Theory of U.S pullout

human wrote: Khadija1021 wrote: I never said two wrongs make a right.  I merely said that simply because you don�t understand a culture (especially one that existed 1400 years ago), doesn�t make how they lived and did things wrong.  It only appears wrong when you compare it to today�s standards.  There is a difference between understanding how someone in the past lived, and believing it would be appropriate for today�s standards.  And it is not a matter of Aisha starting puberty early.  You act as if Aisha were an exception to the rule when, in fact, in some parts of the world that is rather normal, especially in hot climates.  You, also, seem to think that because I�m not willing to condemn the Prophet (pbuh) for this that I somehow approve of this practice regardless of time or place.  I do not think a 9 year old girl of today�s society would be prepared for such a life; however, just because this is true does not mean that 1400 years ago the same is true.  Not too long ago children were considered adults as soon as they reached puberty and were expected to take on adult roles.  The modern world has given rise to many new things and one of them is prolonged childhood.  Just because the youth of today are given this privilege doesn�t mean it condemns the lives of those that lived before them just because they too were not afforded this same privilege.  Thank you for saying that Khadija. You have just proved my point. None of the holy books, Koran, Bible, Gita, have complete wisdom that is true for all the people, all the time. That's why we need to evolve and adjust according to the times. Human

Human,

I don't know how you came to that conclusion by what I said.  My claim is not that the Qur'an does not offer complete wisdom for all people, all the time.  In fact, it does what no other holy book it its currently state of existence does; this is, the Qur�an does offer complete wisdom.  One can apply the Qur'an to all situations throughout history.  It is not stagnant.  The issue being discussed is marriage.  Allah commands through the Qur�an for men and women to be lawfully married and He forbids them to participate in sexual intercourse outside of marriage.  Regardless of how societies have evolved regarding human behavior (such as the delaying of the onset of adulthood), human nature itself has not changed�puberty still comes when nature (Allah) commands it too.  That is the difference, and that difference has nothing to do with the Qur�an and everything to do with human actions.  Muslims are told to obey the laws of society as long as they do not cause one to be oppressed in their faith.  If a society were to deny the right of its citizens to marry, it would constitute a major problem for Muslims because Allah commands for those who are able to marry to do so and not to engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage; however, delaying the age at which one can become married, although it might make if more difficult for some to guard their chastity prior to marriage, it does not violate the command to marry.  Personally, I feel that modern society makes it extremely difficult for its citizens to not fall into a life of sin by participating in ZINA (unlawful sexual intercourse).  As modern society continues to create larger and larger gaps between the age of natural maturity (onset of puberty) and socially acceptable age of maturity (now after college�roughly mid 20�s) as well as to promote lewd sexual behavior as a way of life, it puts citizens at a far greater risk of participating in sexual intercourse before marriage. 

Although modern society and those who have embraced it as their �GOD� may not perceive this to be a problem, it is for all those who desire to worship and follow Allah.  Adolescence is a modern day phenomenon.  The gap between onset of puberty and the time at which one is considered appropriate for marriage continues to grow.  At one time there was no difference between the two.  As recently as the 1960�s, it was considered appropriate for one to marry right after high school.  Now even that is considered too soon.  Why is that?  Is it because humans are not ready for marriage by nature (biologically that is)?  No, it is because society creates such human behavior to come into existence.  The modern world stresses success in education and career over partnership in marriage.  We are told that �Sex in the City� is far more desirable than being committed to family life.  So, we are trained in all manners of modern behavior that takes us further and further away from family life.  The family is no longer the nucleus of human society�material possession is and sex is the means by which people are lured to it.  Education is not longer a means to help individuals be wiser and more knowledgeable, but rather, to assist them in maximizing their income as a means to perpetuate the modern phenomenon we refer to as consumerism.  You can believe in modern evolution all you want�that is your choice.  However, I believe that life in this world without faith in Allah is pathetic at best.  What you call modern progress �evolution�, I consider mere human degradation. 

PAZ, Khadija

Sire, this evolution thing is a fallacy and no more than a self congratulatory mask for us.

If man had evolved would we have anything like rape in our world. Or, war for that matter.

It will be good and interesting exercise to find out why Charles Darwin, an entirely unknown quantity, was selected and backed by slave traders to go round the world. And, then hyped.

Please do count and let us know how many evolved people do you find around in your county? who would behave without the fear of their laws.

Rocitreal, I apologize for not responding sooner. I hope you are still interested in my response.

rocitreal wrote: I was looking but am having problem locating the place i read that, i was reading from many online encyclopedia's about Islam.  What they all say is that Ali did not want to become Caliph at first, then others convenced him to take over, they differ as to how he was convenced.  I will keep looking for this source as I am certain i read it in my research but do not claim all information iread to be the truth.

I would strongly suggest that you use the Encyclopedia of the Orient in looking up information regarding such issues.  There web address is:

http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct-frame.pl?http://i-c ias.com/e.o/khomeini.htm

rocitreal wrote: I wasnt trying to switch the subject just trying to make a parrelled remark.  You said this would be truely a suprise if others were not marrying 9 year olds.  To me, just because someone else is doing something wrong doesnt make it any more right, that was my point.  To me, a 9 year old is a child even if they somehow hit puberty early.

I never said two wrongs make a right.  I merely said that simply because you don�t understand a culture (especially one that existed 1400 years ago), doesn�t make how they lived and did things wrong.  It only appears wrong when you compare it to today�s standards.  There is a difference between understanding how someone in the past lived, and believing it would be appropriate for today�s standards.  And it is not a matter of Aisha starting puberty early.  You act as if Aisha were an exception to the rule when, in fact, in some parts of the world that is rather normal, especially in hot climates.  You, also, seem to think that because I�m not willing to condemn the Prophet (pbuh) for this that I somehow approve of this practice regardless of time or place.  I do not think a 9 year old girl of today�s society would be prepared for such a life; however, just because this is true does not mean that 1400 years ago the same is true.  Not too long ago children were considered adults as soon as they reached puberty and were expected to take on adult roles.  The modern world has given rise to many new things and one of them is prolonged childhood.  Just because the youth of today are given this privilege doesn�t mean it condemns the lives of those that lived before them just because they too were not afforded this same privilege. 

Khadija1021 wrote: Just because you view anyone under that age of 18 as a minor does not make that so in the rest of the world or throughout history.  The Prophet (pbuh) was not a child molester by any definition even those found in today�s encyclopedias.

rocitreal wrote: Where exactly did i call Mohammed a "child molester" ?

In one post you said, �Take for instance Aisha, probably around 9 years old when Muhammad took her as another of his his wives.  Your was prophet a child malester many could say, must like Michael Jackson.�  And in another you said, �Were not talking about royal families or average people here, were talking about a supposed prophet of God not to mention there is a big differance between 9 which is just a child and 13 which is past puberty.   Sure there are freaks out there, just look at Micheal Jackson, but he never claimed to be a prophet from God.� 

I would take that pretty much to mean you hold that view yourself.  And I have already pointed out that if all you were referring to is the onset of menstruation as the difference between those young marriages in the US and the Prophet�s marriage to Aisha, then there is no difference.  I think I have made my position on this clear and so if you desire to continue to hold the view that we must judge the past by today�s standards, feel free to do so; however, I will not argue this point with you in the future. 

rocitreal wrote: I personally dont feel the age of 9 is old enough to give "consent".  What is your take on Mohammed's interpretation of the Torah's very clear passages about Monogamy ?  Were these passages "inserted" as lies, or did he just give them a differant "interpritation" ?  Lots of things are legal that go against religious beliefs.  It was legal to eat bacon wasnt it ?  The Torah clearly sais that is bad, i guess that was not an "inserted" text in Mohammed's eyes, i wonder about monogamy.

Once again, you simply compare today�s culture with that of the 5^th century.  However, I have no doubt that Aisha not only knew about marriage at that age, and since Muhammad was related to her father and they were close companions, she was very much aware of who the Prophet was.  She could have said no if nothing else; however, she did not.

If the Torah so clearly speaks of monogamy, why did so many throughout its pages have polygamous marriages?  Some of them had hundreds of wives like Solomon for instance.  The Qur�an changed the face of polygamy by 1.) Kept polygamy legal as a means to protect women and children in situations where they would be left without protection otherwise, 2.) Restricting the number of wives permitted to only four, and 3.) By restricting the number of marriages to only one if the man is unable to treat each of his wives with equal kindness and fairness.

Khadija1021 wrote: Second, there is no indication in any hadiths or other historical documents that Aisha was either physically of psychologically abused due to her marriage to the Prophet (pbuh).  In fact, she loved him dearly and she continued in his cause even after he died.

rocitreal wrote: I can respect that she loved him and didnt feel abused but this makes me think of children who love people who have sex with them at early ages, yet they are correctly thrown in jail for years on a daily basis.

You are judging the past by using the perverted behaviors of the present.  You are not speaking of those who are trying to abide by the laws of the land or of Allah.  How fair is that? 

Khadija1021 wrote: Until very recently GWB tried his best to make this into a holy war.  He did so for many reasons which I will not go into here. That would be enough for an entirely new thread. However, I can point you to a US news report that will outline the history of this war and Bush�s approach every step of the way.  Just ask if you want that information.

rocitreal wrote: Iwould like to see that information very much so.  It is accually calling for a holy war ?  which major news broadcasting organization published it ?

Don�t misunderstand what I said.  GWB may not be the smartest pup in the litter; however, that doesn�t mean he has not learned the subtle art of propaganda from his forefathers.  Here is the web site for that new report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050425/25roots.ht m

Khadija1021 wrote: I never said that his intent was to eradicate the world of all Muslims.

rocitreal wrote: Isnt that what a holy war would be all about, eradicating Muslims ? I would love to hear the quotes from Bush when he was trying "his hardest" to start a holy war, do you know of any ?

Like I said, read the report and then come tell me what you think.  We can talk about his propaganda strategies.

Khadija1021 wrote: Not only do people want him out of there, when polled, they actually said life under the Taliban was better and so the support for Ben Laden increased.  Just think of that for a minute if you would.  Yes, linger a bit longer on that thought.  How bad can it be if people are wanting the Taliban back?  Like I said, I�ll show you the American New Report on this if you want to read it�it�s a 10 page report.

rocitreal wrote: Ok, so this american news agency that conducted the polling are the same ones who said Bush was on a Crusade against Islam, a holy war per say ?  Id love to see it but i'd be willing to be its not from a reputable news agency.

No, the polls were not conducted by the same reporter who made the article.  The article is from the US News & World Report. Is that reputable enough for you? 

Khadija1021 wrote: I pray to Allah that some day I will never have to say this again.  (And yes, I think GWB and the American news media created this problem.  And no, I don�t mean every single news person or station in American�just the majority of them.)

rocitreal wrote: Do you have any further sources to say the "majority" ?

What part of �I think� don�t you understand?  I am an educated professional (philosopher) who is able to deduce this from the plethora of news broadcasts that use terms like �Islamic terrorism,� and �Muslim extremists.�  Up until just recently one rarely saw a news broadcast that referred to what is happening in the Middle East as simply �terrorism.�  This is a fact of US news media coverage.  If you don�t believe me, simply do a bit of research on your own, but be sure to go back and start your search from 9/11/01 and not just the past few months.  It is clear that recently GBW has changed his propaganda tactics.  So we now see a �softer� view of world events.   GWB knows now he can�t simply bully the terrorists into submission, so now he is going to try to persuade �moderate� Muslims to help him out.

Khadija1021 wrote: ..accusing an entire religious group of terrorists acts (which is what using the phrase �Islamic Terrorism� does),

rocitreal wrote: I dont feel it does, nor to most people i know and speak with.  Is this where you are reading into your holy war conspiracy ?  Islam has much with these terrorists if you see it or not.  The fact is, with Islam these people would not be comitting suicide to enter Martyrdom.  Extremists are just that, extremists... there are extremist christians all over this country, all though they do not kill people there are extremists.   Just because they are christian in there own mind does not mean they represent the whole of christianity any more than Islamic Extremists do for Islam.  I disagree that the term Islamic Terrorist applies to all Muslims and have yet to hear any reputable american news agency say it does.

I don�t think you would say that if you were a Muslim, especially one of the ones who was unjustly arrested after the 9/11 incident, or those living in London since the train bombings.  You may realize that the term �Islamic Terrorism� does not refer to all Muslims; however, it is a term that incites hate and violence against many innocent people.  It plants seeds of distain and distrust.  Furthermore, it is simply wrong.  Regardless of what you think, there is no such thing as �Islamic Terrorism�; it is a meaningless phrase, nothing more than an oxymoron with no real purpose other than to incite anger and violence. 

In Islam, there are only three situations in which killing is lawful:  1.) a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, 2.) Harj (one who has murdered someone unlawfully), and 3.) Jihad (one who wages war against Allah and His Apostle).  (Vol 6, Book 60, Hadith 134, Bukhari) (Qur�an 25:68-70)

There is a big different between Harj and Jihad.  Harj is illegal killing (murdering that is forbidden by Islam) and Jihad which can entail killing bases on self defense as a means to protect oneself from religious oppression.  What is going on with terrorist is clearly Harja and not Jihad. 

In Vol 8, Book 82 of Bukhari�s Hadiths, Hadith 800B, speaks of what happens to a believer when he/she commits a major sin such as adultery, consuming alcohol, theft and murder. It states that when a believer commits a major sin, he/she at that moment is not a believer.  So, when a person commits murder (Harj), at the time he/she does so, he/she is not a believer.

Khadija1021 wrote: Rocitreal, it doesn�t matter if terrorists read the same book as other Muslims do or if they pray in the same mosques.

rocitreal wrote: I disagree, i think that makes them part of the Islamic community.

The issue here is whether what they do when they commit terrorist acts is ordained by Allah and Islam, thus making their acts a true part of Islam.  I know you want to make that connection; however, even if they say and believe they are doing it in the name of Allah doesn�t make it so.  I think part of the problem here is that you are anti-religion and thus you think religion is responsible for all of the world�s atrocities.  But, it is not religion that causes such, but rather man.  Only Allah knows what is in a person�s heart. 

Khadija1021 wrote: That doesn�t make their terrorist actions �Islamic� in any way shape or form.  The KKK in the US (to this very day mind you) use biblical text to support their illogical reasoning.  They read the same bible as Christians and they pray in the same churches.  Some have even been ministers.  In all aspects, these men are terrorists.

rocitreal wrote: They are terrorists your right, there very distorted in there views of there religion.  There religion is a major part of there belief structure as americans do understand and recognize.  I can see them being called christian terrorists, i do not diagree with that label nor do i feel that it would apply to all christains.

How can one justly apply such a negative �phrase� to a religion for the behaviors of someone whose actions are based upon what you call their distorted religion views?  Is it the fault of the religion that some people do this?...Or merely the distorted views of those who have their own personal agendas?

rocitreal wrote: Have you done research on the acts conducted by the Taliban when they were in control of Afganistan ?  I think Barbaric is very suitable.

Rocitreal, I am not trying to defend the acts of the Taliban.  I�m not saying that their acts were not horrendous.  I am only stating that you cannot blame their deeds on Islam.  Or call those acts Islamic in any way, shape or form.

rocitreal wrote: To me, your following statement you made reflected that the people of Afganistan were as a majority wanting the Taliban in power.

I said no such thing.  I only said that recent polls indicate that the majority of Afghanistans would prefer to have the Taliban back over having the Americans there now.   

Khadija1021 wrote: you have to let people take care of their own problems�especially when they are telling you that is what they want to do.

rocitreal wrote: Is this not what you mean when you say "they are telling you that is what they want to do" (have the Taliban in power) ?

Actually, I was referring to Iraq.

Khadija1021 wrote: Doesn�t a country have the right to say, �Go home!�

rocitreal wrote: Yes they do, in fact most from my understanding wanted the Taliban to go home back to Pakistan.  They sure wernt listening were they.

I will not argue with you if you are speaking of a time before the US invaded Iraq.  However, it appears that if Afghanistans have to choose between two evils (i.e., the US and the Taliban), at this time, they would pick the Taliban.  I�m sure they would rather have other options; however, sadly, that is not life in the Middle-East right now.

Khadija1021 wrote: How would you like it if you called someone to help rid your home of a problem and they came to help but made a giant mess and they decided to stay to �help clean up the mess� when all that you got was simply more mess?  Wouldn�t you want them to go home?  And if you could not clean up the mess alone, wouldn�t you want to have the right to call someone else to come help you?

rocitreal wrote: When has the elected Afgan government said "go home" and ask for others to come and help only to have the US say no ? i never heard about that, is this in your report as well ?  Also, scense 911 there have always been many many countries involved in Afganistan besides america.

Once again, when I made the statement about �Go Home�, it was regarding the situation in Iraq.  My statement about Afghanistan was merely about the poll which showed that the majority of them are now more in support of the Taliban than the US.  I never said their government officials ask the US to leave. 

Khadija1021 wrote: if Iraq needs stabilization, THAT IS WHAT THE UN IS FOR!!!!!

rocitreal wrote: Most UN military countries are involved in Afganistan currently, the UN doesnt want the Iraq problem nor do they have hundreds of thousands of peace keepers to send in.  Many of the peace keepers they do have are american.  Furthermore, peace keepers dont have guns to shoot the suicide bombers with nor do they have armered vehicles.  They would be killed very quickly by the extremist nuts (is that a label you will agree with).

If I�m not mistaken, India has offered to help Iraq with stabilization but only if the US pulls out.  Are you going to sit there and tell me that there have not been more incidents of car bombing and such acts because of the US�s presence in Iraq?  War is never pretty especially when someone is up against the US and especially when so many others are opposed to the occupation.  I am not going to sit here and justify extremist behaviors regardless of who�s behind them. 

Khadija1021 wrote: And please don�t get me started on WWII and the Germans�I promise what I have to say about the US and Britian in that great atrocity will not be something you will enjoy reading.

rocitreal wrote: Please dont tell me your one of these people that think the Americans conspired with the Nazi's or are there equals.  You seem very sensable.  Id love to hear your arguments against America and the UK in ww2 who were defending and clearly under major attack first by the enemy.

No, I was referring to the fact that Britain (Churchill) knew that Hitler was killing massive numbers of people long before they let on they knew; however, Churchill kept Britain and the US busy with other things (�the soft underbelly� I think it was referred to at the time) instead of going in to stop the killings.  And no, despite what many believe, I do not believe that Americans want to destroy the rest of the world.  However, I do believe that GWB gives others that impression with his war tactics.  He needs a �big bad wolf� so that he can justify his actions.  I�m simply tired of Americans having to suffer the consequence of his actions.  The invasion of Iraq was not legal, I think that is exactly why he doesn�t want to pull out if Iraq.  He doesn�t want to admit he was wrong or appear to be either.  At this point it�s a pride thing.  He�s still trying to prove to his father that he can finish what he thought his dad should have finished long ago.  Well, truth of the matter is that no Bush is going to do a good job in the Presidential seat.  They are all too egotistical and power hungry and they do not have the people�s best interest at heart.  Their sense of humanitarianism is to give another tax break to the rich.

PAZ, Khadija

Ro, before you go quoting versus  from the Qur'an mak sure you understand the relevance and their history before you say that thes eversus advocate violence.