Ayaan Ali Hirsi and the Big Bad Wolf
Bina Shah July 1, 2006
#461 Posted by Aangaara on July 11, 2006 10:17:44 pm
#460
lol ah! the resonable voices of islam, u have come a long way from......
``2) I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer.``
mr. zeemax as long as you dont justify ``immense cruelty`` as halaal strategy, i have no problem with ur fantasies about the virgins of heavens. may u get 140 instead of the lowly 70.
now since we are evolving can masadi take a look at these pictures and then discard the hadiths about the age of ayesha??
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541006
lol ah! the resonable voices of islam, u have come a long way from......
``2) I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer.``
mr. zeemax as long as you dont justify ``immense cruelty`` as halaal strategy, i have no problem with ur fantasies about the virgins of heavens. may u get 140 instead of the lowly 70.
now since we are evolving can masadi take a look at these pictures and then discard the hadiths about the age of ayesha??
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541006
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#460 Posted by zeemax on July 11, 2006 9:16:18 am
#459 by masadi
Agreed. I think I`m getting to see your reasoning.
Thanks.
Agreed. I think I`m getting to see your reasoning.
Thanks.
#459 Posted by masadi on July 11, 2006 7:09:57 am
There are no historians that wrote about that incident except for one person, who is not considered a reliable historian and whose work survives in secondary docs of others that lived over a hundred years after him and he lived a hundred and fifty years after the incident. The Quranic verses I quoted simply reveals as lesson, the immorality of judging someone without having information, in the case of the prophet his generation has long passed and we are not responsible for what they might or might not have done~ infact accusing someone of something based upon hearsay, as these tales amount to be, is considered a major crime in Islam. Now, when this case of these Islam haters who cherry pick tales from a whole morass of tales, that would not hold up as historical documents or evidence in any court of law, to convict the prophet, is busted they feel the pain and I have witnessed their ``pain`` many times when they have been stumped.
#458 Posted by zeemax on July 10, 2006 11:14:12 pm
#457 by masadi
Indeed Al-Baqara is a Madani Surah and particularly addressed to Jews. As I understand your contention, the quoted ayats from Al-Baqara point to the various incidents culminating in the end of Jews in Madina. I don`t know the exact chronology of these ayats, but if these were revealed after the Banu Quraiza incident, then there would be much more to this incident than is understood by the historians. Certainly, these ayats are not in any way aggressive in their tone or gloating etc, but rather tragic ... so you may be right.
Indeed Al-Baqara is a Madani Surah and particularly addressed to Jews. As I understand your contention, the quoted ayats from Al-Baqara point to the various incidents culminating in the end of Jews in Madina. I don`t know the exact chronology of these ayats, but if these were revealed after the Banu Quraiza incident, then there would be much more to this incident than is understood by the historians. Certainly, these ayats are not in any way aggressive in their tone or gloating etc, but rather tragic ... so you may be right.
#457 Posted by masadi on July 10, 2006 6:47:17 pm
Zeemax writes <<< Do you agree, masadi? >>>
The tale about Banu Quraiza is ahistorical, and even in that it is uniquly based on the writings of a single source that survives only in secondary documents, that well known historiographers like Ibn Khaldun have disputed, and the most historical of all documents on Islam, the Quran does not offer any such justification for massacres. That is my point and in the criminal justice system, if the prophet was being tried for this, my claim rather than Ballush*t`s claim would hold (I feel his pain (sarcasm) since all his claims against the prophet just got busted, now he has no case). Innocent until proven guilty and the ``proof`` is badly tainted, worse than he said, she said. That said, since we cannot pass any judgment, I rely on the Quran`s edict:
[2.134] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
[2.141] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
The tale about Banu Quraiza is ahistorical, and even in that it is uniquly based on the writings of a single source that survives only in secondary documents, that well known historiographers like Ibn Khaldun have disputed, and the most historical of all documents on Islam, the Quran does not offer any such justification for massacres. That is my point and in the criminal justice system, if the prophet was being tried for this, my claim rather than Ballush*t`s claim would hold (I feel his pain (sarcasm) since all his claims against the prophet just got busted, now he has no case). Innocent until proven guilty and the ``proof`` is badly tainted, worse than he said, she said. That said, since we cannot pass any judgment, I rely on the Quran`s edict:
[2.134] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
[2.141] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.
#456 Posted by tahmed32 on July 10, 2006 11:08:30 am
Kulharee: #454 Echosqueek gets his jollies by posting pictures of gora muslims in-between his cut and pastes of lengthy write-ups from the internet (which he presumably thinks anyone actually spends all his day reading). dont take that away from him...please. this makes him happy. and chowk is about making people happy. right?
#454 Posted by Kulharee on July 10, 2006 8:47:07 am
Re: # 453
Itchyboobs, why don`t gora muslims care about Kalay muslims of Darfur that are being raped by Wahabi white (actually less kalay) muslims? What are your views on that?
Itchyboobs, why don`t gora muslims care about Kalay muslims of Darfur that are being raped by Wahabi white (actually less kalay) muslims? What are your views on that?
#453 Posted by echoboom on July 10, 2006 8:40:31 am
For the Westoxicated scum in the slavelands where goraa left but left his droppings
....``buy we excell in sniffing the goraa-ass in english ...`` yelp , in american accents, the canines from the cantonement & colonies
The veil is not the issue
According to a recent poll, Muslim women care more about voting and their countries’ problems such as violent extremism, corruption and lack of unity among the countries. It is unfortunate that women did not use the survey as a way to express their “own” problems and needs. If they don’t speak up, nobody will do it for them.
It might be surprising to hear that the veil, or even the burqua, is not the main problem facing Muslim women. None of the women surveyed mentioned this issue.
Maybe people should stop stereotyping veiled women and focus on more important problems. A good example is a recent Jordanian survey showing that women find it acceptable to be beaten by their husbands!
What is really alarming is that more women, married and unmarried, found beating acceptable compared to their male counterparts.
Women are not challenging the status quo. In fact, they might be ingraining it even more. Are they afraid or are they oblivious?
— Gihane Askar, Internet Division, The Washington Times
The problem with Western civilization is they tend to judge everyone by their standard and do not fully comprehend the power of religious belief. In Middle East like you rightly observed, the veil or wife-beating is part of the socio-cultural-religious system. It should not surprise you that Middle East culture is completely at 180 degrees from the West. The West needs more studies like this to fully understand non-Western culture.
Andy Woodward Says:
After 11 eleven years in 3 countries the Mideast I agree the veil is not the issue. There’s no great pressure from women to get rid of it and few are forced to wear it. There’s much more concern about not having access to decent jobs, to being hassled on the street and over the phone by young men, to domestic violence and forced (not arranged) marriages. There’s an awful lot that women worry about in Arab society and the veil is the least of it.
Our belief has the power of Truth to liberate both men and women subject to the erroneous and oppressive morality of a contrary religious conviction.
If we are going to “dialogue” with Islam, we should not tie our religious selves behind our backs. For if we proceed on solely a modern subjective or enlightenment morality, we will fail because they are incapable of pronouncing any reason for its own superiority.
Apparently, nobody in this forum is actually reading these “surveys”.
In nearly all cases, the majority of Jordanian men and women DO NOT believe that striking a woman is justified for any reason other than adultery. It is true that, compared to Americans, Middle East cultures are far less tolerant of adultery.
It would also be helpful if someone noted that domestic violence is also one of the major challenges facing the American society. Estimates of the percentage of American women who have been the victim of domestic violence range as high as 33%.
At best, we can only say that Americans might be slightly more respectful of women. But even that is only true if we ignore pornography, a practice that is virtually nonexistent in Muslim cultures.
All replies are screened by The Washington Times prior to posting. All fields are required. The views expressed are your own and unless specifically stated are not those of The Washington Times. The Washington Times is not responsible for the content of any external sites or comments referenced. If you think the content violates the Terms of Use then please alert the The Washington Times. The Washington Times reserves the right to edit posts as required. Submitting a comment does not imply that it will be posted. Please see the posting guidelines.
....``buy we excell in sniffing the goraa-ass in english ...`` yelp , in american accents, the canines from the cantonement & colonies
The Washington Times
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The veil is not the issue
According to a recent poll, Muslim women care more about voting and their countries’ problems such as violent extremism, corruption and lack of unity among the countries. It is unfortunate that women did not use the survey as a way to express their “own” problems and needs. If they don’t speak up, nobody will do it for them.
It might be surprising to hear that the veil, or even the burqua, is not the main problem facing Muslim women. None of the women surveyed mentioned this issue.
Maybe people should stop stereotyping veiled women and focus on more important problems. A good example is a recent Jordanian survey showing that women find it acceptable to be beaten by their husbands!
What is really alarming is that more women, married and unmarried, found beating acceptable compared to their male counterparts.
Women are not challenging the status quo. In fact, they might be ingraining it even more. Are they afraid or are they oblivious?
— Gihane Askar, Internet Division, The Washington Times
11 Responses to “The veil is not the issue”
The problem with Western civilization is they tend to judge everyone by their standard and do not fully comprehend the power of religious belief. In Middle East like you rightly observed, the veil or wife-beating is part of the socio-cultural-religious system. It should not surprise you that Middle East culture is completely at 180 degrees from the West. The West needs more studies like this to fully understand non-Western culture.
posted at 1:15 AM
Andy Woodward Says:
After 11 eleven years in 3 countries the Mideast I agree the veil is not the issue. There’s no great pressure from women to get rid of it and few are forced to wear it. There’s much more concern about not having access to decent jobs, to being hassled on the street and over the phone by young men, to domestic violence and forced (not arranged) marriages. There’s an awful lot that women worry about in Arab society and the veil is the least of it.
Our belief has the power of Truth to liberate both men and women subject to the erroneous and oppressive morality of a contrary religious conviction.
If we are going to “dialogue” with Islam, we should not tie our religious selves behind our backs. For if we proceed on solely a modern subjective or enlightenment morality, we will fail because they are incapable of pronouncing any reason for its own superiority.
posted at 2:32 PM
Apparently, nobody in this forum is actually reading these “surveys”.
In nearly all cases, the majority of Jordanian men and women DO NOT believe that striking a woman is justified for any reason other than adultery. It is true that, compared to Americans, Middle East cultures are far less tolerant of adultery.
It would also be helpful if someone noted that domestic violence is also one of the major challenges facing the American society. Estimates of the percentage of American women who have been the victim of domestic violence range as high as 33%.
At best, we can only say that Americans might be slightly more respectful of women. But even that is only true if we ignore pornography, a practice that is virtually nonexistent in Muslim cultures.
All replies are screened by The Washington Times prior to posting. All fields are required. The views expressed are your own and unless specifically stated are not those of The Washington Times. The Washington Times is not responsible for the content of any external sites or comments referenced. If you think the content violates the Terms of Use then please alert the The Washington Times. The Washington Times reserves the right to edit posts as required. Submitting a comment does not imply that it will be posted. Please see the posting guidelines.
#452 Posted by Kulharee on July 10, 2006 6:49:41 am
Do Zeemax and Masadi consider the Sudanese Janjaweed Wahabi rapists as part of the Ummah? Why does Masadi run away from talking about Darfur genocide being perpetrated by his Ummah collectively?
#451 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 5:08:11 am
My last post to you Mr. Asadi...............
Go back to your madarassa. Cleanse you heart which is full of hatred. Do some Dhikr from heart and stop showing off.
Stop confusing the gullible Ummah with your Islamist nonsense. ........
Go back to your madarassa. Cleanse you heart which is full of hatred. Do some Dhikr from heart and stop showing off.
Stop confusing the gullible Ummah with your Islamist nonsense. ........
#450 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 4:57:27 am
I doubt Asadi , despite his claims to `scholarship`, has even read and understood the Chapter 8 (AL-ANFAL) of the Holy Quran .
#449 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 4:11:46 am
Re: # 447
``Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war. ``
There is no question of SHIFTING moral grounds for a true follower of Islam..............it is nonsense to say that such moral relativism is prescribed any where..............the fact is that these massacres were justified both by the Hadith and the Holy Quran............it is a bitter fact we have to accept!!
``Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war. ``
There is no question of SHIFTING moral grounds for a true follower of Islam..............it is nonsense to say that such moral relativism is prescribed any where..............the fact is that these massacres were justified both by the Hadith and the Holy Quran............it is a bitter fact we have to accept!!
#448 Posted by ballukhan on July 10, 2006 4:08:13 am
Re: # 447
The point made by Asadi was that the Hadiths are not accurate and massacare would not have been justified if we look at the holy Quran.
He made the statement:
``i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered....``
In that respect, as always, he is absolutely wrong.
The point made by Asadi was that the Hadiths are not accurate and massacare would not have been justified if we look at the holy Quran.
He made the statement:
``i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered....``
In that respect, as always, he is absolutely wrong.
#447 Posted by zeemax on July 10, 2006 1:48:28 am
#444/5/6 by ballukhan
Masadi is right. Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war.
All the verses you quote sanction no mercy for the opponent in battle, but that was not the case here. Quran indeed does not sanction any such measure as occured with Banu Quraiza.They were actually accused and convicted of having betrayed a treaty of neutrality with Muhammad in their surreptetiously helping Quraish cross the Ditch.
The vital factor in explaining this event is that the sentence of their execution was not awarded under Quranic Law, but under the Jews` own law.
As reliable accounts go, it was decided that an arbitrator should be appointed. As Banu Quraiza were allied with the Aus, they named Saad b Muaz, the leader of Bani Aus, as the arbitrator. The Muslims agreed and accordingly Saad b Muaz was appointed as the arbitrator. On his appointment, Saad b Muaz took a pledge from both the parties that whatever decision was given by him would be binding on both the parties. After the pledge had been given, Saad asked the Jews as to what was the penalty of traitors under Jewish law. It was discovered that the penalty in such cases was death. Saad next posed the question whether the Jews had any pact with the Muslims. It was brought to light that there was originally such an agreement. Saad then asked whether it was a fact that they had repudiated that agreement on the occasion of the battle of the Ditch. This could not be denied by the Jews as Saad himself had come to them as an emissary and they had told him at that time that they had no agreement with the Muslims. Saad accordingly gave the award that as the Jews had acted as traitors, all the adult male Jews deserved to be killed under the Jewish law. The sentence was duly executed and that was the end of Banu Quraiza.
It could have been a brilliant tactic to kill two birds with one stone i.e. getting rid of the last remaining jewish tribe in Medina, as well as sending a clear signal to Quraish, while at the same time not violating any Quranic injunctions.
Do you agree, masadi?
Masadi is right. Perhaps the circumstances of the Banu Quraiza event are not clear to you. Banu Quraiza never fought Muhammad. There was no battle or war.
All the verses you quote sanction no mercy for the opponent in battle, but that was not the case here. Quran indeed does not sanction any such measure as occured with Banu Quraiza.They were actually accused and convicted of having betrayed a treaty of neutrality with Muhammad in their surreptetiously helping Quraish cross the Ditch.
The vital factor in explaining this event is that the sentence of their execution was not awarded under Quranic Law, but under the Jews` own law.
As reliable accounts go, it was decided that an arbitrator should be appointed. As Banu Quraiza were allied with the Aus, they named Saad b Muaz, the leader of Bani Aus, as the arbitrator. The Muslims agreed and accordingly Saad b Muaz was appointed as the arbitrator. On his appointment, Saad b Muaz took a pledge from both the parties that whatever decision was given by him would be binding on both the parties. After the pledge had been given, Saad asked the Jews as to what was the penalty of traitors under Jewish law. It was discovered that the penalty in such cases was death. Saad next posed the question whether the Jews had any pact with the Muslims. It was brought to light that there was originally such an agreement. Saad then asked whether it was a fact that they had repudiated that agreement on the occasion of the battle of the Ditch. This could not be denied by the Jews as Saad himself had come to them as an emissary and they had told him at that time that they had no agreement with the Muslims. Saad accordingly gave the award that as the Jews had acted as traitors, all the adult male Jews deserved to be killed under the Jewish law. The sentence was duly executed and that was the end of Banu Quraiza.
It could have been a brilliant tactic to kill two birds with one stone i.e. getting rid of the last remaining jewish tribe in Medina, as well as sending a clear signal to Quraish, while at the same time not violating any Quranic injunctions.
Do you agree, masadi?
#446 Posted by ballukhan on July 9, 2006 10:54:20 pm
Here is an explicit prescription from the Holy Quran for the SLAUGHTER.
Please Mr. Asadi explain these verses for the benefit of all:
008.067
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.
PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Please Mr. Asadi explain these verses for the benefit of all:
008.067
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.
PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
#445 Posted by ballukhan on July 9, 2006 10:51:37 pm
8;57 is more clear about what to in order to make an example to the enemies:
008.057
YUSUFALI: If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.
PICKTHAL: If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
SHAKIR: Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful.
008.057
YUSUFALI: If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.
PICKTHAL: If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
SHAKIR: Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful.
#444 Posted by ballukhan on July 9, 2006 10:44:37 pm
``......i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered, in fact it is against the very letter of its spirit.........``
the following verses clearly state the nature of treatment to be met out to the unbelievers. The context may be specific but the verses are revealed as universal prescriptions to all muslims:
047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah`s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
To say that such treatment is NOT justified by the Holy Quran but is wrongly precribed in the Hadith is absolutely incorrect.
There are many more verses that justify harsh treatment towards unbelievers.
2:91
5:33
8:12 is more explicit :
008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ``I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.``
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
the following verses clearly state the nature of treatment to be met out to the unbelievers. The context may be specific but the verses are revealed as universal prescriptions to all muslims:
047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah`s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
To say that such treatment is NOT justified by the Holy Quran but is wrongly precribed in the Hadith is absolutely incorrect.
There are many more verses that justify harsh treatment towards unbelievers.
2:91
5:33
8:12 is more explicit :
008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ``I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.``
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
#443 Posted by masadi on July 9, 2006 9:29:45 pm
Zeemax writes <<< Muhammad massacred Banu Quraiza to send Quraish a message >>>
How can you be so sure in your assertion? The facts of the issue are that in the most historical of all documents regarding the life of the prophet, i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered, in fact it is against the very letter of its spirit. You are basing your allegations on Ibn Ishaq`s work who lived 150 years after the events and whose work survives as secondary quotes in the work of people like Tabari who lived over a hundred years after him and well known jurists like Maalik discount Ibn Ishaq`s work. Will this kind of evidence stand in any court of law to convict anyone of a crime? Of course not, yet why do the Islam haters cling to it as a drowning person clutching at straws? Because if they rely on the Quran, they have no case against Islam. They have to cringe and crawl to find out, from the whole morass of extra-quranic nonsense that has been lumped under the banner of Islam, a few tales to prove and nourish their bigotry and hatred. They prove nothing in the process and would be laughed out of any civilized court if they tried to use any such evidence to convict anyone of a crime.
How can you be so sure in your assertion? The facts of the issue are that in the most historical of all documents regarding the life of the prophet, i.e. the Quran no mention or justfication for such massacres is offered, in fact it is against the very letter of its spirit. You are basing your allegations on Ibn Ishaq`s work who lived 150 years after the events and whose work survives as secondary quotes in the work of people like Tabari who lived over a hundred years after him and well known jurists like Maalik discount Ibn Ishaq`s work. Will this kind of evidence stand in any court of law to convict anyone of a crime? Of course not, yet why do the Islam haters cling to it as a drowning person clutching at straws? Because if they rely on the Quran, they have no case against Islam. They have to cringe and crawl to find out, from the whole morass of extra-quranic nonsense that has been lumped under the banner of Islam, a few tales to prove and nourish their bigotry and hatred. They prove nothing in the process and would be laughed out of any civilized court if they tried to use any such evidence to convict anyone of a crime.
#442 Posted by swarrier on July 9, 2006 8:06:04 pm
Re: # 438
Netizen
There are many questions as to why the atom bomb was dropped on Japan. It was not just to save Yankee lives. Japan was pretty close to being defeated anyway, at that point. It was partly to send a message of the form, `` Resistance is futile...``. Secondly Japan was a good place to test the bomb. From a racist viewpoint they were not European and being a bunch of islands the result of the nuclear fallout would not affect surrounding areas much. What other reasons? Who knows?
Zeemax
Every person is dispensable at some point in time and uniquely necessary at some other point. This is pretty much what you say. There is something else I wanted to ask you but I don`t want to light a fuse in this arsenal. I`ll send email.
Krishna_abcd
The statement above is not necessarily that of a serial killers viewpoint. A serial killer is selfish. Killings may be done for singular pleasure perhaps. Actually we could ask Dr. Sohail to write an article on that. But dispensability could be for the greater good or even destruction. The vanishing of a species over a period of time is not a great cause for consternation. However it is still tragic. Who has benefited? Who has lost? From the viewpoint of evolution are the periodic extinctions of species tragic? Were they not all dispensable?
Ultimately who can tell?
Netizen
There are many questions as to why the atom bomb was dropped on Japan. It was not just to save Yankee lives. Japan was pretty close to being defeated anyway, at that point. It was partly to send a message of the form, `` Resistance is futile...``. Secondly Japan was a good place to test the bomb. From a racist viewpoint they were not European and being a bunch of islands the result of the nuclear fallout would not affect surrounding areas much. What other reasons? Who knows?
Zeemax
Every person is dispensable at some point in time and uniquely necessary at some other point. This is pretty much what you say. There is something else I wanted to ask you but I don`t want to light a fuse in this arsenal. I`ll send email.
Krishna_abcd
The statement above is not necessarily that of a serial killers viewpoint. A serial killer is selfish. Killings may be done for singular pleasure perhaps. Actually we could ask Dr. Sohail to write an article on that. But dispensability could be for the greater good or even destruction. The vanishing of a species over a period of time is not a great cause for consternation. However it is still tragic. Who has benefited? Who has lost? From the viewpoint of evolution are the periodic extinctions of species tragic? Were they not all dispensable?
Ultimately who can tell?
#441 Posted by ana on July 9, 2006 7:13:48 pm
jeez beej, didn`t know you had transgendered!!!! would`ve rather heard from the real bina shah, whoever that is, but yeah sleep is always good. and oh i`m glad no one will be calling me for the next hundred years or so. i don`t come here because i`m called on anyway. i`m more or less a crasher!
ta!
ta!
#440 Posted by bjk on July 9, 2006 6:17:03 pm
#439 by sleeper
[…would miss shah care to comment ….]
Ms. Shah most certainly would not! Ms. Shah most certainly would not because of the simple reason that she already has a long pile of unanswered questions which she has been studiously avoiding – and because running for dear life when everyone has caught you with your hand in the ``kookie`` jar and is chasing you with brickbats is a time-consuming task, as is hiding inside the loo!
So put your question at the bottom of the pile, dear lady, take a number, and return to sleep – and you can rest assured that nobody will be calling you for the next hundred years or so!
Or at least until the “chickens” come home to roost!
#439 Posted by ana on July 9, 2006 5:59:48 pm
would miss shah care to comment on the `crisis` that verdonk`s so-called investigation has caused? that it has led to the resignation of the dutch prime minister and an investigation of ms. verdonk`s claims itself?
or perhaps it is perfectly fine with miss shah that verdonk had a particular agenda in mind in denouncing someone she once backed -- the limitations placed on future immigrants to the netherlands.
or perhaps everyone here is just more content to flap their fingers and discuss what is and is not in the quran, and what women`s rights should be -- a waste of time for those (not) truly concerned with the rights of women?
or perhaps it is perfectly fine with miss shah that verdonk had a particular agenda in mind in denouncing someone she once backed -- the limitations placed on future immigrants to the netherlands.
or perhaps everyone here is just more content to flap their fingers and discuss what is and is not in the quran, and what women`s rights should be -- a waste of time for those (not) truly concerned with the rights of women?
#438 Posted by Netizen on July 9, 2006 12:15:44 pm
zeemax:
turman nuked japs because he didn`t want to ``waste`` yankee lives.
japs had not surrendered and were ready to fight to the last child!
your analogy just smacks of your slavery to the arabs.
anyway how come truman has become equivlent to mo???
let me remind you truman was no ``prophet`` sent by god to spread message of peace.
turman nuked japs because he didn`t want to ``waste`` yankee lives.
japs had not surrendered and were ready to fight to the last child!
your analogy just smacks of your slavery to the arabs.
anyway how come truman has become equivlent to mo???
let me remind you truman was no ``prophet`` sent by god to spread message of peace.
#437 Posted by Aangaara on July 9, 2006 7:11:53 am
#61 by Bina_Shah on February 7, 2006 1:42am PT
Re: # 51
Arjun M - I have not rationalized the Paris riots, the targeting of Salman Rushdie, or the murder of Theo Van Gogh, neither in this article nor anywhere else on Chowk. To me this verges on the point of slander and you`d better prove your point by showing where exactly I`ve done any of that or retract your statement.
--From you article ``cartoon clash of civilizations.``
do you guys even blush at times like these? or is it that there is no shame in islam?
Re: # 51
Arjun M - I have not rationalized the Paris riots, the targeting of Salman Rushdie, or the murder of Theo Van Gogh, neither in this article nor anywhere else on Chowk. To me this verges on the point of slander and you`d better prove your point by showing where exactly I`ve done any of that or retract your statement.
--From you article ``cartoon clash of civilizations.``
do you guys even blush at times like these? or is it that there is no shame in islam?
#436 Posted by Aangaara on July 9, 2006 5:05:36 am
dear Teshah aka mirchi
What a decent reply!!! :), I seriously was SHOCKED to say the least. Those days at the Santa Dharam High School did pay off didnt they? you should always express what you feel but your choice of words should be one that befits an alumni of that illustrious institute, mirchi or not.
Now go and read what you said to tahmed32, and imagine if you were at the recieving end of such slander. that was the point i was trying to make. take care.
zeemax
yapity yap yap!! shouldnt truman be called muhammad alif saani? (just wondering)
....................... if only truman was muslim his act would have been SUNNAH, i.e. a preferred act.
..................glad that you have called muhammad a war criminal there is still some hope left out there in the muslim world.
What a decent reply!!! :), I seriously was SHOCKED to say the least. Those days at the Santa Dharam High School did pay off didnt they? you should always express what you feel but your choice of words should be one that befits an alumni of that illustrious institute, mirchi or not.
Now go and read what you said to tahmed32, and imagine if you were at the recieving end of such slander. that was the point i was trying to make. take care.
zeemax
yapity yap yap!! shouldnt truman be called muhammad alif saani? (just wondering)
....................... if only truman was muslim his act would have been SUNNAH, i.e. a preferred act.
..................glad that you have called muhammad a war criminal there is still some hope left out there in the muslim world.
#435 Posted by zeemax on July 9, 2006 1:24:20 am
#431 by krishna_abcd
I reiterate ... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done.
Muhammad massacred Banu Quraiza to send Quraish a message. They were dispensible to defeat a bigger foe. Then rebuilt the society after having won. Truman massacred two Japanese cities to send Russians a message. They were dispensible to defeat a bigger foe. Then rebuilt the society after having won. Which one was a serial killer?
To the point reply please ... spare me the mulim-paki bashing rhetoric. Thanks.
I reiterate ... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done.
Muhammad massacred Banu Quraiza to send Quraish a message. They were dispensible to defeat a bigger foe. Then rebuilt the society after having won. Truman massacred two Japanese cities to send Russians a message. They were dispensible to defeat a bigger foe. Then rebuilt the society after having won. Which one was a serial killer?
To the point reply please ... spare me the mulim-paki bashing rhetoric. Thanks.
#434 Posted by teshah on July 8, 2006 8:30:45 pm
Re: # 406
Dear angaara
Mahloom naheen aapko kion mirchen lag gai hein meri `upbringing` se.
For your information I was not educated by the Paki planners, but got my education in my most formative years in a Sanatan Dharam High School where a Hindu Shastri had told us that we should always be our real self. That is if we are a `mirch` (chilli) we should be bitter as you felt it now in your hinds even though it was not intended for you.
Dear angaara
Mahloom naheen aapko kion mirchen lag gai hein meri `upbringing` se.
For your information I was not educated by the Paki planners, but got my education in my most formative years in a Sanatan Dharam High School where a Hindu Shastri had told us that we should always be our real self. That is if we are a `mirch` (chilli) we should be bitter as you felt it now in your hinds even though it was not intended for you.
#433 Posted by tahmed32 on July 8, 2006 5:35:04 pm
zeemax: well at least we share the same aspiration, i.e. an end to these stupid hatreds and groupings of people. what you see as ``optimism``, i see as merely a linear projection of history - the cypriots were the example i was providing. other examples of ``family feuds`` abound: the french and the germans, to take the most obvious case; the japanese and the americans who fought bitterly in the pacific islands just a few decades ago; the persians and the arabs. the list goes on.
And from all indications, this linear projection is not enough. we are going through a momentous change in human evolution itself. when there is no need for competition between groups, and there is every incentive for cooperation. it would take too long to explain - nor do i think i need to, given that you are obviously aware of technological trends (which, as we all know, bring about fundamental changes in socio-political structures).
thus, the pettiness that goes on chowk is merely an indication of just how totally obsolete this mindset is.
end of second sermon for saturday. :-)
And from all indications, this linear projection is not enough. we are going through a momentous change in human evolution itself. when there is no need for competition between groups, and there is every incentive for cooperation. it would take too long to explain - nor do i think i need to, given that you are obviously aware of technological trends (which, as we all know, bring about fundamental changes in socio-political structures).
thus, the pettiness that goes on chowk is merely an indication of just how totally obsolete this mindset is.
end of second sermon for saturday. :-)
#432 Posted by bjk on July 8, 2006 3:39:43 pm
#426 Aangaara
[...bechara rajput noni cutwa key chowk pay muslim ban gaya...]
Ama yaar, but why pour salt over the wound?!
#431 Posted by krishna_abcd on July 8, 2006 3:12:43 pm
#425 by zeemax
[... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done. ]
If you really believe that, you have good potential as a serial killer.
[... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done. ]
If you really believe that, you have good potential as a serial killer.
#430 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 1:58:05 pm
#429 by aangaara
Now you`re incoherent ... forget it. Too many beers?
Now you`re incoherent ... forget it. Too many beers?
#429 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 1:15:47 pm
Re: # 427
well since you are talking to me, you muslim flea you :).
I wanna know about PBUH`s wedding to a nine year old. What is your opinon on this issue, was this a crime as well, or was she a nine yr old adult?
well since you are talking to me, you muslim flea you :).
I wanna know about PBUH`s wedding to a nine year old. What is your opinon on this issue, was this a crime as well, or was she a nine yr old adult?
#428 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 1:12:22 pm
Re: # 425
LOL, hey Mr.rajput, are u calling for help? lol would like to know what statment u are talking about? who can be dispensible as well as SUPREME at the same time?? hmmmm better not be Muhammad (PBUH) aka criminal.
LOL, hey Mr.rajput, are u calling for help? lol would like to know what statment u are talking about? who can be dispensible as well as SUPREME at the same time?? hmmmm better not be Muhammad (PBUH) aka criminal.
#427 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 1:11:46 pm
#426 by aangaara
Calm down ... talk sense ... buddy .... both Rajputs and dravidians and others were all fleas on the Indian dog`s back. Muslims too later. But there were Martial fleas and servile fleas.
Never mind. It doesn`t matter. The more realities change the more these remain the same.
Calm down ... talk sense ... buddy .... both Rajputs and dravidians and others were all fleas on the Indian dog`s back. Muslims too later. But there were Martial fleas and servile fleas.
Never mind. It doesn`t matter. The more realities change the more these remain the same.
#426 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 1:00:08 pm
lol!! cmon mr rajput u running away from a dravidian?? lol!!!
u regretting calling moe a criminal?? well thats what most muslims do, they spin like a fan, thought u were differnt but oh well!!
speaking of your rajput great grand ma, the question still remains why are u following the tradition and culture of her arab/turkish rapists?
or were ur ancestors those rajputs who didnt offer a fight? neither did mine. :P so ur no better off than us lowly dravidians.
bechara rajput noni cutwa key chowk pay muslim ban gaya. lol.
u regretting calling moe a criminal?? well thats what most muslims do, they spin like a fan, thought u were differnt but oh well!!
speaking of your rajput great grand ma, the question still remains why are u following the tradition and culture of her arab/turkish rapists?
or were ur ancestors those rajputs who didnt offer a fight? neither did mine. :P so ur no better off than us lowly dravidians.
bechara rajput noni cutwa key chowk pay muslim ban gaya. lol.
#425 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 12:43:24 pm
Swarrier,
I would appreciate your input on this statement I made ... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done.
You`re not participating on this board but you`re the kind of a person who could give in-depth valuable input ...
I would appreciate your input on this statement I made ... People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done.
You`re not participating on this board but you`re the kind of a person who could give in-depth valuable input ...
#424 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 12:34:29 pm
#420 by tahmed32
I admire your optimism, but doubt it is well placed. There will be a huge upheavel before things settle down ... i.e. if the world survives that upheaval!
I admire your optimism, but doubt it is well placed. There will be a huge upheavel before things settle down ... i.e. if the world survives that upheaval!
#423 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 12:32:08 pm
#421 by aangaara
This is complete BS so no need of a response.
This is complete BS so no need of a response.
#422 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 12:31:00 pm
#418 by Netizen, #419 by Netizen (This is BS but anyway ...(
Look. Banu Quraiza was a crime. It was a political crime. Political Terrorism if you will. But just ONE. And the Quraish whimpered into surrendering the whole of Mecca two years later. So Muhammad won, and then he didn`t massacre Quraish, who were then in his power. He could have beheaded them all. He didn`t. Why? Because the task had been done. He had made an example of Banu Quraiza through extreme cruelty and then showed extreme kindness when the job was done. That is the crux of the matter. People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done.
Rgds
Look. Banu Quraiza was a crime. It was a political crime. Political Terrorism if you will. But just ONE. And the Quraish whimpered into surrendering the whole of Mecca two years later. So Muhammad won, and then he didn`t massacre Quraish, who were then in his power. He could have beheaded them all. He didn`t. Why? Because the task had been done. He had made an example of Banu Quraiza through extreme cruelty and then showed extreme kindness when the job was done. That is the crux of the matter. People are at the same time dispensible as well as supreme. Dispensible when a task is at hand, supreme when the task is done.
Rgds
#421 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 12:10:36 pm
First of all I really appreciate your honesty in accepting that Muhammad (PBUH) was a criminal (i.e. someone who commits a crime). This surely is a first.
But then I question your intellect how can you be satisfied with a criminal as a prophet?
also What are your views regarding his marriage to a 9 yr old? was that a crime too or was she a nine yr old adult?
As far as maps are concerned the west bank and gaza were occupied by the israelis in a manner similar to the ottomon occupation of cyprus. that is by force. the overwhelming majority of its population being greek offers a teeny weeny clue to this fact.
as for your nonsensical analogy ...... if the dravidians were fleas then what were the rajputs? at the back of the indian dog that is........ just wondering.
You have proved that one has to be really REALLY stupid to remain a mohamaddan.
regards.
But then I question your intellect how can you be satisfied with a criminal as a prophet?
also What are your views regarding his marriage to a 9 yr old? was that a crime too or was she a nine yr old adult?
As far as maps are concerned the west bank and gaza were occupied by the israelis in a manner similar to the ottomon occupation of cyprus. that is by force. the overwhelming majority of its population being greek offers a teeny weeny clue to this fact.
as for your nonsensical analogy ...... if the dravidians were fleas then what were the rajputs? at the back of the indian dog that is........ just wondering.
You have proved that one has to be really REALLY stupid to remain a mohamaddan.
regards.
#420 Posted by tahmed32 on July 8, 2006 11:53:12 am
zeemax #417 if i might add my two cents to this discussion (and it is a discussion we are having, right?)
actually the greek cypriots and turkish cypriots have done their share of mischief to one another - back in the 1960`s, when terrible atrocities were done by both sides. I still remember the picture of a woman and her two children who were killed and their blood stained bodies left in the bathtub of their home. (the victims were turks in this case - but it doesnt matter. turks were equally barbaric).
and now its all forgotten and the cypriots are an example of how people can get along if you dont have rascals on both sides creating trouble. is the arab-israeli dispute really that irreconcilable? i dont think so.
like my father used to say - ultimately the fool does the same thing as the wise man. only difference is that the fool takes a lot longer and after incurring a lot of tragedies and costs. Fifty years from now, if not sooner, i bet the arab-israeli dispute too would have passed and forgotten. the ideologues who fanned this dispute will be dead. ordinary people will get on with their lives. like the greek-turkish cypriot have done.
food for thought i think for all those who think it is ok to nurse grudges and give more importance to ideologies than to people.
end of saturday sermon, by tahmed. :-)
actually the greek cypriots and turkish cypriots have done their share of mischief to one another - back in the 1960`s, when terrible atrocities were done by both sides. I still remember the picture of a woman and her two children who were killed and their blood stained bodies left in the bathtub of their home. (the victims were turks in this case - but it doesnt matter. turks were equally barbaric).
and now its all forgotten and the cypriots are an example of how people can get along if you dont have rascals on both sides creating trouble. is the arab-israeli dispute really that irreconcilable? i dont think so.
like my father used to say - ultimately the fool does the same thing as the wise man. only difference is that the fool takes a lot longer and after incurring a lot of tragedies and costs. Fifty years from now, if not sooner, i bet the arab-israeli dispute too would have passed and forgotten. the ideologues who fanned this dispute will be dead. ordinary people will get on with their lives. like the greek-turkish cypriot have done.
food for thought i think for all those who think it is ok to nurse grudges and give more importance to ideologies than to people.
end of saturday sermon, by tahmed. :-)
#419 Posted by Netizen on July 8, 2006 11:48:36 am
Re: # 417
zeemax:
``The entire Greece, not only Cyprus, was part of the Ottoman empire. After the fall of the empire Cyprus remained with Turkey and half was militarily occupied by Greece later. But turks don`t destroy Greek Cypriots greenhouses ... ``
and how did the greece become a part of ottoman empire???
wouldn`t the greeks say that the ottoman ``occupied`` them. it was not that they invited the ottoman to rule them.
cyprus was going to break free from turkey( with greek invovlement) thats when turkey sent its forces to occupy the 1/3 rd part of it. did you know that the turkish cyprus is recognised only by turkey and no other country in the world?
also, the greek and turkish parts are separate ``countries`` with the greek part already in e.u. and the turkish waiting to get in.
so what the turks don`t destroy the greek greenhouses but they do kill the muslim kurds....
zeemax:
``The entire Greece, not only Cyprus, was part of the Ottoman empire. After the fall of the empire Cyprus remained with Turkey and half was militarily occupied by Greece later. But turks don`t destroy Greek Cypriots greenhouses ... ``
and how did the greece become a part of ottoman empire???
wouldn`t the greeks say that the ottoman ``occupied`` them. it was not that they invited the ottoman to rule them.
cyprus was going to break free from turkey( with greek invovlement) thats when turkey sent its forces to occupy the 1/3 rd part of it. did you know that the turkish cyprus is recognised only by turkey and no other country in the world?
also, the greek and turkish parts are separate ``countries`` with the greek part already in e.u. and the turkish waiting to get in.
so what the turks don`t destroy the greek greenhouses but they do kill the muslim kurds....
#418 Posted by Netizen on July 8, 2006 11:41:43 am
Re: # 417
zeemax:
`` I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer. ``
``Well actually Muhammad too destroyed the Jews orchards in Mecca in his day, so it could be revenge on the part of Jews. ``
how can a person in the right frame of mind believe in what a convicted felon says?
a felons testimony is not even considered ona court of law and you believe in the ummah created by the confessions of this mass murderer?
zeemax:
`` I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer. ``
``Well actually Muhammad too destroyed the Jews orchards in Mecca in his day, so it could be revenge on the part of Jews. ``
how can a person in the right frame of mind believe in what a convicted felon says?
a felons testimony is not even considered ona court of law and you believe in the ummah created by the confessions of this mass murderer?
#417 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 11:25:17 am
#410 by aangaara
1) If u look back at the time before that you will find that ur great grand mother was also of dravidian descent.......
My grandmother was not of dravidian descent. She was of Rajput descent. Not that I have anything against the dravidians, but they were just more fleas on the back of India`s dog. The fleas didn`t own the dog but dravidians thought they did. That`s the problem.
2) I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer.
3) ...if it would be okay for jews to destroy muslim greenhouses if it was a ``religious`` conflict...
Well actually Muhammad too destroyed the Jews orchards in Mecca in his day, so it could be revenge on the part of Jews. But I just said it was wrong, so there can be no justification. Two wrongs don`t make a right and ultimately Jews will be wiped out if they continue in this manner. They will be defeated by sheer numbers.
4)... and speaking of teritorial conflicts, what do u think of the Turkish occupation of cyprus? should the greek cypriots strap on suicide belts as well?
Have you had occasion to look at the maps? The entire Greece, not only Cyprus, was part of the Ottoman empire. After the fall of the empire Cyprus remained with Turkey and half was militarily occupied by Greece later. But turks don`t destroy Greek Cypriots greenhouses ...
Rgds
1) If u look back at the time before that you will find that ur great grand mother was also of dravidian descent.......
My grandmother was not of dravidian descent. She was of Rajput descent. Not that I have anything against the dravidians, but they were just more fleas on the back of India`s dog. The fleas didn`t own the dog but dravidians thought they did. That`s the problem.
2) I have stated before on these boards that massacre of Banu Quraiza was a crime. In my opinion Muhammad did that to gain leverage over Quraish for the Hudaibya treaty in showing immense cruelty, when he had previously been content to exile Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadeer.
3) ...if it would be okay for jews to destroy muslim greenhouses if it was a ``religious`` conflict...
Well actually Muhammad too destroyed the Jews orchards in Mecca in his day, so it could be revenge on the part of Jews. But I just said it was wrong, so there can be no justification. Two wrongs don`t make a right and ultimately Jews will be wiped out if they continue in this manner. They will be defeated by sheer numbers.
4)... and speaking of teritorial conflicts, what do u think of the Turkish occupation of cyprus? should the greek cypriots strap on suicide belts as well?
Have you had occasion to look at the maps? The entire Greece, not only Cyprus, was part of the Ottoman empire. After the fall of the empire Cyprus remained with Turkey and half was militarily occupied by Greece later. But turks don`t destroy Greek Cypriots greenhouses ...
Rgds
#416 Posted by Netizen on July 8, 2006 11:18:41 am
Re: # 414
zeemax:
i know about the ummah. thats why we have jihadis all over the palce. like the paki jihadis blowing british, moroccan jihadis blowing the spaniards.
you are very right that this ummah rats are danger for every non-muslim.
so you must reclassify the palestinain issue as religious one not territorial. thats all.
also, it is prudent for all non-muslims to realise this beast and form an anti-ummah juggernaut and crush these jihadis and their sympathizers. wouldn`t that be just fair then.
zeemax:
i know about the ummah. thats why we have jihadis all over the palce. like the paki jihadis blowing british, moroccan jihadis blowing the spaniards.
you are very right that this ummah rats are danger for every non-muslim.
so you must reclassify the palestinain issue as religious one not territorial. thats all.
also, it is prudent for all non-muslims to realise this beast and form an anti-ummah juggernaut and crush these jihadis and their sympathizers. wouldn`t that be just fair then.
#415 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 10:45:48 am
callin mr pbhu ``Beloved Prophet`` is islam bashing?? gee i didnt know that.
#414 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 10:45:14 am
#411 by Netizen
...so as a paki muslim, why the heck are you concerned with the conflict???
I`m glad yopu asked this question. There is an `Ummah`. It does exist, not in boundaries but in hearts. The entire Muslim body is like a physical body which hurts when any part is cut. Be it M.E. Arabs or South Asian or African Moroccans, Nigerians, Algerian, Egyptians, black or white or brown.
Greenhouses are not the Palestenians backyard barbeque lawns ... these are their livelihoods. Israel knows where to hit the hardest .... take away the innocent farmer`s livelihood and they`ll return that nerd Israeli. I hope they present his severed head in a platter.
I hope you got your reply.
...so as a paki muslim, why the heck are you concerned with the conflict???
I`m glad yopu asked this question. There is an `Ummah`. It does exist, not in boundaries but in hearts. The entire Muslim body is like a physical body which hurts when any part is cut. Be it M.E. Arabs or South Asian or African Moroccans, Nigerians, Algerian, Egyptians, black or white or brown.
Greenhouses are not the Palestenians backyard barbeque lawns ... these are their livelihoods. Israel knows where to hit the hardest .... take away the innocent farmer`s livelihood and they`ll return that nerd Israeli. I hope they present his severed head in a platter.
I hope you got your reply.
#412 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 10:34:45 am
#408 by tahmed32
Tahmed, the question was meant in a vile muslim-bashing punk manner. It was not a genuine question, therefore my response.
Tahmed, the question was meant in a vile muslim-bashing punk manner. It was not a genuine question, therefore my response.
#411 Posted by Netizen on July 8, 2006 10:32:38 am
Re: # 407
zeemax:
``It is quite telling of your ignorance that you are unaware Palestine is a territorial conflict and not a religious one, plus you are equally unaware that Palestenian population includes 17% Jews and 8% Christians. ``
so as a paki muslim, why the heck are you concerned with the conflict???
its not that israel is occupying paki territory.
or did your mom tell you yesterday that the jews are occupying the land left behind by your palestanian father for you?
zeemax:
``It is quite telling of your ignorance that you are unaware Palestine is a territorial conflict and not a religious one, plus you are equally unaware that Palestenian population includes 17% Jews and 8% Christians. ``
so as a paki muslim, why the heck are you concerned with the conflict???
its not that israel is occupying paki territory.
or did your mom tell you yesterday that the jews are occupying the land left behind by your palestanian father for you?
#410 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 9:49:09 am
mr zeemax, I would like to tell u that being Pakistani means that there is more to your history than that blessed invasion of mohd bin qasim......... If u look back at the time before that you will find that ur great grand mother was also of dravidian descent....... what makes you proud of the culture of her turkish/arab rapists is something that amazes me. shouldnt u be on the side of ur poor great grandma?
I for one am very proud of my dravidian roots, and kindly do not whine about the hindu caste system when u urself are a firm believer in it.
This is vintage muslim behaviour whine about things, point finger at everyone, and when asked a question, simply bark like a dog.
Besides answering my earlier query I would also like to ask you if it would be okay for jews to destroy muslim greenhouses if it was a ``religious`` conflict............ and speaking of teritorial conflicts, what do u think of the Turkish occupation of cyprus? should the greek cypriots strap on suicide belts as well?
I for one am very proud of my dravidian roots, and kindly do not whine about the hindu caste system when u urself are a firm believer in it.
This is vintage muslim behaviour whine about things, point finger at everyone, and when asked a question, simply bark like a dog.
Besides answering my earlier query I would also like to ask you if it would be okay for jews to destroy muslim greenhouses if it was a ``religious`` conflict............ and speaking of teritorial conflicts, what do u think of the Turkish occupation of cyprus? should the greek cypriots strap on suicide belts as well?
#409 Posted by tahmed32 on July 8, 2006 9:11:53 am
replace the question i have in #408 to: guess who just converted the chance to have a discussion into an argument?
#408 Posted by tahmed32 on July 8, 2006 9:11:01 am
zeemax: aangaara asks you your views about a historical incident (Banu Quraiza). your response is irrelevant to the question since his question is independant of the palestine issue or the religious make-up of the palestinians. and you add to that a racist remark.
guess who just won this argument?
guess who just won this argument?
#407 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 8:33:26 am
#405 by aangaara
It is quite telling of your ignorance that you are unaware Palestine is a territorial conflict and not a religious one, plus you are equally unaware that Palestenian population includes 17% Jews and 8% Christians.
Go crawl back into your dravidian hole. Punk.
It is quite telling of your ignorance that you are unaware Palestine is a territorial conflict and not a religious one, plus you are equally unaware that Palestenian population includes 17% Jews and 8% Christians.
Go crawl back into your dravidian hole. Punk.
#406 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 2:19:09 am
Re: # 402
Dear brother
Why are you so bent upon showing your upbringing?
If this is the level to which the educated can stoop then I think Pakistani policy planners are overestimating the power of education.
Dear brother
Why are you so bent upon showing your upbringing?
If this is the level to which the educated can stoop then I think Pakistani policy planners are overestimating the power of education.
#405 Posted by Aangaara on July 8, 2006 1:59:26 am
Bina Shah:
being an ex-muslim Ayan Hirsi Ali might have lied because Islam encourages lying, the practice is called ``Takiya`` and was used by your beloved prophet in the murder of a blasphemer ``Kab Ashraf``.
Judging from ur picture in which you are neither covering your head nor your chest, I am assuming that you dont know much about your religion. Look up this term ``Takiya`` and sing praise to your lord and to the practicalities in his message.
Zeemax:
What are your views regarding the slaughter of 700 jews of Banu Quraiza as sanctioned by your beloved prophet? Judging from your disgust at the destruction of green houses I am sure you would have something to say about the beheadings of the men of Banu Quraiza and the conversion of their women into sex slaves (as described in detail in your books of hadith). This incident is of importance because the beheading of jews and turning their women into sex slaves is the way of the SUNNAH i.e. the preferred way.
All thanks to Allah the palestinians do not have the power of the Israelis or some jew would be posting pictures of beheaded men instead of demolished green houses.
Islam is a religion of peace indeed.
being an ex-muslim Ayan Hirsi Ali might have lied because Islam encourages lying, the practice is called ``Takiya`` and was used by your beloved prophet in the murder of a blasphemer ``Kab Ashraf``.
Judging from ur picture in which you are neither covering your head nor your chest, I am assuming that you dont know much about your religion. Look up this term ``Takiya`` and sing praise to your lord and to the practicalities in his message.
Zeemax:
What are your views regarding the slaughter of 700 jews of Banu Quraiza as sanctioned by your beloved prophet? Judging from your disgust at the destruction of green houses I am sure you would have something to say about the beheadings of the men of Banu Quraiza and the conversion of their women into sex slaves (as described in detail in your books of hadith). This incident is of importance because the beheading of jews and turning their women into sex slaves is the way of the SUNNAH i.e. the preferred way.
All thanks to Allah the palestinians do not have the power of the Israelis or some jew would be posting pictures of beheaded men instead of demolished green houses.
Islam is a religion of peace indeed.
#404 Posted by zeemax on July 8, 2006 12:18:51 am
This, is why a re-establishment of order is needed.
An Israeli army bulldozer razes Palestinian greenhouses Thursday as part of the military operation in northern Gaza..
Greenhouses are a threat to Israel?
An Israeli army bulldozer razes Palestinian greenhouses Thursday as part of the military operation in northern Gaza..
Greenhouses are a threat to Israel?
#403 Posted by Behram1 on July 7, 2006 11:30:52 pm
Re: # 390 by masadi on July 6, 2006 10:38pm PT
{Further, when women divorce they suffer in their financial standing, not because of net worth but again because of an economic institution that offers them very little by wage and work segmentation and assigns the total care of the kids to the mothers both physically and financially while freeing the father for market activities.}
Not totally true. It just depends on what level of economic strata these split families were before divorce. For the most part, divorced women generally do maintain their economic well being at the same level with child support and alimony payments. And it is the men who get shafted, for the most part.
If women were that badly treated then why is their a huge number of women filing for divorce on the court dockets?
Masadi, get your facts and figure updated, and quit reading those books written in the 1950`s about the Power Elite.
Respectfully submitted,
#402 Posted by teshah on July 7, 2006 9:21:26 pm
Re: # 392
``yes. mukhtaran mai is my sister. just as any woman who is bad-mouthed by two-paisa types like you is my sister. just as mukhtaran mai is the sister, and all oppressed women, of every self-respecting man on earth. scum like you can only abuse women when there is no man around to give you scum the thrashing you need.``
[Reply to interact #392]
So it is as I suspected. You seem to be a , `Bharhua` brother, a production of Heera Mandi. That is why your indignation is directed against me instead of Mastoies, who `allegedly` raped Mai (I still believe that she was not raped at all and her `honour` is intact). It is quite expected of a Bharhua, who is co-sharer in the `Dhanda`, to express hostility against any one who may cast doubt on the service having been performed by his `Baaji` and her title to the benefits accruing thereby. I narrate here a story of a Baaji and her Bharhua brother to make my point clear to you:
A gang of dacoits entered the `Kotha` of a pros. They asked her to hand over her ornaments. She replied that those were placed in the locker. Then they asked her to hand over her cash. She again regretted and told them that her cash was lying with the bank. The dacoits got annoyed and a bit disappointed and as a last resort asked her to go inside. She obliged promptly. After getting fully satisfied the dacoits departed. The pros immediately began to raise hue and cry. Her brother who was perhaps watching all this operation came in. Expressing sympathy with her Baji he flew in rage against the dacoits and got in to get hold of his pistol. But before going out to pursue the dacoits he asked his Baji whether she would like him to kill the dacoits or to recover payment for the rape-service. Baji by this time had cooled down a bit and said to her brother, ``Paaji, what is done is done and cannot be undone. So you better try to recover whatever payment you can.``
But there is no choice for you perhaps Mr. Tahmad but to thrash all those who are out to spoil `dhanda` of your sisters by casting doubt on their having been dishonoured at all of which you claim to be sure as though you were an eye-witness of the entire episode, an eye-witness according to strict Shariah terms, seeing it(Mastoies`) going in and out.
P.S.: After I had written all this I began to doubt whether you are a male or a female or neither but.....simply a Bharhua.
``yes. mukhtaran mai is my sister. just as any woman who is bad-mouthed by two-paisa types like you is my sister. just as mukhtaran mai is the sister, and all oppressed women, of every self-respecting man on earth. scum like you can only abuse women when there is no man around to give you scum the thrashing you need.``
[Reply to interact #392]
So it is as I suspected. You seem to be a , `Bharhua` brother, a production of Heera Mandi. That is why your indignation is directed against me instead of Mastoies, who `allegedly` raped Mai (I still believe that she was not raped at all and her `honour` is intact). It is quite expected of a Bharhua, who is co-sharer in the `Dhanda`, to express hostility against any one who may cast doubt on the service having been performed by his `Baaji` and her title to the benefits accruing thereby. I narrate here a story of a Baaji and her Bharhua brother to make my point clear to you:
A gang of dacoits entered the `Kotha` of a pros. They asked her to hand over her ornaments. She replied that those were placed in the locker. Then they asked her to hand over her cash. She again regretted and told them that her cash was lying with the bank. The dacoits got annoyed and a bit disappointed and as a last resort asked her to go inside. She obliged promptly. After getting fully satisfied the dacoits departed. The pros immediately began to raise hue and cry. Her brother who was perhaps watching all this operation came in. Expressing sympathy with her Baji he flew in rage against the dacoits and got in to get hold of his pistol. But before going out to pursue the dacoits he asked his Baji whether she would like him to kill the dacoits or to recover payment for the rape-service. Baji by this time had cooled down a bit and said to her brother, ``Paaji, what is done is done and cannot be undone. So you better try to recover whatever payment you can.``
But there is no choice for you perhaps Mr. Tahmad but to thrash all those who are out to spoil `dhanda` of your sisters by casting doubt on their having been dishonoured at all of which you claim to be sure as though you were an eye-witness of the entire episode, an eye-witness according to strict Shariah terms, seeing it(Mastoies`) going in and out.
P.S.: After I had written all this I began to doubt whether you are a male or a female or neither but.....simply a Bharhua.
#401 Posted by masadi on July 7, 2006 6:52:18 pm
#396 dullabhatti writes << OK genius, so they are only poor and not losers...but point remains...if a household consisting of a husband and wife is poor and below poverty line, how do you expect the woman to get out of poverty by divorcing? >>
Net worth does not define poverty in this nation, income does. Get your facts straight. The fact is that women lose their financial standing by almost 30%- using aggregate data, not only data among the poor which is much worse, while men gain by 10%.
Wealth determines rule of law in the US and how well you can represent yourself in this dispicable maze system, regardless of what tahmed writes. The abuse of law in the US especially regarding the poor and the african americans~ a third of whose young men have been labelled as criminals by the criminal justice system~ is second to none in the world as is the incarceration per capita in this so-called ``land of the free``.
Net worth does not define poverty in this nation, income does. Get your facts straight. The fact is that women lose their financial standing by almost 30%- using aggregate data, not only data among the poor which is much worse, while men gain by 10%.
Wealth determines rule of law in the US and how well you can represent yourself in this dispicable maze system, regardless of what tahmed writes. The abuse of law in the US especially regarding the poor and the african americans~ a third of whose young men have been labelled as criminals by the criminal justice system~ is second to none in the world as is the incarceration per capita in this so-called ``land of the free``.
#400 Posted by Kulharee on July 7, 2006 5:56:45 pm
Re: # 398
T-Sahib, I am sorry, but I do agree with about 78%. I would go and help anyone in need, man, woman, or Teshah. Your point is well taken; I just got carried away with my emotions.
T-Sahib, I am sorry, but I do agree with about 78%. I would go and help anyone in need, man, woman, or Teshah. Your point is well taken; I just got carried away with my emotions.
#399 Posted by tahmed32 on July 7, 2006 4:29:29 pm
#392 ballukhan: thank you, my friend. hope all is well with you.
#398 Posted by tahmed32 on July 7, 2006 4:27:18 pm
kulharee #395 You know how our people are, and how their brains are firmly placed inside their ass. So you can give Teshah Sahib a little credit for being in line with the wider and collective thinking of Pakistani intelligentsia.
While I agree that in Teshah Sahib`s case, his brain is obviously located as you indicate - I beg to differ with your view that this is the way ``our people`` are. The ratio of honorable men to scum in Pakistan relative to other nations is not something either you or I have done any scientific studies on. So let us just agree to disagree in our perceptions. I will agree with you to the extent that the status of the weak relative to that of the rich and powerful is far better in the US than in Pakistan. And that is the direct result of the undeniable fact that the Rule of Law prevails in the US while the Rule of the Powerful prevails in Pakistan. I say this, among other reasons, on the basis of what I have seen for myself happen in four or five divorce cases of Pakistani-American couples: almost in all cases the husband tried to get a ``talaak`` in Pakistan, and the wife basically was given nothing by Pakistani courts. The wives in all cases then took their husbands to court in the US, where the courts basically separated the hubbies from their property and gave half to the wife.
So, to that extent you are right.
As for women defending themselves against men - what I am writing does not preclude it. If you saw a woman being beaten by a man, would you intervene to put an end to that (assuming that you are capable of physically thrashing that man) or would you walk away saying the woman should defend herself?
That is why it is important to work for the Rule of Law in Pakistan in whatever little way we can. Whether it is in supporting those who are trying to abrogate the Hadood Laws that violate in my view not just common sense but also the very religion of Islam on which they claim to be based. Or it is in taking a guy like Teshah Sahib and making sure his brains are appropriately re-located.
long post. sorry.
While I agree that in Teshah Sahib`s case, his brain is obviously located as you indicate - I beg to differ with your view that this is the way ``our people`` are. The ratio of honorable men to scum in Pakistan relative to other nations is not something either you or I have done any scientific studies on. So let us just agree to disagree in our perceptions. I will agree with you to the extent that the status of the weak relative to that of the rich and powerful is far better in the US than in Pakistan. And that is the direct result of the undeniable fact that the Rule of Law prevails in the US while the Rule of the Powerful prevails in Pakistan. I say this, among other reasons, on the basis of what I have seen for myself happen in four or five divorce cases of Pakistani-American couples: almost in all cases the husband tried to get a ``talaak`` in Pakistan, and the wife basically was given nothing by Pakistani courts. The wives in all cases then took their husbands to court in the US, where the courts basically separated the hubbies from their property and gave half to the wife.
So, to that extent you are right.
As for women defending themselves against men - what I am writing does not preclude it. If you saw a woman being beaten by a man, would you intervene to put an end to that (assuming that you are capable of physically thrashing that man) or would you walk away saying the woman should defend herself?
That is why it is important to work for the Rule of Law in Pakistan in whatever little way we can. Whether it is in supporting those who are trying to abrogate the Hadood Laws that violate in my view not just common sense but also the very religion of Islam on which they claim to be based. Or it is in taking a guy like Teshah Sahib and making sure his brains are appropriately re-located.
long post. sorry.
#397 Posted by Kulharee on July 7, 2006 10:52:27 am
Re: # 396
Bhatti Sahib, what you are saying is very true, and Masadi Sahib is aware of the Islamic model. He is just too stubborn to admit that the model is suited only for 6th century Arabia where having sex with slaves was a sign of one’s moral superiority (hey, look Subhanallah, he is so righteous and praise worthy he has sex even with his slaves). Masadi Sahib refuses to see anything wrong with Islam nor favors re-interpretation of the Quran. More and more muslims are rejecting that rigid and outdated ideology. Masadi Sahib knows is very well. He is holding on to this last bit of remnants of hope-rope. At least he listens to his inner voice, if others don`t.
Bhatti Sahib, what you are saying is very true, and Masadi Sahib is aware of the Islamic model. He is just too stubborn to admit that the model is suited only for 6th century Arabia where having sex with slaves was a sign of one’s moral superiority (hey, look Subhanallah, he is so righteous and praise worthy he has sex even with his slaves). Masadi Sahib refuses to see anything wrong with Islam nor favors re-interpretation of the Quran. More and more muslims are rejecting that rigid and outdated ideology. Masadi Sahib knows is very well. He is holding on to this last bit of remnants of hope-rope. At least he listens to his inner voice, if others don`t.
#396 Posted by dullabhatti on July 7, 2006 10:23:36 am
#390 OK genius, so they are only poor and not losers...but point remains...if a household consisting of a husband and wife is poor and below poverty line, how do you expect the woman to get out of poverty by divorcing? They are poor to begin with, whatever the reasons, does not mean woman is getting a raw deal in divorce. They owned zero, they divided zero by 2 and each got zero.
Muslim scholars alway bring mahr as a biggest right that a woman got...for god`s sake it is few hundred dollars...so even if she keeps does not make her rich. tell us honestly, what was the amount you gave as mahr to your wife(or wives) when you married her? then we will discuss how it will help her if she keeps it.
System US has is not perfect..but it is practical and pragmatic..the system you keep on cheering is only on book and even stinks on paper...there is a reason there is not a single state where it is fully in practice. No amount fo scholarship or worshiping will make it any better.
Muslim scholars alway bring mahr as a biggest right that a woman got...for god`s sake it is few hundred dollars...so even if she keeps does not make her rich. tell us honestly, what was the amount you gave as mahr to your wife(or wives) when you married her? then we will discuss how it will help her if she keeps it.
System US has is not perfect..but it is practical and pragmatic..the system you keep on cheering is only on book and even stinks on paper...there is a reason there is not a single state where it is fully in practice. No amount fo scholarship or worshiping will make it any better.
#395 Posted by Kulharee on July 7, 2006 7:50:16 am
Re: # 392
T Sahib, Not too get into the morality of the issue, but isn’t this type of reasoning actually more harmful to women in Pakistan than the victimization itself? Is there really a need for a “Bhaipana”… can’t women just be women without having a brigade of brothers to protect them? What is wrong with them protecting themselves? I am sure that they are more than capable (much more than the impotent men around them) to take care of themselves.
I can see Teshah Shabi’s point as well. On my last visit to Lahore, I didn’t believe my ears when I heard our intelligentsia getting so uptight about MukhtaraN Mai’s getting international attention. Many so called educated elite were arguing that why is she getting so much attention… why didn’t other victims of rape got attention, blah blah blah…. They all said that the West (and NGOs) was giving MukhtaraN attention to malign Pakistan. You know how our people are, and how their brains are firmly placed inside their ass. So you can give Teshah Sahib a little credit for being in line with the wider and collective thinking of Pakistani intelligentsia.
T Sahib, Not too get into the morality of the issue, but isn’t this type of reasoning actually more harmful to women in Pakistan than the victimization itself? Is there really a need for a “Bhaipana”… can’t women just be women without having a brigade of brothers to protect them? What is wrong with them protecting themselves? I am sure that they are more than capable (much more than the impotent men around them) to take care of themselves.
I can see Teshah Shabi’s point as well. On my last visit to Lahore, I didn’t believe my ears when I heard our intelligentsia getting so uptight about MukhtaraN Mai’s getting international attention. Many so called educated elite were arguing that why is she getting so much attention… why didn’t other victims of rape got attention, blah blah blah…. They all said that the West (and NGOs) was giving MukhtaraN attention to malign Pakistan. You know how our people are, and how their brains are firmly placed inside their ass. So you can give Teshah Sahib a little credit for being in line with the wider and collective thinking of Pakistani intelligentsia.
#394 Posted by aquaris on July 7, 2006 7:05:38 am
Re: # 163
muslims claim `` ORIENTALST `` Version of History is Not UN_BAISED.....
because it differs with their version of History......!!
muslims claim `` ORIENTALST `` Version of History is Not UN_BAISED.....
because it differs with their version of History......!!
#392 Posted by tahmed32 on July 7, 2006 6:39:10 am
teshah #389 you write BTW, are those good ladies related to you? The way you took offence on my post it appears that you are a low-caste brat and Mai is your real sister as it was her family who took her to the punchayat whereby she was allegedly gang-raped by Mastoies.
yes. mukhtaran mai is my sister. just as any woman who is bad-mouthed by two-paisa types like you is my sister. just as mukhtaran mai is the sister, and all oppressed women, of every self-respecting man on earth. scum like you can only abuse women when there is no man around to give you scum the thrashing you need.
yes. mukhtaran mai is my sister. just as any woman who is bad-mouthed by two-paisa types like you is my sister. just as mukhtaran mai is the sister, and all oppressed women, of every self-respecting man on earth. scum like you can only abuse women when there is no man around to give you scum the thrashing you need.
#391 Posted by ballukhan on July 7, 2006 5:18:43 am
``you don`t have to define what I mean by ``natural`` or ``functional``, people who can read can get exactly what I mean by them.``
Listen you dumb a$$ you are getting exposed and you do not show any scholarship but bigotry while making those sweeping statements with propaganda words like ``natural``, ``REAL`` ...........including those eulogies about your own `scholarship`.............. you referred to this article which was supposed to support your thesis that women get the best deal changing nappies and tolerating a little bit of domestic violence.................and you quote some article which is supposed to show some evidence that Kids are better are in a two-parent families ......is that a joke or you think I will accept whaever propaganda you mouth because you quote from the books!!!
You remain a bigoted mullah Asadi and think that by referring to ANY study you can substantiate your bigotry.................I think you must have got your graduate degree by cheating and faking through your term papers..............
Listen you dumb a$$ you are getting exposed and you do not show any scholarship but bigotry while making those sweeping statements with propaganda words like ``natural``, ``REAL`` ...........including those eulogies about your own `scholarship`.............. you referred to this article which was supposed to support your thesis that women get the best deal changing nappies and tolerating a little bit of domestic violence.................and you quote some article which is supposed to show some evidence that Kids are better are in a two-parent families ......is that a joke or you think I will accept whaever propaganda you mouth because you quote from the books!!!
You remain a bigoted mullah Asadi and think that by referring to ANY study you can substantiate your bigotry.................I think you must have got your graduate degree by cheating and faking through your term papers..............
#390 Posted by masadi on July 6, 2006 10:38:33 pm
Ballukhan in #387 & #388, you don`t have to define what I mean by ``natural`` or ``functional``, people who can read can get exactly what I mean by them. You on the other hand want to cloud those concepts with your dim wit bigotry. When I say there is overwhelming social research to point to that fact, it means there is zero evidence to point in any other avenue. I have read profession studies on it, done papers on it, if you are illiterate and don`t want to read that work and the references, it is not my problem. Here is just one confirmation of fresh research from 2005, which comes years after dozens of studies whose findings are being replicated in this one (Kids better off in two-parent families http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0913marriagehealth.html )
How many times do I have to stump your dumb a$$ through knowledge before you realize that just because you can throw out the ``P`` (propaganda) word and show your ignorance of the facts and research that you are unto something. The only thing you are unto is BS.
#385 DB, you have no clue about reading social data do you? Just because the vast majority of those that get divorced have zero or negative net worth, does not say that they are losers, it says that this economic system is robbing them blind by ensuring that the top 1% monopolize the net worth in this country. Further, when women divorce they suffer in their financial standing, not because of net worth but again becauce of an economic institution that offers them very little by wage and work segmentation and assigns the total care of the kids to the mothers both physically and financially while freeing the father for market activities. Finally, the Quran not only set a system that would ensure equal standing of women by ensuring that a widow be provided not only out of the share she gets of the property of her husband, keep her mahr and to top that off, ONE YEAR maintainence and residence, and help with remarriage but also that divorced women be provided with maintainence on similar scale until they remarry. The system of tyranny that exists in the US today regarding the family, cannot hold a candle up to the just system of the Quran regarless of the BS that ballukhan is spouting comparing marriage to slavery.
How many times do I have to stump your dumb a$$ through knowledge before you realize that just because you can throw out the ``P`` (propaganda) word and show your ignorance of the facts and research that you are unto something. The only thing you are unto is BS.
#385 DB, you have no clue about reading social data do you? Just because the vast majority of those that get divorced have zero or negative net worth, does not say that they are losers, it says that this economic system is robbing them blind by ensuring that the top 1% monopolize the net worth in this country. Further, when women divorce they suffer in their financial standing, not because of net worth but again becauce of an economic institution that offers them very little by wage and work segmentation and assigns the total care of the kids to the mothers both physically and financially while freeing the father for market activities. Finally, the Quran not only set a system that would ensure equal standing of women by ensuring that a widow be provided not only out of the share she gets of the property of her husband, keep her mahr and to top that off, ONE YEAR maintainence and residence, and help with remarriage but also that divorced women be provided with maintainence on similar scale until they remarry. The system of tyranny that exists in the US today regarding the family, cannot hold a candle up to the just system of the Quran regarless of the BS that ballukhan is spouting comparing marriage to slavery.
#389 Posted by teshah on July 6, 2006 10:03:44 pm
Re: # 366
I would, of course, welcome being gang-raped but only by the opposite sex including, if you like, those you mentioned in you post. I won`t mind even `Chhitrol` after that.
Faiz had said:
Aae kuchh abr kuchh shirab aae
phir iske bahd aae jo azaab aae
BTW, are those good ladies related to you? The way you took offence on my post it appears that you are a low-caste brat and Mai is your real sister as it was her family who took her to the punchayat whereby she was allegedly gang-raped by Mastoies. Why don`t you try yourself the charishma of Mastoies` rape which has made Mai the envy of all women, nay, a role-model of a sort. They, the Mastoies, would be saying:
Ham ko duaaein do tujhe qaatil bana dia
In fact you are showing the same attributes.
I would, of course, welcome being gang-raped but only by the opposite sex including, if you like, those you mentioned in you post. I won`t mind even `Chhitrol` after that.
Faiz had said:
Aae kuchh abr kuchh shirab aae
phir iske bahd aae jo azaab aae
BTW, are those good ladies related to you? The way you took offence on my post it appears that you are a low-caste brat and Mai is your real sister as it was her family who took her to the punchayat whereby she was allegedly gang-raped by Mastoies. Why don`t you try yourself the charishma of Mastoies` rape which has made Mai the envy of all women, nay, a role-model of a sort. They, the Mastoies, would be saying:
Ham ko duaaein do tujhe qaatil bana dia
In fact you are showing the same attributes.
#388 Posted by ballukhan on July 6, 2006 7:32:43 pm
``.........and a most secure way for women to prosper.....``
Slave runners used to give exactly similar arguments to justify slavery...........IT IS THE BEST OFFER FOR THE SLAVES.........
Slave runners used to give exactly similar arguments to justify slavery...........IT IS THE BEST OFFER FOR THE SLAVES.........
#387 Posted by ballukhan on July 6, 2006 7:12:43 pm
Re: # 384
``..I call it the most natural/functional structure of the ``family`` ........``
Just like wife beating is NATURAL to an Islamist! and by FUNCTIONAL you mean functional to keep your 7th century social order in equilibrium? ....you are again trying to play around with the words and trying to pass off your propaganda by calling every other social order as a ``crude aberration``.......................
``..I call it the most natural/functional structure of the ``family`` ........``
Just like wife beating is NATURAL to an Islamist! and by FUNCTIONAL you mean functional to keep your 7th century social order in equilibrium? ....you are again trying to play around with the words and trying to pass off your propaganda by calling every other social order as a ``crude aberration``.......................
#386 Posted by ballukhan on July 6, 2006 7:01:13 pm
Re: # 384
``There is overwhelming social research...``
Before you open your mouth next time.......please provide proper reference and not some stupid `read-the-asadi.org-answer` . Provide the exact quotation from the empirical researches and do not try to talk jargon like `metaphsic of War` without explaining what you mean by it on this Board.
You have been trying to pass of propaganda as `research`. So much for intellectual honesty!!
``There is overwhelming social research...``
Before you open your mouth next time.......please provide proper reference and not some stupid `read-the-asadi.org-answer` . Provide the exact quotation from the empirical researches and do not try to talk jargon like `metaphsic of War` without explaining what you mean by it on this Board.
You have been trying to pass of propaganda as `research`. So much for intellectual honesty!!
#385 Posted by dullabhatti on July 6, 2006 6:09:56 pm
#385 ``The people affected the most by divorce in the US have zero or negative net worth, half of zero is zero, unlike this BS the Quran mentions maintainence and sustainence be provided and the man be responsible for ``
Masadi, so a woman is a loser..marries a loser and 2 losers are getting a divorce and now you think she should somehow come out of it affluent? So in Qoranic system only rich are affected by the divorce? poor people don`t have divorce?
Single moms don`t suffer as much as they would have if stayed married to the wrong guy they chose...e.g. most of the divorced Desi women I know in US are doing much better than when were married...yes it is hard to raise kids when single, but it is doable and lot of people are doing it. I personally know this lady who married an abusive husband for few years..had 2 daughters from him and then got divorced...no alimony...no property as they did not have any...but still found job(s) and raised the girls..both now doctors..one medical and one a scientist (the real one..not some religious science).
btw we all see how married women suffer in Qoranic society.
Masadi, so a woman is a loser..marries a loser and 2 losers are getting a divorce and now you think she should somehow come out of it affluent? So in Qoranic system only rich are affected by the divorce? poor people don`t have divorce?
Single moms don`t suffer as much as they would have if stayed married to the wrong guy they chose...e.g. most of the divorced Desi women I know in US are doing much better than when were married...yes it is hard to raise kids when single, but it is doable and lot of people are doing it. I personally know this lady who married an abusive husband for few years..had 2 daughters from him and then got divorced...no alimony...no property as they did not have any...but still found job(s) and raised the girls..both now doctors..one medical and one a scientist (the real one..not some religious science).
btw we all see how married women suffer in Qoranic society.
#384 Posted by masadi on July 6, 2006 5:47:04 pm
ballukhan writes in #376 <<< Thanks God..............that horrible Patriarchal god ordained ``durable` institution called `Family` is breaking........ >>>
You might call it ``God ordanined`` if you so choose to, I call it the most natural/functional structure of the ``family`` with everything else being crude aberrations. There is overwhelming social research to point to the fact that a two parent family is best for the social, psychological, financial and emotional development of kids and a most secure way for women to prosper~ we see how single moms suffer in this society.
You might call it ``God ordanined`` if you so choose to, I call it the most natural/functional structure of the ``family`` with everything else being crude aberrations. There is overwhelming social research to point to the fact that a two parent family is best for the social, psychological, financial and emotional development of kids and a most secure way for women to prosper~ we see how single moms suffer in this society.
#383 Posted by masadi on July 6, 2006 5:34:41 pm
PM writes quoting ballukhan <<< ``It is well known that the western civil marriage courts order greator compensation and maintenance than any of your Hadith or non-Hadith inspired Islamic court do...`` >>>
Nonsense. The people affected the most by divorce in the US have zero or negative net worth, half of zero is zero, unlike this BS the Quran mentions maintainence and sustainence be provided and the man be responsible for the kids, unlike the system here where the mother has take the burden of bringing the kid up by themselves, and the child support system with its many absconders is next to nothing. The fact show that women lose their financial standing by almost a third after divorce while men gain by 10%- this is empirical proof that what you talk about as ``greater compensation`` is total BS.
Nonsense. The people affected the most by divorce in the US have zero or negative net worth, half of zero is zero, unlike this BS the Quran mentions maintainence and sustainence be provided and the man be responsible for the kids, unlike the system here where the mother has take the burden of bringing the kid up by themselves, and the child support system with its many absconders is next to nothing. The fact show that women lose their financial standing by almost a third after divorce while men gain by 10%- this is empirical proof that what you talk about as ``greater compensation`` is total BS.
#382 Posted by bjk on July 6, 2006 2:22:02 pm
#381
I know it is the wrong board.
But does anybody else?
And does anybody care?
#381 Posted by bjk on July 6, 2006 2:14:25 pm
#686 by Mantolives
Dear Yasser…
I understand General Mushy really LIKES the Pakistani liberals. I believe he might be one of them himself.
Or at least in bed with them!
Now that appears to be the only way to be for Pakistani liberals – pink on the outside but khaki on the inside.
I understand all the khakis LOVE Jinnah!
You need to start practicing that saluting now. Have you started it already?
#380 Posted by arjun_m on July 6, 2006 8:57:44 am
#353 by masadi on July 5, 2006 6:27pm PT
finally if you are trying to locate where I am and you found ``newport news`` then you are hundreds of miles in error and if the chowk editors are helping you locate me, I will be informing this breach to local authorities.
masadi: I only used newport news because it was the nearest hick town I could think of..Your real name is listed on your on the cover of your book..the editors don`t need to help me track you..There`s this cool new(probably unislamic) thing called the internet that I can use..
why don`t you report this ``breach`` to the local authorities..please tell us what they say..i could use a good laugh on a slow news day..
finally if you are trying to locate where I am and you found ``newport news`` then you are hundreds of miles in error and if the chowk editors are helping you locate me, I will be informing this breach to local authorities.
masadi: I only used newport news because it was the nearest hick town I could think of..Your real name is listed on your on the cover of your book..the editors don`t need to help me track you..There`s this cool new(probably unislamic) thing called the internet that I can use..
why don`t you report this ``breach`` to the local authorities..please tell us what they say..i could use a good laugh on a slow news day..
#379 Posted by bjk on July 6, 2006 4:18:50 am
#353 by masadi
[… I am not a homosexual to have a realationship with a male so you can give up your fantasy and finally if you are trying to locate where I am and you found ``newport news`` then you are hundreds of miles in error…]
On first glance you do appear to have a point. Now that Arjuna has pinned you down to within a hundred miles or so of Newport News, you are likely located either in Virginia or in North Carolina – neither of which two states entertains the formality of marriage between men – what to say of its consummation!!
However, you must not discount Arjuna’s ability to solve such problems.
Difficult as it may appear, it is NOT insurmountable!
The thing to worry about is not so much Arjuna’s direct promise of beating you up – whether consistent or otherwise with stipulations in the Book on that procedure.
The thing to worry about is also not so much his direct promise of marrying you (obviously against your wishes).
The true cause of worry is his implicit promise of marrying you CONSISTENT with the laws of the state.
By conducting the necessary gender change operation first!
#378 Posted by PM on July 6, 2006 3:28:09 am
re. ballukhan:
``It is well known that the western civil marriage courts order greator compensation and maintenance than any of your Hadith or non-Hadith inspired Islamic court do...``
Good point, there! Since Asadi goes to great pains to show how even the prescripton to beat (lightly, according to his reading) is actaully indicative of how humane and gender-equal Islam is on this matter, perhaps he would care to throw some light on the Qur`anic laws re. alimony and patrimony, and indeed, the grounds on which a man can, if he wishes, divorce his wife, who, in the Islamic scheme of things, is almost always dependent on him financially.
``It is well known that the western civil marriage courts order greator compensation and maintenance than any of your Hadith or non-Hadith inspired Islamic court do...``
Good point, there! Since Asadi goes to great pains to show how even the prescripton to beat (lightly, according to his reading) is actaully indicative of how humane and gender-equal Islam is on this matter, perhaps he would care to throw some light on the Qur`anic laws re. alimony and patrimony, and indeed, the grounds on which a man can, if he wishes, divorce his wife, who, in the Islamic scheme of things, is almost always dependent on him financially.
#377 Posted by ballukhan on July 6, 2006 12:43:50 am
``The definition adjustment came after the structure adjustment so you cannot throw out a definition to prove anything, comprendey? ``
Asadi Miyan..........tumhara jawaab nahin hai!!!
Lol!!
Asadi Miyan..........tumhara jawaab nahin hai!!!
Lol!!
#376 Posted by ballukhan on July 5, 2006 11:46:18 pm
Re: # 374
``this family institution has been enslaved and is sick and dying in the US and most Western societies.``
Thanks God..............that horrible Patriarchal god ordained ``durable` institution called `Family` is breaking............and it is great to see some western cultures supporting the new families albeit slowly......... that is what the Islamists get worked up on, when people like Ayan Ali Hirsi speak against this horrible institution of a Patriarchal-Family` and the violence and slaverly that it offers to the women they start spouting nonsense about `durability` .....................we can all see how Asadi`s propaganda fits with the Anti-Hirsi propaganda on this board.............
``this family institution has been enslaved and is sick and dying in the US and most Western societies.``
Thanks God..............that horrible Patriarchal god ordained ``durable` institution called `Family` is breaking............and it is great to see some western cultures supporting the new families albeit slowly......... that is what the Islamists get worked up on, when people like Ayan Ali Hirsi speak against this horrible institution of a Patriarchal-Family` and the violence and slaverly that it offers to the women they start spouting nonsense about `durability` .....................we can all see how Asadi`s propaganda fits with the Anti-Hirsi propaganda on this board.............
#375 Posted by ballukhan on July 5, 2006 11:33:06 pm
Re: # 373
``Institutions by definition are durable,``
You mean `durable` like my car..........Listen AH, you play around with words like REAL or `Durable` thinking people would be taken by your bombastic propaganda ............ I really doubt you have been reviewed by any of your academic peers. ............Social orders are not STATIC but dynamic and ever changing . Like a typical Islamist you assume a REAL social order which is ordained in some religious book and when the fact is that social orders keep on changing as per the economic and political situations of the day..............Each changed social order is as REAL as any of your godly ordained patriarchical Family with 4 wives and upteen number of slaves............ by calling modern civil family as SYMBOLIC you only indulge in the Islamist propaganda which we all hear from the uncouth ones...... except that now this propaganda is coming from somebody who like the Mullah Omar graduated from the western universities .............
``Institutions by definition are durable,``
You mean `durable` like my car..........Listen AH, you play around with words like REAL or `Durable` thinking people would be taken by your bombastic propaganda ............ I really doubt you have been reviewed by any of your academic peers. ............Social orders are not STATIC but dynamic and ever changing . Like a typical Islamist you assume a REAL social order which is ordained in some religious book and when the fact is that social orders keep on changing as per the economic and political situations of the day..............Each changed social order is as REAL as any of your godly ordained patriarchical Family with 4 wives and upteen number of slaves............ by calling modern civil family as SYMBOLIC you only indulge in the Islamist propaganda which we all hear from the uncouth ones...... except that now this propaganda is coming from somebody who like the Mullah Omar graduated from the western universities .............
#374 Posted by masadi on July 5, 2006 11:23:31 pm
In addition to #373, when half of all marriages attempted end in divorce, when marriage age is being pushed up, when fathers are missing from the household and mothers languish in poverty abandoned, when childbearing and sex outside of marriage becomes the norm, you cannot talk about a ``superior`` family instituion. Rather, due to its domination by the political economy, this family institution has been enslaved and is sick and dying in the US and most Western societies.
#373 Posted by masadi on July 5, 2006 11:15:04 pm
#369 Ballukhan writes <<< ..........Asadi how did you get your graduation degree in Sociology I wonder? >>>
It is not ``graduation`` degree it is graduate degree. And unlike you who copy pastes from a website, I have actually read the books I give refs from in my writings. If anything and everything can be described as a family, it ceases to be a social institution. Institutions by definition are durable, unlike the modern day family, have been setup to perform functions for society- which is extremely blurry regarding the modern family, it does not provide for wealth consolidation, sexual regulation, economic provision, role teaching (when one or the other parent is missing that cannot be done) or any of the functions associated with the family. You marrying the rat that lives in your kitchen, that can just as easily be termed (symbolized) as a family but it does not make it so. As the family instituion has altered and become of a fluid structure, sociologists have adjusted their defintions. The definition adjustment came after the structure adjustment so you cannot throw out a definition to prove anything, comprendey?
Now, you have proved yourself to be an ignoramus and not much else, might I suggest politely that you quit humiliatiing yourself further by proving yourself to be a bigoted illiterate and leave this thread to people who care about genuinely sharing ideas, AH.
It is not ``graduation`` degree it is graduate degree. And unlike you who copy pastes from a website, I have actually read the books I give refs from in my writings. If anything and everything can be described as a family, it ceases to be a social institution. Institutions by definition are durable, unlike the modern day family, have been setup to perform functions for society- which is extremely blurry regarding the modern family, it does not provide for wealth consolidation, sexual regulation, economic provision, role teaching (when one or the other parent is missing that cannot be done) or any of the functions associated with the family. You marrying the rat that lives in your kitchen, that can just as easily be termed (symbolized) as a family but it does not make it so. As the family instituion has altered and become of a fluid structure, sociologists have adjusted their defintions. The definition adjustment came after the structure adjustment so you cannot throw out a definition to prove anything, comprendey?
Now, you have proved yourself to be an ignoramus and not much else, might I suggest politely that you quit humiliatiing yourself further by proving yourself to be a bigoted illiterate and leave this thread to people who care about genuinely sharing ideas, AH.
#372 Posted by burpinder on July 5, 2006 10:56:14 pm
Re: # 351
You`d have to marry him first (shudder)
You`d have to marry him first (shudder)