|
WHAT a disturbing world we live in (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Plump Funk |
| quote: | Originally posted by rT19
i go to iran every summer... It is soooo different from what people think in the west. people are changing. to give freedom to people who havnt seen freedom in 20 years is very dangerous, because they will surely abuse it. so the guvernment is slowly givin people lil by lil of freedom... We were once Known as the PERSIAN EMPIRE.
but thx to ARABS we are now known as the Terrorists.
Since WHEN ARE PERSIANS ARABS?????
|
Persians are not Arabs. They might have half of their language of Arabic origin and u can find lots of them happily living in Arabic countries but you're right they're NOT Arabs. and dont u forget that.
Personally, I blame Khomeini and the Islamic revolution in Iran for being the matchstick of terrorism that’s been happening in this world, why? in the 70's the gulf's oil producing countries(ie. Saudi, Kuwait, UAE) went through an economic boom making them allow life style changes but the upraise of Khomeini and the radical shii movement made Saudi Arabia take a step back while Kuwait and UAE kept on going (having Mekkah in their land) saudi arabia erupted in Islamic violence within, example (the holy mosque beening captured). so Saudi faced a severe religious challenge, , also came Khomeini's Iranian pilgrims disturbing the pilgrimage with political demonstrations and violence to embarrass the Wahabi guardians therefore funding to wahhabis increased dramatically, wahhabis became stronger forbidding revolution in the country. also Saudis countered Shii propaganda abroad with Wahabi missionary activity on a large scale, then the soviet union took the opertunity to invade Afghanistan....etc u get the point.
I’m not justifying either of them but the oppressing in Iran is totally different from the oppression in Saudi Arabia.
Iran has gone through freedom then taken away from them, Saudi Arabia did not go through that situation. |
|
|
| El Kay Dee |
hmm Female Irani soldiers:
 |
|
|
| 8Wonders |
| quote: | Originally posted by El Kay Dee
hmm Female Irani soldiers:
|
Unibrow alert! |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
I just wanted to let everybody know that I'm eating a small handful of BBQ Bugles.
They're delicious.
That is all. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
I just wanted to let everybody know that I'm eating a small handful of BBQ Bugles.
They're delicious.
That is all. |
haha we need you in cor my friend |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
haha we need you in cor my friend |
Some Americans in there hate me because I altered a National Weather Service bulletin before Katrina, to include Hulk Hogan. |
|
|
| Plump Funk |
| quote: | Originally posted by El Kay Dee
if u think thats bad, look at Saudi Arabia where all women, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc have to be covered up inthe burka, cant ride bikes, arent allowed to work and so on.
. |
then what do u say to my sister who is a doctor and wears only a hijab?
i thought u grew up in Abu Dhabi? Saudi Arabia culturally and financially is not much different than the UAE, just take out the liquor and women driving. see if u got the chance to see Saudi almost every household has a driver so the means of transportation for women is there, I’m not justifying it i really want this to end, and change is happening. |
|
|
| TRANCEEEE |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
I just wanted to let everybody know that I'm eating a small handful of BBQ Bugles.
They're delicious.
That is all. |
WOW ... SOOO FUNNY !!!
gay |
|
|
| rT19 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TRANCEEEE
WOW ... SOOO FUNNY !!!
gay |
S T F U...
yo i took the biggest dump after that lunch, hoooollly... |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
what's the point of covering them up when all the televised games feature the opposing teams a little more revealed ..
|
| quote: | Originally posted by NuERA
if the pictures are so degrading and disrespectful, why do you have one in your signature? |
Absolutely excellent points.
| quote: | Originally posted by TRANCEEEE
SURAH IV
ayet 34.
men are the maintainers of women b/c allah has made some of them excel others and b/c they spend out of their property. the good women are therefore obedient, gaurding the unseen as allah has gurded ( i think "they" or "god" is refering to a womans genitals); and as to those on whose part you fear desertion, ADMONISH THEM, AND LEAVE THEM ALONE IN SLEEPING PLACES and BEAT THEM ; THEN if they obey you do not seek a way against them; surely allah is high, great.
|
Man, you're absolutely right. It's embarassing to have words like that thrown out so clearly. However, the words, "beat them" should not be taken out of context and be left to the imagination here. That's what I dislike about direct quotes from the Quran that are often not even translated properly. The "tafseer" for this verse (contextual explanation citing the detailed explanation Prophet Muhammad offered on this point to the Muslims of the time) indicates that this "beating" was not super-violent. It was just to represent the man's frustration and anger when all logic and reasoning is exhausted, in a case where the woman is disobeying GOD...and it was to be performed in a way that would NOT HARM the woman, believe it or not!!!! It was supposed to be a warning, because the man loved the woman so much that he didn't want to divorce her but try to make the marriage work. Yeah, it seems pretty twisted, but here are the facts...
| quote: | In regard to the suggestion about beating, the following further points should also be noted:
a) According to some traditions the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should be ghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. On this basis some scholars like Tabari and Razi say that the beating should be largely symbolic and should be administered "with a folded scarf" or "with a miswak or some such thing". However, it is not clear how such a beating can help overcome nushuz of the wife, a point that supports the first meaning of dharb. If dharb is translated as "beating", as most commentators do, then "beating" should be effective in its purpose of shaking the wife out of her nushuz. This means that it should provide an energetic demonstration of the anger, frustration and love of the husband. In other words, it should neither seriously hurt the wife nor reduce it to a set of meaningless motions devoid of emotions. As for the argument that the Prophet intensely disliked beating, we can say that his intense dislike was for the type of beating done outside the limits set down by God.
b) The wife has no religious obligation to take the beating. She can ask for and get divorce any time. The suggestion applies only in the case when the husband is seriously disturbed by a prolonged nasty behavior on the part of the wife but neither he nor the wife is as yet seriously thinking of breaking up.
c) If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Qur'an and Hadith, then she can take him to court and if ruled in favor has the right to apply the law of retaliation and beat the husband as he beat her. In our view the saying attributed to the Prophet on the authority of `Umar that a husband will not be asked on the day of judgment about why he beat his wife is not a part of the authentic teaching of Islam.
d) Some Muslim jurists are of the opinion that beating is permissible but not advisable. They base their view on the fact that the Prophet intensely disliked the action. But to say that beating is only permissible but never advisable is to say that there is never any good in it but the husband can nevertheless resort to it if he wants to; in other words he can beat up his wife without any good reason. This, however, is a view that cannot possibly be attributed to the Book of God. We can expect the Holy Qur'an to mention beating only if there was some wisdom in that mention. Therefore, if we translate dharb as "beating" we must not be apologetic but ask what is the wisdom behind the Qur'anic suggestion. There could be, it seems, two possible points of wisdom in the suggestion of dhard in the sense of "beating". |
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm
Furthermore, the beating had nothing to do with the woman not covering herself, which is what Tranceee made it seem in his quote and personal interpretation. This is why I also think you should NOT state what you think about what "unseen" means without stating the FACTS which are:
| quote: | | "Guarding what God has (willed to be) guarded" means guarding the husband's honor and property as well as wife's own loyalty towards him. "Even though out of sight" (li al-ghayb) refers to the husband's honor and property when he is absent as well as to the wife's secret feelings and thoughts which the husband cannot perceive even if he is present. Thus in return for love, security and financial support the husbands should give their wives, righteous wives should give their husbands love, loyalty and obedience and look after their interests with complete faithfulness. |
..."unseen" had NOTHING to do with clothing...
That being said, there is STILL no justification for using physical force to have your PERSONAL will followed. However, as it is clearly stated, this is not the will of a man that is being enforced, but the WILL OF GOD. That's what Muslims are supposed to believe, but personally I don't believe a man can be the judge of whether a woman is properly following Islam or not therefore only God can judge and punish, not a man. What I am speaking about is the moderate version of the religion that is practiced today by the majority of Muslims. Kind of like the monogamy that is practiced today and not the clear polygamy that is pointed out in the Quran--I'm talking about the MUSLIM countries, not the Western countries where it's illegal.
P.S. I'd like to add that the only reason this person was covered...
...was because that's a FRICKIN GUY!!!!! HOLY !!!! :nervous: :nervous: :wtf: :p
P.P.S. Tranceee did your :nervous: patent expire or something? :p
P.P.P.S. If you guys don't think that Dr. Ahmad Shafaat is reliable source, there is another link from a VERY reliable Islamic info service which also has excellent information with different primary sources (hadith) to back up their commentary:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/.../AskAboutIslamE |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
^^^
Fahad the research monkey! :)
W00t, well done and impressive. You go boi.... ;) |
|
|
| Jer. |
Things I learned from reading this thread:
1) Pretty much anything is open to interpretation, especially religion.
2) Cale likes Bugles (and BBQ ones at that).
Done. |
|
|
|
|
