16 year old rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant

irishconvert

wes wrote: »

What are you even talking about? Age of consent varies widely in Muslim majortiy countries, and our lowest here in Europe is 13 in Spain.

Wow, if I was to apply SV's argument then Spain is an entire country of Catholic paedophiles.

Abrasax

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. At best a collection of stories, whose individual merit might be debatable, but historically accurate? Not without contemporary sources. Again preferably external.

Well then, why do you believe a hadith (post #241) written 200 years after Mohammads death, when there is some evidence to contradict it?

Why the certitude?

IITYWYBMAD

Wibbs wrote: »

True people in the past tended to write in many different languages often in the same texts. You even see it in the early christian period in Ireland. The extant NT docs are all in the greek and latin though.

It depends on where you take your evidence from. For example, Lamsa believes The Gospels, as well as the Epistles, were written in Aramaic. Luke, a confirmed Gentile, would have written his gospel and Acts in Greek.

deravarra wrote: »

saw that movie again recently made me laugh like mad. what was the name of the horse that kept reappearing?

The horse, as you would expect, was called miracle!!

MagicMarker

irishconvert wrote: »

So if he, as you claim, married her at 6, why did she speak so highly of him for the rest of her life (she died at 65). Wouldn't she eventually speak out against him?

lol, what an awful argument! Just lol!

Wibbs

I would add: do I think Jesus existed and was a historical flesh and blood man? Someone who preached a different take on Judaism? Yes. Beyond that lies faith. Do I think Mohammad existed and was a historical flesh and blood man who preached a different take on both Judaism and Christianity? Yes, but again beyond that point lies faith. My personal opinion and theory is that tehre may have been two mohammads. The preacher one and the military leader one and the two have been combined in the mists of history. Much like our own St Patrick where some think there were actually two men.

irishconvert

deravarra wrote: »

Quote something from a verifiable FACT.

Why would a man, as has been stated here, with so many other wives (none of whom were under the age of 17 and most were as old as if not older than him - including widows), break with the norm in his own life and "marry" a little girl?

Why is it just the hadith which mentioned this?

One man's meanderings are not enough to stand in accusation of a man.

Exactly. And why did none of his opponents use this against him?

mikerowsopht

they should just nuke the following countries and be done with it:

israel
iran
iraq
afghanistan
gaza area
any muslims who are still living in the 2nd century

the only ppl that cause $h!t but only on their own doorsteps are the africans so they can live

+ Nuke any other 3rd world countries that cause nothing but $h!t all the time

after that we will have world peace

Wibbs

Abrasax wrote: »

Well then, why do you believe a hadith (post #241) written 200 years after Mohammads death, when there is some evidence to contradict it?

Maybe try reading my posts on the matter?
"I agree 100%. I would only suggest like I did that all we can say is that one mans meanderings were considered morally valid and proper to ascribe to the prophet in the centuries after he was supposed to have lived and preached"
Ive stated this twice.

Again for clarity. We cant know if Mohammad married a 9 year old. We can't even know if he even existed or if he did, said and did what was ascribed to him centuries after his death. We can only know that a man 300 years after, considered a man he called Mohammad to be a great prophet and that this Prophet married a 9 year old. Most importantly the audience for this man and those who wrote down his "meanderings" didnt consider such a marriage as morally wrong or they wouldnt have attached the founder of their faiths name with it. End.

Motley Crue

unkel wrote: »

This makes me sick :mad:

Words fail me, I cannot understand the mentality of a Muslim community who would allow these course of actions....I cannot understand....

Wibbs

irishconvert wrote: »

Exactly. And why did none of his opponents use this against him?

Because like I said in the culture of the time it wasnt frowned upon. We know better now as far as the psychology and physioogy involved they didnt(neither did most of europe either BTW).

mikerowsopht wrote: »

any muslims who are still living in the 2nd century

Eh considering Muslims as a group or faith didnt even exist until the 7th century at the earliest, then you're a bit off timewise there ted. The rest of your post? There arent enough rolleyes available.

Abrasax

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe try reading my posts on the matter?
"I agree 100%. I would only suggest like I did that all we can say is that one mans meanderings were considered morally valid and proper to ascribe to the prophet in the centuries after he was supposed to have lived and preached"
Ive stated this twice.

Again for clarity. We cant know if Mohammad married a 9 year old. We can't even know if he even existed or if he did, said and did what was ascribed to him centuries after his death. We can only know that a man 300 years after, considered a man he called Mohammad to be a great prophet and that this Prophet married a 9 year old. Most importantly the audience for this man and those who wrote down his "meanderings" didnt consider such a marriage as morally wrong or they wouldnt have attached the founder of their faiths name with it. End.

Then I misunderstood the post I cited.

Apologies.

Wibbs

Abrasax wrote: »

Then I misunderstood the post I cited.

Apologies.

Naw I ramble

ejmaztec

mikerowsopht wrote: »

they should just nuke the following countries and be done with it:

israel
iran
iraq
afghanistan
gaza area
any muslims who are still living in the 2nd century

the only ppl that cause $h!t but only on their own doorsteps are the africans so they can live

+ Nuke any other 3rd world countries that cause nothing but $h!t all the time

after that we will have world peace

I didn't think that there were any Muslims in the 2nd century, even when it was the 2nd century.

SV

mikerowsopht wrote: »

any muslims who are still living in the 2nd century

lol. Just lol.

dvpower

mikerowsopht wrote: »

they should just nuke the following countries and be done with it:

israel
iran
iraq
afghanistan
gaza area
any muslims who are still living in the 2nd century

the only ppl that cause $h!t but only on their own doorsteps are the africans so they can live

+ Nuke any other 3rd world countries that cause nothing but $h!t all the time

after that we will have world peace

But that's just appalling...

mikerowsopht wrote: »

me likes to drink me buckfast and sm0k3 me roor bong at the same time, in fact i'm doin it right now and I don't walk into anything. In fact if i'm not drinkin or smokin I tend to walk into things more as soberness & reality seem strange and weird 2 me

Ah.

vibe666

irishconvert wrote: »

Wow, if I was to apply SV's argument then Spain is an entire country of Catholic paedophiles.

the Spanish age of consent only applies to teenagers of a similar age, not old men (or women) having sex with kids.

as for the prophet and his alleged (being as there is no definitive proof either way) discretions, why do so many Muslim sects outside of the western world totally accept the 9 year old version and still, in the 21st century with the world looking on horrified and objecting to it STILL find it perfectly acceptable to marry off and have sex with children?

i'm an atheist and not in any position of authority on anything to do with the church or the law, so i'm not willing to take any responsibility for the catholic (or any other) church's actions, but it's plain to see that most of it happened in the past and that now it's out in the open things are being done about what happened there and people are slowly but surely being brought to justice for their crimes and it's fairly obvious that everyone finds what went on totally deplorable.

by contrast, looking at the muslim world, there still seems to be an overwhelming attitude of "f**k everyone else, it's our tradition" from the right wing and very little of anything at all from the 'moderates' (is there even such a thing as a left wing muslim?) for fear of upsetting the trigger happy fatwa slinging right who pretty much scare the living crap out of everyone, other muslims included.

if it's all so wrong, then why aren't the sensible muslims doing anything to stop it?

wes

vibe666 wrote: »

as for the prophet and his alleged (being as there is no definitive proof either way) discretions, why do so many Muslim sects outside of the western world totally accept the 9 year old version and still, in the 21st century with the world looking on horrified and objecting to it STILL find it perfectly acceptable to marry off and have sex with children?

Plenty of Muslim majority nations have a higher age of consent than 9. So what your saying here is simple inaccurate.

You can see some here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia

Malaysia is for example 16, Azerbaijan is also 16, so there are quite a few which are well above 9. So again what you saying make little or no sense.

vibe666 wrote: »

by contrast, looking at the muslim world, there still seems to be an overwhelming attitude of "f**k everyone else, it's our tradition" from the right wing and very little of anything at all from the 'moderates' (is there even such a thing as a left wing muslim?) for fear of upsetting the trigger happy fatwa slinging right who pretty much scare the living crap out of everyone, other muslims included.

if it's all so wrong, then why aren't the sensible muslims doing anything to stop it?

For example in regard to this particular case, there were people who were helping the family get justice under that countries laws:
HC records fatwa victim's statement

and

Rule issued asking authorities to take action against arbitrators

I found those 2 links in less than 30 seconds using Google btw. So again, what your saying is simply incorrect.

deravarra

deravarra wrote: »

You are christian, yes?

No

There are fatwas about the age of women who get married.

Ok, that's what I wanted to know

Enough of the demonisation of islam as being a paedophile laden cult. It's not.

Haven't said any such thing

wes wrote: »

What are you even talking about? Age of consent varies widely in Muslim majortiy countries, and our lowest here in Europe is 13 in Spain.

I had this in mind when I posted
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/30/yemens_child_bride_backlash
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264729/Child-bride-13-dies-internal-injuries-days-arranged-marriage-Yemen.html
particularly quotes like

More than a quarter of Yemen's females marry before age 15, according to a report last year by the Social Affairs Ministry.

A February 2009 law set the minimum age for marriage at 17, but it was repealed and sent back to parliament's constitutional committee for review after some politicians called it un-Islamic. The committee is expected to make a final decision on the legislation this month.
Some of the clerics who signed the decree against a ban sit on the committe

Google says it IS an islamic state.
So that's the one that needs to be told whether aisha was or wasn't 9!

Oh and these guys
http://www.aina.org/news/20100114115811.htm

edit: Turns out saudi doesn't have a minimum age (surprise, but they're weird anyway), nor does brunei, and iran is 9...

Nijmegen

wes wrote: »

Plenty of Muslim majority nations have a higher age of consent than 9. So what your saying here is simple inaccurate.

You can see some here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia

Malaysia is for example 16, Azerbaijan is also 16, so there are quite a few which are well above 9. So again what you saying make little or no sense.



For example in regard to this particular case, there were people who were helping the family get justice under that countries laws:
HC records fatwa victim's statement

and

Rule issued asking authorities to take action against arbitrators

I found those 2 links in less than 30 seconds using Google btw. So again, what your saying is simply incorrect.

I'm sure that comes as much comfort to every girl whipped for getting pregnant after a rape, or being stoned to death for having the baby, or similar.

Nodin

SV wrote: »

Oh right yeah, that'd be the 1% so!
(btw, some of those articles don't even mention their religion so..what's your point?)
!

Temples of the Goddess Kali - they tend not to be a favourite destination of muslims. Castes....not part of the Islam thing either. Mexico - not a muslim hotspot. Guatamala...not near mecca. Interesting how you can't even deal with those few samples.....

Were I an optimist I'd presume that you were just being obtuse as oppossed to genuinely that ignorant of the world. Then again, perhaps any information that contradicts your bigotry you just automatically dismiss...

SV wrote: »

You're a muslim, therefore you do! !

Yeah, thats the kind of thing.

Terry wrote:

Jews and Christians are just as bad. However, this thread is about Muslims.!

The statement was made

"It was done by some ignorant stupid people who's religion happens to be Muslim but who are not following it."

followed by the response

SV wrote: »

Funny how they're muslim 99% of the time then isn't it?

Unfortunately thats not true, or remotely near the mark, nor should it go unchallenged.

Abrasax

Terry wrote: »

Isn't there already enough of that in India?

Boom.

The Hindu-bashing by Muslims or the Hindu bashing of Muslims?

It's a terror what misunderstanding of other culture and religions can lead to.

Nodin

Abrasax wrote: »

The Hindu-bashing by Muslims or the Hindu bashing of Muslims?

It's a terror what misunderstanding of other culture and religions can lead to.

Indeed. Considering the amount of crap we've had over here as to whether a bit of biscuit turns into a dead Jewish bachelor or not, you'd think there'd be a bit of a pause in lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks.

Celly Smunt

dirty bitch allowing herself to get raped like that

Nodin

pmcmahon wrote: »

dirty bitch allowing herself to get raped like that

That seems to be the attitude. That you can also find it in Latin America and Africa should indicate that the problem doesn't lie in whatever version of the invisible man the locals follow.

deravarra

Nijmegen wrote: »

I'm sure that comes as much comfort to every girl whipped for getting pregnant after a rape, or being stoned to death for having the baby, or similar.

two totally different subject matters.

which do you want to address?

Terry

Wibbs wrote: »

Very true. A serious blot on our nation. Along with all sorts of other stuff including, marital rape, child abuse and innate misogyny. Thankfully we have and are moving forward away from that. Leaving the church and its control in the past was a huge part of that. Religion needs to be left behind. Actually no it doesnt. It brings great comfort to many so no, but it needs to be removed entirely from the mechanism of state.

Spot on.
Whilst I personally find religious beliefs ridiculous, I do not think people of faith are ridiculous (most of them anyway).
I do know quite a lot of people who find great solace in their beliefs.
Except for Scientologists. Everyone should laugh at them.

dvpower wrote: »

Is it? I thought it was about a rape victim being punished for becoming pregnant.

Punished by...










Wait for it...











Scientologists.
Nah. I'm just kidding. It was Muslims.

j1974 wrote: »

as opposed to catholic priests?? who rape, sodomise, administer the lashes, and bury the aborted foetus!!!!! all by themselves??? then amidst, evidence, testimony, confessions etc etc. brush it under the carpet whilst simultaneously despatching the abusers off to a craggy island type utopia, playgrounds a plenty!!!!

At least with muslims you know where you stand!!!!!

Yeah, because the abuses carried out by one faith make it ok for other faiths to act in a barbaric manner.

Having had God speak to me last night, I've created the church of Terry.
In this church,

• you can fiddle with kiddies,
• rape women,
• marry 9 year olds girls,
• stone your wives (you are not limited to any number, and male children can only be born once every five years so that there will be more pussy to go around. Every wife shall give birth to at least one male child and 7 female children) when they don't do the dishes,
• kill everyone who does not convert (this is not an option. It must be obeyed. God told me so, and this post is to be read as the direct word of God. Anyone disputing it as the word of God will be put to death),
• Women are required to cover their entire body when they are in public. They must also be accompanied by their husband at all times except when they are going into clothes shops which stock only ridiculously designed garments which cover the entire body. No man should ever have to go clothes shopping with a woman,
• Women shall, headache or no, have sex at their husband's every whim. Oral sex will suffice during their period (if they are old enough to have reached puberty. Otherwise there is no excuse),
• Women shall not be educated in any manner, except in that of keeping their husband happy.*

irishconvert wrote: »

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm#_ftnref11

I see that as grooming.

irishconvert wrote: »

So if he, as you claim, married her at 6, why did she speak so highly of him for the rest of her life (she died at 65). Wouldn't she eventually speak out against him?

Really?
Dude, I respect your faith (not to be cunfused with respect for your beliefs, of which I have none), but that doesn't dignify a retort.

deravarra wrote: »

Quote something from a verifiable FACT.

In response to that, I would like you to prove, with facts, that God spoke to Mohammed.

Why would a man, as has been stated here, with so many other wives (none of whom were under the age of 17 and most were as old as if not older than him - including widows), break with the norm in his own life and "marry" a little girl?

Why would a Catholic priest, someone bound by a vow of celibacy, sexually abuse an altar boy?
Listen, if you can explain how a paedophile's mind works, then you could go a long way towards preventing further acts of paedophilia.

Why is it just the hadith which mentioned this?

Because all religious texts are written by mysoginistic men who are afraid of their own sexuality. And paedophiles. Or they were just ****ed off their heads on whatever local hallucinogenic plants they had eaten shortly before writing these texts.

One man's meanderings are not enough to stand in accusation of a man.

You call this "One man's meanderings", yet, as a Muslim, you are quite willing to follow other teachings of the Hadith.
That's a bit selective of you, is it not?



*Please note that these things are absolutely abhorrent to me.
In saying that, I had to do it because God told me to.

deravarra

Terry wrote: »

Spot on.
Whilst I personally find religious beliefs ridiculous, I do not think people of faith are ridiculous (most of them anyway).
I do know quite a lot of people who find great solace in their beliefs.
Except for Scientologists. Everyone should laugh at them.



Punished by...










Wait for it...











Scientologists.
Nah. I'm just kidding. It was Muslims.



Yeah, because the abuses carried out by one faith make it ok for other faiths to act in a barbaric manner.

Having had God speak to me last night, I've created the church of Terry.
In this church,

• you can fiddle with kiddies,
• rape women,
• marry 9 year olds girls,
• stone your wives (you are not limited to any number, and male children can only be born once every five years so that there will be more pussy to go around. Every wife shall give birth to at least one male child and 7 female children) when they don't do the dishes,
• kill everyone who does not convert (this is not an option. It must be obeyed. God told me so, and this post is to be read as the direct word of God. Anyone disputing it as the word of God will be put to death),
• Women are required to cover their entire body when they are in public. They must also be accompanied by their husband at all times except when they are going into clothes shops which stock only ridiculously designed garments which cover the entire body. No man should ever have to go clothes shopping with a woman,
• Women shall, headache or no, have sex at their husband's every whim. Oral sex will suffice during their period (if they are old enough to have reached puberty. Otherwise there is no excuse),
• Women shall not be educated in any manner, except in that of keeping their husband happy.*

I see that as grooming.



Really?
Dude, I respect your faith (not to be cunfused with respect for your beliefs, of which I have none), but that doesn't dignify a retort.



In response to that, I would like you to prove, with facts, that God spoke to Mohammed.



Why would a Catholic priest, someone bound by a vow of celibacy, sexually abuse an altar boy?
Listen, if you can explain how a paedophile's mind works, then you could go a long way towards preventing further acts of paedophilia.


Because all religious texts are written by mysoginistic men who are afraid of their own sexuality. And paedophiles. Or they were just ****ed off their heads on whatever local hallucinogenic plants they had eaten shortly before writing these texts.




You call this "One man's meanderings", yet, as a Muslim, you are quite willing to follow other teachings of the Hadith.
That's a bit selective of you, is it not?



*Please note that these things are absolutely abhorrent to me.
In saying that, I had to do it because God told me to.

Given the seriousness of the nature of what was being discussed here, it's a pity you introd a huge amoung of flippancy and tongue in cheek here.

Obviously, any response to your points would be wasted.

Terry

Abrasax wrote: »

The Hindu-bashing by Muslims or the Hindu bashing of Muslims?

It's a terror what misunderstanding of other culture and religions can lead to.

I note by your profile that you have only been a member here for four months. I've only popped in and out over the past 8 months, so you won't be familiar with my posting style.

I'm rarely serious about anything here, and most of my posts should be taken with a pinch of salt.
In saying that, the majority of my posts in this thread were not a piss-take, apart from the section you quoted above and sections of my last post in this thread (and probably a couple of others that I can't remember posting).
Irony, sarcasm and humour tend to be lost with the lack of intonation of speech on forums.

SV

deravarra wrote: »

Given the seriousness of the nature of what was being discussed here, it's a pity you introd a huge amoung of flippancy and tongue in cheek here.

Obviously, any response to your points would be wasted.

Yet you reply to mine seriously? Lol.

Oh yeah there's nothing in those links you provided that support your claims either.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

Yet you reply to mine seriously? Lol.

Oh yeah there's nothing in those links you provided that support your claims either.

You're saying two things there:

1. your posts were rubbish

2. you can't read.

Ok, so I gave you a chance and replied to your posts - silly me.
I gave you the places where you could get the information about the verifiable facts which disprove your 99% theory. Not my fault you can't find them.

Abrasax

Terry wrote: »

I note by your profile that you have only been a member here for four months. I've only popped in and out over the past 8 months, so you won't be familiar with my posting style.

I'm rarely serious about anything here, and most of my posts should be taken with a pinch of salt.
In saying that, the majority of my posts in this thread were not a piss-take, apart from the section you quoted above and sections of my last post in this thread (and probably a couple of others that I can't remember posting).
Irony, sarcasm and humour tend to be lost with the lack of intonation of speech on forums.

Fair enough.

It's hard to tell sometimes due to the belated arrival of the long awaited sarcasm and irony smilies.

The particular theme of the denigrating of entire peoples, is a bete noire of mine, so I do tend to get heated and jump the gun.

No harm done.

Terry

deravarra wrote: »

Given the seriousness of the nature of what was being discussed here, it's a pity you introd a huge amoung of flippancy and tongue in cheek here.

Obviously, any response to your points would be wasted.

Dude, if you want a really serious discussion about this, then AH is not the place.
Try Humanities, where the rules on flippancy are a bit stricter.

I'm actually surprised that the likes of this has not yet been introduced to the thread.

That being said, I will say in all seriousness that all organised religion is a complete and utter joke.

It is my firm belief that Islam is the worst of all organised religions when it comes to the treatment abuse of women.
Anyone, and I mean any person on this planet, who can justify whipping a rape victim because she was raped, whether they use the defence that the Catholic church or whatever other religion have also committed atrocities against innocent people, should be strung up by their balls (yeah, balls. It's always men who try to justify this crap) and tortured until they are near death. They should then be allowed to recover before suffering the same fate as the woman whose abuse they have tried to defend.

Dionysus

My name is URL wrote: »

Muslims, no surprise there then

I'm working solely with 50 Muslims each day. Their society and the internal tensions even within this group is an eye-opener for me. They cannot be put into one group, except perhaps with regards to their avoidance of alcohol. And that's a fairly admirable thing in my book. They are, overall, great fun and decent people whose worst trait is, in my view, their inability to organise efficiently (but then again we are Irish, not German).

You do have a point; you're just not wording it accurately/qualifying it.

Terry

Terry wrote: »

It is my firm belief that Islam is the worst of all organised religions when it comes to the treatment abuse of women.

I don't know, I don't think they insist widows should die and I'm not sure they're as obsessive about "unclean unclean" or "no dancing allowed".
Fundies from any religion are pretty bad
Even buddhism has a lot of blatant sexism, drives me up the wall.

I think the problem is when cultural practises/biases get mixed into the religion and the two start becoming indistinguishable.
Sure, you/moderates can claim the extremists aren't practising the "pure" form of the religion, but given enough time and mixing the arguments become weaker. Especially when a lot of it is one opinion vs the other.

deravarra

Terry wrote: »

Dude, if you want a really serious discussion about this, then AH is not the place.
Try Humanities, where the rules on flippancy are a bit stricter.

I'm actually surprised that the likes of this has not yet been introduced to the thread.

That being said, I will say in all seriousness that all organised religion is a complete and utter joke.

It is my firm belief that Islam is the worst of all organised religions when it comes to the treatment abuse of women.
Anyone, and I mean any person on this planet, who can justify whipping a rape victim because she was raped, whether they use the defence that the Catholic church or whatever other religion have also committed atrocities against innocent people, should be strung up by their balls (yeah, balls. It's always men who try to justify this crap) and tortured until they are near death. They should then be allowed to recover before suffering the same fate as the woman whose abuse they have tried to defend.

It's quite clear that the majority of posters here cannot distinguish the difference between a religious norm and a cultural tradition. Most of what is put down to Islamic practices would never be countenanced by muslims in the western world - not because of a fear of "getting caught" - so then why? Is the religion different? no! It's the cultures. I thought that would have been as plain as the nose on one's face.

There are times when even after you point out the bleeding obvious, some still won't see it

Terry

Abrasax wrote: »

Fair enough.

It's hard to tell sometimes due to the belated arrival of the long awaited sarcasm and irony smilies.

The particular theme of the denigrating of entire peoples, is a bete noire of mine, so I do tend to get heated and jump the gun.

No harm done.

Good to hear.
I would also like to apologise if I came across as a bit condescending there.
That was not my intention.

deravarra

Dionysus wrote: »

I'm working solely with 50 Muslims each day.

Ah god love you

Hope they arent Irish muslims ... that would be awful! hehe

Dionysus

unkel wrote: »

This makes me sick :mad:



Article

Every person and country has a weak point, a point where the person or country will be moved to change his/her/its behaviour. Bangladesh has its weak point. We in the West need to find it, put pressure on our leaders and change this "culture".

It has all the shades of the Pakistani woman, Mukhtar Mai, whom her village elders ordered that she be gang rapped some years back. That got huge publicity in the west and a change in Pakistani policy (at least we were told this). Disgusting, barbaric stuff by any standards.

Abrasax

Terry wrote: »

I would also like to apologise if I came across as a bit condescending there.

Not at all.

Peace and reconciliation in an AH muslim thread.

What's the world coming to?

deravarra

Dionysus wrote: »

Every person and country has a weak point, a point where the person or country will be moved to change his/her/its behaviour. Bangladesh has its weak point. We in the West need to find it, put pressure on our leaders and change this "culture".

It has all the shades of the Pakistani woman, Mukhtar Mai, whom her village elders ordered that she be gang rapped some years back. That got huge publicity in the west and a change in Pakistani policy (at least we were told this). Disgusting, barbaric stuff by any standards.

Well said!

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

I think the problem is when cultural practises/biases get mixed into the religion and the two start becoming indistinguishable.
Sure, you/moderates can claim the extremists aren't practising the "pure" form of the religion, but given enough time and mixing the arguments become weaker. Especially when a lot of it is one opinion vs the other.

deravarra wrote: »

It's quite clear that the majority of posters here cannot distinguish the difference between a religious norm and a cultural tradition.

SV

deravarra wrote: »

You're saying two things there:

1. your posts were rubbish

2. you can't read.

Ok, so I gave you a chance and replied to your posts - silly me.
I gave you the places where you could get the information about the verifiable facts which disprove your 99% theory. Not my fault you can't find them.

No.. They're actually not there at all.
I could have sent you the same link saying it supported my claims.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

No.. They're actually not there at all.
I could have sent you the same link saying it supported my claims.

God love ya.

I'll be home later and will have a quick scout through my stuff online and see if some other website breaks it down in easy bits for you.

Dionysus

deravarra wrote: »

It's quite clear that the majority of posters here cannot distinguish the difference between a religious norm and a cultural tradition. Most of what is put down to Islamic practices would never be countenanced by muslims in the western world - not because of a fear of "getting caught" - so then why? Is the religion different? no! It's the cultures. I thought that would have been as plain as the nose on one's face.

There are times when even after you point out the bleeding obvious, some still won't see it

Good distinction. To put it in an Irish context, would anybody really contend that "Protestantism" is equivalent to the Orange Order or indeed to the cultural traditions of the average self-declared "British" Protestant settler in Ireland? Does Protestantism really explain that community? If so, why do Danish Protestants (to take one of many) not act similarly towards Catholics in their country?

There is something else - something cultural/economic/political/ethnic (in no particular order) - going on that is being dressed up as "religious". Likewise with the supposedly "Islamic" traditions.

Nodin

SV wrote: »

No.. They're actually not there at all.
I could have sent you the same link saying it supported my claims.

Yes, you're so sure of your case...despite all evidence to the contrary.

SV

deravarra wrote: »

God love ya.

I'll be home later and will have a quick scout through my stuff online and see if some other website breaks it down in easy bits for you.

So you're admitting you haven't gone through them yourself then eh?
There's absolutely nothing there to support your claims.

Ah being patronizing.. The last call.

deravarra

Dionysus wrote: »

Good distinction. To put it in an Irish context, would anybody really contend that "Protestantism" is equivalent to the Orange Order or indeed to the cultural traditions of the average self-declared "British" Protestant settler in Ireland? Does Protestantism really explain that community? If so, why do Danish Protestants (to take one of many) not act similarly towards Catholics in their country?

There is something else - something cultural/economic/political/ethnic (in no particular order) - going on that is being dressed up as "religious". Likewise with the supposedly "Islamic" traditions.

I recall an anti-Islamic group in the UK screaming blue murder and protesting outside a local mosque when they heard of an "honour" killing in their city's Asian community.

Of course, no apology forthcoming after it was found out that the victim and perpetrators were all Sikh

Terry

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't know, I don't think they insist widows should die and I'm not sure they're as obsessive about "unclean unclean" or "no dancing allowed".
Fundies from any religion are pretty bad
Even buddhism has a lot of blatant sexism, drives me up the wall.

I think the problem is when cultural practises/biases get mixed into the religion and the two start becoming indistinguishable.
Sure, you/moderates can claim the extremists aren't practising the "pure" form of the religion, but given enough time and mixing the arguments become weaker. Especially when a lot of it is one opinion vs the other.

That's fair enough, and I do agree with your points there.
I will admit that I am far from being an expert on any organised religion. In saying that, I have done quite a lot of reading on the fundamentalist activities and belief structures of the Abrahamic religions.

The end result being that I found Islam to be the worst, Judaism second, and Christianity third. However, they were all, in my opinion, just as bad as each other. The only reason I found Islam to be worse than the other two is because it seems (to me) to be far more open about its human rights abuses and of the opinion that anyone who disagrees should be killed.

All three are very close to each other in human rights violations though.
I'm actually quite sickened by them all because of their interpretions of the writings of men who were quite obvously mysoginists, and lived in an age when all women were treated as objects, prizes and lesser beings, and they continue to harbour those beliefs in a world where we know that women are capable of being just as productive (in some instances more productive) as men.

deravarra wrote: »

It's quite clear that the majority of posters here cannot distinguish the difference between a religious norm and a cultural tradition. Most of what is put down to Islamic practices would never be countenanced by muslims in the western world - not because of a fear of "getting caught" - so then why? Is the religion different? no! It's the cultures. I thought that would have been as plain as the nose on one's face.

There are times when even after you point out the bleeding obvious, some still won't see it

These so called cultural trditions are being carried out in the name of Mohammed and Islam, whether you like it or not.

Are you, someone who appears to be a moderate and rational Muslim, willing to expose your identity and openly criticise these extremists?
I ask the same of IrishConvert.

Would either of you be willing to, let's say make a video blog, in which you criticise all extremist Muslims and call them out for what they truly are, Complete lunatics?
Would you be willing to have them place a Fatwah on you, because you know that's exactly what will happen?

If you are, then I can honestly say that the vast majority of Western civilisation will stand behind you and have the utmost respect for you.

If not, then, just like I do for other so-called moderates, I will just think of you as being another mouthpiece for outdated and mysoginistic beliefs.

Abrasax wrote: »

Not at all.

Peace and reconciliation in an AH muslim thread.

What's the world coming to?

I don't know. It's quite disturbing.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

So you're admitting you haven't gone through them yourself then eh?
There's absolutely nothing there to support your claims.

Ah being patronizing.. The last call.

Oh I have, but I find it difficult reading through all those docs on an iphone.

Like I said, I will see if I can help you out later.

And no, I wasnt being patronising - although I am tempted

Gunsfortoys

The people that did this, religious or not, are very sick minded individuals. What they have done to a defenseless 16 year old Rape victim is beyond human. Sadly this is what religion has reduced the human race to, a bunch of weak minded sheep who accept the misery and tyranny of a bunch of mindless thugs. We are living in a truly sick world.