11 of 11
11
Worlds’s largest
Posted: 15 September 2008 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
jamesbond - 13 September 2008 06:28 PM
Jack Shooter - 11 May 2008 08:56 PM

Welcome.  And prepared to get smoked James.

Thanks - but I doubt I’ll get smoked by someone as jahil as you.

Jack Shooter - 11 May 2008 08:56 PM

Yes, I’m talking about none other than Sunni Islam.  Now, bring forth any sound hadith, Qur’anic verse, or scholarly opinion viewing the practice of FGM in a positive way, if you are truthful.

Munafiq, do you doubt the knowledge of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi , or Al-Azhar university - who ruled in favour of FGM in 1949, 1951 and 1981 ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7731348 )?
Also the Shafi school of Sunni Islam has declared FGM mandatory. Do you deny their knowledge of Islam?  You really are jahil.

Jack Shooter - 11 May 2008 08:56 PM

You are a sneaky one.  You like to mix truth with falsehood so as to give a naive reader the impression that you are objective, nuanced, and well informed.  Again, bring any religious scripture condoning the practice of FGM.  Culture is no argument.

Ad-hominem - no discussion of any point that I have made.  I already have given one of the religious texts on which FGM is based, and shown that such luminaries of Sharia as the Al-Azhar university (on 3 occasions no less) and Al-Qaradawi as well as the entire Shafi school.
Further culture is an argument to prove that it is not a pre-existing cultural practice as some munafiqeen like you suggest.  There was no cultural practice of FGM in Indonesia until Muslims brought it with them. 

As for the use of physical force against a woman in any situation, within marriage or otherwise, this is prohibited according to Islamic law.  The Qur’anic verse that you may be tempted to bring up at this point advising Muslim men to “beat them (i.e. their wives) lightly” only applies to very limited circumstances, and even when applied does not allow for force that would leave a mark on the body.

You contradict yourself.


What? Are you saying that a woman who is raped gets stoned according to Islam?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying - provided the woman complains about being raped and does not have 4 male (or 8 female - or a sufficient mixture of) witnesses.

The real James Bond has far better timing than you.  I mean seriously buddy, you respond to a post I did in May 2008, which had dozens of posts after it, progressing the subject to its end, and hope to be taken seriously?  You think you can come out as some sort of champion of truth 4 months AFTER the debate is over and done with?  Go back and the read the posts following the one on May 11, 2008 on this very thread, and this time, please have a better attention span.  As you will see, FGC according to Islam isn’t as evil as you might think, hence its permissibility.

And with respect to the stoning of a woman who gets raped issue, you are flat out wrong.  A woman obviously DOES NOT get punished for being raped, idiot.  And that was what I was referring to intially, you are only trying to twist matters.  Like I said, sneaky, but not slick enough to call yourself a James Bond.  Anyway, your suggestion that a woman gets stoned for COMPLAINING of being raped without 4 witnesses is a completely different matter, having to do with the crime of SLANDER, not RAPE.  Also, the punishment of death doesn’t apply anyway.  I believe you are confusing this with the punishment of someone who accuses a chaste woman of adultrey, which is punishable, perhaps by death, I am not sure, if not proven.  Either way, it is a good thing, which keeps those would incline to lie about others in line, and ensures the respect and honor of innocent women.

Now feel free to come again Bond, but try not to be so tardy this time.

[ Edited: 15 September 2008 12:46 PM by Jack Shooter]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2008 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
mesomorph - 13 September 2008 08:20 PM
Jack Shooter - 07 June 2008 04:39 PM

Trust me

Every Muslim extremist has used the Qur’an to support violence. Why trust someone who says that Islam is not violent, when all the evidence shows the opposite? Put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

All the evidence doesn’t show the opposite, only all the evidence YOU choose to consider.  By your own admission, you are only counting “Every Muslim extremist”.

That pig statement better suits the current US government situation, as Barack intended it.  Anyway, funny how most people have no problems ‘putting down pigs’, but go right ahead and eat them!  As they say, you are what you eat, and Muslims don’t eat pigs.  Now, do YOU eat swine? I hope not. smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2008 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Jack Shooter - 15 September 2008 04:42 PM

All the evidence doesn’t show the opposite, only all the evidence YOU choose to consider.  By your own admission, you are only counting “Every Muslim extremist”.

No, I wasn’t only counting them, I was using them as an example. Islam, like Judaism, uses a horrific amount of violent imagery in its holy books. Judaism only stopped the violence, stoning and stuff, after it was thoroughly crushed by the Romans in 63CE.

Jack Shooter - 15 September 2008 04:42 PM

That pig statement better suits the current US government situation, as Barack intended it.  Anyway, funny how most people have no problems ‘putting down pigs’, but go right ahead and eat them!  As they say, you are what you eat, and Muslims don’t eat pigs.  Now, do YOU eat swine? I hope not. smile

Most of the animals we eat get used as insults: chicken, turkey, sheep, cow, dead fish, old goat, etc. No reason for not eating em. A better reason for not eating ruminants is the amount of greenhouse methane they produce, and unfortunately there is no religious prohibition on that. Pigs are much more eco-friendly. Happy Ramadan.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2008 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
mesomorph - 15 September 2008 04:54 PM
Jack Shooter - 15 September 2008 04:42 PM

All the evidence doesn’t show the opposite, only all the evidence YOU choose to consider.  By your own admission, you are only counting “Every Muslim extremist”.

No, I wasn’t only counting them, I was using them as an example. Islam, like Judaism, uses a horrific amount of violent imagery in its holy books. Judaism only stopped the violence, stoning and stuff, after it was thoroughly crushed by the Romans in 63CE.

Jack Shooter - 15 September 2008 04:42 PM

That pig statement better suits the current US government situation, as Barack intended it.  Anyway, funny how most people have no problems ‘putting down pigs’, but go right ahead and eat them!  As they say, you are what you eat, and Muslims don’t eat pigs.  Now, do YOU eat swine? I hope not. smile

Most of the animals we eat get used as insults: chicken, turkey, sheep, cow, dead fish, old goat, etc. No reaso n for not eating em. A better reason for not eating ruminants is the amount of greenhouse methane they produce, and unfortunately there is no religious prohibition on that. Pigs are much more eco-friendly. Happy Ramadan.

True enough.  But I think using those animals to insult is an arbitrary selection.  What does a chicken have to do with cowardice?  How is a chicken any more coward than a rabbit?  Likewise, how is a cow considered fat?  Why call fat people cows rather than seals?  And on and on.  But a pig…. that is pretty fitting to describe something very unpleasant, and certainly not fit for a good meal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 September 2008 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Jack Shooter - 15 September 2008 05:52 PM

But a pig…. that is pretty fitting to describe something very unpleasant.

This is such a fascinating subject that I’ve posted a whole new topic on it. Really.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2008 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
mesomorph - 15 September 2008 07:42 PM
Jack Shooter - 15 September 2008 05:52 PM

But a pig…. that is pretty fitting to describe something very unpleasant.

This is such a fascinating subject that I’ve posted a whole new topic on it. Really.

So I take it that you agree that other insults associated with animals can be pretty arbitrary when compared to the pig insult.  I knew you would come around.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2008 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15

Always searching for the weak spot eh Jack? You’ve missed your vocation, you ought to be a barrister. Earn plenty of money and take your mind off internet discussion boards. grin

No, I don’t agree that other insults associated with animals are arbitrary when compared to the pig insult. Being compared to a domestic animal is a common form of insult, whatever the animal. For people who eat pigs, being called a pig is no worse than being called a cow or a donkey.

But as I’ve said in my new topic, there are lots of animals to insult people with worse than pigs if you’re so minded: slugs, lice, tape-worms, vultures etc. Why pick on pigs?

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 September 2008 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23
mesomorph - 17 September 2008 06:11 PM

Always searching for the weak spot eh Jack? You’ve missed your vocation, you ought to be a barrister. Earn plenty of money and take your mind off internet discussion boards. grin

No, I don’t agree that other insults associated with animals are arbitrary when compared to the pig insult. Being compared to a domestic animal is a common form of insult, whatever the animal. For people who eat pigs, being called a pig is no worse than being called a cow or a donkey.

But as I’ve said in my new topic, there are lots of animals to insult people with worse than pigs if you’re so minded: slugs, lice, tape-worms, vultures etc. Why pick on pigs?

You were the one who first made the “lipstick on a pig” remark remember?  Secondly, I don’t think that in most places in the world, slugs, lice, tape-worms, vultures, etc. are dished out for the masses to consume.  Pigs on the other hand are put up for mass consumption.  Anyway, I don’t know how this turned into a debate about which animal insult is the worse.  My only point was that to call someone dirty/disgusting a pig is more fitting than to call a fat person a cow, or a cowardly person a chicken, since there are many other fatter animals than a cow, or cowardly animals than chicken, while there are few more disgusting animals than pigs.  The slugs, lice, tape-worms you mention - all of these call your friend the pig home!  As for vultures, they might look scary, but their not that disgusting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2008 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 159 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Jack Shooter - 21 September 2008 02:39 AM

there are few more disgusting animals than pigs.

In the opinion of Muslims and only because of the religious edict against eating pigs, which has turned into prejudice against them as a species. This raises the theological conundrum which I presented in my topic on the subject, and which you haven’t addressed. Maybe you didn’t notice it.

P.G. Wodehouse, one of the most popular English novelists of the last century, wrote a whole series of books around an English nobleman obsessed with his prize pig, and in no part of the oeuvre was there any sense of pigs being disgusting.

It’s just an irrational Jewish/Muslim prejudice, not shared by anyone else.

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 11
11
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed