koran, allah, and all things islam

Some are bashing the thais for the value of life in this country. What is the value of a women teen in Turkey ?

Quote:

---

TURKEY: 12-YEAR-OLD GIRL SOLD BY FATHER FOR 4 COWS

(ANSAmed) - ANKARA - A 12-year-old girl from Corum, a village in central Anatolia not far from Ankara, has been sold twice by her father: the first time in exchange for four cows, and the second time for 10,000 Turkish lire (around 4,800 euros). Just yesterday the police discovered the crime and arrested the girl's father and the second buyer, while the first is still being sought. The story was reported by daily paper Vatan, which writes that Sukru A. (this is the name of the father) sold his daughter K.A last summer when she was just 12 years old to 29-year-old bricklayer Kamber Bostan in exchange for four cows, who married the girl in a religious ceremony in front of the imam. After several months however, the girl - who became pregnant in the meantime - went back home because she didn't get on with her husband. Last December, in her sixth month of pregnancy, she lost the child. Ten days later the father sold her again, this time to a 20-year-old unemployed man, Gokhan Turk, who paid 3,000 out of the 10,000 lire agreed upfront, and took the girl home. Yesterday, when Turk refused to pay the balance - claiming that the girl he bought was not a virgin - Sukru A. turned to the police and reported him for insolvency but without mentioning the reason. After a short investigation the truth came out and both the father and Turk were arrested, while Bostan is still being sought.(ANSAmed).

---

And the french midget president Sarkozy is a sustainer of the turkish adhesion to EU.

The last one this sunny sunday. :)


Berlin: Polish girls attacked in school

Quote:

---

The headscarf debate is gaining a new, brutal dimension in Neukölln (Berlin): headscarf-wearing girls suddenly attack others, preferably blond students. The school administration and municipal school authority are very concerned.

Volker Steffens, head of the Thomas-Morus high-school says that twice girls with headscarves punched blond fellow students without headscarves, pushed them to the ground and kicked them. About 80% of the 500 students in the school are of foreign origin, representing 41 nations. The principal says that once a headscarf-wearing girl tried to set fire to the hair of another blond student, and that the victims are mostly Polish.

Rita Herrmanns of the Berlin school authority says that fundamentalist tendencies have been taking over in Berlin schools as well in recent years. Increasingly, more girls wear headscarves, more Muslim parents forbid their daughters from participating in class trips, swimming and sex-ed classes.

Principal Volker Steffens who sees the consequences on the front lines says that Islamist tendencies and direct racist attacks by girls are striking.

The victims are blond Polish girls since they're Catholic and yet very liberal, and therefore embody everything that the headscarf-girls reject. Steffens says the reason for the conflict is often envy. The girls are banned from many things in their own strict religious upbringing at home, but in school they see other girls who are allowed more. They get jealous and want to beat up the children from more liberal families.

Volker Steffens sets limits to the violence and aggression and says that incidents are discussed with the students and dealt with, going from reprimands to being excluded from school events or from school.

Rita Herrmanns says that this is good, since the one thing that shouldn't happen is to look the other way. This violence should be made public.

---

Islam in Europe: Berlin: Polish girls attacked in school

Quote:

---

Peaceful islam.

---

It goes on on all sides. Try this for a little balance:

CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE
Nowhere in Islamic history can one find a doctrine similar to Saint Augustine’s cognite intrare (“lead them in”—i.e. “force them to convert”). In fact the Qur’an says the exact opposite: There is no compulsion in religion ( 2:256 ). Augustine’s frightening idea that all must be compelled to “conform” to the “true Christian faith” has unleashed centuries of unparalleled bloodshed. Indeed, Christians have suffered more under the rule of Christian civilization than under pre- Christian Roman rule or any other rule in history. Millions were tortured and slaughtered in the name of Christianity during the periods of the Arian, Donatist and Albigensian heresies, to say nothing of the various Inquisitions, or the Crusades, when the European armies were saying, as they slaughtered both Christian and Muslim Arabs: “Kill them all, God will know his own.” Needless to say, these transgressions— and indeed all the transgressions of Christians throughout the ages—have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ and or even the New Testament as such. Indeed, no Muslim by definition would ever or will ever blame this on Jesus Christ (the Word made Flesh, for Christians and Muslims). So how is it that Sookhdeo blames Muslim transgressions (even though far less than “Christian” ones) on the Qur’an (the Word made Book, for Muslims)?

By no means was such indiscriminate violence limited to Europe’s “Dark Ages” or to one period of Christian history. The Reformation and Counter Reformation took inter- Christian slaughter to new extremes; two thirds of the Christian population of Europe being slaughtered during this time. Then there were (among many others wars, pogroms, revolutions and genocides) the Napoleonic Wars ( 1792-1815 ); the African slave trade that claimed the lives of 10 million; and the Colonial Conquests. Estimates for the number of Native Americans slaughtered by the Europeans in North, Central and South America run as high as 20 million within three generations.

Despite the ravages of Europe’s violent past, in the 20 th century, Western Civilization took warfare to new extremes. A conservative estimate puts the total number of brutal deaths in the 20 th century at more than 250 million. Of these, Muslims are responsible for less than 10 million deaths. Christians, or those coming from Christian backgrounds account for more than 200 million of these! The greatest death totals come from World War I (about 20 million, at least 90 % of which were inflicted by “Christians”) and World War II ( 90 million, at least 50% of which were inflicted by “Christians,” the majority of the rest occurring in the Far East). Given this grim history, it appears that we Europeans must all come to grips with the fact that Islamic civilization has actually been incomparably less brutal than Christian civilization. Did the Holocaust of over 6 million Jews occur out of the background of a Muslim Civilization?

In the 20th century alone, Western and/or Christian powers have been responsible for at least twenty times more deaths than have Muslim powers. In this most brutal of centuries, we created incomparably more civilian casualties than have Muslims in the whole of Islamic history. This continues even in our day—witness the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian; or the genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. The horrible truth is that, numerically and statistically speaking, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

I'am waiting...
I hope you are allowed to express yourself honestly .

Do you have to keep your mouth shut ?
Expectations low ?
Eyes closed ?
Ears shut ?

---

Lina Joy is a Malay convert from Islam to Christianity. Born Azlina Jailani in 1964 in Malaysia to Muslim parents of Javanese descent, she converted at age 26. In 1998, she was baptized, and applied to have her conversion legally recognized by the Malaysian courts. Though her change of name was recognized in 1999 and so noted on her identity card, her change of religion was not (since it is without the Mahkamah Syariah confirmation document); for this reason, she filed suit with the High Court in 1999, bypassing the Syariah Court (Islamic court). She later filed suit with the Federal Court in 2006. Joy hopes to live openly as a Christian; she was forced to go into hiding by the publicity surrounding her case.
In a majority verdict delivered on May 30, 2007, the Federal Court rejected her appeal. Her appeal was dismissed 2-1 by Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff. The ruling stated that "a person who wanted to renounce his/her religion must do so according to existing laws or practices of the particular religion. Only after the person has complied with the requirements and the authorities are satisfied that the person has apostatised, can she embrace Christianity.... In other words, a person cannot, at one's whims and fancies renounce or embrace a religion."
The dissenting Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Richard Malanjum wrote that "Hence, in my view this is tantamount to unequal treatment under the law. In other words it is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should therefore be struck down. For this reason alone, the relief sought for by the appellant should be granted, namely for a declaration that she is entitled to have an identity card in which the word 'Islam' does not appear."
Legal recognition would have allowed her to have the change of religion noted on her national identity card; it would also remove the legal barrier to her marrying her Christian fiancé In Malaysia, the Shariah Court alone has the power to deal with Islamic issues, including legal recognition for conversion to and from Islam. Conversely, the Shariah Court has no jurisdiction(marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men is forbidden under Malaysian law and under the Shariah/Islamic Jurisprudence; the non-Muslim man is required to convert to Islam under Malaysian law; Under Shariah, Muslim men are only allowed to marry “people of the book,” those who believe in One God). over those who are not Muslims. Joy, by her own admission, is no longer Muslim, but only the Shariah Court can legally recognize this. Conversion is not something unknown, and according to Muslim Lawyers Association spokesman Pawanchek Merican, "…In Negeri Sembilan, the Shariah court allowed 16 people to renounce Islam…"
It had been hoped that Joy's case would ultimately determine whether Malaysian Muslims can circumvent the Shariah Court, and it is a rallying cause for interfaith, women's rights, and civil rights groups in Malaysia. According to a senior official in the National Registration Department (NRD), for the NRD to change the religion on her identity card would mean that the department would be officially declaring her an apostate, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court. The jurisdiction of the Shariah Court over converts from Islam to other religions has been hotly debated by the Malaysian public in the past few years, with this and other court cases involving converts closely followed by the media. Joy is not the first person to apply for recognition of conversion from Islam; another woman named only as "Maria" by the BBC is also pursuing a similar case. In 2006, the Negeri Sembilan Syariah High Court in Seremban granted recognition for the 1936 conversion from Islam to Buddhism of Nyonya Tahir; however, Tahir was deceased by that time.



The country's constitution not only makes Islam the official state religion but also specifies that a "Malay" must be a "Muslim". With ethnicity
tied so closely to religion, defending the purity of Islam against corruption by foreigners has become both a religious duty and a matter of national pride.


Christians were not the only group targeted by adherents of exclusivist Islam following the fallout from the ruling. On 13 January, the country's Sikhs became the latest to suffer attacks when vandals threw stones at a temple in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur. The Sikhs, who number approximately 120,000, also use Allah to refer to God in their worship.
Even the Hindus are not exempt from this kind of discrimination. Last September, a group of Muslim protestors stamped on a cow's severed head to protest at the building of a Hindu temple in a Muslim-majority neighbourhood.

This should make some of the people here feel better.

Quote:

---

Hundreds killed in Nigerian religious violence

At least 364 Muslims died in clashes between Muslims and Christians this week in central Nigeria, according to figures provided by Muslim leaders, a spokesman for Human Rights Watch says.

"As of yesterday (Friday), at least 364 Muslims have died in Jos, including those found in wells in Kuru Karama. This information was provided by Muslim officials in Jos," the HRW's Eric Guttschuss told AFP by telephone from Washington on Saturday.

"The Christian Association of Nigeria said that they have not compiled their estimates on death toll. Hopefully, they will do that before the weekend runs out," he said.

Of the total figure of Muslims who died in the four-day bloody unrest, 187 of them were brought to the Jos Central Mosque.

The unofficial death toll from the clashes is put at 464

---

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hundreds...0124-ms01.html


Muslims -364
Christians -100

That puts 'us' up by 200! A good ratio, 1:3.64

Ra-ra-ra Christians!!!!!





(I do hope the above is read as being firmly tongue-in-cheek)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dug

Go on then.
Don't forget, no oil.

---

Why? Because you say so? Because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions?

Quote:

---

It's very simple really.

---

Actually it's very silly, Dug.

---

You are probably the best I have ever seen at talking around a question to avoid a direct answer, this pissing match could probably go on for ever as I have never seen you actually admit anything that doesn't fit your agenda. The fact is Dug is right oil is the only thing that has contributed to the wealth of a few lucky musilim nations. The only thing not mentioned is that it took a lot of help from western nations to put together the in frastructure to turn their oil into actual wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The fact is Dug is right oil is the only thing that has contributed to the wealth of a few lucky musilim nations.

---

That is not a fact. Have you not been listening? Please do keep up . . . as difficult as that may be for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are probably the best I have ever seen at talking around a question to avoid a direct answer, this pissing match could probably go on for ever as I have never seen you actually admit anything that doesn't fit your agenda. The fact is Dug is right oil is the only thing that has contributed to the wealth of a few lucky musilim nations. The only thing not mentioned is that it took a lot of help from western nations to put together the in frastructure to turn their oil into actual wealth.

---

Right. So unless I give a pre-determined 'acceptable' answer to a loaded question I'm talking around the issue am I. :rolleyes:

The Point - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > You.

So here's a question for you then: are you guys being deliberately disingenuous or is it simply more a case of being narrow minded? (I'll only accept an answer in a "yes" or "no" format; submitted in triplicate on green perfume-scented paper; between 3:45 and 3:56pm EST; and any incorrect answers must be re-submitted until they meet with my approval. Think you can manage that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

in triplicate

---

Now you're just being ridiculous

That answer is not the one that I was seeking and is therefore unacceptable to me.

Try again. :mad:

Damn . . . this is just not my day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That answer is not the one that I was seeking and is therefore unacceptable to me.

Try again. :mad:

---

Acually I see nothing loaded about the question, what wealth did most of those musilim countries have before the development of there oil facilities.Next, and this next applies only if there is no good answer to the first sentance, it seems to be a yes or no question, right?, or do you have a simple way of again evading the answer?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are probably the best I have ever seen at talking around a question to avoid a direct answer, this pissing match could probably go on for ever as I have never seen you actually admit anything that doesn't fit your agenda. The fact is Dug is right oil is the only thing that has contributed to the wealth of a few lucky musilim nations. The only thing not mentioned is that it took a lot of help from western nations to put together the in frastructure to turn their oil into actual wealth.

---

Right. So unless I give a pre-determined 'acceptable' answer to a loaded question I'm talking around the issue am I. :rolleyes:

The Point - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > You.

So here's a question for you then: are you guys being deliberately disingenuous or is it simply more a case of being narrow minded? (I'll only accept an answer in a "yes" or "no" format; submitted in triplicate on green perfume-scented paper; between 3:45 and 3:56pm EST; and any incorrect answers must be re-submitted until they meet with my approval. Think you can manage that?

---

I knew it ! You are a fuc*ing communist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You are probably the best I have ever seen at talking around a question to avoid a direct answer, this pissing match could probably go on for ever as I have never seen you actually admit anything that doesn't fit your agenda. The fact is Dug is right oil is the only thing that has contributed to the wealth of a few lucky musilim nations. The only thing not mentioned is that it took a lot of help from western nations to put together the in frastructure to turn their oil into actual wealth.

---

Right. So unless I give a pre-determined 'acceptable' answer to a loaded question I'm talking around the issue am I. :rolleyes:

The Point - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > You.

So here's a question for you then: are you guys being deliberately disingenuous or is it simply more a case of being narrow minded? (I'll only accept an answer in a "yes" or "no" format; submitted in triplicate on green perfume-scented paper; between 3:45 and 3:56pm EST; and any incorrect answers must be re-submitted until they meet with my approval. Think you can manage that?

---

I knew it ! You are a fuc*ing communist.

---

How can you tell? Was it the green paper that gave it away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That answer is not the one that I was seeking and is therefore unacceptable to me.

Try again. :mad:

---

Acually I see nothing loaded about the question, what wealth did most of those musilim countries have before the development of there oil facilities.Next, and this next applies only if there is no good answer to the first sentance, it seems to be a yes or no question, right?, or do you have a simple way of again evading the answer?.

---

Well of course you don't see it as a loaded question - and that's because it directs to the answer you want. What wealth did Ireland have before the development of its economy? What wealth did Hong Kong have before it became a regional economic centre?

What relevance is it where/how they got their wealth?? The fact is that they have it. This is an objective and immutable fact, not a matter for debate or contention so arbitrarily excluding it on the basis you don't want it to count is disingenuous. And that's what you guys simply don't seem to understand and why you get all irked when someone doesn't respond with the answer you wanted. I could similarly 'prove' that all cats are black by excluding the ones that aren't simply on the basis that I don't want to count them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lysander

How can you tell? Was it the green paper that gave it away?

---

I bet my subscription to Workers Monthly didn't help either. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That answer is not the one that I was seeking and is therefore unacceptable to me.

Try again. :mad:

---

Acually I see nothing loaded about the question, what wealth did most of those musilim countries have before the development of there oil facilities.Next, and this next applies only if there is no good answer to the first sentance, it seems to be a yes or no question, right?, or do you have a simple way of again evading the answer?.

---

You don't do irony, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That answer is not the one that I was seeking and is therefore unacceptable to me.

Try again. :mad:

---

Acually I see nothing loaded about the question, what wealth did most of those musilim countries have before the development of there oil facilities.Next, and this next applies only if there is no good answer to the first sentance, it seems to be a yes or no question, right?, or do you have a simple way of again evading the answer?.

---

Well of course you don't see it as a loaded question - and that's because it directs to the answer you want. What wealth did Ireland have before the development of its economy? What wealth did Hong Kong have before it became a regional economic centre?

What relevance is it where/how they got their wealth?? The fact is that they have it. This is an objective and immutable fact, not a matter for debate or contention so arbitrarily excluding it on the basis you don't want it to count is disingenuous. And that's what you guys simply don't seem to understand and why you get all irked when someone doesn't respond with the answer you wanted. I could similarly 'prove' that all cats are black by excluding the ones that aren't simply on the basis that I don't want to count them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lysander

How can you tell? Was it the green paper that gave it away?

---

I bet my subscription to Workers Monthly didn't help either. :(

---

Not irked at all, just looking for something more than avoiding the question, which it seems you have finally gotten around to. What you don't seem to see is that both Hong Kong and the oil rich musilim nations only achieved wealth through the hard work of people of the western world, yes or know. Curious to see how you will circumvent the answer here, I actually enjoy your watching you and the hat evade the obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not irked at all, just looking for something more than avoiding the question, which it seems you have finally gotten around to.

---

... You just simply don't get it, do you.

Quote:

---

What you don't seem to see is that both Hong Kong and the oil rich musilim nations only achieved wealth through the hard work of people of the western world, yes or know. Curious to see how you will circumvent the answer here, I actually enjoy your watching you and the hat evade the obvious.

---

Oh great... So now that objective reality has been pointed out to you and you can no longer reasonably deny that there are, in actual point of fact, wealthy Muslim nations you're now shifting the goal-posts once more so that if there are wealthy Muslim nations then it has to be completely and utterly owing to the West. Heartening to see that good old fashioned colonial-racism is alive and well.

Anyways I'll not 'circumvent the answer' (interesting choice of phrase that by the way - clearly indicates that, as per, there's actually only one 'answer' you're looking for) because I'll not bother engaging in such a transparently sophomoric, disingenuous and logically flawed 'debate'. Again - any answer you receive that is not in accordance with your pre-determined one will simply cause you to shift the posts again. It really is all rather junior-varsity stuff; even acknowledging it gives it a semblance of creedence and recognition it doesn't deserve.

^
Can I offer a little something to get around this dead end and move on. Consider:

rhetorical question 
–noun a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply, as “What is so rare as a day in June?”
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. Cite This Source

rhetorical question
n. A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Cite This Source

rhetorical question
A question posed without expectation of an answer but merely as a way of making a point: “You don't expect me to go along with that crazy scheme, do you?”
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Cite This Source

Can we all agree: the question in question was rhetorical--a question that makes its own point, or implies the answer in the question itself. They have a purpose, but, as we've all probably experienced, can be insulting when the asker repeatedly demands an answer. So perhaps the person who originally posed it...was it Herman...? would like to declare the intended point outright and we can all move on.

Unless that would be spoiling all the fun. In that case, nevermind.

Quote:

---

Unless that would be spoiling all the fun

---

...

That's one of those rhetorical questions, innit! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That's one of those rhetorical questions, innit!

---

It doesn't have a question mark after it so I think we should spend 15 pages discussing whether it is actually a question or, in fact, a statement.

What say you (rhetorically speaking, of course)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Quote:

---

Unless that would be spoiling all the fun

---

...

That's one of those rhetorical questions, innit! :p

---

It wasn't a question, but it did imply an enquirery, didn't it. (Damn! Did it again).
Which I suppose makes it rhetorical:
rhe⋅tor⋅i⋅cal
–adjective 1.used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.2.marked by or tending to use bombast.3.of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric.
Synonyms:
1. verbal, stylistic, oratorical.
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. Cite This Source

Why can't people just ask normal questions. :mad:




Rhetorically speaking of course.

How the f*ck should I know?

:rofl: