TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you support racial profiling of Arabs/Muslims?
Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis everything can be translating in some way.

Genius! You must be truly enlightened! Everything can be translated in some way. Everything can be interpreted in some way! If that is the case then, you have absolutely no argument against most of the muslim population because they properly translate the Koran, you would have a problem with the fundies, so maybe your post should reflect that eh.

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis everything can be translating in some way. also if the quran had been updated and things changed which people follow it again emphasises the stupidity of the belief in it.

It hasn't, maybe you missed my post. It's still remains in it's original language, Arabic, preserved in it's original form. Translation are just that, translations, not the actual Quran itself. And I'm not saying this because I'm Muslim. You can ask any respected scholar on this subject, Muslim or not, and they'll tell you the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It hasn't, maybe you missed my post. It's still remains in it's original language, Arabic, preserved in it's original form. Translation are just that, translations, not the actual Quran itself. And I'm not saying this because I'm Muslim. You can ask any respected scholar on this subject, Muslim or not, and they'll tell you the same thing.

so how come theres always talk about these 70 virgins. give the the real interpretation of it and where people have misunderstood it.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Genius! You must be truly enlightened! Everything can be translated in some way. Everything can be interpreted in some way! If that is the case then, you have absolutely no argument against most of the muslim population because they properly translate the Koran, you would have a problem with the fundies, so maybe your post should reflect that eh.

in some way i meant that it can be translated into another language word for word very easily.

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis so how come theres always talk about these 70 virgins. give the the real interpretation of it and where people have misunderstood it.

That one I'm not sure about, so I'll need to research it properly to do any justice to it in a response. But I'll tell you this much. Suicide is strictly forbiden in Islam and is pretty much a one way ticket to hell, not terribly different from the Judeo-Christian take on it. Plus, the term 'jihad' means 'struggle', not holy war, like 'struggling' to be a better person for example. It is true that this 'struggle' can manifest itself in many different forms, including a call to arms. But there's tons of restriction on what considered legitimate warfare and what isn't, and warfare is only allowed as a last resort against an agressor for self preservation. Killing women, children, the elderly, defensless civilians, or anyone who doesn't pose any actual physical threat, or destroying property for example are strictly forbidden and akin to war crimes. Engaging in any one of those actions automatically makes a legitimate armed struggle illegitimate in an Islamic context, so it's no longer Jihad and is considered an act of agression. Which is why I have to laugh when people call terrorism/suicide bombings Jihad, far from it. So even what 'colateral damage' is really against the spirit of armed jihad and a violation of it's principles. Here's a verse from the Quran that partially addresses what I just mentioned:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." [Al-Baqarah 190-193]

Keep in mind the context of this Surah and period of revelation was at a time when Muslims were being persecuted and driven out of their respective homes, cities, and villages.

Anways, I sort of digressed there. No, I'm not entirely sure about the '70 virgins' bit so I won't say anything about that. What I do know for a fact is that if you're slain in [a legitimate defensive and non-agressive] battle or because just you happen to be a Muslim, is considered martyrdom. And martyrs are promised paradise. Any language used to describe that reward isn't necessarily meant to be interpreted literally. For example, it makes little sense to perceive heaven as being a place where literally "river of milk and honey flow" beneath whatever it was (I can't recall what the verse was at this moment).

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis in some way i meant that it can be translated into another language word for word very easily.

From a linguistic standpoint no not everything can be translated into any other language word for word very easily. All languages have a different set of words. Some of which don't have any word for word translation in any other language, and many of which even if there is a word for word translation the meaning is still diminished in comparison to the original.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'm a little sick of both non-Muslims and Muslims being clubbed on the head with a distorted misrepresentation of the meaning of this verse to promote distrust and/or hatred.

You're getting me more and more interested on the Arabic language

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You're getting me more and more interested on the Arabic language

Haha ! I knew the linguistic aspect of this would get your attention immediately .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Haha ! I knew the linguistic aspect of this would get your attention immediately .

Sometimes I feel I'm so predictable

But, yeah, I really do think that this is one of the most overlooked issues in several conflicts... as I previously said in the c0re:

quote:

Originally posted by Lira While you bring us the raw realities here, don't forget that [distorted] semantics and terminology are some of the most subtle tools responsible for such situation

I firmly believe that, and your post kinda stressed that point

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Seriously people, keep this civil. Playing devils (or sterilis') advocate... If you have a threat, and limited resources available to fight that threat, does it not make sense to target your resources in the most probable areas?

I guess it does make sense to abandon certain principles. But all that reflects is that the said pricniple wasn't truly a principle of a said person/group to being with.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That one I'm not sure about, so I'll need to research it properly to do any justice to it in a response. But I'll tell you this much. Suicide is strictly forbiden in Islam and is pretty much a one way ticket to hell, not terribly different from the Judeo-Christian take on it. Plus, the term 'jihad' means 'struggle', not holy war, like 'struggling' to be a better person for example. It is true that this 'struggle' can manifest itself in many different forms, including a call to arms. But there's tons of restriction on what considered legitimate warfare and what isn't, and warfare is only allowed as a last resort against an agressor for self preservation. Killing women, children, the elderly, defensless civilians, or anyone who doesn't pose any actual physical threat, or destroying property for example are strictly forbidden and akin to war crimes. Engaging in any one of those actions automatically makes a legitimate armed struggle illegitimate in an Islamic context, so it's no longer Jihad and is considered an act of agression. Which is why I have to laugh when people call terrorism/suicide bombings Jihad, far from it. So even what 'colateral damage' is really against the spirit of armed jihad and a violation of it's principles. Here's a verse from the Quran that partially addresses what I just mentioned: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." [Al-Baqarah 190-193] Keep in mind the context of this Surah and period of revelation was at a time when Muslims were being persecuted and driven out of their respective homes, cities, and villages. Anways, I sort of digressed there. No, I'm not entirely sure about the '70 virgins' bit so I won't say anything about that. What I do know for a fact is that if you're slain in [a legitimate defensive and non-agressive] battle or because just you happen to be a Muslim, is considered martyrdom. And martyrs are promised paradise. Any language used to describe that reward isn't necessarily meant to be interpreted literally. For example, it makes little sense to perceive heaven as being a place where literally "river of milk and honey flow" beneath whatever it was (I can't recall what the verse was at this moment).

some interesting stuff there. i know muslim people as i said its only a select view that are causing havoc i just think all this debacle is out of hand. i was brought up a catholic and through doing my research into the whole church thing and then evolution i came to the conclusion that god was aload of nonsense. also the fact that there are so many gods across the world what makes the god we believe in the real and only one. religion is the biggest cause of war in the world would a god really let this happen.

I am alllll for it.

quote:

Originally posted by MeLLyMeL I am alllll for it.

That's nice, you'd probably feel right at home in Nazi Germany.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's nice, you'd probably feel right at home in Nazi Germany.

Well.. I'm latina.

A big fan of the Germans though.. but umm no.

I have my reasons. You asked a question and I aswered.


I'm a frequent flyer.Visiting NY ALOT and seeing the WTC in person is heart breaking.

This is all an opinion though. Even before this poll I was all for it.

quote:

Originally posted by MeLLyMeL Well.. I'm latina. A big fan of the Germans though.. but umm no. I have my reasons. You asked a question and I aswered. I'm a frequent flyer.Visiting NY ALOT and seeing the WTC in person is heart breaking. This is all an opinion though. Even before this poll I was all for it.

That's perfectly fine. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I to comment on it. I just hope your reasons aren't out of fear or prejudice. A lack of elaboration can easily come across as a deliberate provacation. Under that assumption, I responded in kind. Fear and prejudice are the oldest political tools and means of control, but hopefully you're aware of that.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I guess it does make sense to abandon certain principles. But all that reflects is that the said pricniple wasn't truly a principle of a said person/group to being with.

"What the hell did you just say?"

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt "What the hell did you just say?"

"I say a' once caugh a buwet with one hand."

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis some interesting stuff there. i know muslim people as i said its only a select view that are causing havoc i just think all this debacle is out of hand. i was brought up a catholic and through doing my research into the whole church thing and then evolution i came to the conclusion that god was aload of nonsense. also the fact that there are so many gods across the world what makes the god we believe in the real and only one. religion is the biggest cause of war in the world would a god really let this happen.

Yeah, I went through the same phase. I was actually an Athiest (pehaps more Agnostic and less Atheist) at one point. Then I realized that evolution didn't contradict the idea of God or [my] religion in any way shape or form.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yeah, I went through the same phase. I was actually an Athiest (pehaps more Agnostic and less Atheist) at one point. Then I realized that evolution didn't contradict the idea of God or [my] religion in any way shape or form.

i respect peoples decision to beleive in what they want. im an atheist. i could never ever believe in god. i felt like i had to beleive growing up.

the way i see it is your are brought up until around the ages from 5 - 7 to believe in santa. you truly believe in this person who brings gifts every year. you even convince yourself that you hear him on your roof on christmas morning or that he is downstairs but there was never evidence that he actually did come at christmas it was all belief.

in my opinion this works the same as this god. your brought into this world to believe in this spiritual being yet there is no evidence to suggest he is real. you are told he is there but then again you were told santa was there.

then comes the fact that there are so many gods across the world so what makes this god the only one that is real. no facts have been shown that any of these are real.

however there is clear evidence that proves evolution was the key to our being here.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I guess it does make sense to abandon certain principles. But all that reflects is that the said pricniple wasn't truly a principle of a said person/group to being with.

I wouldn't call it a loss of principle. One of the main tenants of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense." Now, I realize that is a double-edged sword as it could taken to the horrific extreme of a totalitarian state. However, as I said, if there is an immediate threat with limited resources to respond to that threat, profiling to some degree does make sense to me. Now, if we just start throwing people in jail, regardless of their activity (ala the Japanese in WWII), I'd have a big problem. However, if it means they are inconvenienced by the same procedures that any citizen could potentially go through, it may be a necessary evil.

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis i respect peoples decision to beleive in what they want. im an atheist. i could never ever believe in god. i felt like i had to beleive growing up.

That's cool. I just wish there were more people, regardless of what they believe (or don't), respected other's people decision to believe whatever it is they believe (or don't).

quote:

Originally posted by sterilis the way i see it is your are brought up until around the ages from 5 - 7 to believe in...

That's actually the funny part. I wasn't really brought up believing in anything neigther did my parents educate me on religion or anything like that. My interest in religion started when I started studying newtonian physics of all things.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I wouldn't call it a loss of principle. One of the main tenants of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense." Now, I realize that is a double-edged sword as it could taken to the horrific extreme of a totalitarian state. However, as I said, if there is an immediate threat with limited resources to respond to that threat, profiling to some degree does make sense to me. Now, if we just start throwing people in jail, regardless of their activity (ala the Japanese in WWII), I'd have a big problem. However, if it means they are inconvenienced by the same procedures that any citizen could potentially go through, it may be a necessary evil.

Not that I agree with you at all, but they way they go about it certainly isn't civil to say the least. If they're going to do it, they should atleast go about it in a dignified manner, which clearly isn't the case. By that logic, every black and hispanic guy should be hastled by the cops (which unfortunately happens pretty often). I also fail to see how there are "limited resources." Last time I checked, the bill of rights of kind of relevant to the Federal Branch too. I don't see how searches are warranted just because you have a certain ethnic make up or religious orientation. How is being Arab or Muslim probable cause? 19 out of 1.2 billion isn't exactly a high probability.

quote:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's nice, you'd probably feel right at home in Nazi Germany.

Hahaha ... Shaolin, you made my day Now I can go to sleep on a good note!

EDIT: WOW ... 37 percent / 16 people support violation of the most important principle in the US Constitution? Hmmm, I guess Americans are really bored and scared of democracy, time to try out some dictatorship for fun.

After all, even this George W Bush quote says it all:

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator. " -- Washington, D.C.; December 18, 2002.

i don't believe these poll numbers are correct...

can everyone who voted "YES" to muslim profiling please state such in a reply in this thread...

That is...

those of you with more than 5 forum postings.

Is this profiling statistically significant? Is the only factor considered that of race or religion?
I'm sure there are a lot of factors that would need to be considered, I used to get reasonably regular searches due to factors like age, travel patterns, history of working with explosives.

Slightly to one side of the race issue, my wife was once allowed through a UK citizen only queue at heathrow as we came off our flight at the same time as another from Jamaica. The immigration guy said that they would be searching every person off that flight for drugs, so let us through the wrong channel.

Is that wrong? Statistically there was an increased risk of drug carrying from that location? Is it racial?

The biggest problem with this is when it becomes only about race with no true science in the targetting, and i think it would be very easy for security to cross that line with current media trends.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.