Koran & Murder Case

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by I, fuzzbot.

Islam is probably the 2nd biggest religion in India, meaning there are a lot of Muslim Indians, even amongst those in the UK. They don't cause problems JUST because they're Muslims. You can't assume they're not Muslim JUST because they don't cause problems. Look up the Muslim population in the UK, and give me the percentage of those who actually do cause problems. You'll be shocked.

How would you know an Indian from a Pakistani? If he's actually Indian, and he caused problems, you'd call him a Pakistani just because most Pakistanis are Muslims? That's what your post is implying.

Your mentality is not just stupid, it's absurd.

Grow up.

We just don't have the same problems with the Hindu community here.

I'm talking about mass murder and the two groups of Muslim suicide bombers in London, one group fortunately failed, the other didn't.
And the large percentage of Muslims here who support them.
Link here

Muslims demand that their children be taught separately at school, that girl pupils cover their heads and limbs, that the schools serve halal meat, and that Arabic and the Koran be taught.

They made death threats against Salmon Rushdie because he'd dared to criticise Islam. The British Muslim community agreed with Ayatollah Khomeini that he should be hunted down and killed. Not one Muslim spokesman defended him.

In Bradford, a book-burning rally was led by Kalim Siddiqui who later set up a separate Muslim Parliament of Britain, which makes laws for the Muslims here.

Their young men go to fight against British troops. They're not only a separate community but they'e working against Britain.

Is that acceptable?

[kahljorn]

"Is that acceptable?"

No, they should be arrested if they are going against troops.

"Muslims demand that their children be taught separately at school"

Then I guess they could open a private school or something, but I think what they could teach would fall under government jurisdiction. I can understand the fear of education...

"that girl pupils cover their heads and limbs"

Magic choice power

"that the schools serve halal meat"

Maybe on wednesdays they could have halal and on thursdays BURRITOS.

"Not one Muslim spokesman defended him. "

Do they have spokesman in the government..? If so maybe they could declare it treasonous or something and kick them out of office ;/ I don't really know how things work in britain, though. So excuse me if my understandings of the law over there are incorrect.

I don't think it's right that people should immigrate to another country not to be citizens there. Then you start opening the doors to legislation against allowing them in public offices or voting, though. I think moving into any country for a reason other than wanting to join them is ridiculous; maybe in need of tougher immigration laws? From what I understand their countries don't allow people from our country to move there to be a missionary, why should we allow the same?

[mburbank]

Absolutely.

No I'm kidding, or course it isn't. But I'm not sure I see what you're driving at. I think anyone who engages in criminal acts should be punished, regardless of their religion. You seem to be looking for something else.

What exactly? Laws against the religion itself as opposed to laws aginst actions? Or some sort of blanket allowance to assume someone is a criminal if they're Islamic? Put it oit on the table, what do you want?

Oh and by the way, I think you're wrong about the Fatwah against Rushdie. It was appauling, but I'm pretty sure there were Britsh Muslims who came out publicly against it.

[Pharaoh]

I want the left to stop pandering to all their demands and making excuses for their backwards beliefs and behaviour. They should accept our laws and support Britain and integrate fully or get out.

[kahljorn]

Agreed; moving into another country for any reason other than integration is wrong, even within their country. Not that that matters, though. Since we want to go over there and change them too.

[mburbank]

Who are 'they'? Do you mean radical fundamentalist Muslims or all Muslims? Do you see any difference?

What do you mean by 'integrate'? Do you mean abandon dress codes and speak English? I suppose I can see wanting this, but are you suggesting legally demanding it? On what basis? Doesn't England have laws against crime already? As for what 'Leftists' do, are you against freedom of speech? Because I know that while England has less of this than America (but we're catching up!) I always thought Freedom of speech was something you were proud of. If it's not their right to speech that bothers you, I would suggest it's your listening that's the problem.

If I lived in England, I think I'd find Football hooliganism pretty offensive and fairly dangerous. But I don't think I'd call for people to stop supporting football. I also think most of you drink far too much and it's a well known fact all of you have horrible teeth from a nearly inhuman diet that uses blood as a cooking ingredient! I've also heard that so many of you are gay that without artficial insemination and immigration, you'd be almost empty by now. You think you're all hugh and mighty because your period of killing of vast swaths of people all over the world in the name of commerce ended after WWII? You C of E limey bastards are all the same, every one of you. The only reason we let you stay in the American World is your tendency to do exactly as our president tells you.

[kahljorn]

"What do you mean by 'integrate'? "

I'm guessing he means intergrating with our culture, not necessarily abandoning their beliefs but at least adopting some of our cultures values. I mean, at the very least they should be moving to these countries for a reason. Why would you move somewhere and try to change it to the old place? If they don't have any desire to actually be a citizen of a country, why be there?
However, I do not know how often that even happens. It seems like some kind of paranoia, in all honesty.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

We just don't have the same problems with the Hindu community here.

I'm talking about mass murder and the two groups of Muslim suicide bombers in London, one group fortunately failed, the other didn't.
And the large percentage of Muslims here who support them.
Link here

Muslims demand that their children be taught separately at school, that girl pupils cover their heads and limbs, that the schools serve halal meat, and that Arabic and the Koran be taught.

They made death threats against Salmon Rushdie because he'd dared to criticise Islam. The British Muslim community agreed with Ayatollah Khomeini that he should be hunted down and killed. Not one Muslim spokesman defended him.

In Bradford, a book-burning rally was led by Kalim Siddiqui who later set up a separate Muslim Parliament of Britain, which makes laws for the Muslims here.

Their young men go to fight against British troops. They're not only a separate community but they'e working against Britain.

Is that acceptable?

Don't give me this bullshit. Everyone I know in Britain was appalled due to the attacks. No one would ever support the killing of innocents, especially in a place like Britain, unless you've been seriously brainwashed and fucked up. These Muslims WERE brainwashed and therefore fucked up. They've been fine Muslims all their lives until they joined the independent group that did this to them. Read up on the attackers' biographies. Hear what their family had to say. It helps putting bits and pieces together.

Did you know that Muslim people died in the attacks, too? Not all of them were, as the BNP would call them, part of the "White Nation." There's suffering on our side as well thanks to these rediculous mingers.

They made death threats against Salmon Rushdie because he'd dared to criticise Islam.

Small amount of people did that, it doesn't give you the right to assume that we all have that mentality. Salman (and not Salmon, he's not a fish) is one of my favorite authors of all time.

Muslims demand that their children be taught separately at school, that girl pupils cover their heads and limbs, that the schools serve halal meat, and that Arabic and the Koran be taught.

You're still talking about a very small majority. If ALL Muslims in Britain did that, believe me, Britain would be at war.

Christians in Bahrain demanded that the bible be taught at school. I don't think that's taking over anything, we didn't look at them as infidels who wanted to change us. We didn't ask them "be a Muslim or GET OUT," no, we created a school where the bible can be taught. We included the Bible in our history lessons. Not all Muslim countries are intolerant.

PS:

"The number of Muslims in Britain is generally put at around 1.5 million, though some community groups suggest it could be nearer two million." - Source

That's a lot of Muslims. The country would be in ruins if all of them fit your defintion of a Muslim.

[Abcdxxxx]

Yeah Fuzzbot, at 5am I'm supposed to follow if you're in Switzerland, in an Arab country, from Iran, or what the fuck the story is at the moment. I'm sure by the end of the day you'll say you were living in Qatar instead.

My point is still valid.
http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?i...151&Valider=OK
http://www.apfw.org/indexenglish.asp?

Bahrain has laws against freedom of the Press. Like Law 47 "A new press and publishing law, issued by royal decree in Bahrain yesterday, has abolished a controversial jail punishment for journalists convicted of transgressions except those who call for overthrowing the regime, defaming Islam or criticising the king, the official news agency, BNA, reported."
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles.../04/67541.html
fname=news%5Cenglish%5C12390.htm

BBC did an index of policial freedoms in the Middle East, and Bahrain ranked just above Iran. Now I'm no fan of the BBC, and I can't imagine how Yemen, or Sudan could outrank Bahrain... but
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4450582.stm

Oh and Fuzzbot... you'd have had a better chance of meeting a Jew in Iran then Bahrain..... there are a whopping 35 Jews left, from 4 families, and not a single permanent Synagogue. Your perception of things is about as learned from a text book as anybody elses in this forum. If anything, some of us here are at an advantage, not having been indoctrinated with hate through the notorious Arab media. Watch any good mini-series on the Protocols of Zion lately?


Ziggy, you've made the exact same argument, even on harsher terms then I have. So sit down. Consdering my people are a target of popularized Islam, I think my views are pretty fucking free to be you and me. Wasn't I just taking some the same arguments that Fuzzbot is making, and defending Islam a minute ago?

[Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"What do you mean by 'integrate'? "

I'm guessing he means intergrating with our culture, not necessarily abandoning their beliefs but at least adopting some of our cultures values. I mean, at the very least they should be moving to these countries for a reason. Why would you move somewhere and try to change it to the old place? If they don't have any desire to actually be a citizen of a country, why be there?

Correct, that is what I mean. And I am talking about the 25% of Muslims, as shown in the poll I posted, who are completely against Britain and the West. It's a minority but a very substantial minority of half a million Muslims, and that's a problem.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Yeah Fuzzbot, at 5am I'm supposed to follow if you're in Switzerland, in an Arab country, from Iran, or what the fuck the story is at the moment. I'm sure by the end of the day you'll say you were living in Qatar instead.

I am from Bahrain. Like I said (if you read) in my first post, I've only been in Switzerland for the past couple of months for college. That means I'm living in Switzerland now. I refer to Bahrain as 'here' because, again (if you read) I've been living there all my life, so I'm used to calling it that. It's also easier than saying "in Bahrain" 10,000 times, I'd assume you'd know where I was refering to. Obviously, I was wrong! Especially since you didn't even know where it was!

I never said I was in Iran.

You thought Bahrain was in Iran. Don't even try to get out of this one, man. You thought Iran was an 'Arab' country. It's far from being one.

I can't continue arguing with you if you call me ignorant then make such comments. It just makes me laugh too hard. I can no logner take your comments seriously mainly because you lack knowledge not only in this field, but in basic geography.

Sorry!

Bahrain has laws against freedom of the Press.

You're far behind.

Article 23 of the Bahrain Constitution: Freedom of opinion and scientific research is guaranteed. Everyone has the right to express his opinion and publish it by word of mouth, in writing or otherwise under the rules and conditions laid down by law, provided that the fundamental beliefs of Islamic doctrine are not infringed, the unity of the people is not prejudiced, and discord or sectarianism is not aroused.

Article 24 of the Bahrain Constitution: With due regard for the provisions of the preceding Article, the freedom of the press, printing and publishing is guaranteed under the rules and conditions laid down by law.

Article 26 of the Bahrain Constitution: The freedom of postal, telegraphic and electronic communication is safeguarded and its confidentiality is guaranteed. Communications shall not be censored or their confidentiality breached except in exigencies specified by law and in accordance with procedures and under guarantees prescribed by law.

My point is still valid.

Nope.

Oh and Fuzzbot... you'd have had a better chance of meeting a Jew in Iran then Bahrain.....

Three of the richest families in Bahrain are Jewish. The most successful family is the one that owns at least two major banks. Their surname is 'Luloo.'

They're tiny families. I do not feel like they require a Synagogue, they're hardly even religious.

and not a single permanent Synagogue

Consider the country's size: 710 sq km. If we went around building temples and churches for everyone we'd quickly run out of space. This is a Muslim country, whether you like it or not. I won't expect mosques if I go to countries with a heavy Jewish population.

Jews didn't ask for one. If they did what the Christians did and asked, we would've made one for them. Would you really recommend that? I sure as hell wouldn't. Just like a mosque would be attacked in a place where Muslims aren't accepted (which happens all the time, shock and awe), a Synagogue won't be left alone either. There's always that dickwad who'd want to ruin the rest of our security (and reputation) and do something stupid like attack it.

None of the churches in Bahrain have been attacked so far. They're all very much visibile, too. Also: There's more Hindus in Bahrain than Jews.

And they have their own praying areas too.

I still can't get over the fact that you know so little about this place. I keep saying 'Bahrain,' I've said it so much that you can't mistake it for Iran unless you thought it WAS in Iran, which you thought it is! Ha! Your entire post is proof of that.

Don't try to act as if you're just confused (though, I admit, it does make you look cute.) Not my fault if you know fuck-all about where countries in this region are, you even had to look it up before you came up with 'Qatar.'

If anything, some of us here are at an advantage, not having been indoctrinated with hate through the notorious Arab media.

Hardly an advantage. There's propganda on both sides. Just like we portray the West as 'evil' sometimes, you portray us as 'evil' as well. This goes back to my comment about distorted views thanks to the skewed material that you're exposed to regarding Islam. Mass media exists for a reason: To communicate a message. That message is not a fact. Get off your ass and look it up before you call it so. Our media is laughable, we all got over that. A lot of us (mind you, not most) are looking for a better education elsewhere for a reason. However, your media is not all that great too. CNN is known for mistranslating speeches made in Arab countries, that happens for a reason: to convince you of something that isn't really there.

It goes both ways. I'm not saying our media is better, I'm just saying that yours is just as bad.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Oh and,

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles.../04/67541.html

Look up Ghada Jamsheer. She critisized the Royals throughout a book which went against certain parts of the Sharia Law, which she proved through religious texts that it's (what they tried to pass of as the Sharia law) is not actually part of the law and therefore it isn't part of Islam to begin with. She also writes daily columns critisizing things like the Family Law in Bahrain. She's one of our best journalists.

You wanna know what happened to her?

She got away with it. An entire fucking book. Not a column. Not a blog entry. Not an article. A book which hasn't been banned thanks to our new set of laws. There's been three cases against her in court and she won all three because they couldn't do anything to her after passing such laws.

Published: 11/04/2002

Way to be up to date, too. Like I keep saying (and like you keep scrolling past so you can jump to 'post reply' and astound me with your utter ignorance) we've gone through massive political changes recently.

At least now I know why that was so hard for you to believe, though. Since you thought we were, you know... Iran.

[Abcdxxxx]

I love that you just tried to argue that Law 47 hasn't put bloggers, and journalists at risk THIS YEAR. Despite the revisions, the old law is STILL in a effect. YOU KNOW THAT. Stop bullshitting.

I love that everything you say is double talk. Freedom of press in one breath, then "hey we all know out press is ridiculous" in the next. You were the one who originally called Bahrain the 3rd most dangerous place to blog from. You're actually bragging about a woman who criticized Shari'a law and got away with it. Gasp!

I love that you just argued a Jews bank account is proof of freedom, and equality. Regardless, my point was that you had little exposure to Jews growing up. Which makes you a fucking hypocrite if we apply your own standards back to you.

I love that you can't find any connection between "extremist" popular Muslim thinking of the sort which any humanitarian would deem negative and the verses in the actual Koran itself. It's all a PR game to you. You can read a Hadith which tells you Muhammed took a 6 (or 9 year old) girl but you see no connection between that and the acceptance of Mut'ah laws. In that particular case, is the perversion in the text, or in the practice?

So I guess you jumped into these threads without reading all the posts first. I said multiple times that Iranians are not Arab, and explained the differece. I did actually think you were in Iran, because you were talking about your Mom or who the fuck knows, and claimed to know Farsi. I was under the impression youwere an Iranian that moved to Bahrain. Frankly, it doesn't mean anything where you are. That's all anecdotal, unless you're willing to take accountability for what goes on in devout Islamic communities.... and apparently , you're not.

[Abcdxxxx]

"Violations of media freedom also persist in Bahrain. Journalists, newspapers and internet-based forum moderators and bloggers faced mounting restrictions both from the authorities and from various sectors of the society itself.

Such violations during the past six months have included the detention and arrest of journalists and bloggers. This included, amongst others, the arrest of Ali Abdul Imam, moderator of Bahrain Online (http://www.bahrainonline.org), its webmasters Mohammed Al-Musavi, and Hussein Yousef, who have been arrested several times during the past six months. International concern mounted when they staged a hunger-strike in March 2005, demanding better prison conditions in Manama's notorious Al Hoora police station and reclassification as prisoners of conscience rather than ordinary prisoners.

This was followed by a decree from the Ministry of Information instructing Bahraini website and blog moderators to register their sites with the Ministry and assume responsibility for materials published on them within a period of three months. This was deemed "a violation of freedom of opinion and restriction of freedom of expression" according to Bahraini activists. Khawaja claimed this was a way to censor internet-based forums and discussions even if run by Bahrain nationals from abroad.

This follows the passing of Press Law 47 [2002], which provided the framework for the arrest of dozens of journalists and editors-in-chief, which triggered a culture of self-censorship amongst Bahraini newspapers and magazines. In interviews with EOHR, journalists also expressed anger at what they called "direct orders" they and their editors-in-chief allegedly receive from the Ministry of Information in the form of written letters and phone calls guiding them on what to publish and what to censor.

Bahrain's Press Law 47 amended previous laws -- adding more restrictions on freedom of expression including prohibiting "defamation of the person of the king", which has been used, according to activists in Bahrain, to censor all forms of criticism addressing the king and the royal family. The law also introduced harsher penalties on press crimes."
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/68786/

and a blogger in Bahrain who confirms this...

http://mahmood.tv/index.php/blog/1661

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

I love that you just tried to argue that Law 47 hasn't put bloggers, and journalists at risk THIS YEAR. Despite the revisions, the old law is STILL in a effect. YOU KNOW THAT. Stop bullshitting.

Not anymore, I've already used the Jamsheer example as to why. I said I'm still scared, I said it's possible, but it doesn't really happen.

I love that everything you say is double talk.

Cross-eyed.

Freedom of press in one breath, then "hey we all know out press is ridiculous" in the next. You were the one who originally called Bahrain the 3rd most dangerous place to blog from.

Yeah it was considering what happened to certain bloggers. After those laws were passed things changed. It's still scary to blog because I've had friends "disappear" because of it, so I personally wouldn't do it.

However, people do it everyday.

So I guess you jumped into these threads without reading all the posts first.

I did read the posts, it's the reason why I responded with something quite lengthy.

because you were talking about your Mom or who the fuck knows, and claimed to know Farsi. I was under the impression youwere an Iranian that moved to Bahrain. Frankly, it doesn't mean anything where you are.

Knowing Farsi as a Bahraini is common. It's like an American knowing Spanish. I do speak Farsi because like I said ("I love that" you keep skipping these parts and then using it against me without actually understanding it) my mother is an Iranian immigrant.

And no, that's still not a good enough excuse. I made it VERY clear where I come from. You either have serious reading comprehension problems or you're a really bad liar who can never admit to his ignorance.

You called me ignorant yet you didn't even know where my country is, WHY it's more likely for me to find a Jew in Iran (look at the population, dimwit. We're only 750,000. Damn right I'd most likely find a Jew in a country whose population is 70.7 million!) and why we don't have Synagogues.

Frankly, it doesn't mean anything where you are.

It means everything. The whole point of me coming into this thread to begin with is to speak through experience. Before critisizing how Jews and Christians are treated in the Persian Gulf, at least know the history behind the place. If you did, you'd know what I meant by the Iranians migrating elsewhere.

Nice try. Here's what you said (apparently, you forgot. aww):

Meanwhile - is change really why fear voicing your opinions in Bahrain, or does Tehran's Court 1410 really have something to do with why you fear using your newfound "freedoms". Be honest.

Oops.
After you said this:

I wouldn't brag about that. With the proliferation of disinformatin spread in the Arab world, and the lack of a truly free press.

You used this to back it up, therefore claiming that Iran is part of the Arab world:

Press freedom shrank daily during 2004 in Iran, one the world’s 10 countries most repressive of the media. Countless threats hang over journalists and they are beaten when thrown in jail. The country has for years been the Middle East’s biggest prison for journalists.

Caught out again.

Try harder.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

"Violations of media freedom also persist in Bahrain. Journalists, newspapers and internet-based forum moderators and bloggers faced mounting restrictions both from the authorities and from various sectors of the society itself.

Such violations during the past six months have included the detention and arrest of journalists and bloggers. This included, amongst others, the arrest of Ali Abdul Imam, moderator of Bahrain Online (http://www.bahrainonline.org), its webmasters Mohammed Al-Musavi, and Hussein Yousef, who have been arrested several times during the past six months. International concern mounted when they staged a hunger-strike in March 2005, demanding better prison conditions in Manama's notorious Al Hoora police station and reclassification as prisoners of conscience rather than ordinary prisoners.

This was followed by a decree from the Ministry of Information instructing Bahraini website and blog moderators to register their sites with the Ministry and assume responsibility for materials published on them within a period of three months. This was deemed "a violation of freedom of opinion and restriction of freedom of expression" according to Bahraini activists. Khawaja claimed this was a way to censor internet-based forums and discussions even if run by Bahrain nationals from abroad.

This follows the passing of Press Law 47 [2002], which provided the framework for the arrest of dozens of journalists and editors-in-chief, which triggered a culture of self-censorship amongst Bahraini newspapers and magazines. In interviews with EOHR, journalists also expressed anger at what they called "direct orders" they and their editors-in-chief allegedly receive from the Ministry of Information in the form of written letters and phone calls guiding them on what to publish and what to censor.

Bahrain's Press Law 47 amended previous laws -- adding more restrictions on freedom of expression including prohibiting "defamation of the person of the king", which has been used, according to activists in Bahrain, to censor all forms of criticism addressing the king and the royal family. The law also introduced harsher penalties on press crimes."
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/68786/

and a blogger in Bahrain who confirms this...

http://mahmood.tv/index.php/blog/1661

You really seem to be confused with what's going on.

This is what's written on top of the blog, if you're too blind to see for yourself:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the Bahraini Government has COMMITTED to sign says: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The law is on OUR side. The government, however, is NOT. That means democracy is slowly being introduced, since the government is not always going to agree with its citizens. It's finally learning how to take responsibility for their actions. It's finally realizing that America is in total favour of us being a more democratic monarchy, to the point where such laws would be introduced.

That is the whole POINT of me using Ghada Jamsheer's example, can't you fucking think for a second? She had 3 cases against her by government officials and yet she managed to win. If this law didn't apply Mahmood would've been jailed already, and so would Ghada. Yet because of the extent of freedom of the press in Bahrain (NOT Iran, in case you forgot again) they're both roaming around freely and without trouble.

That is to say, the government no longer does this. Did I ever deny this? Look back at my posts and tell me where I denied that this ever happened. Look back at my posts to where I said that I'm saddened by the friends I have lost due to the actions taken by the govenrment. Look back at my posts and tell me that I made this place seem like the land of milk and honey. Look back at my posts and tell me that I deny and refuse to admit the fact that a lot of Muslims are guilty of shitty, shitty things (which shouldn't be associated with Islam in general.)

It has been many months since this has happened. This law was enforced during the summer when Condi Rice paid us a visit (and then another visit in November,) to ensure that this doesn't happen. Jamsheer's book was published in June, right when she felt that it was safe enough to. The government was expecting it, but after signing such documents and making deals with America they do not want to be critisized for things like "absolute power" or eliminating rights the citizens need.

Will this happen again? Yes. Do you know of ANY country that doesn't break any law? That does things that don't go against their constitutions? No government is perfect which is why the "ideal" form of government doesn't exist anywhere yet, and we only know this because chaos exists everywhere.

Thanks for confirming my fucking point, and proving yourself to be an idiot again. "I love the" way you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong when I'm the one who mentioned this whole blogging experience to begin with.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

And this:

This was followed by a decree from the Ministry of Information instructing Bahraini website and blog moderators to register their sites with the Ministry and assume responsibility for materials published on them within a period of three months. This was deemed "a violation of freedom of opinion and restriction of freedom of expression" according to Bahraini activists. Khawaja claimed this was a way to censor internet-based forums and discussions even if run by Bahrain nationals from abroad.

Was already rejected.

If you've read my post earlier, you would've known.

It was rejected due to a petition started by the very blogger you spoke of.

....

Look, man. I appreciate your interest in this matter, but I don't think a quick google search is gonna do it whenver we have to argue about this. Let's just agree to disagree. You claimed that there's no freedom whatsoever in the Media, I told you why you're wrong with exampls (in fact you did the work yourself and found a good example that you were trying to use against me. The fact tha the blogger was critisizng the matter without being caught or even threatened at all should speak volumes.

I agree with you with what you said earlier, that we actually agree on most things. I apologize for being hostile, I just don't like it when someone who clearly doesn't know enough tries to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. If you're gonna Google anything then please find information on Jamsheer and how she shook the country, you can't comprehend anything regarding the media laws in Bahrain if you're not familiar with this particular case. It goes against what Mahmood was worried about and proved to us that it IS okay to voice your opinion, and from now on the law won't try to dance its way around you until it steals your rights and leaves you with nothing. They're changing because we won't accept them wanting to turn us into mindless automatons like Saudi who'll exile or punish anyone who has an opinion.

Also, most Muslims are not Arabs or are from the Middle East. This place should be the last place to set an example on Islam.

I can see this going in circles and circles but I think we both heard what we both had to say about this. I appreciate your posts, I accept that we both think the other is misinformed. On religion, I understand, but on the laws of a country I come from (which you aren't familiar with ... at all) you can't just Google things up and expect yourself to have a strong enough argument. A lot of Bahrainis have been to Ghada's trials, I heard what's been said regarding freedom of expression and how she won and how the government couldn't ever think up a better comeback to that. It's because we're changing. And with that change comes a better, more democratic future. I hope that we can set an example to this region the way Israel proudly does (and rightly so, most Arabs critisize them because they want someone to blame. If most of us had been smarter we would've competed instead of just blaming them for all the problems in the world. Sadly this is not the case. I'm not calling Arabs stupid and clueless people who can't think for themselves, because this is untrue. I'm calling our governments stupid for taking THIS long to take serious actions towards something more democratic. I'm calling our governments stupid for not giving us the opportunity to excel. For not believing. For not wanting us to grow as civilizations because they're too scared that we're rise up against them. They like power - we have no power to change that. It sucks to be us because of THIS, not because we're Muslim. Not because we're mislead and blind. The only reason why the government HAS to change is because we DO know too much, that it's too hard for them to hide. They're being called out on it whenever we get the chance, they can't imprison that many people. If we shut up and "accept" things, which is what they do in Saudi, we'd be as far as they are behind.

Most Arabs have been fucked over. They're not stupid, or are ignorant of their own oppression. The ones in Saudi have very strong feelings that they will never get to express. If that place stays the way it is, it's going to be as backwards as Mauritania is within a short time span.

This has nothing to do with Islam, however. It has a lot to do with how the Middle East have changed throughout the years as it's been raped by tyrants and cunts. The terrorists in Saudi who commit crimes within Saudi get away ALL the time which should say how corrupt the place is.

[Abcdxxxx]

Uh. Right. Like I said, I defined the Pan-Arabist movement as a farce, and was very clear in saying Iranians are not Arabs, before you even posted on this topic. Yet people do speak of Iran as being IN the Arab world...including Iranians leaders. Sorry charlie. Meanwhile, I slipped in the early AM hours while responding, and made an error. I said as much. If that's all you got to cling to, then you're a lost cause.

As for freedom of speech ? The blog article you originally referenced http://nbrb.blogspot.com/2005/08/inc...t-hopkins.html was from this past AUGUST, after Rice visited, and after Jamsheers book was published. The problems continue. Weren't you trying to mark 2002 as the date when things changed? Are you intentionally trying to be misleading? Now you're arguing these freedoms have been in effect for "months" ??? Get the fuck outta here, you have no credebility no matter where you live. If the goverment isn't "on your side" then stop arguing!! Stop bragging about Jamsheer's freedoms when she faced the threat of three trials for critisizing family court judges!!!!! http://www.defendingwomen-defendingr...a_jamsheer.php. You've gotten so sidetracked with proving how wrong you think *I* am, that you've just become a ball of contradiction.

Now don't get distracted....
Let's talk about what Jamsheer say's about the Koran, an Mut'ah laws.... she say's the Koran authorizes Muta'h marriage....
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgiPag...sd&ID=SP106005

You've been arguing that there is no basis in the Koran for the elements of Islam considered "extremist". Back it up bigshot.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Go back to the post above you, I edited.

The problems continue. Weren't you trying to mark 2002 as the date when things changed? Are you intentionally trying to be misleading? Now you're arguing these freedoms have been in effect for "months" ??? Get the fuck outta here, you have no credebility no matter where you live. If the goverment isn't "on your side" then stop arguing!! Stop bragging about Jamsheer's freedoms when she faced the threat of three trials for critisizing family court judges!!!!

How many times do I have to say this?

2002 was a long time ago, I didn't say it was a date where things changed. But you can't deny (though you're trying REALLY REALLY trying hard to) the fact that it DID change.

Ali was arrested because people on his board were talking about starting riots and doing things like wishing death upon the Royals, duh they would take action, what the hell do you expect?

I also said Rice visited AGAIN in November, obviously she figured something might've happend. She came to ENSURE that we're still up to what we're supposed to be doing.

Stop bragging about Jamsheer's freedoms when she faced the threat of three trials for critisizing family court judges!!!!!

The point is that she walked away FREELY, which did give her the FREEDOM to keep doing this. This is now her RIGHT. The government already admitted to that. Stop yelling like a child asking me to stop "bragging" about something when I'm simply making a point.

you've just become a ball of contradiction.

No, you just assume a lot of shit and misunderstand me AND the situation AND you depend ENTIRELY on the internet for your information, which is just laughable.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Meanwhile, I slipped in the early AM hours while responding, and made an error.

I don't care. It's almost 4 AM here and I don't use that as an excuse as to why I'm not being clear enough for you to understand what I've been trying to say. You mentioned Bahrain and then talked about Iran right after as if they were under the same law, as if it was IN Iran. I can't believe that you actually MEANT Bahrain since you didn't even consider the country's size when asking me the question regarding how many Jews I'd most likely find in Iran (not Bahrain, by the way, just in case it's early in the AM there) and why there aren't any Synagogues.

Sorry but you're gonna have to try harder than "it was 5 AM!" to cover this one up.

[Abcdxxxx]

Oh you think you're saving face now. Ah.

Don't cop out now though. Here, I'll even provide you with the verses in Arabic.


Sunni
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/S...Option=FatwaId
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/S...Option=FatwaId
http://saaid.net/Doat/Najeeb/f122.htm
http://hadith.al-islam.com/display/D...Doc=0&Rec=7644

Shi'ite
http://www.rafed.net/books/fegh/menhaj3/menhaj1.html
http://www.ansar.org/arabic/radee3ah.htm
http://www.alshirazi.com/compilation...at/part7/1.htm
http://www.makaremshirazi.org/books/...esaleh/r26.htm


Now in return, can you source me some proof that Hindi was a Jew. I've asked around, and nobody seems to think she was Jewish at all.

By the way, had I filled out the paperwork, I would have qualified to vote in the recent Iraqi election. This isn't some pet topic for me either.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Hind bint Utbah was the wife of Abu Sufiyan ibn Harb. She was mother of Muawiya I. Her brother was killed in the Battle of Badr.

She was among the most bitter enemies of Muslims and the prophet Muhammad. During the battle of Uhud, the uncle of Muhammad, Hamza, was martyred by Wahshi, the slave of Jubayr b. Mutim. She cut out his liver and chewed it. She could not swallow it, and threw it away - for that, she is called "Hind the liver eater". (ref)

She and her husband accepted Islam at the time the conquest of Mecca.

The books I've read referred to her as a Jew. However, if she was a 'Kafir' (strong non-believer) then that would make the story of the Hadith even more relevent.

Do you speak any Arabic, then? If so, I'd like to continue this in PM.

In Arabic.

As it'll be much easier for me than English.

حق الصغيرة المزوجة بغير إذنها في الخيار بعد البلوغ

I'm a Sunni, and I don't believe in this. Don't give me a bunch of links written by people who hardly qualify to be called experts and expect me to try and justify what they're saying. I don't agree with it because they interpret the Koran the way THEY want to. There's a million ways you can look at the Koran, if it was that easy then we wouldn't have sub-catagories like that to begin wtih. And Islam would be the same in each area or region but clearly it isn't. That's due to the fact that we all interpret things differently. It doesn't mean that some people are right while others are wrong. But it also doesn't give you the right to assume that it is right when it could very well be wrong. Accept the possibilities.

[Abcdxxxx]

Two major Islamic sects believe in it, one doesn't. Your interpretation is obviously the healthier one, but if it doesn't reflect the beliefs* of popularized Islam, and you're only taking a stand against it with outsiders, instead of your own offending community.... it marginalizes the relevance of your interpretation, here. We agreed that one needs to work off the Arabic text... but now you can't blame the translation, these are Muslims making these claims.

*By beliefs, I mean, they will argue with rational for these verses, even if it means the inadvertant roundabout defense of pedophilia.
I'm not saying they engage in the behavior themself, though they do allow their clerics to license it.

By the way - It doesn't sound like Hindi was a Jew. Can you see how calling a "liver eating vindictive woman" a Jew when she wasn't, is derogatory to Jews, and promotes anti-Jewish sentiments?

I can't converse with you in Arabic. I was born in the States, and heard a mix of Hebrew, and Judeo-Arabic growing up. That's about it.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Her name is Hind, not Hindi. Writings suggest that she is a Jew. In school, I've been taught that she was a Jew. Who knows? She might've been a Kafir. There are no facts because materials are skewed everyday, especially when it goes back way too far in history for us to come up with convincing evidence. I just read a book that suggested that Khadeeja was in fact 30 when she married the Prophet Mohammed, that is not true. She was 45. "Facts" (or, what are they, really?) are altered for many reasons. Fine, there's no proof that Hind was a Jew, but there's no proof that she isn't either. Kafirs, in the Koran, are a lot worse than the Jews, therefore the example still supports the argument I'm making.

and promotes anti-Jewish sentiments?

Read what I said about the pagan Arabs.

We agreed that one needs to work off the Arabic text... but now you can't blame the translation, these are Muslims making these claims.

That's exactly the point I made earlier.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well, we agreed on that from the beginning. Again, something I had said before you entered into the conversation. So now that you can't use translation as an excuse, what is your response?

You see, the problem with Muslims who come up with these nice explanations is that you're out of touch with the clergy, and Imams.
The Pan-Arabist idea of gaining political power and conquest is what defines the Muslims of today and not the Koran. The Muslims follow the Hadith which was neither written by Mohamed nor by god and they do give the Hadith the status of the words of god.

As for the story of Hindi, please don't be so quick to write off the error. The story is new to me, but from a historical perspective, it seems unlikely she was Jewish, just based on who her father was, or who she was married to. Their alliance with Jews recieves special mention, which wouldn't be the case if she was Jewish herself. The habit of Islamic religious schools assiging the villain roll to Jews isn't something I'm comfortable with. As an outsider, and a Jew, the beauty of your larger message is completely lost on me once the story ends in conversion. The concept of a Kafir is an Islamic issue, and an attitude of co-existance is not an impressive gift. At least not for any Muslim who has read the Sura of Israa.... which given todays political climate, doesn't seem to be the case.