to parallel some modern Islamic cultures with regard to equal rights and thus support your assertions.

That is a distinction that shouldn't be ignored, it could blow up in our faces. Oh....dear...uh...well, you get the picture.

that much of the Islamic world is culturally and socially behind the west is a fact, however, the 'whys' behind that fact are complex, and can be partially rooted in the actions by Christians in the past.

I've read bin Laden's manifesto where he makes the same claims in detail. I wasn't moved by his indictment of the christians and jews for causing his peoples strife either.
He should have looked closer to home, and in the mirror.
And you should be willing to acknowledge and accept people referencing the rest of the huge festering catalyst that makes your "partially rooted" designation a truly tiny fraction of the full root of the problem!.
Christians are nothing if not an equal opportunity offender....they have been sending out missionaries and exporting coca cola and bikini's and debauchery and money lending, etc all around the world yet only Islamic fundamentalists have held their countries and tribes back so egregiously where other peoples have progressed nicely in spite of the Christian movement.

Muslims don't have a Christian problem, but far too many of them have an infidel problem! It's hard to score when you refuse to step off that first base....

callmeslick wrote:you, too, are painting with a broad brush, sad to say one loaded with ignorance. If you knew, and discussed the matter with Muslims, you would realize there is no one thing such as "Islamic Law". Each mosque, each Imam, is free to interpret as seen fit. The variations are vast, and range from the virtually pacifist, egalitarian Ba'hai, to the off-the-wall repressive sub-sects of Sunni Islam.

I'll give you that I have a degree of ignorance regarding the Muslim world, but everything else there is confusion projected onto the discussion. Christians also are free to interpret the Bible as they see fit. This doesn't change what the Bible actually says, and what it actually says actually is a true commentary on Christianity as a source ideology, if you will, and what people do with that isn't, necessarily, at all. I'm not painting with a broad brush. If the Bible says that God created the earth in 6 days, then anyone who reads the Bible is going to get the idea that God created the earth in 6 days, until Foil, or anyone else with a different ideas tells them otherwise. Outside of the influence of other ideologies, people who ascribe to Christianity are going to gravitate to the notion that the Earth was created in 6 days. For everyone in the room who is dull by reason of exposure to popular stupidity, this is why religious fundamentals are an important consideration. Those 6 days will always be there, until modified by an outside influence. So in the case of Islam, the fact that the "Prophet" considered it acceptable to arrange temporary marriages will always be there. Good for them if they think that's wrong, because it obviously is for all kinds of reasons, but it's still fucked up, and it's still there. If Christianity had such a thing, I would have to question its validity accordingly, just as they should question the validity of Islam every time it encourages something that is so blatantly wrong and self-serving.

I would say those would be the least of their grievances. Plus, none of those things you mention really compare to the organization and manpower of these "subsets" of Islam and even though a great majority of them do not actively participate in outright assaults, the majority of them dance in the streets when the blow is struck.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
you, too, are painting with a broad brush, sad to say one loaded with ignorance. If you knew, and discussed the matter with Muslims, you would realize there is no one thing such as "Islamic Law". Each mosque, each Imam, is free to interpret as seen fit. The variations are vast, and range from the virtually pacifist, egalitarian Ba'hai, to the off-the-wall repressive sub-sects of Sunni Islam.

Any of those decision making imams female? Do females have any say in the Muslim faith? Do they have 70 virgins waiting for them?

yes, some sects have female Imams

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
you, too, are painting with a broad brush, sad to say one loaded with ignorance. If you knew, and discussed the matter with Muslims, you would realize there is no one thing such as "Islamic Law". Each mosque, each Imam, is free to interpret as seen fit. The variations are vast, and range from the virtually pacifist, egalitarian Ba'hai, to the off-the-wall repressive sub-sects of Sunni Islam.

Any of those decision making imams female? Do females have any say in the Muslim faith? Do they have 70 virgins waiting for them?

yes, some sects have female Imams

They do? Perhaps you can link something that points this out so I can learn about it.

On a philosophical note, I believe I have appropriately fixed the subject of this discussion.

(If you think Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc. are immune to twisting things to suit their evil desires you're a fool.)

snoopy wrote: (If you think Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc. are immune to twisting things to suit their evil desires you're a fool.)

+1

snoopy wrote:On a philosophical note, I believe I have appropriately fixed the subject of this discussion.

Ah. Took me a second to see the change in the topic title. Agreed.

In this case snoopy is the fool. I was making a point about islam. Too often it is willfully ignored or whitewashed. There is no "twisting" involved. This is the word of their prophet mohammed.

Yes, mankind can be quite vile...but islam is amongst the most vile movements on the planet created by man that threatens life, liberty and freedom. Stick your head in the sand if you want.

Just don't expect me to comply.

My problem is that I don't know Islam well enough to pass a judgement. I've heard plenty of people's opinions, but I really ought to research Islam myself if I'm going to agree/disagree with you.

I can see Christians pulling something similar and justifying it with arguments that I'd be much better equipped to refute.

I agree with the general idea that Islam doesn't have it right; but I think the main problem is man's sinful heart, not some religion. So, when I look at the problem of exploitation of people I see a lot more sources than just Islam - so I try not to get overly worked about one particular flavor of evil. I guess in some sense I'm jaded into thinking that it's always going to come in one form or another....

for Woody: here's 10 million muslims led by female imams, there are a couple of smaller sects elsewhere.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/world ... .html?_r=0

snoopy wrote:On a philosophical note, I believe I have appropriately fixed the subject of this discussion.

(If you think Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, etc. are immune to twisting things to suit their evil desires you're a fool.)

I agree up to a point. Agnostics aren't sure about religion and Atheists just don't believe in any religion. So I'm having a hard time imaging both of them twisting any kind of religion to suit their own ends. If they do, they're not really agnostic or atheist. They're just pretending.