Muslims protect churches

[Fader4]

porchrat if you wish to be treated as an adult in what is supposed to be a Forum for adult debate, for god's sake act like one.

+100

its amusing that he doesn't realize what a fool he is making of himself, it is pointless to

argue with any element of the mybb bigot brigade, you will get more balance and logic

out of a rock than you will out of these types.

 

[Fazda]

+100

its amusing that he doesn't realize what a fool he is making of himself, it is pointless to

argue with any element of the mybb bigot brigade, you will get more balance and logic

out of a rock than you will out of these types.

Thank you, I was starting to think that I was back in a schoolyard!

 

[porchrat]

porchrat, you are aware that you just proved his point right?

No a child in a sandpit uses nasty words to make people cry. The reasons are all external. I use the word for reasons that are entirely internal. I refuse to give it respect not because I wish to upset people. I choose not to give it respect because I personally don't believe it deserves respect.

There is nothing childish about that. It is my opinion and I am permitted to express it.

None of this has anything to do with the points I have raised. Points that have yet to be addressed.

 

[porchrat]

+100

its amusing that he doesn't realize what a fool he is making of himself, it is pointless to

argue with any element of the mybb bigot brigade, you will get more balance and logic

out of a rock than you will out of these types.

"bigot brigade"?

Reported. If you can demonstrate a bigoted statement made by me then I will apologise until then please stop throwing baseless accusations around.

If there is one thing I can't stand it is bigotry. Having someone call me a bigot is not something I take lightly.

 

[Fazda]

No a child in a sandpit uses nasty words to make people cry. The reasons are all external. I use the word for reasons that are entirely internal. I refuse to give it respect not because I wish to upset people. I choose not to give it respect because I personally don't believe it deserves respect.

There is nothing childish about that. It is my opinion and I am permitted to express it.

None of this has anything to do with the points I have raised. Points that have yet to be addressed.

I rest my case. We are in fact dealing with a name calling child in a sandpit.

Anything else that you are foolish enough to say will be treated with the lack of respect that it deserves.

Grow up!

 

[Pitbull]

No a child in a sandpit uses nasty words to make people cry. The reasons are all external. I use the word for reasons that are entirely internal. I refuse to give it respect not because I wish to upset people. I choose not to give it respect because I personally don't believe it deserves respect.

There is nothing childish about that. It is my opinion and I am permitted to express it.

None of this has anything to do with the points I have raised. Points that have yet to be addressed.

I think you are reading it wrong. No one is asking you to give it respect. But your attitude "I will call it what I like, don't care if you like it or not" is just being childish imho. You are free to disagree with it, but if you want your point to be brought forward I suppose giving it substance beats having to use all kinds of names to show your disapproval. Don't mind me anyway, I'm just observing this thread

 

[Fader4]

"bigot brigade"?

Reported. If you can demonstrate a bigoted statement made by me then I will apologise until then please stop throwing baseless accusations around.

If there is one thing I can't stand it is bigotry. Having someone call me a bigot is not something I take lightly.

yes, bigot brigade.

i consider the CA racists and islamophobes along with anyone who approaches a

"debate" such as the present one with the irrational bias and intolerance you have

exhibited to be part of this brigade. As other posters have said, your attitude is childish and you seem to be rather ill informed on the topic, this makes it difficult to have any sort

of meaningful debate, if you want to report me for having an opinion thats your problem, says more about you than it does about me.

 

[copacetic]

I think you are reading it wrong. No one is asking you to give it respect. But your attitude "I will call it what I like, don't care if you like it or not" is just being childish imho. You are free to disagree with it, but if you want your point to be brought forward I suppose giving it substance beats having to use all kinds of names to show your disapproval. Don't mind me anyway, I'm just observing this thread

Plenty of substance in porchrat's posts. Why such a big fuss is being made of his naming convention, while his actual points are being totally ignored is a bit strange.

If anyone has an issue with the Shakira thing, fair enough, but it's turning into a personal attack on him now, and as far as I can tell porchrat has not attacked anyone in their personal capacity has he?

 

[Pitbull]

Plenty of substance in porchrat's posts. Why such a big fuss is being made of his naming convention, while his actual points are being totally ignored is a bit strange.

If anyone has an issue with the Shakira thing, fair enough, but it's turning into a personal attack on him now, and as far as I can tell porchrat has not attacked anyone in their personal capacity has he?

lol?

What is wrong with you people today? Now it's a personal attack...

 

[porchrat]

I think you are reading it wrong. No one is asking you to give it respect. But your attitude "I will call it what I like, don't care if you like it or not" is just being childish imho. You are free to disagree with it, but if you want your point to be brought forward I suppose giving it substance beats having to use all kinds of names to show your disapproval. Don't mind me anyway, I'm just observing this thread

Why should other's opinions be able to impact how I choose to express my opinion?

The expression of my opinion is just as important as the expression of anyone elses. I don't use the term Shakira to upset people. It is my own personal statement. If I were doing it to upset people I would agree with you, but I'm not... and I don't.

yes, bigot brigade.

i consider the CA racists and islamophobes along with anyone who approaches a

"debate" such as the present one with the irrational bias and intolerance you have

exhibited to be part of this brigade. As other posters have said, your attitude is childish and you seem to be rather ill informed on the topic, this makes it difficult to have any sort

of meaningful debate, if you want to report me for having an opinion thats your problem, says more about you than it does about me.

I'm not reporting you for having an opinion. I'm reporting you for calling me a bigot when there is no cause to do so. At no point have I said I am intolerant of your opinions or anyone elses or that I hold my opinion above anyone elses. At no point have I voiced hatred or intolerance of a particular group. Only THEN could you call me a bigot.

EDIT: As to being ill-informed I have never claimed to be super-knowledgable but at the same time I keep being told I'm ill informed but nobody has told me exactly what I've said that I'm ill informed on. All I've said is that Shakira law treats people differently based upon gender. I don't see how that is ill-informed. Please either demonstrate where I'm ill-informed (i.e. that it doesn't treat people differently based upon gender) or stop throwing accusations at me.

 

[porchrat]

lol?

What is wrong with you people today? Now it's a personal attack...

I would say calling me a bigoted sand-pit baby is a personal attack yes.

I am being insulted for having an opinion differing from that of some in this thread. At no point have I insulted any of you and have been nothing but courteous towards all of you. I am happy to acknowledge that your opinions differ from mine and you are welcome to them. I would never insult you because of it.

 

[porchrat]

It is in-pragmatic to expect somebody to go out and study each one of the 10,000... faiths out there and expect them to know every tad bit of each one of them, so as such- we address what is relevant, we highlight the contradictions and this is what is open to question, as soon as we found contradictions and problems with the ethics of a particular movement we could regard this as having a serious problem, and even more so if the centrality of this belief was a god, a creator of all who was to know all and also instructs people to do what he says and nothing else, if somebody like this contradicts <him>selve then he is not who they say he is, and he has no right to force this belief on any other either and because we are entitled to our own being, we have a right to argue and protect this cause. Because without it, we are not us, wee would be designated as nothing, and this is not in my interest.

I don't know about all that. I don't think nearly that far down the line. I just don't like the sexism inherent in Shakira law. I also understand as someone from a Western cultural background that a culture rooted firmly in the need to treat all responsible people equally and provide all people individual rights above all else is highly unlikely to ever accept Shakira law in it's current state.

Just as Christianity in the Western world had to undergo this change so now is it Islam's turn. Christianity has a set of laws and these laws over time have moved aside to allow a secular legal system that judges the people living underneath it not by the standards of one group's beliefs but instead by the standard of what is and is not believed to be good for society as a whole. To treat everyone equally regardless of religion, gender, race etc.

The alternative is a continuation of the animosity we see between the Western world and the Islamic one. Personally I'd prefer to see all religious laws taking a back seat to secular laws. Adherence to those laws should be by choice when ascribing to a particular religion and not enforced as a legal system on all, even those that don't ascribe to that belief. In this world there would be no reason for the animosity.

 

[porchrat]

Well althouhg I hope for this change, and for certain reasons I would highly doubt it would happen, in fact it;s not really possible unless such a system would directly contradict what Islam taught and expects. With christianity, the church rule was never really a part of the religion itself, and certainly not so like Sharia law is an integral and necessary part of Islam. And thus we can't expect the same revolution to happen with Muslims as we did with Christians, and such a revolution has never been long-lived either, If a nation is Islamic, it could only be fully Islamic, the only thing that is stopping this are other global organisations and complaint documents such as the UN and worldwide human rights organisations and sanctioning.

Biblical law was present to the point that things like divorce just didn't happen. They weren't legal. Over time these sort of laws were removed and now we can be divorced. That is the sort of thing I'm talking about. There was a time where people lived under biblical law in the Western world. Thank goodness that time is no more.

I don't think that we could fight terrorism, and I don't think that we could get Islam to change, in fact it is probably at the best it has ever been already. Islam is a religion that is carged into stone, it's not something we could really change, Islam instructs what it does through the Koran and this Koran is not something that could be re-written. it is not like how the Catholoics are dealing wht Christianity, with catholoissm, much of the rule does not have to do with what the bible says directly, but mostly has to do with the pope and his SN '7-deadly' sins, it has to do with what the church thinks god wants, and not always directly about what the bible instructs itself, same is not true about Islam, Islam is based on the Koran and solely the Koran, Sharia is based on the Koran(primarily) and hadith(where the quran relates to it). And thus we can't change our understanding of what god meant like the Catholics done with their previous '7-deadly sins' and murderous instructive forms of torcher which had nothing to do with the bible it self, especially not as Sharia is embedded into the Koran and Islam.

I am far more optimistic. Eventually the concept of the rights of the individual will overwhelm Islam and a change will occur from within. I need to believe this because otherwise there really is no hope.

As to religions such as christianity, well I don't see that even these have really let go of their control and tyranny of society today, the mere cause for us not being able to see it is for what it is, is owing to the fact that this is all or most of what we do see everyday and we what we don't see is how a fully(/primarily) reasoned society would really function (ie Sweeden, Singapore, Japan, etc..), and what we do is we merely contrast the Islamic world to our own, and then yet see the Islamic world as much worse, which in fact it may well be, however the reality of the issue is not simply that it is 'much worse', but that we may well have many problems of our own too, but because it is most common to simply compare and not properly inspect, we don't even see our own serious problems.

For sure the West has problems yes but for the most part Western religions are fairly impotent when it comes to secular law.

Woman is by far not the only issue in islam, and yes, albeit a very urgent one, it doesn't yet near any of the rest. Yes I'd agree that any sane western person should be able to see the problem with islam, yet it is also a matter of phycology, when we look at the news paper, three quaters of it might be covered with war in distant islamic nations, yet all our eyes seem to fall on is on who Paris hilton is dating this time, we are so used to the other 3/4 of the news that we have so became accustomed to skipping through the same-old everyday that we have actually forgotten that it is their to begin with. Even Zuma and Malema's crazy scourges hold us all to attention, if Malema sings kill the boer, everybody on facebook joins the '1mn against malema' group, yet if it is a dayly 'death to the west' deathmatch rally in the islamic world, you won't even find anybody talking.

I agree that there are other things but the one that stands out the most for me personally is Shakira law and it's inherent gender discrimination. It is also the easiest one to solve. Just implement secular law in it's place. That doesn't mean scrap Shakira law. Those that still want to submit to Shakira law can do so but it is then a choice for those that believe in it.

On a related note I've noticed that a lot of the Muslims on this forum seem to interpret these issues I have with Islam as some sort of Islamophobia. As though I somehow hate Islam and all Muslims. Anyone that criticises Islam is quickly branded an Islamophobe. Now what some people need to realise is that you can criticise a system without hating those that practice it and even without hating the system itself. At the same time they tell me I need to stop focusing on the parts I don't like and start focusing on the parts I do like. It doesn't work that way. It is an all-or-nothing deal. The parts I do like are parts I expect from and are present in many systems. There is no need to highlight them. As long as there is bad stuff at a level that fundamentally contradicts basic human rights that is where I will focus my attention.

 

[Fazda]

Plenty of substance in porchrat's posts. Why such a big fuss is being made of his naming convention, while his actual points are being totally ignored is a bit strange.

If anyone has an issue with the Shakira thing, fair enough, but it's turning into a personal attack on him now, and as far as I can tell porchrat has not attacked anyone in their personal capacity has he?

copacetic, all I am doing is trying to keep the childish schoolboy "names" out of this discussion.

This forum is supposed to be for serious debate, and the minute anybody starts renaming something they don't like, their argument loses all substance.

Simple.

 

[copacetic]

copacetic, all I am doing is trying to keep the childish schoolboy "names" out of this discussion.

This forum is supposed to be for serious debate, and the minute anybody starts renaming something they don't like, their argument loses all substance.

Simple.

I don't want to get into a fight about what (is to me) such a trivial thing. I understand your feeling on the matter, I guess it just doesn't bother me.

But you and porchrat duke it out, I don't want to derail the thread more than I already have.

 

[Who Me]

Fazda you seem to be making a real attempt to derail this thread, we all know what porchrat means. But it in no way really detracts from the deeper debate which is the conflict between Western Ideals and Law and Islamic Ideals and Law.

There are certain Islamic practices that are abhorrent to western society and Islam’s cause is not help by the violent reaction of adherents to any slight be it large or small

 

[FunkyToyz]

porchrat: As seeing you are so well informed about the Shariah Law (I trust that you are as I cannot see how one can disrespect anything or anyone without knowing and understanding it/them) and particularly do have very strong feelings toward the 'sexism' this law portray's, I would like you to provide me with an example of one such instance, where women (in Islam) are being treated unfairly.

AFAIK - Shariah Law calls for the utmost respect of women and for complete fairness. Women in Islam have as much rights as what men do.

Maybe by means of an example from your side where it proves that the Sahriah Law is unjust toward women, we are able to conclude whether your disrespect for the Islamic Law is in fact a valid one or whether it is entirely based on heresay.

 

[porchrat]

copacetic, all I am doing is trying to keep the childish schoolboy "names" out of this discussion.

This forum is supposed to be for serious debate, and the minute anybody starts renaming something they don't like, their argument loses all substance.

Simple.

Why?

How does my renaming something personally (at no point have I requested that anyone else adopt my naming convention) have any effect on my ability to have a serious debate?

What should it matter to anyone else what I choose to name things? Provided for the sake of communication/debate I inform you of my personal change in nomenclature there shouldn't be a problem.

Unless of course you have a personal problem with my choice of name and are attempting to use your opinion and beliefs to force a change in my behaviour, especially when my behaviour has no impact on your life whatsoever. Attempting to force a change in my behaviour or just as bad, insulting me because my behaviour doesn't line up with your beliefs is not acceptable. Live and let live.

 

[porchrat]

Fazda you seem to be making a real attempt to derail this thread, we all know what porchrat means. But it in no way really detracts from the deeper debate which is the conflict between Western Ideals and Law and Islamic Ideals and Law.

There are certain Islamic practices that are abhorrent to western society and Islam’s cause is not help by the violent reaction of adherents to any slight be it large or small

Well we shouldn't be lumping all people together with the violent ones. The violent people are a crazy minority. I'm sure you Who Me as a Christian would not like to be lumped in with the nuttier brands of your faith. Yes I do agree that some elements of Islam tend not to sit well with those with a Western mindset. Though at the same time there are elements of Christianity that don't sit well with the modern Western mindset either.

 

[porchrat]

porchrat: As seeing you are so well informed about the Shariah Law (I trust that you are as I cannot see how one can disrespect anything or anyone without knowing and understanding it/them) and particularly do have very strong feelings toward the 'sexism' this law portray's,

I never said I was well informed about it. In fact in this very thread I freely admitted that I'm no expert. Quite frankly I don't know why you feel the need to misrepresent me. Having said that it is not difficult to see when one group is being treated differently to another group based upon a criterion that neither side can control in any system.

I do though have strong feelings about sexism yes. Western society fought hard for the rights women enjoy today and I dislike the idea of any institution seeking to tip the scales again.

I would like you to provide me with an example of one such instance, where women (in Islam) are being treated unfairly.

AFAIK - Shariah Law calls for the utmost respect of women and for complete fairness. Women in Islam have as much rights as what men do.

Maybe by means of an example from your side where it proves that the Sahriah Law is unjust toward women, we are able to conclude whether your disrespect for the Islamic Law is in fact a valid one or whether it is entirely based on heresay.

OK see here is the problem. Now you're using words like "unfair" and "unjust". These are relative terms that you can rationalise away with some special rule or belief. I am not talking about unfair/fair and I'm not talking about unjust/just. I'm talking about equality. You cannot rationalise equality. Either 2 things are treated exactly the same and in that case equal... or they're not and in that case or unequal.

Simple quick single example: Under Shakira law a husband can act as both husband and all witnesses (I think the number of witnesses required is 4 if I recall correctly but I'm not 100% sure on the exact number) in his wife's adultery trial. A women cannot do the same. This is inequality. There are of course many more examples but you only really need one to see what I'm talking about.

By the way this isn't based on heresay. I've read the sections that deal with these particular parts of Shakira law. Feel free to look up the thread in PD where they were quoted it shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to find.