Islam thread a joke

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

(cue Wibbs for the rebuttal

I'm delighted to find myself invited to speak on this subject ..... rant rant rant.....

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

I didn't find it offensive, I found it offtopic for the thread and you were making the assertion that he wasn't a moderate based on his post yet despite numerous times asked to say why, you didn't reply. To quote your exact words "I do not find what Quadri posted to reflect what I consider to be moderate."

Add to that you seem not to be able to comprehend to just send him a private message if you really wanted to know.

Hobbes a question is not the same as an assiertion. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I want to to tell us publically how he perceives himself thats why.

As Devore said, the forum isnt about proving things so I dont know what you are on Wibbs back about proving the saudi king is a dipso.

Hobbes

I want to to tell us publically how he perceives himself thats why.

No. You claimed his comments were not moderate, you were asked numerous times why and in what way and totally ignored the question as you do now. Rather then trying to attack the post you were trying to attack the poster.

Similar to Wolffs comments about the Saudi king. It is not to have a go at the person but to infer some kind of problem with Muslims and Islam as a whole.

Look tbh I have a personal rule of not banning people for thier comments outside of the forum but I am willing to make an exception for you two if it makes you feel any better. Or do yous think you will be able to contribute to the forum in a positive way?

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote:

I want to to tell us publically how he perceives himself thats why.

Not wishing to jump in late on this one, but does not the open letter Qadri posted not pretty much give you his position, on this matter at least? Presumably that's why the chap posted it. Now I had a few issues with some of it and expressed same, but I honestly don't see how his leanings are that hidden. Check out his other posts for clarity maybe. Not to speak for the bloke, but I take him to be a religious, studious kind o' guy, who believes in his thang and takes questions pretty well. I for one would regard him as a 'moderate', whatever that means in the context of the religious. In fact, check out the patience of some mods in other religious forums who have to deal with more 'immoderate' unchanging views(no names etc).

As Devore said, the forum isnt about proving things so I dont know what you are on Wibbs back about proving the saudi king is a dipso.

Ah here. Turned on the rack for a crime he didn't commit, Wibbs consoles himself that it was all in the name of free speech.... (This 3rd party Pigheadism is catching).

For me, whether the Saudi king is a dipso isn't that relevant to the thread, unless you're speaking of hypocrisy, which all religions and peoples have an abundance of. It's along the lines of the nazis were for the most part Christians therefore.... It says nothing about the religion in particular. Islam's attitude to drink is certainly not an altogether bad thing. For all the dopeyness of some of the saudi rules and regs, there's not too many drunken brawls in Riyadh methinks. A good thing too.

metrovelvet

Neither of you are getting it. It doesnt matter how I perceive him, I wanted to know how he perceives himself. You shouldnt speak for him Wibbs. Its not your place to and hes well able of fighting his own battles,but you notice he hasnt returned. Im not going to make assumptions on this mans lifestyle based on the propeganda he spouts.

Hobbes can you show me on the thread where I said what you are claiming I said or was that in a pm, which is not public and therefore irrelevant to the thread in question. Considering how political his post was its entirely relevant to ask what ideology hes coming from.

So now in islam a question is an attack. This is why islam thread is a joke. Unbelievable. And yet so typical. You do realise Hobbes you are worsening not helping the reputation of Islam for being rigid, censorious and no sense of the humanities.

Asking someone where they are on the political spectrum is not an attack. If you think that you really need to get into a political theory class ASAP.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

Hobbes can you show me on the thread where I said what you are claiming I said or was that in a pm, which is not public and therefore irrelevant to the thread in question.

It is totally relevent. You said that you didn't believe he was a moderate based on that post yet never once detailed why you believed this.

Seriously this is going around in circles.

You do realise Hobbes you are worsening not helping the reputation of Islam for being rigid, censorious and no sense of the humanities.

lol. Yea right. Thats why yourself and others were told to continue certain conversations in relevent forums or private messages or the correct thread.

Asking someone where they are on the political spectrum is not an attack.

It is if you keep asking on a thread which is not related to your question without commenting on the thread in question.

metrovelvet

You make no sense whatsoever.

If a comment is off topic you want it PMd. And yet now you say Pmd comments are relevant, so which way do want it? If they were relevent I wouldnt have had to PM them in the first place.

And so what if i don find him a moderate? I can have an opinion. Whats your point? SO unless I agree that his perspective is moderate than Im personally attacking the man?

Well I wont find anyone who belongs to a religion which does not allow women into the place of worship moderate in anyway. Nor will I find the censorship of artists moderate.

What is your point? Of course you want to turn this around on me than actually take a good look at the decisions you make on that forum.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

If a comment is off topic you want it PMd. And yet now you say Pmd comments are relevant, so which way do want it?

Asking him his opinion on his religon as a whole instead of the actual threads subject matter = Offtopic.

Claiming you believed he wasn't moderate based on what he posted = Ontopic.

Refusing to back up those claims in the thread in question or anywhere for that matter. = Priceless.

I can have an opinion.

Yes the issue is where you put that opinion, or actually backing up that opinion with something more then "I say so".

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Like I said, you will find the same rules will apply in other religon forums.

But he said "yet people can insult christianity,judaism, Israel a lot and everyone agree's.". Feel free to report what he deems as insults. Either they are insulting or not. If he finds them offensive report them, or did yous all miss the bit of the charter where it says no attacks on any religon?

... Really, please find something offensive not related to Islam on the forum.

Wolff

Wibbs wrote:

For me, whether the Saudi king is a dipso isn't that relevant to the thread, unless you're speaking of hypocrisy, which all religions and peoples have an abundance of. It's along the lines of the nazis were for the most part Christians therefore.... It says nothing about the religion in particular. Islam's attitude to drink is certainly not an altogether bad thing. For all the dopeyness of some of the saudi rules and regs, there's not too many drunken brawls in Riyadh methinks. A good thing too.

The fact of the king of saudi was quoted as an example of the double standards that apply

and also in response to the earlier post that the saudi gov gives out free beer.

as for the lack of drunken brawls in Riyadh - usually because all the yobbos are at main square watching some poor wretch having his/her head cut off for withcraft

Yeah those dopey rules like the one that kept schoolgirls locked into a burning school by the religious police. no harm there allright

yes its a paradise on earth that saudi arabia

Wolff

Hobbes wrote:

No. You claimed his comments were not moderate, you were asked numerous times why and in what way and totally ignored the question as you do now. Rather then trying to attack the post you were trying to attack the poster.

Similar to Wolffs comments about the Saudi king. It is not to have a go at the person but to infer some kind of problem with Muslims and Islam as a whole.

Look tbh I have a personal rule of not banning people for thier comments outside of the forum but I am willing to make an exception for you two if it makes you feel any better. Or do yous think you will be able to contribute to the forum in a positive way?

my comment was about the saudi king not islam - also are you threatening to ban for posting in this forum too ?

so if I complain about the posts I get banned again in addition to the ban I already have

Nice set up hobbes

very nice

My point proved so .

metrovelvet

You may as well be talking to a wall though a wall would make more sense.

Hobbes says OT opinions should be PMd.

But all of a sudden those same PMs are suddenly on topic.

I wont repeat myself again, a question is not a statement.

You just dont get it. I find it offensive that you ally yourself with the PC brigade when the left supports womens rights and free speech and you clearly are biased towarhd a religion which wants to destroy these freedoms.

DeVore

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=871517&postcount=6

thats what I posted on the Christianity forum. You'll note there is not a single line about having to put up with people who consistently badger and attack the christian faith (which is what is clearly happening in the Muslim forum). Take it to humanities if you want to discuss the rights of women in Muslim countries but you had better not be racist or Amp will ban your asses there too.

Bottom line, if you went into the Christianity forum and said "the pope is an alco" I'd support you being banned from there too.

Perhaps you would both be better off not going into the Muslim forum and leaving them alone rather then poking them with a stick.

DeV.

Wolff

Hate to burst the bubble but the Saudi king is not a religious figurehead like the pope so the comparison is fairly inane