Printable View
its said by scorpio, from the simpsons :D
homer sez his faimly wants 2 go back 2 springfield, so he says
:DQuote:
let them go
you'll stay here with me
itll be fun
we'll go bowling
u should sign my guestbook fool :)
right, im off 2 bed now, majorly tired
Kovan
Islam may not change but mankind does.
I don't know much about the Islamic religion but you have quoted some pretty black and white examples of rules that shouldn't change. But, I'm sure there are some "grey" ones that aren't so obviously static.
For examples I can only quote from the Christian and Jewish religion through which I have some degree of familiarity but I think they both apply to Islam as well.
1) In Jewdaism, you must not eat pork. It is considered an un-clean animal. Now, perhaps in ancient times, it was dangerous to eat pork as, without the technology and knowlege of bacteria we have today, a lot more people would have got food poisening from it. But, knowing what we do today, pork can be eaten with as much safety as any other meat.
2) Christianity and Jewdaism both prohibit sex before marridge. In the time these religions were both founded, contraception was impossible and any sexual encounter had a high risk of leading to children. Since, nowadays, contraception is widespread and the act of sex itself is not necssarilly associated with having children, is there not room for change here?
Still, I understand why you see rigidity and refusal to change as a good thing. Perhaps the other religions have changed to much. All I'm saying is that change is sometimes innevitable, else you become out of touch with reality.
Harry
I'm not sure I agree with this. Why should a minority in a society have religous rules thrust upon it, even if they are laws passed buy the majority of the population?Quote:
Lawmaking should be up to a democratically elected body of representatives of the people, who make laws according to the wishes of the people. If those people want the laws to conform to any particular religious rules then fine, pass the laws and be happy
Simon, the same goes for any kind of laws, not just religious ones. Besides, you are living in a country whose laws were fundamentally based on Christianity. Thou shalt not kill etc.
In any system of government, not everyone can be made happy. At least with democracy, most people can be made happy. Not only that, but if the People's opinion changes, the laws can be changed to reflect that, rather than being written in stone.
Harry
True, not everyone can be happy with the laws but there I would categorise laws into two groups (for the purposes of this discussion).
1) Passive laws - I consider a law to be passive if it only prevents people from performing actions that would cause harm or discomfort (or in any way infringe on the civil rights) of another individual.
2) Aggressive laws - Laws are aggressive if they force an individual either to perform an aciton or not perform an action that does not affect another individual.
i.e.
Murder, assult and theft would fall into the first category.
Laws that prevented one from smoking cannabis, walking abou naked or, indeed, being forced to wear a beard would all fall under category 2.
I don't think the people who make those laws (your category 2) think they aren't affecting anyone else. I am sure they would argue that they actually fall into category 1, and are harmful to the population. I don't necessarily agree with them.
It's more or less the same argument about whether abortion or euthanasia should be legal or illegal. Some people think it's purely personal (and they think it should be legal), while others think it affects others for various reasons (and they think it should be illegal).
Democracy isn't perfect, but I don't see a better alternative.
Harry
I'm not saying it is always black and white and there's going to be grey areas but it is still an ideal that should be worked towards.
Not always the case. Many people believe believe that it is right for the state to intervene into the lives of the individual as an individual doesn't always know what's "best" for itself. Many laws in a democracy are passed according to this basis.Quote:
I don't think the people who make those laws (your category 2) think they aren't affecting anyone else. I am sure they would argue that they actually fall into category 1, and are harmful to the population.
Many people also like to see other people around them adhering to the same moral standards as they do themselves. Not because someone else's behaviour necessarilly directly affects anyone else but because they believe people should be forced to do what's "right". Or they believe that just being exposed to immoral behviour can have a damaging effect on one's own morals.
It is the bigoted attitude of some people that really annoys me.
What are you suggesting as a solution?
Harry
You want solutions? Getting people to recognise there is a problem is hard enough.
I think we've got to start by getting in place some sort of "Bill of Rights" whereby the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals and the state are layed out.
Once we have some sort of concreate basis, we can use that to judge all laws and reject the ones that fall foul of it. It's going to be a long arduous process and would involve a case by case analysis of each law in turn.
I know we have touched apon this subject in the past and that you are not to keen on the idea but I don't think we should let the American model put us off trying.
simonm, i give up
i dont think i can make you undrestand why islam doesnt change :)
ok ok one more shot at it
When Islam came, it wasnt for 6th century,
it was for to the end of time
so when it states dont eat pork,
it means DONT EAT PORK (and even with todays technology, pork meat is still filthy)
so you cant say "well we have good technology and we will eat pork cus its clean"
one you let few things change in a religion, there will be a lot
yes mankind does change, but not necessarily for the bad
so in short
we as muslims believe that if it was upto humans, the religion would have been changed like the others by now
but there is a statement in the Qur'an that states
"We have perfected your religion for you, and we shall protect"
so as we muslims believe, God will protect Qur'an from change
Islamic Law cannot be bent to meet the wants of human being
ok enough, i am spending way too much time on this
there is a kurdish saying that goes like this
"I am telling you its a male, your telling me to milk it"
Explain. I don't see any reason it would be filthy. Well, no filthier than any other kind of meat.Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
even with todays technology, pork meat is still filthy
Kovan
I can understand why many followers of Islam don't think it should change. I just think they're wrong! :pQuote:
i dont think i can make you undrestand why islam doesnt change
Pigs are not, contrary to the public misconception, filthy animals. They actually have a greater sense of personal hygene than do most other animals that we eat.Quote:
even with todays technology, pork meat is still filthy
And as for the safety of the meat, that is no longer a problem. Pigs, these days, are so pumped full of anti-biotics that you can even serve pork rare if you want to.
The point being that there are no longer hygene reasons for not eating pork.
All I am suggesting is that the original intent behind that commandment was based on hygene reasons. If you remove the hygene problems (as we have done), surely that commandment should no longer apply?
Still, I can understand why you would fear change in your religion. It would be open to corruption.
Best we just agree to differ as I don't want to cause offense.
Harry
What is there for him to explain. You can be sure that is verdict is not based on scientific enquiry. It says it in a book of universal and unchanging truths so it must be true.Quote:
Explain. I don't see any reason it would be filthy. Well, no filthier than any other kind of meat.
:)Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kovan
I can
Best we just agree to differ as I don't want to cause offense.
http://www.webziner.com/islam/whypork.htm (dont really feel like typing)
one more thing i would like to add to that..
pig is one of, IF NOT THE ONLY
animal that does not fight for his partner
so if you screw his partner, he will pretend nothing has happened
where as other animals fight
"you are what you eat"
[size]
.
[/size]
I want to revisit this if I can, as I never got a chance to put my opinion of Taleban vs NA across.Quote:
Originally posted by kovan
1. They dont take prisoners of war (either the enemy must surrender before they are captured, or die when they are captured). When they captured Mazar I Sareef, thats exactly what they did, they truely believe in revenge killing. And another proof of this is when they entered Kabul. They were kicking and beating the men who were still in kabul when they entered it. You could see dead bodies on the roads and in the ditches. One cant really argue that these are dead from the war, because there was NO war as taleeban just packed up without much of a fight
2. I believe majority of afghanistan are pishtuns, and Northan Alliance hate pisthuns, NA represent a small number of aghani population, they are tajiks.
3. They broke the promise they made with the exiled king
4. They dont really want to share power with anyone else, (even though they say they would)
5. They have very good relations with India which creates a problem for Pakistan
do the math, pakistan pissed more than it is already, india pissed more than it is already
we got nukes flying in the air..
From people i have talked to say that Taleeban follow a VERY strict law of Islam (go too far such as letting not letting women to go to school, etc)
where as NA dont really care about religion all that much
and most people say that taleeban is some what better for them because they have at least some religious rules that follow Islam
I didnt see many people dance in the streets when NA entered Kabul, infact there were few, who were being shown over and over
same thing as when some palestinians were dancing on sep 11, who were being shown over and over
Kovan, your first point is a valid one (if true). The other points give no weight to your argument that NA are going to be any better than Taleban. I don't see the breaking of promises (3), nor the expulsion of Kings (3), nor the lack of power sharing (4) being in any way comparable to the suffering undergone by Afgani women under the Taleban.
Please read this
Wether I am right or not will have to be seen, but inital impressions are that any other option other than Taleban rule is a good option.
Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Today, I feel like:
telling you I'll be in Holland this evening...
mmmm... Holland;)
'You are what you eat' .... yeah right :rolleyes:
Yup, leaving tonight for 3 days. *sigh *****, innit ;)Quote:
Originally posted by RSINGH
mmmm... Holland;)
im goin 2 holland sometime, got a girl in arnheim ;) :D
Kovan
Do me a favour! I read most of the site your link refered me to and whilst being very entertaining, it wasn't very informative.
Not biased in the least! :rolleyes:Quote:
Pig eats almost anything dirty and they
are very lazy animals.
It does not change the facts that Pork, in this day and age is as healthy as any other meat. If your religion dicates that you shouldn't eat it then fine, don't eat it.
But don't try and pretend there's anything more unsavoury about pigs than there is any other type of meat.
LOL @ religion in general :D
What a carry on!
...and it started off about UN Peace keeping. Religous nuts always take over.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
LOL @ religion in general :D
What a carry on!
I decided to bow out of this a while ago. I think everything that needed saying had been said by the end of page one... :rolleyes:
Aw, don't get me started mate. In 12 hours time I will be sitting in a country inn in Southern Holland, drinking Dutch beer and ready to try the local "produce"
*bump
We kind of digressed on this thread, from the UN to pigmeat.
I would still like to hear the cases against the NA being in charge at Kabul in the interim...
The NA don't enforce the wearing of full beards, yet their members don't shave daily. This can lead to the stubbly mid-80s George Michael look, which is clearly inappropriate on the world stage. They should therefore hand over control to someone more tidy.Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I would still like to hear the cases against the NA being in charge at Kabul in the interim...
Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Yup, leaving tonight for 3 days. *sigh *****, innit ;)
Even tougher to live here Haf !!!!!!!!! :D them window ladies keep asking me where you've gone... said business aint been the same since you left in 1985.
Being completely contrary here, but Michael developed the stubble in 1987, on the release of Faith. In 85, he was still wearing yellow trousers and a bear chin.Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
The NA don't enforce the wearing of full beards, yet their members don't shave daily. This can lead to the stubbly mid-80s George Michael look, which is clearly inappropriate on the world stage. They should therefore hand over control to someone more tidy.
Don Johson had also developed semi-advanced subcutaneous follicle growth arounf the same time.
Some of the great historical leaders had stubble. Castro caused many thigh rashes in his time...
Send Doris my best willya. :)Quote:
Originally posted by FATBOYPEE
Even tougher to live here Haf !!!!!!!!! :D them window ladies keep asking me where you've gone... said business aint been the same since you left in 1985.
and you have the cheek to accuse me of posting mindless dribble :p ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Being completely contrary here, but Michael developed the stubble in 1987, on the release of Faith. In 85, he was still wearing yellow trousers and a bear chin.
Don Johson had also developed semi-advanced subcutaneous follicle growth arounf the same time.
Some of the great historical leaders had stubble. Castro caused many thigh rashes in his time...
:eek: :eek:
Gaffer, You seem to know a scary amount about George Michael... Anyway, I think 1987 can count as the mid-80s. It's closer to 85 than 90.
I find the concept of world leaders taking fashion tips from Don Johnson rather disturbing, but you might have something there. He also used to wear very baggy trouser and no socks, and carry a gun everywhere. Hmmmm...
He's now move onto Dolly.........Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Send Doris my best willya. :)
The sheep:p
Not attall! What Harry was really asking when he started this thread had nothing to do with UN Peacekeeping and the rulership of Afghanistan. He was subconsiously asking whether we should all eat pig meat or not.Quote:
I decided to bow out of this a while ago. I think everything that needed saying had been said by the end of page one...
It took us until the end of page two to actually get to the point of the thread. :rolleyes:
Politicians and Heads of State suffer hugely from following fashion trends. Case in point: Anne Widdecombe dying and styling her hair. Ridiculous.Quote:
Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
:eek: :eek:
Gaffer, You seem to know a scary amount about George Michael... Anyway, I think 1987 can count as the mid-80s. It's closer to 85 than 90.
I find the concept of world leaders taking fashion tips from Don Johnson rather disturbing, but you might have something there. He also used to wear very baggy trouser and no socks, and carry a gun everywhere. Hmmmm...
Best dressed leader in history? King Edward VIII (who married Mrs Simpson) - classic suits.
I clearly don't read between the lines enough. Sorry about that. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Not attall! What Harry was really asking when he started this thread had nothing to do with UN Peacekeeping and the rulership of Afghanistan. He was subconsiously asking whether we should all eat pig meat or not.
It took us until the end of page two to actually get to the point of the thread. :rolleyes:
Doris ?
It's moved on somewhat these days..... or so I've heard...
It's more likely she's known as Dorisina-the-fantastic-head-giver.... or somesuch...
I'd expect your name's still in the guestbook alongside a picture of you, be-stubbled, bare-chested & wearing a don-jonson jacket with the sleeves pulled up. Suppose you could get away with it back then....
when you had hair...? :)
oooooo ****, you're for it now...
*Gets Tubbs to slap Pee around the gob with an espadrille...
Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
[B]oooooo fu[b/b]ck, you're for it now...
*Gets Tubbs to slap Pee around the gob with an espadrille...
If it's that's a pink Espadrille that matches the jacket it's fine.... fashion statement n'all.......
you'd be well out-of-place in Holland !!! They wear 3 inch turn up jeans that end halfway down the claf, no socks & leather slipperettes !!!! That's if you're not in Thermae 2000, if thats like most of the sauna's here, they wear nothing at all.... Now where dorisina when you want her....
Pee
Absolutely buck naked mit vielen deutschlanders ist gut mit mir, danke :DQuote:
Originally posted by FATBOYPEE
If it's that's a pink Espadrille that matches the jacket it's fine.... fashion statement n'all.......
you'd be well out-of-place in Holland !!! They wear 3 inch turn up jeans that end halfway down the claf, no socks & leather slipperettes !!!! That's if you're not in Thermae 2000, if thats like most of the sauna's here, they wear nothing at all.... Now where dorisina when you want her....
Pee
Cool, We've gotten away from pigs and back to Naked Chicks. WOOH HOOH:D
BTW
Do you think this includes UN Peacekeepers?Quote:
"The Taliban also fled the eastern city of Jalalabad, where a local leader, Maulvi Yunus Khalis, reportedly was in charge after cutting a deal to let Taliban forces leave with their weapons. A spokesman told the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press that “neither the Northern Alliance nor any other group should try to enter” the area.