Print Page | Close Window

How to NOT categorize women

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Description: General Discussion
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9417
Printed Date: 31 October 2024 at 4:46pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: How to NOT categorize women
Posted By: Israfil
Subject: How to NOT categorize women
Date Posted: 28 May 2007 at 9:40am

Salaam,

I made this post specifically for Crass but anyone can join. I'm not trying to maliciously single Crass out in anyway but I noticed the style of writing he has is very different than most of the members of the forum. I'm intrigued in how a woman, well, a western woman, can be a "fornicatrous" person just because of her nationality, which is, either being American or European. Allow me shed some light on the subject.

First let me say that in some instances there is nothing wrong with categorizing things I mean, we do it naturally. I believe the thalamus controls the function of categorizing objects and organizing them into comprehensible forms and patterns. Now of course we need this to help us survive in the world and understand our environement. From a sociological perspective we need to categorize people in order to know the different classes of people [such as different ethnic groups etc] so that our interaction with them is appropriate. However we come to a point where we overanalyze people by categorizing them in inappropriate classes of people such as calling "all western women" promiscuous.

We must understand that extramartial affairs, promiscuity, exhibitionism and all the like are in almost every part of civilized societies. By civilized I mean nations which have established governments [or some form of government] this includes third world nations. One cannot even categorize all women into one category as there is no one person to fit exactly one or more of the same category. People are people and everyone is different with their different modes and behavior. Regardless whether one has the negative experience in a country's people or a good experience, still, everyone is different.

I've met many women in the States who are hard working, very religious, and righteous [at least in my eyes] people. I've met some righteous women here who are kind hearted and God oriented. The difference between them and us is some of them share a different religion than us. But we cannot justify our biases by categorizing them just because they are from a different country. There is no poll or statistics on the earth that supports the categorization of a group of people simply because of the behavior of a few. One cannot poll a billion people and come to the conclusion that all one billion of those people have the same behavior. It's ridiculous. We are different just like the different line patterns on our palms.

 

 

 




Replies:
Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 28 May 2007 at 3:27pm

Well it is easy to "lump" people together. And well we realyl should deal with people on an individual level. 

It is like when I talk to people here- Moslem women they categorize all Pakistani women are "x." And I tell them it is not so.

There are Some women in the world who have free sex and such. That is true all over. But most women are not. Many women are actually repelled by that. They actually give up "dating" cause they do not like that lifestyle. Unfortunately a certain percentage of women have poor judgement and vlaue skills. And they pay a heavy price even on the level that gee that cannot be at peace and happy.

 



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 28 May 2007 at 3:52pm

The key thing you said sister Hafya was "it is easy to lump people together." People with prejudices [and everyone of us has them] categorize things because of our own experiences. The example you gave me [with the Muslim women categorizing Pakistani women] was a similar situation I myself run into. For instance I recently had a conversation with a Latino gentleman. Our conversation went well. When we discussed our favorite genre of music he asked me "do you like rap?" I asked him what makes you think I like rap? With reluctance he said, "Well, don't black people like rap?"

As you can see obviously from his experience [BTW which stems from media projections] had the assumption that all blacks listen to rap. By the way my favorite genre of music is Jazz, then opera, then classical, then rap [R&B]. Even people try to categorize a group through subtle language such as saying "a lot" and by emphasizing a lot they really mean say everyone. For example, a person may say "A lot of Pakistani women do X, because that is what they do." I don't mean to get technical here but let me support what I just said. From the previous premise "A lot of Pakistani women do X" can be said to be an assumption because it is a general statement. Then, it is thus supported by the second part with "because that is what they do." So unfortunately it is not just the experiences that may lead to incorrect categorization but following this, is our language.

Women much like any human on this planet are individuals no matter what country they reside from. It is just unfortunate that humans such as some men, would use what they see either on television or from experience as the core thing to generalize all women.

 



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 29 May 2007 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:


Salaam,

I've met many women in the States who are hard working, very religious, and righteous [at least in my eyes] people. I've met some righteous women here who are kind hearted and God oriented.

Salaam,

I wish them all the best. In absence of a community, it is hard, however, to transmit such values to the children.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

The difference between them and us is some of them share a different religion than us.

As I said, I consider "functioning" Christianity vastly superior to atheism, even though "functioning" Christianity has very much of an inclination to create a class-based society, which will eventually shake off Christianity again, in an attempt to shake off the class problem. So, atheism will re-emerge again, and all its related problems. And then we're back to square one.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

But we cannot justify our biases by categorizing them just because they are from a different country.

I think they are just trapped. Even criminals are actually just trapped in a society that happily produces them.

It is hard to go against the mainstream. If you are born in a broken family somewhere in an American inner city, and grow up with other kids, who are attracted to the wrong values, you will probably end up doing the same as them, whatever that may be.

So, my rant against family breakdown, crime, prostitution, is not really a condemnation of individuals. Most of these individuals have very limited choices.

Men are more easily forgiven by the community for trespassing. Women, however, are more readily categorized for life. Therefore, women may have a stronger vested interest in defending the very system that trapped them, and reject going back to tradition. That is a political problem. As such, the problem prevents a fix of the problem. And then the problem gets even more entrenched.

They even take the issue to the extreme, by exporting the problem to other countries, and create the same problems there too. The United States have too much power, than is good for themselves, or than is good for the rest of the world.

If they were still majoritarian Christian, the export of depravity would be seriously less than it is today. Christianity does not function, however, without being state religion. So, the problem was built in from the very start. And Christians would have shaken off Church and state-enforcement anyway. The Reformation was inevitable, just like the French Revolution. It is no coincidence that Christianity produced this spate of atheism.

It is also no coincidence that the bureaucratic state endorses atheism. The more people are disconnected through extended and nuclear family breakdown, the more power the bureaucratic state has over individuals. The end of an empire is characterized by rampant depravity, extreme taxation, and deluges of new laws that interfere with every aspect of life. The empire is just using the women against the men, in order to have more power over both.

The empire will, however, become its own victim in extending its power over individuals, because it takes more than just an individual to raise the next generation.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 29 May 2007 at 9:04pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

It is just unfortunate that humans such as some men, would use what they see either on television or from experience as the core thing to generalize all women.

It is not because the West does not enforce a social norm, that there is no social norm. On the contrary, there is still a social norm, which is free-floating, and enforces itself.

It is this social norm that generalizes itself. If the social norm dictates that casual sex is the normal thing to do, and that dating is outdated, that is exactly what the vast majority will do.

A hundred years ago, you would go to her father and ask for her hand. That was the social norm then. If you do this today, you are considered a lunatic. Today you meet through casual sex, which obviously doesn't blossom into a relationship, and therefore, the next time you get drunk, you just have casual sex with someone else.

Don't ask teenagers to go against the social norms enforced by their peer group. It doesn't work. The only solution is to keep them away from such peer group.

So, I disagree with your statement. Social norms DO generalize themselves across the majority of the population.

These women are not like that, because they want to, but because their environment forces them to. It is peer pressure that does it. So, keep your kids away from there.



Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 29 May 2007 at 11:13pm
I agree with you Crasss, better spell your Crasss with 3 sses or else I would be seen rude.


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 30 May 2007 at 3:12pm

Crasss,

I believe you are wrong, there are many women who want to return to traditional values.  Women are fighting against abortion, women are fighting for more wholesome entertainment.  Women are fighting spousal abuse and pornography. 

Western women are one of the fastest growing groups converting to Islam.  Women are trying to focus on their families in a world that just invents new ways to pull them away. 

In my own state, popular clothing goes below the knees, covers the shoulders and does not show cleavage.  Girls are encouraged to get educations, marry in the temple (something you can't do if you're having premarital sex) and raise families.  Boys are encouarged to serve the Lord for 2 years on a religious mission and marry soon after returning.  Focus is on chasity, modesty and clean living.  We do not drink and do not smoke. 

Our church has grown from 3 million in 1980 to almost 13 million today. 

If western women were so impure, why would they be turning to faiths like Islam and Mormonism????

Do you think that women like the images of scantily clad women who are emaciated gracing TV?  No.  Women in this country have to fight harder to teach their kids to rise above the media perceptions of what is right and wrong.  But that doesn't mean they aren't fighting.

I really blame alot of our troubles on the rich and on men.  If men were more faithful, there wouldn't be so much spousal abuse, child abuse and broken homes. 

Its easy to blame the woman.  But who is paying for the pornography and strip clubs?  Who is creating the atmosphere?  If the daughter was abused by her father and then kicked out at 18 with no money.  Who is it that is to blame if she turns to prostitution to survive?  She should have been protected and cared for by the men in her family.  Or should she turn to another man and marry quickly to escape, who is to blame when she shows up at the hospital with broken bones?

I get upset when men blame the women for all the ills.  Most prostitutes started life out with the world against them.  Abusive families, parents with addictions.  A girl from a good home doesn't turn to these things.

I've worked for domestic violence shelter and for a home for children who were victims of abuse.  These problems are cross cultural and without boundaries.

With state-run television, the problems aren't talked about openly in other areas.  Its not that the US is necessarily worse, its just more open about our problems.  If they didn't occur in Middle Eastern or Asian nations.  You wouldn't hear about stonings, hangings and beatings for immorality. 

The tight lipped approach doesn't eradicate these issues, it just drives them underground.

There is no difference in the pitiful plight of a western woman with an education being mistreated by society and a woman forbidden to get an education who can't make better of her life in a society that doesn't practice what it preaches.

 



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 30 May 2007 at 6:47pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I believe you are wrong, there are many women who want to return to traditional values.

I am sure quite a few would want to. However, I doubt they can. They would have to row against a strong current, and few people manage this.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Western women are one of the fastest growing groups converting to Islam.

To the extent that the outcome in the West and its lifestyle is more devastating to women than to men, I understand that they are seeking a solution more urgently.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

If western women were so impure, why would they be turning to faiths like Islam and Mormonism????

As I said, I think Mormonism is superior to no religion at all. However, that is where the comparison to Islam ends for me.

Overall, http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm - the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate.

Since it is family breakdown that is the underlying driver underneath the current depravity fest, I doubt Mormonism is the solution. The followers are undoubtedly too westernized and too influenced by the mainstream to make a difference.

You need to keep separate in every possible way, in order to make a dent. And that is hard, when the extended families are weak or non-existent and there is an enormous government around enforcing its views in private family matters, and interfering in every possible aspect of family life.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

She should have been protected and cared for by the men in her family.

These men cannot protect her against herself. If they do, the massive bureaucracy will interfere and impose its depraved views.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I get upset when men blame the women for all the ills.

The authority of the father gets usurped by a government that defines freedom as the right to sleep around, and have others pay for the consequences.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

A girl from a good home doesn't turn to these things.

If a sufficient proportion of the girls in the peer group do it, she will too.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

Its not that the US is necessarily worse, its just more open about our problems...The tight lipped approach doesn't eradicate these issues, it just drives them underground.

The secret lies in managing the social norm. If you don't, it manages itself.
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

There is no difference in the pitiful plight of a western woman with an education being mistreated by society and a woman forbidden to get an education who can't make better of her life in a society that doesn't practice what it preaches.

You can't on the one side expect male family members to enforce the social norm, and at the same time, clamour abuse all the time. You can't have it both ways.

If men enforce the social norm in the West, they are facing the government. What is the result? Nobody does anything any more. What's more, men generally don't want to marry any longer in the West. Even cohabitating is being abandoned.

Now, I don't advocate doing anything about it. Why? Because I don't believe the problem can be corrected. Most people will not change. They grew up like that.

Only Islam manages to an important extent to keep out the depraved western influence and resist integrating with the mainstream. But then again, these communities reject marriage with westernized outsiders. They are right to do that. I would do exactly the same. I wouldn't want my children to marry westernized outsiders.

In the meanwhile, I still believe one should marry, but to heed (Islamic) common sense: do not marry any wife who is not religious, is no virgin, or whose parents are divorced. That rule excludes the vast majority of western women, and reflects what I think about them: stay away from trouble.

For most women in the West, it is simply "game over". They can try a feeble attempt, if some man is crazy or st**id enough to try, and probably fail at that anyway, or follow the mainstream and necessarily limit oneself to casual sex with strangers, and increasingly catch all kind of diseases, end up with an illegitimate child, and produce the next wave of crime, rampant fornication, and prostitution.

The solution will only begin, when western governments finally collapse over their own policies, so that they cannot interfere any longer with family matters. By then, it will be too late for most.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 30 May 2007 at 8:49pm

Crass,

I agree with you regarding the social culture makes people who do not want to live this "free" lifestyle they battle a uphill battle. The "free" lifestyle is constantly around you and the message seep through.

I do agree with Angela that people are trying. I think it is easier to raise kids with stronger moral values in rural areas.

I also tend to think it has alot to do with how people view marriage and relationships. People think "love" is the main part but really, that is an "extra" bonus in a sense to shared moral values, respect and actually basic decency and such.

And the only thing is that to assume that all these women are sleeping around. And there are some but not most people. It is just one aspect of a society that focuses on the individual rather then the collective and has many other problems besides sexual morality.



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 30 May 2007 at 10:04pm
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

I do agree with Angela that people are trying. I think it is easier to raise kids with stronger moral values in rural areas.

You can do it in an urban area too. Live close together with other Muslims, and ward off any western influence. Especially, don't let the kids hang out with westernized kids. And keep as much as you can to the extended family, if you hopefully have one.
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

I also tend to think it has alot to do with how people view marriage and relationships. People think "love" is the main part but really, that is an "extra" bonus in a sense to shared moral values, respect and actually basic decency and such.

Marriage is a survival method, and not a way to satisfy romantic desires, even though it lends itself to that too. In an overly wealthy society, it is easy to lose track of what really matters, especially if the government keeps picking up the bill for destructive behaviour.
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

And the only thing is that to assume that all these women are sleeping around. And there are some but not most people.

They have little choice. No man is going to show up on their doorstep to see her father and ask for her hand. They can wait forever.

So, they agree to have sex without marriage, which of course, further reduces the incentive to marry. As a man, you can have sex anyway.  Why marry?

And also, since she is giving it away without marriage commitment, she's going to give it away after marriage too. It's hard to drop bad habits. Most people can't. You can't trust any woman you met in that way. It's also very dangerous. No man wants to get caught up in divorce proceedings. So, that means: no marriage.

If she doesn't start giving it away, others will. So, that doesn't help either, because there still won't be anyone with serious proposals at the door. In the western mainstream, it doesn't pay to remain chaste. It's increasingly either casual sex or else nothing. The dynamics have moved in that direction. Nobody in the mainstream can avoid that.

You have to keep yourself and the kids out of the western mainstream, if you don't like these dynamics. The more you integrate, the more you or the kids will be in trouble.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 1:01am

Society is not some isolated entity. Family also developes social norms as well but sometimes people within such social norms do not act within the macrocosm of society. By the way, the illusion of "free sex without consequences" is not something totally isolated to Western countries. Like I said unreported groups within highly religious countries have these activities it is just not as noticeable and visible as it is here.

 



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 1:28am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Like I said unreported groups within highly religious countries have these activities it is just not as noticeable and visible as it is here.

Of course.

However, these highly religious countries do not let the social norm freely float and degenerate to whatever next. They keep enforcing the same social norm as ever.

So, people who want to break the rule in those countries, will still do so by dating, and generally not move on to casual sex with strangers. Self-evidently, as soon as dating is allowed to become the social norm, they will break the rule by getting into casual sex.

One day or the other, the situation in the West will be so far degenerated, that they will have to intervene, and enforce a social norm anyway. And then we're back to square one, as this whole idea of "freedom" consisted in not enforcing any norm at all.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 9:28am

God gave us free will to chose right and wrong.  When society forces any norm, people will rebel.  I use the example of Saudi Arabia often.  Unlike the Afghani people, they cannot blame poverty and lack of educational resources for their failings.  I'm quite sure there is a fine line between encouraging proper behavior and tyranny.  When school girls are not allowed to flee fire because they are not properly covered, this becomes a problem.  Those girls were not running out of a school to show themselves off.  They were just trying to survive.  The moral police should have let them out and then gathered them in a safe place.  If they were really concerned for these young girls, they would have got them to safety and then sent some officers to get hijabs for them. 

Western women have to walk a fine line between being objectified and losing their god given freedom.  The Quran states a woman is not property, she is a person in her own right.

You say about men FORCING morality.  That is wrong.  There is no compulsion in religion.  A good, loving, caring and dutiful father will have his daughters undying loyalty.  He won't have to force anything.  She would have been taught right and wrong and will want to find a husband like her father. 

Women look for men who represent what they know.  If the father is a controlling abusive tyrant.  The girl thinks that's what a man should be.  If the father is loving and responsible.  The girl will want that.

If the parents show their kids what a loving marriage can be, the children will want the same.  Arranged or not.  If a girl trusts her parents and has no reason to fear, wouldn't she be more likely to accept a match that was made?  Especially if the parents make her part of the decision making process.  No woman wants to spend the rest of her life with someone that is a stranger. 

I turned to God dispite my parents.  They call themselves Christian but never go to Church...anywhere.  I would not have trusted my father to make a good match.  He didn't always treat my mother well and my mother was not the type to put herself on the line if he made a decision about us kids.

Women in the west date because they want to find the best man.  We want to decide for ourselves.  Women were nothing but property only 100+ years ago.  When you force women into such horrid conditions the pendulum swings equally the other way when that force is removed.  But like any pendulum, it will swing back and forth until the middle is found.

The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) tried to remove the force and oppression of women.  He order female infantcide to stop.  He gave the woman property rights and the right to chose her husband.  He gave her the right to divorce and to make her own decisions.  Her male relatives are not suppose to force anything on her.  They are to protect her from... other men. 

If your daughter's husband is beating her, its your responsibility to protect her.  That is not to say, its your right to force her to divorce him. 

If your wife doesn't clean the house because she's tired.  Its not your right to beat her for disobedience.

The problem with your idea of forced morality is that it leaves no place for a woman to exercise her God ordained rights as an individual.  If a woman wants to live alone, have 50 cats and work for herself.  That's her right.  If she wants to marry a man who will let her work outside of the house, then she better put it in the martial contract and be firm with her soon to be husband. 

Forcing young girls only causes them to rebel.  My mother kept me from sleeping around by being open with me.  She never told me no, but she did educate me on all of the consequences.  She set an example and encouraged me to follow it. 

Morality is taught by the mother.  Not the father.  Its not the father who shapes his daughters views of right and wrong.  Its the mother.  The father shapes the girls views of the world.  If he's cruel and unjust, she will thing the world is like that.  If she sees her mother as the victim, she will become one. 

If her mother is immoral, then she won't get morality from her father, no matter how he forces the situation.  There is a reason God gave women the priviledge of childbirth and told men to get out into the fields and work. 

Gender roles are defined for a reason, but neither is superior to the other.  Taking away freedom does not correct morality.  It only harms the people its intended to protect.

(I also have to state, that among our beliefs, the removal of free will is Satan's plan.  You are only rewarded with Heaven if you of your own free will obey God.  Your obedience must be tested.  It cannot be forced.)



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 10:50am

Forced Morality= No Freedom.

 



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 11:30am

And also, since she is giving it away without marriage commitment, she's going to give it away after marriage too. It's hard to drop bad habits. Most people can't. You can't trust any woman you met in that way. It's also very dangerous. No man wants to get caught up in divorce proceedings. So, that means: no marriage.

This is not true Crass. Really. People grow up and change.

Plus you make it like woman A is bad. Man is good. Wants no divorce. Come on. You make men sound like pillars of the community.

You cannot lock people away. Eventualyl people must be allowed to make their own decisions as well as their own mistakes.

It is like you are saying men are men and women are wither pure or prostitutes. And really all women should staty away from western men who are not not virgins. Really both should be virgins upon their marraige. If he did it before, he'll do it again.

 



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

But like any pendulum, it will swing back and forth until the middle is found.

There is very little room for experimentation in this field. If one generation fundamentally fails in raising the next one, it is basically game over.

The generalization of family breakdown predicts a near future of runaway crime and prostitution in the West. These problems are bound to go through the roof.

At the same time, the population in the West is aging and increasingly dependent on the next generation, that is relatively small, and that they generally failed to raise. These new generations won't get married and successfully raise a next generation. Forget that.

Retirement benefits, medical costs, welfare: all trends point in the direction of state bankrupcy. It is virtually impossible that this system makes it beyond the year 2050, and chances are that it collapses much sooner than that. Look at these insanely rich countries today. Their pensioners will be begging in the streets tomorrow. The same for the single mothers. When the system is gone, it will be gone forever.

Don't buy into their propaganda and don't let them influence the kids.

I am actually not advocating any fix, or a patch for a fix of a previous fix. Whatever anybody does, it won't make a difference to the mainstream. The inevitable will happen anyway. I think arguing about the merits or lack of merit of the modern approach is a bit pointless. The proof will be in the pudding.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 31 May 2007 at 2:21pm

Well, there has to be a reason that Revelations says so few will be saved.  But to lay the blame of wickedness on women is wrong. 

You would love to demonize every western woman.  But, guess what....that single mother didn't get there on her own.  There was a man involved...very involved.  Why didn't he step up?  Why is she single? 

You point out divorce rates.  Where is the cliche?  The man who leaves his wife of 15 years for a younger woman.  Not the woman running out on the man. 

The guys in at my college had a competition on how many freshman girls they could get.  Most of the girls are relative innocents, yet its the guys who are actively hunting them.

In India, they are having serious problems with the youth wanting to date and avoid arranged marriages.  But, more than that, they are having problems with men marrying women and then killing them when their families fail to pay the dowry.  Or after the dowry is paid, leaving never to be seen again.  Women are forced into abortions of female fetuses and there is really no way for them to escape abusive husbands. 

YET, they flipped a gasket when Richard Gere kissed a friend on the cheek.  Now, may I ask where their priorities are?  There is a society that supposedly focuses on chasity and morality, yet huge abuses are happening.

Its not western women that are evil.  I get the impression that you have a huge problem with women to begin with.  I often wonder what it is about women that scares men.  Paradise is at a Mother's feet.  Yet, the idea that a woman can be strong and intelligent absolutely scares men. 

In the end, it was women who were the greatest support to Muhammed (pbuh).  Khadijah, Fatima, Aisha...  It was a woman who was the first martyr.  Many of the hadiths begin with women approaching the Prophet and asking questions.  How could they have done this if they were locked away?????

You seem to lack a basic respect for women.  Its not the woman, its the environment.  Who created the environment?????  Women have only had the right to vote in this country for 88 years. 

Slavery, oppression, war... taxes, interest, poor being paid little...

Its not the 3ft piece of cloth on a woman's head that makes her pure.  Its not the length of a man's beard or his kufi that makes him pious.  Its whats in a persons heart. 

The women are forced to deal with the mess, and often the only way they can.  How many of us know grandmothers who are raising the children of their sons and daughters.  How many women have husbands behind bars?  How many women find themselves without support after their husband leaves? 

What happens to the widows of war?  If you are in an environment that forbids absolutely the mixing of sexes then what happens when the husband dies?  The woman has to beg for charity or become a burden to her aging parents... or worse her child must work before they are grown.

I don't think the answer is forcing women into Abayas and forbidding all kinds of contact.  I think men need to learn to control themselves and not be such pigs.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 01 June 2007 at 4:11am
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

But, guess what....that single mother didn't get there on her own.  There was a man involved...very involved.  Why didn't he step up?  Why is she single?...You would love to demonize every western woman.





Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 01 June 2007 at 9:58am
When I started this thread I did it with the intention of not discussing sociology, rather, discussing specifically not to categorize women in the West.


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 01 June 2007 at 10:04am

Sorry Israfil, but where do you think stereotypes come from?

Stereotypes are a product of the perceptions of one groups social order by another.  They are often false and oversimplified.

Non-Westerners see the Big Cities and Hollywood productions and think that is what all americans are like.  Yet they never see the small towns and average americans.  

I noticed the response to your statement about prejudice towards black reverts.  Why do you think that is?  I have known alot of very wonderful Black Americans who live in a variety of areas.  None of them were anything like the stereotypes of young black americans.  They were not hiphop.   

Just like you not wanting Rappers to represent you, I don't want Victoria Secret models to represent me.  Its all about sociology and prejudice.

 



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 01 June 2007 at 2:00pm

Angela I agree with your definition on stereotypes, and yes most foreigners assume that America is about "John Wayne" movies and glamor when its more than that. Although your definition of stereotypes is quite correct I believe stereotypes stem from not just what people perceive from media but from her say from others of the same group based on experiences. Now as far as the black reverts are concerned I don't think I made any references of that in this thread although I did make the example of the gentleman I spoke with who assumed I listend to rap.

I used that example because it was a similar remark a few threads made by Crasss. It was to show how dumb assumptions are especially when you classify one group in one box according to your experiences. I find categories of any kind (even religious) unfair and inaccurate. This is why I don't [for the purpose of maintaining the belief that God is beyond my own senses] do not assign attributes to God save what is accorded by religious tradition.

Angela because you asked the question about the black reverts I will answer it and I ask for forgiveness for slightly derailing the thread. I'm glad you asked because I want people to know what I think. Aside from black being the "black sheep" in Islam and other religions I find blacks globally to be the most disadvantaged [notice as I said before my opinion is biased so obviously others will disagree]. The reason I say this is because there has been no other ethnic group historically recorded to ever have been taken advantaged  for their physiology [because they took the best and strongest slaves in West Africa] and use that to take advantage of them. No other group has ever lost a culture, language, tradition, like Africans.

In the United States one can make the argument for Native Americans and that would be a good argument, however Native Americans regardless of tribe, have a culture, have a language and have a tradition so few members know. Black Americans don't. They talk about Jews being massacred when over 400 MILLION [as some estimates put it] blacks were enslaved. Languages of tribes were lost and replaced with colonial tradition so for some of us we call this the "Black Holocaust." As far as the world is concerned, being black not just simply being dark skinned but being black is looked at in a negative way. Blacks historically have even been coerced to hate their own skin tone during slavery. Even in the world Black Africans were not seen highly in other cultures and in their religions. Speaking of religion this reason was used to justify taking blacks into captivity. I've even read that Arab Muslims, when travelling in the North African region did a similar thing. Some Moors didn't willingly adopt Islam and fought against the travelling Arab Muslim army of course you won't hear that.

Now when we come to religion why do think black reverts get worse treatment? For the same reason why I think Blacks historically have been mistreated.



Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 01 June 2007 at 3:50pm

I agree with you on the horrid conditions that many blacks have felt over the millenia.  Religion has been used as an excuse for racism.  There is no one worse off than black women.  Sadly, many of the single mothers Crasss is so quick to blame are poor black women with little community and little hope.

I am a big proponent of marriage.  But, to blame single mothers for their situations is short sighted.  I have a good friend who is an attorney in New York now.  She was raised by a single mother.  She's hardworking, dedicated and loves to serve.  We were in Alpha Phi Omega together.  APO is a coed community service fraternity.  I remember her leadership skills quite well.  Her mother did a fantastic job instilling morals, values and accomplishments.

I also remember the girls in the school who partied the hardest.  They came from married, wealthy families that had little time to concern themselves with religion, children or responsibility. A former roommate of mine intentionally broke her $2000 laptop because she wanted a new one. 

There are many hardworking moral women in this country.  And a lot of hardworking Latinos, Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Eastern Europeans and Polynesians. 

I get upset when people judge anyone based on media or even cultural perceptions.  You can see my hair and elbows.  But that does not make me an adulteress.  Nor would I ever cheat on my husband.  The idea that because I was born and raised in the west that I'm somehow morally bankrupt bothers me.

Same with the idea that single mothers are somehow less moral.  Not all of them started out single.  Some were married, or had long lasting relationships.  Some were young women taken advantage of. 

With divorce rates of 52%, there are lots of single mothers who had their babies in wedlock. 

Even of those that didn't.  Not every one of them subscribes to Judeo-Christian religions.  We are a society of many faiths.  You cannot force the values of one on all.

To be truthful, men (and women) who want to catagorize a group based off of their shortsighted and bigoted viewpoint will do that no matter what the reality.  Its mankind's natural arrogance that leads them to think their way is always right and they are superior because of it.  If we didn't have this arrogance, the events of the Tower of Babel would never have happened and we would all still be speaking the language of Adam.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 01 June 2007 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

I am a big proponent of marriage.

Better no marriage than one with the wrong person. I am a big proponent of carefully selecting such marriage partner. Even western men seem to have figured out that much. They seem to be on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike - marriage strike .

So, western women have managed to paint themselves into a corner: Generally unwanted for marriage by western men, and simply unsuitable for marriage with traditional men.

Religious, virgin, and no divorced parents. Voila. Not negotiable.

I had to travel halfway the planet to find someone untainted by western depravity, and believe me, it's worth it. My advice: Don't pick your wife in the middle of the western fornication fest.

Concerning African-American women, I feel sorry for the fact that they are so affected by that western anti-culture. 

In fact, about 70-percent of black children are born to single moms.

This is a good example of what happens when a minority "integrates". The message is clear. Keep your own culture, traditions, and religion, and stay clear from the western mainstream, or else go under.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 01 June 2007 at 5:50pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

No other group has ever lost a culture, language, tradition, like Africans.

It's a disaster. You can't keep fishing in that pond.

If you marry an African-American, she won't satisfy the criteria, and you are heading for divorce and other calamities. And even in the unlikely event that it worked, the kids will in turn start fishing in the wrong pond. We're talking about seriously toxic waters.

There are two viable strategies possible. One, you find an identifiable subgroup that has better characteristics and consistently rejects the main group, or two, you abandon ship, and culturally join another group, which is more resilient to depravity.

You don't need to move race altogether. There are very interesting Somali blacks, for example. They seem to be determined to hang on to a firmly ingrained islamic culture, and to Islam in general. Of course, they're at war with the American fornicating empire of evil. (What did you expect ...)

But then again, you really need to abandon that dysfunctional African-American white-destroyed Christian-misled subculture, and save yourself, or all your efforts for yourself or your children will be in vain. That dysfunctional subculture is dead-end.

There are probably other viable Islamic black cultures around, besides the Somalis, especially in eastern Africa, that are definitely worth investigating.

Look at the community. Is it cohesive? Are they sufficiently anti-western? Seriously religious? Not too much divorce? Few single mothers? Low level of illegitimacy? Headscarves and hijab everywhere?

Ok, then you can start figuring out a religious, virgin, no-divorced-parents' bride, and hopefully make a compelling offer that they can accept. Since you're religiously serious and you can make a living, you should be able to convince a family somewhere. I am confident you can find a cute one with a pleasant personality, in addition to her religious zeal and religiously guarded chastity.

I wouldn't bother with wealth or degrees. That's not going to save your arse from divorce or prevent the kids from joining in on the western depravity fest. On the contrary, the more exposed to western-style education, the more likely they bought in to the underlying depravity.

Poor is ok. As long as they are decent, religious, honest, chaste, with an elaborate sense of honour. Farmers tend to be more reliable than urban people in that respect.

From there on, I would say, bye bye to the evil fornicating empire.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 2:11am

Angela,

Forgive me as my post was emotional and from what I read frustrating!

I guess what gets me is that we so called religious people justify our biases and our prejudices by using our religion as a sort of a crutch for our reasoning. I think humanity has great potential when the humans focus on other humans. As far as women and men are concerned this too applies. So many times have I seen men mistreat women. So many times have I seen women being mistreated simply because of the pre-existing stereotype that "all women are good for is breeding."

When this type of categorization comes into play as a social norm it sickens me. I see similar attitudes in my own faith. It seems as I have said many many times here that culture supercedes faith. It is shown here when people tend to make references to me about "staying within your own group." Of course such a mentality is fueled by the pre-existing philosophies of that individual's culture and not by reason. If I were an extraterrestrial i'd say the human race is so primitive it wouldn't be worth taking it over because we are all concerned about what is so great about our individual culture that we don't look at the broader picture which is the preservation of the human race and that includes the equal treatment of women regardless of national/ethic status.



Posted By: number41
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 3:49am
......If I were an extraterrestrial i'd say the human race is so primitive it wouldn't be worth taking it ..... and all we need to do is...We just need to fix ourselves.... we have the power to become whatever we wants to. Fix the man and you will fix the world!

-------------
'When one bright intellect meets another bright intellect, the light increases and the Path becomes clear' � Rumi


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 3:56am

Hey Crass,

 

iT is great you say to say within in one's own "culture" but then you tell those of us inwestern culture (moslems) to get out  of "our culture," meaning marry someone of a different culture as to not be corrupted.. now how is that to work?

Israfil is talking about prejudice and discrimination that happens all over. And really the "darker" you are the more you may face. All over.

Remembe women, find (as Crass puts it): Religious, virgin, and no divorced parent MEN.



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 5:20am
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

iT is great you say to say within in one's own "culture" but then you tell those of us inwestern culture (moslems) to get out  of "our culture," meaning marry someone of a different culture as to not be corrupted.. now how is that to work?

If your culture group still functions in terms of religion, marriage and family, I would definitely recommend to stay in it.

If it doesn't, try an identifiable subgroup that still functions. If that doesn't work, abandon the main group and try elsewhere. Since the African-American culture group has become disfunctional, I recommend to apply an elaborate strategy. If you just do nothing at all, you're hosed, and if you make children, they will be hosed.
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

Israfil is talking about prejudice and discrimination that happens all over. And really the "darker" you are the more you may face. All over.

At the same time, there are still a good number of black cultures that are functional in terms of religion and marriage. Especially the Islamic African groups are doing ok. They might be economically not necessarily high-level, but that doesn't matter much in these issues. In terms of the kids of the kids making it to the year 2100, they are lined up very well.

I would stay away from Christian-misled ones, though. Most of these groups are heavily infected with AIDS.

I don't know of one, single white European cultural group which is still functioning in terms of religion or marriage. Yeah, maybe the Amish are still doing ok somehow. Over the next few decades, they will all be in the same situation as the African-Americans.
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

Remembe women, find (as Crass puts it): Religious, virgin, and no divorced parent MEN.

The virgin part is hard to check.   (what an unequal world ...)



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 11:21am

Crass you said in RED

If your culture group still functions in terms of religion, marriage and family, I would definitely recommend to stay in it.

I wouldn't. Staying in a religious, marriage oriented family doesn't not necessitate nor gurantee a successful relationship ourselves.

If it doesn't, try an identifiable subgroup that still functions. If that doesn't work, abandon the main group and try elsewhere. Since the African-American culture group has become disfunctional, I recommend to apply an elaborate strategy. If you just do nothing at all, you're hosed, and if you make children, they will be hosed.

Not only were your words dumb. But they were insulting. Who are you to say my culture is dysfunctional? What is your ethnic background? What is your nationality? My culture is just find. I'm proud of what my ancestors did for the United States. It's nice to know that without African slaves this country wouldn't be where it is today. Blacks were the ones to design traffic lights. Lewis Lattimer patent Edison's light bulb by designing a  http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/page/i/incandescentbulb.shtml - incandescent light bulb . So who are you to say my culture is dysfunctional? Do you know the entire culture? Do you know the entire sub-culture within African-American community or are you simply assuming based upon observation? If you are doing the latter then obviously you have no valid understanding of ethnic culture in itself. Crass refrain from using st**id and prejudice remarks before I REALLY insult you.

At the same time, there are still a good number of black cultures that are functional in terms of religion and marriage. Especially the Islamic African groups are doing ok. They might be economically not necessarily high-level, but that doesn't matter much in these issues. In terms of the kids of the kids making it to the year 2100, they are lined up very well.

Crass you first say my culture is dysfunctional, yet you say the African culture is OK? So me being a Black American, I',m simply dysfunctional yet African migrants are not? Just because I don't share the same nationality as Africans doesn't mean they don't share similar problems. I personally know African Muslims who experienced the SAME problems as I do outside and inside the mosque. Crass you are not black [from what I can tell from your writings] so please refrain fron acting like you know. I grew up black. I'm a Muslim so I have  a certain perspective that i share with other black Muslims. For any other Muslim with a different ethnic category to say "Hey, black are like this and that...." is a disrespect especially if you have not lived within that culture and even if you did, you still couldn't say you KNOW because you're not black!

I would stay away from Christian-misled ones, though. Most of these groups are heavily infected with AIDS.

This is a st**id A** statement. where is your proof? Where is your evidence that most misled Christian groups are heavuily infected with AIDS? I want scientific/unreligious proof that this is so. I don't want no, "Well you look at the world and see its there" because I share a different opinion. Frankly, you have no understanding of the world around you. you are simply making statements without any evidence.

I don't know of one, single white European cultural group which is still functioning in terms of religion or marriage. Yeah, maybe the Amish are still doing ok somehow. Over the next few decades, they will all be in the same situation as the African-Americans.

WTH? Crass, are you some self-professed anthropologist? Do you know people that well to make broad sweeping statements? Then you disrespect our non-muslim guest here [who may be of Anglo descent] and say, "there is not one single functioning European group." Then you further make yourself sound even more dumb by saying that they will be in the same situation as African-Americans. Again this is why our community is not making any advancements in science and in the world and this is why we are so stuck on what Muslims did in the past because we are so into culture, marriage and things that are changing anyway.

Look to compare another ethnic group with a different circumstance to another ethnic group who has an entirely different circumstance is comparing "apples to oranges." You cannot possibly make any comparison. My ancestors were enslaved. the Amish whose ancestors were Anglo-Saxon, were not. They have developed their faith. African-Americans were forced to follow one. but then you go on to make this dumb statement about the Amish and....ah.....man....your intelligence is simply frustrating and it boggles me that Abuayisha actually thought you are excellent in dialogue. I think he was high or something. Seriously Crass. Your worldview seriously needs to be changed.

First off, you don't know the world so you cannot make some broad sweeping assumption that certain cultures despite setbacks will be this way or that way. Just because I briefly discussed racism and slavery regarding my ethnic group does not make my culture dysfunctional. Yes, we African-Americans are not where we should be in the world but take into consideration of 400 years of slavery and systematic racism we had to endure. It is like trying to roll back the process of the universe to see where it began. Things of this nature take time to endure and make up for what others did in the past. But that doesn't mean that because of what I, or my parents or their parents went through we as a community are dysfunctional.

This is exactly what I'm talking about Crass. You have no solid understanding of people or the world so you are left with making assumptions and the way you use words in conjunction to whatever you are trying to say, is a disservice to all English speaking people because obviously your usage of words show you have no understanding of what you are trying to say.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 3:53pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Blacks were the ones to design traffic lights. Lewis Lattimer patent Edison's light bulb by designing a incandescent light bulb. So who are you to say my culture is dysfunctional? Do you know the entire culture? Do you know the entire sub-culture within African-American community or are you simply assuming based upon observation?

It doesn't matter how many lightbulbs anybody's ancestors invented. What matters is piety and chastity, and that seems to go wrong.

As many as 65 percent of first marriages end up in divorce. Forty-five percent of all http://racerelations.about.com/od/parentingrace/a/outofwedlock.htm - black families are headed by single women, and 70 percent of African-American children are being born out of wedlock.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

yet you say the African culture is OK?

There are African cultures that are doing OK in terms of religion, marriage and family. I am not looking at GDP figures or technological inventions, because they don't matter on the long run. Poor today, rich tomorrow, or the other way around. It is not essential to predict long-term trends.

Of course, when these African families end up in the West, the bureaucratic state rapidly rips these families apart.

The Somali Crisis in Canada: The Single Mother Phenomenon
For example, one Somali woman who was angry with her husband called the police but had no intention of charging him with anything. She had just wanted to teach him a lesson. She did not anticipate that the police would adopt harsh measures.
...
There are also a large number of children who speak either English or French and have figured out how to use the system to their benefit and are also in many cases abusing their mothers. Somali children tend to believe that "they are deprived of the freedoms that Canadian children enjoy."
This leads the children to threaten to call the police or the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and report abuse unless they get their way in the family. Police and CAS intervention is the nightmare of most Somali single mothers in Canada, as many who have had contact with such agencies have had their children taken away from them.

In terms of destroying authority in the family, the bureaucratic state profiteers of tensions in the family, in order to rip it apart. But then again, they do that with local families too. Of course, if you prevent the families from educating the children, the results are well-known.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Where is your evidence that most misled Christian groups are heavuily infected with AIDS? I want scientific/unreligious proof that this is so.

There is a clear pattern in the http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/infectious_diseases/aids/africa.html - AIDS infection rate per country in Africa. The infection rate is substantially lower for Muslim countries than for Christian countries. Here is http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/aidsinafrica/aidsinafrica.html - another map .
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Again this is why our community is not making any advancements in science and in the world and this is why we are so stuck on what Muslims did in the past because we are so into culture, marriage and things that are changing anyway.

Material successes are to no avail, if piety and chastity go down the drain. In terms of long-term trends, the Islamic world is doing fine.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

My ancestors were enslaved. the Amish whose ancestors were Anglo-Saxon, were not. They have developed their faith. African-Americans were forced to follow one.

I agree with that. The same holds true for Latin America. If they manage to keep their families intact and maintain faith, they'll do fine in the future. The meek shall inherit the earth.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

First off, you don't know the world so you cannot make some broad sweeping assumption that certain cultures despite setbacks will be this way or that way.

The scriptures predict this. I simply believe it's true. What matters is piety and chastity. Anything else is immaterial on the long run.

If discrimination alone explained things, the Jews should have disappeared a long time ago. The Jews survived because nobody managed to manipulate their faith. There is a core or Muslims that seems to be at least as tenacious as the Jews. Therefore, I believe Islam will happily survive the impending collapse of the West.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 7:59pm

Crass you said:

It doesn't matter how many lightbulbs anybody's ancestors invented. What matters is piety and chastity, and that seems to go wrong.

As many as 65 percent of first marriages end up in divorce. Forty-five percent of all http://racerelations.about.com/od/parentingrace/a/outofwedlock.htm - black families are headed by single women, and 70 percent of African-American children are being born out of wedlock.

Crass you cannot always tap dance around refutatations to illogical statements. You say that the African-american culture is dysfunctional. Obviously you have inconclusive evidence to show. I showed you that if such a culture is dysfunctional then how do African-Americans contribute to the scientific world especially if, despite all the setbacks as a ethnic we went through can still contribute to the scientific community?

In the latter art of your comment you talk about single mothers. You have to look at sociological factors that may contribute to such statistics. you have not done this and what you've wrote thus far has not proven your point simply taking news articles and only highlighting what confirms what you say here.

>>>>There are African cultures that are doing OK in terms of religion, marriage and family. I am not looking at GDP figures or technological inventions, because they don't matter on the long run. Poor today, rich tomorrow, or the other way around. It is not essential to predict long-term trends.

Of course, when these African families end up in the West, the bureaucratic state rapidly rips these families apart.<<<<<

Where is your statistical evidence for this? show me proof!

>>>>There is a clear pattern in the http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/infectious_diseases/aids/africa.html - AIDS infection rate per country in Africa. The infection rate is substantially lower for Muslim countries than for Christian countries. Here is http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/aidsinafrica/aidsinafrica.html - another map .<<<<<<

You made a generalized assumption and said "Christian groups are heavily infected with AIDS" Africa does not have the largest Christian population. you only show Africa you need to prove that Christians not just one continent but globally are infected with AIDS you need to prove your points not simply tap dance and show one aspect. Yes AIDs may not be as high in Muslim countries but you are not looking at the circumstances of humans in Africa infected with AIDS. You didn't take into consideration that a lot of tribes in Africa are unaware. Most lack education and understanding of STD's. Some, when confronted with the epidemic of AIDS do not adhere to abstinence. Some consider AIDs a myth there. You have different sociological factors that cotribute to the outbreak of AIDs in Africa. Just because they're Christian does not mean there is a correlation between being Christin and having AIDS. Crass, try again.

>>>Material successes are to no avail, if piety and chastity go down the drain. In terms of long-term trends, the Islamic world is doing fine.<<<<

Dude you need to get this piety and chastity out of your brain. An atheist can be pious and chaste. Being pious and chaste is not the greatest thing in the world. An evil person can be pious and chaste.

>>>>The scriptures predict this. I simply believe it's true. What matters is piety and chastity. Anything else is immaterial on the long run.

If discrimination alone explained things, the Jews should have disappeared a long time ago. The Jews survived because nobody managed to manipulate their faith. There is a core or Muslims that seems to be at least as tenacious as the Jews. Therefore, I believe Islam will happily survive the impending collapse of the West. <<<<<

You can never back up what you say.....I'm done....BTW how did we come to this?




Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 10:19pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

You say that the African-american culture is dysfunctional.Obviously you have inconclusive evidence to show.

If marriage does not work any longer, a culture is dysfunctional, because that means you cannot raise the kids any longer, and therefore, long-term survival from generation to generation is impossible. I've already shown the evidence that marriage doesn't work amongst African-Americans.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

I showed you that if such a culture is dysfunctional then how do African-Americans contribute to the scientific world especially if, despite all the setbacks as a ethnic we went through can still contribute to the scientific community?

I am not pointing to contributions to the scientific world, because they don't matter in the long run. Religion is not about making contributions to science. It is about submitting to the One God as a survival strategy.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

You have to look at sociological factors that may contribute to such statistics.

That amounts to saying: you have not looked at the reasons why the car is broken. You just keep saying that it is broken. Without looking at the reasons why the car is broken, saying that the car is broken does not make sense...
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Yes AIDs may not be as high in Muslim countries but you are not looking at the circumstances of humans in Africa infected with AIDS.

Again the same argument. Without looking at the reasons why there is less AIDS in Muslim countries than in Christian countries in Africa, it is wrong to say that there is less AIDS in Muslim countries ...
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Just because they're Christian does not mean there is a correlation between being Christin and having AIDS.

Unlike causality, you don't need to prove correlation. Correlation is there or it isn't there. I demonstrated correlation, and now you are complaining that I did not demonstrate causality. By the way, you cannot demonstrate causality with numbers. You need an underlying theory.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Dude you need to get this piety and chastity out of your brain.

Quite unfortunately for your argument, piety and chastity is what the Quran says matters most in terms of marriage and marriage success. The Quran is the "theory" that explains causality. By the way, the other scriptures say the same.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Being pious and chaste is not the greatest thing in the world. An evil person can be pious ...

That's a contradiction in terms. As a pious person you avoid violating the moral rules enshrined in religion. Doing evil amounts to violating these rules.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

An atheist can be pious...

Very interesting, Israfil. An atheist violates the first rule of piety: faith in God.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

You can never back up what you say.

The Jews were slaves in Egypt. Read the Torah. The Jews made it, however. No matter what the Egyptians did to them, they could not take away their faith in the One God. In the meanwhile, the pyramid builders are long gone, while the Jews are still around.

The error in Judaism is the belief that the One God is a privilege of the descendents of Jacob. However, if the descendants of Jacob abandon the One God, the One God will abandon the descendants of Jacob. Their own Prophets insist time and time again on that problem. In the meanwhile, the Palestinians are superior to them in piety and chastity. The "theory" predicts what will happen.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 11:05pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

You say that the African-american culture is dysfunctional.

I don't know how to fix this problem. Can an individual do anything about it?

The scriptures say that Abraham pretty much managed to row against the mainstream on his own. But even then, Sarah and Hagar stuck by him. So, he wasn't completely on his own. Apparently, it must somehow be possible to row against the mainstream, with just one individual nuclear family. At least you don't need to re-discover the truth. The Quran exists already.

And how do you keep the kids out of the mainstream? That's hard too. It requires fanatical commitment, in absence of a community. Anyway, the mainstream is going to do everything possible to prevent you from achieving your goal. I think Abraham managed to escape that problem somehow. There was no United States of America around at that time. That helped too, of course.

And who are the kids going to marry? That's another problem. If the other parents just followed the mainstream, the problem will just have been delayed to the next generation.

The bureaucratic western states need to lose their ability to interfere in the family, pretty soon, or one day or the other we will all be hosed. Or at least, they need to lose the ability to occupy other countries.

The African-Americans have nothing to lose by keeping on trying. I understand the enormous difficulties in their given circumstances.



Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 02 June 2007 at 11:05pm

Israfil wrote:

"Dude you need to get this piety and chastity out of your brain. An atheist can be pious and chaste. Being pious and chaste is not the greatest thing in the world. An evil person can be pious and chaste".

 What a twisted YMCA liberal law enforcement thinking!!!!. I wonder how IC moderators give you blank pass to spew this nonsense in would be Islamic medium!!!. I really wonder how and why?!! May its liberal faith affirmative action that they want to show west on the xpense of real Islam. 

Crass:

I didn't red the entire thread but I do agree with you that what count at the end of the day is religion. That is why Jewish people survived and still continue to flourish in world despite their corrupted nature.

Besides, I saw African black/Arab immigrants in west and how they differ than African Americans. I paid close attention to Somali immigrants since their influx from late 80's.  I was stunned by their extensive knowledge of Islam let alone their strict family structure. That make many jealous. Their women wear the best hijab that ever western muslim community saw. Their men never shy away from Islamic teaching interm of dress, beard, and value. The family survived in their world because they stick toghether. Generally they took whole neighborhood over Maine city let alone MNPLS, Seattle, California, Atlanta and Nashville, the few I come across. They teach their women/kids Islam in old fashion. Their mosque teaches usul-Islam in a profound way. One day I prayed in their mosque in MNPLS. I was surprised the sheer number of Somalis attended the mosque. Then soon after salat, a young man took podium teaching Quran around 400 men/women. I was told most of students were factory workers or Taxi drivers. I didn't understand their language but felt the spirit of brotherhood and their struggling of keeping Islam pure and clean.

As I was leaving to airport, I pick up Somali Taxi driver. He was listening Salman Awdah lecture. I really enjoyed the trip to Airport. He told me 90 percent of taxi drivers at the airport was Somalis. I really make duaa for them.

In that way, muslim family can survive provided state stay away from family business. What a dream?!!

For African American muslims, I really have simpathy for them and see their potential that we muslims negated for so long. But I don't share the crying game of legacy stuff. A brother called Abdalla Hakim Quick once told a muslim Conference, "Either make your muslim community and protect your Islamic value or move to muslim country". I heard he move his entire family to where he can protect his religion.

 

Abu Mujahid 



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 1:55am

Crass this thread is getting out of hand and this will be my last post here in this thread so you choose to respond. Obviously you have your way of thinking but I "think" your type of thinking is quite backwards and I consider it highly unintellectual since, majority of your post are simply rhetorical and opinionated. The references you pointed out in your post were not even current let alone relevant to the current topic. Anyway the following is my resonse to you. Your post will be in blue

If marriage does not work any longer, a culture is dysfunctional, because that means you cannot raise the kids any longer, and therefore, long-term survival from generation to generation is impossible. I've already shown the evidence that marriage doesn't work amongst African-Americans.

You "know" the evidence? If I were to assume this comment was religious then I would boil this down to a personal interpretation but, to attribute the failure of sustaining traditional marriages as a form of a dysfunction of a culture is quite st**id. Like I said in my previous post, there are many factors that contribute to African-American family. Poverty, Racism, Classism, Sexism are all factors that contribute to the other areas of ethnic strife. Ever heard of "Domino Effect?" Besides, you're not even African-American so how can you possibly make a critique on how "dysfunctional" African-American families are? My family certainly was not perfect but we weren't dysfunctional so I guess that defeats your assumption there.... OH and yes, I know more non-dysfunctional black families that are quite successful. You might need to do your anthropology research again.

I am not pointing to contributions to the scientific world, because they don't matter in the long run. Religion is not about making contributions to science. It is about submitting to the One God as a survival strategy.

The beginning part was st**id and the latter was even more st**id! contributions matter greatly. The very light you use to read your books [or whatever] was a desgin which benefits all humans. The discovery of fire by the early ancestors became the blueprint for later discoveries of the physical world. All scientific contributions matter greatly because it sets a mark in human greatness. Also, submitting to one God does not mean survival. That is dumb. Humans were surviors prior to being cognizant of One God. Why do you think we have the instincts we have? God designed the body to endure in the religious and non-religious alike. So as far as surviving is conerned I'm not sure what you are talking about.

That amounts to saying: you have not looked at the reasons why the car is broken. You just keep saying that it is broken. Without looking at the reasons why the car is broken, saying that the car is broken does not make sense...

Again the same argument. Without looking at the reasons why there is less AIDS in Muslim countries than in Christian countries in Africa, it is wrong to say that there is less AIDS in Muslim countries ...

You are seriously going to mislead Muslims who have no idea what an epidemic is. Examining the sociological factors in Africa does greatly explain why AIDs is so rampant in Africa. If, a young Sudanese girl gets raped by a man who has AIDS yet, does not get examined for fear of backlash from her family and society she may, indirectl[because she doesn't know she has an STD] contribute to the continuance of AIDS. If you have African tribes who believe condoms are "evil" and believe that unprotected sex is the answer to such an evil you will have the continuance of AIDS. If PEOPLE are not educated in sexually transmitted diseases you will have the continuance of AIDS. I don't see how you don't think that is relevant. there are many tribes in Africa who are not aware that AIDs is becoming an epidemic.

BTW Sudan is predominantly Muslim country and there are many there that have AIDS so, when discussing Muslim countries are you talking about Non-African countries?

Unlike causality, you don't need to prove correlation. Correlation is there or it isn't there. I demonstrated correlation, and now you are complaining that I did not demonstrate causality. By the way, you cannot demonstrate causality with numbers. You need an underlying theory.

Do you even have a clue what I was talking about? When I'm talking about correlation I'm asking how does being Christian relate to having a sexually transmitted disease? Like I said African Christians are not even the most populous of the Christian faith so when you generalize as say "Christian" you seem to be talking about Christians in general yet, you refer to Africa as a reference.

Quite unfortunately for your argument, piety and chastity is what the Quran says matters most in terms of marriage and marriage success. The Quran is the "theory" that explains causality. By the way, the other scriptures say the same.

Reference?

That's a contradiction in terms. As a pious person you avoid violating the moral rules enshrined in religion. Doing evil amounts to violating these rules.

The concept of piety is subjective. Piety is about being devout, or following a conventional belief or standard. Now for example let's say Adolf Hitler gassing millions of Jews. In his mind [According to his book Mein Kampf] he saw Jews as a disease and thought [in a sick utilitarian way] that the extermination of an entire race of Jews would increase the quality of life for his people. So in the mind of Hitler he was following a conventional standard which he thought was good and thought was a benefit to his people. Again, like I said piety is subjective. Even suicide bombers believer killing oneself and killing the enemy is a "Halal" military tactic that is Islamically acceptable. Again piety is subjective and not some abstract objective term that is universal.

Very interesting, Israfil. An atheist violates the first rule of piety: faith in God.

But if we hold piety under the concept as being a "conventional belief or standard of being faithful" an atheist can be under these terms. If an atheist lives in a society without harming someone yet does the opposite by helping others and increase the happiness of others that person is said to be "pious" because they are following the conventional standard of society, and in this case, the standard of such a society would be to not harm others with malice and intent. It seems you are using piety in the context as the quality of being "good" when that wouldn't be the correct definition of piety.

Abu the poo poo said:

What a twisted YMCA liberal law enforcement thinking!!!!. I wonder how IC moderators give you blank pass to spew this nonsense in would be Islamic medium!!!. I really wonder how and why?!! May its liberal faith affirmative action that they want to show west on the xpense of real Islam. 

Wow your IQ is what, 15? 20? Ok Ok, 35......I see Crass' mentality is rubbing off on you it seems we are making up words now see: >>>twisted YMCA liberal law enforcement thinking!!!!.<<<< Abu, if you only go back to school and brush up on your English you would at least sound as smart as my 5-year old cousin.


 

 



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 3:13am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Abu the poo poo said:

Look, Israfil. I think you should calm down now. Your comments on fellow members on this site are absolutely derogatory, unwarranted, untrue, and definitely not helping your argument.

I was talking about family breakdown in the African-American community and ways to address that problem.

I repeat that I understand the difficult circumstances in which the problem of family breakdown in the African-American community occurs.

What's more, I already pointed out that there are black islamic communities in Africa, such as the Somalis, that are doing well in terms of keeping faith, piety, chastity, and their families united.



Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 4:24am
[QUOTE=Israfil]

BTW Sudan is predominantly Muslim country and there are many there that have AIDS so, when discussing Muslim countries are you talking about Non-African countries?<

??!!!!.

 

  >Abu the poo poo said:<

How many more insults you want to spew out here. I can take it as much as you want but you prove my point. Since you don't know Islam you must refuge this kind of sick language. You don't  lack  Islamic manner but also human civility. Why staying in this medium?!!!. You are shame to Islam by spewing this low language. No wonder why law enforcement hire you to do community policing!!!!!!. If there was an Islamic court you will whipped out publically and been sent to islamic rehab program.

 

>What a twisted YMCA liberal law enforcement thinking!!!!. I wonder how IC moderators give you blank pass to spew this nonsense in would be Islamic medium!!!. I really wonder how and why?!! May its liberal faith affirmative action that they want to show west on the xpense of real Islam. 

>Wow your IQ is what, 15? 20? Ok Ok, 35......<

 So you believe IQ fake reading?. What a waste?!!!. You should be  believing also Pyschic crime solvers too. Poor brother.

>I see Crass' mentality is rubbing off on you it seems we are making up words now see: >>>twisted YMCA liberal law enforcement thinking!!!!.<<<< Abu, if you only go back to school and brush up on your English you would at least sound as smart as my 5-year old cousin<.

 

 Don't bring Crass name here. You can't measure up his extensive readings. May Allah give you clean tongue. BTW....please read Riyadul saliheen to brush up your character. You are losing your Islam -if you are really muslim- and soul in this mix. Your ignorance and arrogance is beyond reach.  

Final note: Many African American muslims were diciplined by Nation of Islam schools. They have good character but few like you went astray. Just go back to Imam Warithudeen classes in you area to learn about real manner. I'm sure they will be more than happy to assist you. You can't fit this medium with such language even if they gave you greenlight.  


 Abu Mujahid



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 8:59am

Brother Israfil

I propose we should ask the admin to set up a separate wing of this forum for the under 13s or are stuck at that mental age.

But then what we will laugh at?

These two are the best laugh I have ever had here. Each beats even our good old Community! just on his very own. Imagine what act the two make. 



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 9:41am
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

Brother Israfil

I propose we should ask the admin to set up a separate wing of this forum for the under 13s or are stuck at that mental age.

But then what we will laugh at?

These two are the best laugh I have ever had here. Each beats even our good old Community! just on his very own. Imagine what act the two make. 

Great idea.....



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 9:56am

Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:

Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Abu the poo poo said:

Look, Israfil. I think you should calm down now. Your comments on fellow members on this site are absolutely derogatory, unwarranted, untrue, and definitely not helping your argument.

I was talking about family breakdown in the African-American community and ways to address that problem.

I repeat that I understand the difficult circumstances in which the problem of family breakdown in the African-American community occurs.

What's more, I already pointed out that there are black islamic communities in Africa, such as the Somalis, that are doing well in terms of keeping faith, piety, chastity, and their families united.

Look, when you insult my ethnic group and say "African-Americans are dysfunctional because of their marriage" is going to make me respond back in the same manner. I don't think you even had a clue to what I was even saying. All you're doing on this website is going around here and talking about sex and using words [which you have little understanding on how to use properly] and trying to confirm your belief to everyone else. You don't even have an understanding on how to argue your position correctly. I may disagree with you and that is fine, but to constantly post comments that don't make sense/or are repetative [see fornication comment in other threads] is annoying.

Look, like I said you won't have to worry about me responding to your post or use bad language. The only thing I don't like is some fool on this site specifically singling out my ethnic group and calling it dysfunctional. I'm surprised you haven't revealed your ethnic group. Are you ashamed? Are you scared I may know something about it and similarly call it dysfunctional like you did mine? You don't even know about even understanding statistics. First off, just because you cite statistics does not mean it applies to let's say 65% of the people you are talking about. 65% of whatever people you are citing as getting divorce refers to 65% of the people who participate in statistical gathering.

Since divorce is a private matter and not accessible to the public people trying to get an idea of statistics regarding African-America marriage will poll people and those people will answer questions and according to that data will use that as information they've gained in their research. So when you see:

Forty-five percent of all http://racerelations.about.com/od/parentingrace/a/outofwedlock.htm - black families are headed by single women, and 70 percent of African-American children are being born out of wedlock.

Those are statistics gathered by those that participated or from pre-existing information they expand upon but that does not make it an accurate poll. You may have another poll out there that has the number less. I don't knoe I'm explanining this to you but, all I'm saying is be careful in what you say. I'm very sensitive about my ethnic group especially when it comes to other ignorant Muslims [like yourself] who generalize a lot about the world they don't know. You don't know me nor anyone else on this forum. You're a newbie you haven't even invested any sort of time here. Unlike yourself, I've people here come and go. If you cannot dialogue properly then go.

I only get disrespectful when people disrespect me. I didn't say anything derogatory to Abu until he started acting dumb. I believe all humans are capable of reaching their intellectual potential. We are very smart creatures and I simply think you and Abu are denying yourselves of that potential.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 5:28pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

You don't even know about even understanding statistics. First off, just because you cite statistics does not mean it applies to let's say 65% of the people you are talking about.



It's not because 10% are like that, that the observation applies to one out of ten...



By the way, why do you absolutely need to know someone's race? I really can't be bothered about yours. You seem to have frustrations about these things and carry grudges, but really, I am not responsible for them. Another thing I prefer about Somalis. I've never met one with an inferiority complex about his race. You can't imagine how annoying it is to deal with someone who is constantly the victim of everything. You're worse than a feminist.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 03 June 2007 at 11:15pm

Look, when you insult my ethnic group

Yaar Israfil it's simple. We can ever and only give anyone just what we have been given in our lives. These two can only hurl insults at anyone who happens to differ with them.

What a pair! And a laugh. the Solution of All the Worlds Problems lies in one chastity belt!

Israfil, treat them for what they actually are - if we asked any expert to profile them via all their posts, we will find that one is an extreme suppressed pervert and the other a potential suicide bomber.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 12:06am
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

the Solution of All the Worlds Problems lies in one chastity belt!

Muslims already have the solution. I keep insisting: don't imitate the western fornicators, and the Muslims will inherit the earth.

Can the problems of the West be solved with a chastity belt? No, because by now, it is too late. As I said, keep doing as you are doing, because whatever you do next, it won't make any difference. Aging and shrinking population, diseases amongst teenagers, infertility in women, bankrupt governments, drug abuse, prostitution, crime, ...



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 12:25am
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

Israfil, treat them for what they actually are - if we asked any expert to profile them via all their posts, we will find that one is an extreme suppressed pervert and the other a potential suicide bomber.

Specifically, for the Muslims in Europe, while you can see the western fornicators aging and dying around you:

Torah, Deuteronomy 18:9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there.

Quran, 6.11 Say: Travel in the land, then see what was the end of the rejecters.

Quran, 6.165 And He it is Who has made you successors in the land and raised some of you above others by (various) grades, that He might try you by what He has given you; surely your Lord is quick to requite (evil), and He is most surely the Forgiving, the Merciful.

Quran, 10.14 Then We made you successors in the land after them so that We may see how you act.

Quran, 14.14 And most certainly We will settle you in the land after them; this is for him who fears standing in My presence and who fears My threat.

Quran, 21.105 And certainly We wrote in the Book after the reminder that (as for) the land, My righteous servants shall inherit it.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 12:33am
Sir, I have no idea at all, you happen to be the only fornication expert on this panel!

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 5:57am
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

Sir, I have no idea at all, you happen to be the only fornication expert on this panel!

So, now you know why the Muslims refuse to integrate:

Torah, Deuteronomy 18:9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 7:35am

Whisper: You are absolutely right and I should listen to the master especially one who is keen on the deception of the Amrikeens!

Crass: There is no ethnic inferiority complex at all actually. I'm simply frustrated at your st**idity. I see just your intelligence as a physiological defect.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 7:54am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

There is no ethnic inferiority complex at all actually. I'm simply frustrated at your st**idity. I see just your intelligence as a physiological defect.

So, why are you always asking about people's race? Isn't that more likely to be your frustration?



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 9:06am

Aging and shrinking population..what does this have to do with anything??

Hey Crass, we have an aging population (and so do the Japanese and Okinawan populations as well) and that is due to many factors, one is the better medical and science technology. People with healthier lifestyles live longer.. like the longest living people are from Okinawa.. have lots of grandmas and grandpas.. what is wrong with that??

Shrinking.. well considering that the world population keeps growing, no problem. We do have 7.5 billion people on the planet. And even Moslem countries know t hey just cannot keep multiplying without the ability to meet the needs of people-food, jobs etc.

Almost all societies except a few are trying to check their population growth.. two that come to mind are India and China.

And actually US population is continuing to grow.



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 11:20am

Aging and shrinking population..what does this have to do with anything??

Everything.

Provided you look at it with a Crassed mind that holds that every single problem in our world is linked with . . . I won't mention the word, it gives him the kick he badly needs, to see it in print, to hear it mentioned and to feel it.

A Crassed view, of anything, is far pungent that some jaundiced view of something. He can be cured but with some very serious help. I won't start, you well know, I have a distaste for any bufoons with blank profiles.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Abu Mujahid
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 12:15pm

[QUOTE=Whisper]

Yaar Israfil it's simple. We can ever and only give anyone just what we have been given in our lives. These two can only hurl insults at anyone who happens to differ with them<

 

Its like Ramati bida'iha thuman sallat!!

What a pair! And a laugh. the Solution of All the Worlds Problems lies in one chastity belt!

?!!

>Israfil, treat them for what they actually are -

Means?! arrest/report them to US GOV. then enjoy your social promotion?

>if we asked any expert to profile them via all their posts, we will find that one is an extreme suppressed pervert and the other a potential suicide bomber<

What a Ruwaibidah fiqih!!.. What do you mean WE or the experts? the Jewish: Berger or Perle?!! Btw, How many more lies you sold to FBI or US TTF?. No wonder why your ilks want to reform Islam under disguise of modernity. 

I suspected long time ago that you are nothing but fifth column. Your vernom was exposed by your hate of real Islam.  May Allah give you what you deserve. May be you need to go back your liberal progressive forum. 

 

Abu Mujahid



-------------
Islam need true muslims


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 3:20pm

Real Islam is Peace not something that you seem to be the sole merchants for. Thanks for showing your colours as usual.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 7:52pm
Originally posted by Hayfa Hayfa wrote:

Aging and shrinking population..what does this have to do with anything??

They reflects the inability to maintain the family structures needed to raise children. This ability to maintain family structures is traditionally transmitted from parents to children. It is being lost in the West, just like, for example, the ability to cook traditional dishes is being lost.

This phenomenon is not just a voluntary reduction in birth rate. Few people in the West can expect that their marriages will be successful. So, they increasingly avoid marriage and having children. What's more, once you've got one child from a previous failed relationship, it gets harder to enter a new, stable relationship.

Another phenomenon is also rearing its head:
http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/b/islam.html -
Note that Muslim population growth maybe driven by other factors than their choice to have more children. Because Muslims are not as promiscuous as the rest of the human race they have largely avoided AIDS...Other venereal diseases, particularly gonorrhea and chlamydia, do not kill but they do cause infertility...The point is that even if Muslims and non-Muslims were trying to have families of the same size the Muslim population might well grow more rapidly...On the other hand, venereal diseases are not standing still either. Gonorrhea is progressively becoming immune to more and more antibiotics. Various strains of AIDS are becoming immune to the drug cocktails that hold it in check.

The phenomenon of spreading STDs will further decrease the overall birth rate through the rate of infertility, which now stands at 20% in the West, but is increasing.

The birth rate in broken families is not effective. As research indicates, the children born into such circumstances can often be expected to create more problems during their lives, than they will have the ability to support themselves, let alone, others. That part of the birth rate is largely creating future welfare recipients and future members of the prison population.

So, how large is the effectively contributing birth rate in the West? Say 40% is born out of wedlock. Assume a 45% divorce rate. 

effective birth rate = (1-40%)*(1-45%)*birth rate
effective birth rate = 33%*birth rate

That leaves approximately a gross 33% of the births to support the future needs of western society. The divorce rate is not growing any longer, given the fact that the marriage rate is dropping fast. The out-of-wedlock rate is now absorbing an increasingly large proportion of the births in the West.

degeneration rate = DG
out of wedlock rate = OW
divorce rate = DI

DG = 1 - (1-OW)*(1-DI) = 67%

We can roughly estimate the degeneration rate at 67% of the birth rate. A certain proportion of the degeneration will still be effective, on the condition that the proportion of degeneration in the surrounding community does not exceed the treshold, at which a larger instead of a smaller proportion in the community becomes degenerated.

The ability to raise the degenerated largely depends on the ability to redistribute income from the active population to broken families. At the same time, maintaining an aging population depends on the ability to redistribute income to the elderly. This is increasingly going to require extreme levels of taxation, which will become increasingly unfeasible. You can expect people to go to great length to support their own family members, but it is much harder to make them support the unrelated people behind an anonymous government. This constitutes a limit to possible taxation.

Furthermore, the size of the future active population rate depends not on the overall birth rate, but on the effective birth rate, which is dropping substantially faster than the overall birth rate, since most of the births in the West are now degenerated.

The effective generation currently being born (33%) will not be able to support their degenerated peers (67%) on welfare and in prison, let alone, support the population on retirement benefits.

As indicated above, the aging and shrinking of the population in the West is now being driven by degeneration, and not by choice. At the same time, degeneration drastically reduces the ability to support this aging and shrinking population, by increasing the proportion of the adult population on welfare and in prison.

Can this trend be reversed? No, because the ability to maintain family structures has largely been lost. Therefore, the degeneration process cannot be reversed.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 8:22pm
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

Provided you look at it with a Crassed mind that holds that every single problem in our world is linked with . . .

... Faith and chastity. Most religious people believe this.

Unfaithful and unchaste people (Babylon) will be successful for periods long enough to tempt the believers that unfaithfulness and lack of chastity are the key to success.

Will you still submit to the One God and His rule, even if that means poverty, persecution, or even death? In my impression, it is meant not be easy. Otherwise, the whole exercise of figuring out if you will remain faithful, would be pointless.

For Muslims living in the West, the question revolves around integration. Will you abandon the One God and learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there?

Or will you prefer to suffer, and prefer poverty to depravity, and stand by the One God?

Quran, 10.14 Then We made you successors in the land after them so that We may see how you act.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 8:35pm

Allow me to say this and be at peace with the subject.

The reason we SHOULD NOT categorize women is simple. It leaves us to oversimply a specific group without leaviong room for individuality. All people are not the same even though we find a common behavior among a certain group. It wouldn't be right for Muslim men of any national group to say, "American women are bad because they have free sex" despite the existence of certain classes and mentalities of women. If we look at societies more closely especially within the microcosm of the class system we would see that the mentality of a woman in the middle class has a substantially different mentality than the women of the working poor.

With that being said the mentality and behavior will be different and that difference is enough to show us an indication of individuality within the same sex group. The break down of families, fornication, prostitution, corruption or the like is not a quality exclusive to Western countries. These qualities exist every region in the civilized worlds. The extensiveness of such qualities depend on the society. For example, Singapore is more "clean" than most cities in the United States, yet, at night most men in that country prey on small children. Does that mean that there is a correlation between a Singaporian man-pedophile and being clean? No.

There is no correlation between a clean country and the predisposition of a persons behavior especially when city street cleanups are usually run by state governments. If there is a need for categorization of women it should be those that exhibit a pattern of behavior continously and it should be proven under scientific conditions which shows that such patterns of behavior are consistent with our hypothesis. I understand that this is a scientific way at looking at things but I figure if we look at things from our personal biases it would be unfair and inaccurate to allocate specific qualities to a group without two things: (1) Studying a group (2) living among them.

If (1) and (2) are exercised the person would know that between two individuals of a specific society no two individuals behave the same or even exhibit the same pattern of behavior. You usually find such qualities in other aspects of society such as religion, politics, sports, or any other specific area of activity where specific behaviors are normally repeated.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 11:24pm

Allow me to say this and be at peace with the subject.

Brother, it's noble of you to try and reason, but this poor poster seems to be in utter pain for some very personal traumatic experience with faithfulness, chastity and in that department. It would do him a world of good to address his perssonal problem to the person who caused such hurt instead of shouting at us.  



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 11:33pm

Or

He simply gets a kick out of forcing his sexual phobias and fantasies, in any thread. Does it ever matter what the thread covers?

His entire life and, obviously, the whole world has no problem other than chastity. Let's salute our Mista Chase Tity



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 11:37pm

Ameen to that......

BTW bro you get my PM?



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 04 June 2007 at 11:47pm
Yes, got that like a dawn delight, reading it this very minute.

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 12:03am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

It wouldn't be right for Muslim men of any national group to say, "American women are bad because they have free sex" ...

They are not "bad", but simply unfit for marriage. You cannot raise children with such spouse.

Today, according to the Federal Reserve Board's 1995 Survey of Consumer Finance, only 42 percent of children aged 14 to 18 live in a "first marriage" family--an intact two-parent married family.

So, they estimate the 1995 degeneration rate to be 58%. Today's degeneration rate is rather 68%.

The Torah warns against that problem:

Genesis 28:1 So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him and commanded him: "Do not marry a Canaanite woman.
Leviticus 21:34 He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people.

The Prophets warns against that problem:

Ezra 10:2 We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us.
Nehemiah 13:27 Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?
Jeremiah 16:2 You must not marry and have sons or daughters in this place.

The warnings are very true: If you do that and marry a degenerated wife, you or your children will abandon the One God and learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there.
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Allow me to say this and be at peace with the subject.

Good. Let's agree to disagree. I maintain that nobody should marry into a population that is subject to a degeneration rate of almost 70%.

Even the degenerated themselves are aware of this, and don't marry each other any longer. That is a rational decision.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 4:38am
They are not "bad", but simply unfit for marriage. You cannot raise children with such spouse.
For heaven's sake, Israfil, please don't force him to marry one!

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 7:21am
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

For heaven's sake, Israfil, please don't force him to marry one!




I'll offer my services to parents who want to talk their son out of it.



It seems to work !!!





Posted By: hat2010
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 7:39am
Peace y'all, Bros Israfil, Whisper, Crasss,

Crasss recites from the Torah:
"Leviticus 21:34 He must not marry a widow... but only a virgin from his own
people."

Although I write with the un-wisdom of hindsight, I think we Muslim folk can
be thankful the Prophet of Islam gave this particular commandment a miss.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 8:18am

Although I write with the un-wisdom of hindsight, I think we Muslim folk can be thankful the Prophet of Islam gave this particular commandment a miss.

Brother Jamal, shukran jazeelan, for pointing at least one of this chap's regular habit of defacing Islamic practices and norms.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 9:52am
Originally posted by Jamal Morelli Jamal Morelli wrote:

Peace y'all, Bros Israfil, Whisper, Crasss,

Crasss recites from the Torah:
"Leviticus 21:34 He must not marry a widow... but only a virgin from his own
people."

Although I write with the un-wisdom of hindsight, I think we Muslim folk can
be thankful the Prophet of Islam gave this particular commandment a miss.


That command in the Torah apparently only applies to Jewish priests.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 9:58am
Originally posted by Jamal Morelli Jamal Morelli wrote:

Peace y'all, Bros Israfil, Whisper, Crasss,
Although I write with the un-wisdom of hindsight, I think we Muslim folk can be thankful the Prophet of Islam gave this particular commandment a miss.

Peace Jamal,

Leviticus seems to apply to priests.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 12:45pm

When we get to type casting of women, it happens everywhere. I as just reading on Islamonline.net about HIV and AIDS in Arab regions. And the difficulty in getting services. And as notes below how hard it is to get women services. And it goes to show that all over women are blamed or stereotyped alot.. Frankly maybe its best for women to stay away from men all over..  

First of all there is discrimination against all People Living with HIV when it comes to health services delivery.

However I do agree that in general, women are much more stigmatized and discriminated against when they are living with HIV.

For example, if they go to see a doctor they will automatically assume that she had extramarital sex. That is in fact wrong because 4 out of 5 women infected in the Arab region is infected through their husbands.

They are also discriminated against by their in-laws. For example they may be kicked out and left on the streets after their husbands die. Many of them are poor and are forced to go to commercial sex. We see here the failure of the community to protect them. Then they would be doubly discriminated against because they went to commercial sex.

They are also much more stigmatized against since, for example, a women who is not married and has HIV would endure much more stigmatization than a man.



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 2:44pm

2:234 And if any of you die and leave wives behind, they shall undergo, without remarrying, a waiting-period of four months and ten days; whereupon, when they have reached the end of their waiting-term, there shall be no sin in whatever they may do with their persons in a lawful manner. And God is aware of all that you do.

24:30 Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity:  this will be most con­ducive to their purity � [and,] verily, God is aware of all that they do.

4:19 O YOU who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to [try to] become heirs to your wives [by holding onto them] against their will; and neither shall you keep them under constraint with a view to taking away anything of what you may have given them, unless it be that they have become guilty, in an obvious man­ner, of immoral conduct.  And consort with your wives in a goodly manner; for if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something which God might yet make a source of  abundant good.

4:127 AND THEY will ask thee to enlighten them about the laws concerning women. Say: "God [Himself] en­lightens you about the laws concerning them"- for [His will is shown] in what is being conveyed unto you through this divine writ about orphan women [in your charge], to whom - because you yourselves may be desirous of marrying them - you do not give that which has been ordained for them; and about help­less children; and about your duty to treat orphans with equity. And whatever good you may do - be­hold, God has indeed full knowledge thereof.

65:6 [Hence,] let the women [who are undergoing a waiting-period] live in the same manner as you live yourselves, In  accordance with your means; and do not harass them with a view to making their lives a misery. And if they happen to be with child, spend freely on them until they deliver their burden; and if they nurse your offspring [after the divorce has become final], give them their [due] recompense; and take counsel with one another in a fair manner [about the child's future]. And if both of you find it difficult [that the mother should nurse the child], let another woman nurse it on behalf of him [who has begotten it].

2:231 And so, when you divorce women and they are about to reach the end of their waiting-term, then either retain them in a fair manner or let them go in a fair manner. But do not retain them against their will in order to hurt [them]: for he who does so sins indeed against himself. And do not take [these] messages of God in a frivolous spirit; and remember the blessings with which God has graced you, and all the revelation and the wisdom which He has bestowed on you from on high in order to admonish you thereby; and remain conscious of God, and know that God has full knowledge of everything.

 

And last but not least, need I remind you that 7 of the Prophet Muhammed's wives were married before him?????  And two others were not Muslims, one was a Jew and one a Christian.  Which means, that there are chaste women from other religions and chaste women who have been previously married.  Or do you find yourself better than the best that God has to offer????

  1. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_khadija.htm - KHADIJAH : She was 40 years old when she proposed to marry the Prophet when he was 25 years old. After 15years of their marriage he became a prophet. She had been married twice before she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Aby Haleh Al Tamemy and her second husband was Oteaq Almakzomy. They had both died leaving Khadijah a widower. Khadijah died in 621A.D. This was the same year the Prophet ascended into heaven (Meraj).

  2. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_sawada.htm - SAWDA BINT ZAM'A : Her first husband was Al Sakran Ibn Omro Ibn Abed Shamz. He died within a few days after his return from Ethiopia. She was 65 years old, poor, and had no one to care for her. This was why Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her.

  3. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_aisha.htm - AISHA SIDDIQA : A woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) marry Aishah, the daughter of Aby Bakr, to form a close relationship with Aby Bakr's family. She was already engaged to Jober Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday. At this time Jober was not yet a Muslim. The people of Makkah did not object to Aishah becoming married because although she was young, she was mature enough to understand the responsibility of marriage. Prophet Muhammad (bpuh) was engaged to Aishah for 2 years before he married her. Aby Bakr was the first leader after Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) death.

  4. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_hafsa.htm - HAFSAH BINT U'MAR : She was the daughter of Omar, the second Calipha. Omar asked Othman to marry Hafsah. Othman refused because his wife had recently died and Othman did not want to remarry. Omar then went to Aby Bakr but he also refused to marry Hafsah. Aby Bakr knew that the Prophet had already considered marrying Hafsah. Omar then went to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and complained that Othman and Aby Bakr did not want to marry his daughter. The Prophet told Omar that his daughter will marry and Othman will also remarry. Othman married the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Om Kolthoom, and Hafsah married the Prophet. This made Omar and Othman both happy.

  5. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_zaynab.htm - ZAYNAB BINT KHUZAYMA : Her husband died in the battle of Uhud, leaving her poor and with several children. She was old when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married her. She died 3 months after she married the Prophet 625 A.D.

  6. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_salema.htm - SALAMA BINT UMAYYA : Her husband, Abud Allah Abud Al Assad Ibn Al Mogherah, died leaving Hend poor and with many children. Hend was at least 65 years old at the time. Aby Bakr and several others asked her to marry them, but because she loved her husband very much, she refused the marriage's offers. But finally she accepted Prophet mohammad's offer to marry her and take care of her children.

  7. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_zayneb.htm - ZAYNAB BINT JAHSH : She was the daughter of Prophet Muhammad's aunt, Omameh Bint Abud Almutaleb. The Prophet arranged for Zaynab to marry Zayed Ibn Hareathah Al Kalby. This marriage did not last and the Prophet received a verse in the Quran which stated that if they became divorced, then the Prophet must marry Zaynab (Sura 33:37).

  8. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_Juwayriya.htm - JUWAYRIYA BINT AL-HARITH : Her first husband's name was Masafeah Ibn Safuan. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) wanted Juayreah's tribe (Beni Al Mostalag)to convert to Islam. Juayreah became a prisoner after the Muslims won the Battle of Al Mostalaq. Juayreah's father came to the Prophet and offered a payment for her return. The Prophet asked her father to give her a choice. When she was given a choice she said she accepted Islam and Prophet Muhammad as the last God's Messenger. The Prophet then married her. Her tribe of Beni Almostalag accepted Islam.

  9. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_safiyya.htm - SAFIYYA BINT HUYAYY : She was from the tribe of Beni Nadir, who were from the children of Levi (Israel). She was married twice before, then she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband Salam Ibn Moshkem, and her second husband was Kenanah Ibn Al Rabeeah.

  10. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_Habiba.htm - UMMU HABIBA BINT SUFYAN : Her first husband was Aubed Allah Jahish. He was the son of the aunt of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Aubed Allah died in Ethiopia. The king of Ethiopia arranged the marriage of Ramelah to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

  11. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_maymuna.htm - MAYAMUNA BINT AL-HARITH : She was 26years old when she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Her first husband was Abu Rahma Ibn Abed Alzey. When the Prophet opened Makkah in 630 AD , she came to the Prophet, accepted Islam and proposed to marry him. Her actions encouraged Many Makkahans to accept Islam and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

  12. http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_maria.htm - MARIA AL-QABTIYYA : She was sent to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a hand maid servant from the king of Egypt. Maria had a son from the Prophet. His name was Ibrahim.

 



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 5:40pm

Quote:
Leviticus 21:34 He must not marry a widow... but only a virgin from his own people.

 

Concerning this latter bit, how, exactly, is he going to know if she is still, well, a virgo intactica?  Is it time to call in the Levites for a ritualistic Sotah?

 

At any rate, the following, written by Kari Kammel, is copied from the Jan/Feb 2006 issue of (Depaul University�s) Health law Institute Newsletter.  It might not necessarily relate to the above verse from Leviticus, but it does seem nevertheless to otherwise apply: 

 

�Unmarried women throughout the Middle East and South East Asia are seeking hymen reconstruction [current trend in plastic surgery which is popular in countries such as Egypt and Lebanon and among immigrants to America] for what they consider is a small price to pay compared to the punishment and stigma they potentially face without the procedure.  In most Middle Eastern countries, hymen reconstructions are illegal; nevertheless, doctors perform the surgeries starting at $50USD. In the U.S., the procedure costs a minimum of $1,000.  For women who choose hymen reconstruction, the pressure of society is often so great that they feel as if they have no other option. For some women who have chosen to become sexually active, the surgery gives them the freedom to do so while also being able to meet their culture�s traditional expectations.  Additionally, the surgery allows women who have been victims of sexual violence to escape honor killings and restore family honor. Still, other women are simply afraid of not being able to produce a �bloody sheet� on their wedding night.�

 

source:  http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:OvhNO9oLEOgJ:www.law.de paul.edu/institutes_centers/health_law/pdf/jan_feb_2006_news letter.pdf+hymen+reconstruction+asian+women&hl=en&ct =clnk&cd=1&gl=us

 

 

Serv

_____________________________

 

Hey you!  Democratize this (the US economy)!



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 05 June 2007 at 7:43pm
Originally posted by Servetus Servetus wrote:

For some women who have chosen to become sexually active, the surgery gives them the freedom to do so while also being able to meet their culture�s traditional expectations.

The marriage then begins with a big lie, with deception.

The woman would be planning to stay for the rest of her life with someone she can't tell the truth. This first lie will of course be followed by other essential lies. Once you start lying, why not keep on lying?

Do people shake bad habits, such as shaking that "freedom" to be sexually active outside marriage? For a while, yes. For life? No.

Women who are promiscuous before marriage, will usually be so after marriage too. All of that leads to new lies. It is hard to maintain an elaborate, alternative version of the truth. She misses going out to bars, nightclubs, pubs, parties. She can't confess to her husband, however. So, let's sneak away. Damn, someone who could know her husband, saw it. New problem...

Eventually, everybody understands that she is unfit for the lifestyle of a married woman. That is the real shame and dishonour for her family. Nobody wants to marry her younger sisters ...

In the meanwhile, they have children. But they get divorced. In absence of a father, her attitude badly rubs off on the kids. Another generation of promiscuous, "sexually active" arises. Now it is harder to conceal...

Just look at American kids. How can American mothers ask their daughters to be chaste, when the daughters are the very product of their own lack of chastity? That phenomenon is called degeneration.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 2:05am

Women who are promiscuous before marriage, will usually be so after marriage too. All of that leads to new lies. It is hard to maintain an elaborate, alternative version of the truth. She misses going out to bars, nightclubs, pubs, parties. She can't confess to her husband, however. So, let's sneak away. Damn, someone who could know her husband, saw it. New problem...
A very good script! Specially for a porno movie.

Though, it hardly washes well with scientific data at hand, not just through Masters and Johnson, but also via a horde of other more established and cultured masters.

My heartfelt sympathies for all your sad personal experiences, but such an "addictive pattern" is NOT a norm, but a mere exception of human sexual behaviour. 

Woman is the centre of the Society. You treat her as no more than some carrier bag, at best, and trash her out of proportion. We are not privy to your personal circumstances and as such we have no idea about your addiction for only things sexual. 

Sexual relationships are well regulated in the societies you feel so bitterly about. These are regulated, both, at the social + the statuatory levels. I promise, there is no free for all sort of an orgy going on anywhere other than just in your most interesting imagination.

If you had a slightly less Crassed mind, you would have known that all civilised concepts (excepting Catholic and, possibly, some Hindu traditions) DO NOT force a woman to remain tied up and knotted with just the one idiot if he proves or, simply, happens to be not the right idiot.

Woman holds perfect right to chose any partner at any time of her life just if sanctioned by the society. Social sanctions, in a world of such varied jigsaw pieces, are not governed merely by the diktats of Abrahimic faiths.

Or, for that matter, by the fantasies of some sick minds.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 4:16am
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

...but such an "addictive pattern" is NOT a norm, but a mere exception of human sexual behaviour...Sexual relationships are well regulated in the societies you feel so bitterly about. These are regulated, both, at the social + the statuatory levels. I promise, there is no free for all sort of an orgy going on anywhere other than just in your most interesting imagination.

Teens having casual sex earlier, study says (San Diego State University)
Between 1943 and 1999, the age at which teenage girls first had sex dropped from 19 to 15...And it is young women who are leading the way in this dramatic cultural shift, in which sexual activity among teenagers is considered not only acceptable, but the norm, according to SDSU psychology professor and study co-author Jean Twenge...The number of teen girls who said they don't feel guilty about premarital sex went from 12 percent to 73 percent...The percentage of young people having oral sex increased from 48 percent in 1969 to 72 percent in 1993 among young men, and from 42 percent to 71 percent among young women...The report appears in the most recent issue of the Review of General Psychology, a publication of the American Psychological Association.
Originally posted by Whisper Whisper wrote:

Woman holds perfect right to chose any partner at any time of her life just if sanctioned by the society. Social sanctions, in a world of such varied jigsaw pieces, are not governed merely by the diktats of Abrahimic faiths.

And everybody who submits to an Abrahamic faith holds the perfect right to reject such women as spouses. As I said, the American degeneration rate stands currently around 70% and still going up. No brother in faith should go fishing in that kind of filthy pond for a spouse ...

State abstinence program seeks to combat health crisis
In 1998, according to public health reports, sixty-five million Americans had an incurable viral STD-forty million had herpes and twenty-five million had HPV. These numbers translate into one out of every four Americans being infected with an STD. (These figures do not include those infected with HIV/AIDS.) STD's that are incurable (viral) include herpes, HPV, Hepatitis B and HIV.
...
According to public health reports, half of all sexually active young people ages 14-25 are already infected with at least one of a growing number of incurable STD's.

"Freedom" ??? 



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 3:41pm

Crasss quoted me but it was actually the author of the copied article who said:

 

Quote (Kari Kammel):
For some women who have chosen to become sexually active, the [hymen reconstruction] surgery gives them the freedom to do so while also being able to meet their culture�s traditional expectations.

 

Crasss wrote:
The marriage then begins with a big lie, with deception.

 

Prove it!  The necessary postcoital bloodstain is there on the bed sheets.

 

Crasss wrote:
The marriage then begins with a big lie, with deception.

 

Crasss, Crasss, Crasss.  Try not to think of it as a lie, so much -which sounds just so, well, definite- but think of it rather as an illusion.   Speaking of illusion, remember what Blanche DuBois said to the notoriously skeptical Stanley Kowalski:

 

�All right.  Cards on the table.  I know I fib a good deal.  After all, a woman�s charm is fifty percent illusion, but when a thing is important I tell the truth, and this is the truth.�

 

Signed:

Servie (gone camping with the late Tennessee Williams)



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 6:22pm
Originally posted by Servetus Servetus wrote:

Try not to think of it as a lie, so much -which sounds just so, well, definite- but think of it rather as an illusion.

Is chastity an illusion?

Look at the game. Some women are wearing hijab, other women aren't. You're a man. You want some unserious sports sex. Where are you going to try? The ones wearing hijab can be expected to be seriously more difficult to convince into unserious sports sex. They advertize clearly and beforehand that they are not likely to be interested. Ok. You want results for your efforts. Let's go for the other ones.

Women wearing hijab are simply less targetted for sports sex. As a result, they are more likely to be chaste, regardless of whether they actually would be interested in sports sex or not. It doesn't matter. They give the impression that they are not. That, in itself, is already sufficient to alter the statistics.

If your wife is wearing hijab, she is several orders of magnitude less likely to be targetted for adulterous affairs. The men who would try to entice her into that, are being discouraged beforehand. So, again, a wife wearing hijab is several orders of magnitude more likely to be faithful, regardless whether she is inclined to adulterous affairs or not. She is simply perceived like that, by her own husband and by the other men. So, marriage proposals go to the ones wearing hijab, while sports sex proposals go to the other ones.

Sports sex and a lack of serious proposals is not a benefit to any women, and the ones not wearing hijab are the ones bearing their full brunt, while the ones wearing hijab manage to escape it.

Hijab is a political issue in the West, because it works, and not because it is a symbol of Islam. Is hijab oppressive? It is not oppressive to the women who are wearing it. It is oppressive to the other ones, who are being pushed into losing at the game.

Are muslim women chaster? The mere impression that they are, contributes to keeping them out of the sports sex game. So, they are effectively chaster. Is this an illusion? No. It's game theory.

Who is against hijab? The men in general? No. Men interested in sports sex? No, there are enough targets for sports sex available. So, men couldn't care less. The ones staunchly against hijab are the women not wearing it.



Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 9:29pm

Sport sex ???

 

I'm seriously with Whisper here  hey whisper i think you're right



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: hat2010
Date Posted: 06 June 2007 at 10:16pm

Peace

and peace to you, passionate bro crasss

Bro Crasss, I will say that the prostitiutes here in my corner of N Africa predominately use the hijab to disguise themselves.  Hummus for thought.

"The ones staunchly against hijab are the women not wearing it."

If this is so, than it is a vital group to be listened to and responded to with full understanding of what is asked of us.

And re the holy Quran:  Remember that the end of the missives on what to wear ends with the request to wear the ultimate garment - righteousness.  This, above all impressive and dense material coverings.

 

 



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 07 June 2007 at 12:44am

Angel, I think what Crass is saying is that women in the west have sex for sport? But Crass is known to make up words! Women who have sports sex I wonder if they are a new WNBA expansion team?



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 07 June 2007 at 12:46am
Originally posted by Jamal Morelli Jamal Morelli wrote:

If this is so, than it is a vital group to be listened to...

Peace bro Jamal,

I think it is clear what the trend is. Women wearing hijab get married and the other ones become "free" (std-infected) sportsex toys. So, in the end, everybody gets what they asked for.






Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 07 June 2007 at 10:09am

Crasss wrote:
Is chastity an illusion?

 

Sometimes.  Consider, for a skewed example, Muslim males in the Blue Bell Nightclub in Amsterdam and never-married Muslim females undergoing plastic surgery for hymen reconstruction.

 

Serv



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 08 June 2007 at 9:33pm
Originally posted by Servetus Servetus wrote:

...and never-married Muslim females undergoing plastic surgery for hymen reconstruction.

You can blackmouth muslim females as much as you want, it doesn't help. It's all a question of trust, and wearing hijab inspires trust. We decide who we want to believe, and if we want to believe Muslim women, that's something you can't change, regardless of what you say about them. A woman who is wearing hijab, is sending a powerful message to her environment: no monkey business; only marriage. Are some cheating? Maybe, but that's an acceptable risk.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 12:42am

This is why I started this thread.....

A piece of material covering the body does not inspire a woman to remain a virgin, it is her will to do so and to remain one until marriage. Ultimately, if God (and the absence of ignorant testoterome filled men) wills it she was remain "chaste." I firmly believe that if a woman has sex outside of marriage does not make her an immoral creature either. I believe morality especially in conjuction to social behavioral interaction is not necessitated by what we do sexually. Sure, we can make wrong decisions that ultimately lead to our demise but we cannot (and should not) define morality partially on the basis of chastity (IMHO).

Again, immorality exist even within the religious sphere. Most ultra-religionist believe that there actions are justifiable because on the premise of what they do is considered "religious" when on the face of their actions they are irreligious. With that being said since immorality exist on both sides of the spectrum we need toreconstruct our view of what morality is.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 7:01am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

I firmly believe that if a woman has sex outside of marriage does not make her an immoral creature either.

Look, the deal was the following: Women bear children of one man. The man supports the wife and children. Sex outside marriage, breaks the deal.

So, now the deal is off. As I said, western women are unfit for marriage. Nobody wants to marry them any longer, because they don't stick to the deal. Is that a problem? No, because everybody knows it.



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 2:23pm
Brother Israfil, we must accept what he says and withdraw quietly, honourably without disturbing him.

-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 2:55pm

Nobody wants to marry them any longer, because they don't stick to the deal. Is that a problem? No, because everybody knows it.

Crass you are assuimng

a) that it is men are refusing to marry on grounds of "non-chastity." i think that is a simple answer to a complex society issue.  People are not getting married in the west also because they do not have to. his is true for women as well. Really as most people have to work outside the home, many women have to do two jobs- at office and at home and men goto work and come home and read the paper and watch TV.. lol And many women do that due to economics.

b) And many people are opting out of marriage and children altogether.. irreguardless of how much pre-martial sex one has. We ar a society that values the individual and family and kids are seen as a "burden" that cramps this lifestyle. Not saying it is "right" but there it is. This is tied into a society where working excessively long hours and valuing "free time."

I saw a great article about how poligamy would be good for westerners as you don't have anyone cramping your lifestyle but still have a husband a few times a week...lol



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 6:31pm

Brother Israfil, we must accept what he says and withdraw quietly, honourably without disturbing him.

I absolutely agree with you! However I couldn't help be attracted to the nonsense being spewed out the mouth! But I shall retire after this I swear by Allah!

Look, the deal was the following: Women bear children of one man. The man supports the wife and children. Sex outside marriage, breaks the deal.

The deal for whom? Remember the verse "there is no compulsion in religion" if our supposed freedom gives us the choice to choose whether to uphold the laws of God or not how can you, even arguably hold those who CHOOSE not to abide by the "laws of God?" The choice for any woman or man to have sex outside marriage is their choice and in essence to that, they are not breaking any rule.

So, now the deal is off. As I said, western women are unfit for marriage. Nobody wants to marry them any longer, because they don't stick to the deal. Is that a problem? No, because everybody knows it.

I echo the same sentiments as sister Hafya in saying that you are assuming. In america alone there are an estimated over 300 million people. Mostly women. The ratio I believe now is 7 women to one man. Even those among the 7 who are unable to find a mate how can you assume their lack of suitability simply based on falty statistics and assumptions? You cite San Diego State as your resource but the fact of the matter is, that is only one location! Again, they tell you in college, especially courses in mathematics (esp. Statistic and Probability) that it is impossible to poll every single entity in a large area.

With that being said, one can only base statistical findings on the following: those who participate in polls, consensus in the area, pre-existing findings and population and population growth. There are more of course but the fact of the matter is Crass you mislead people by using certain resources just to justify your own biases. You simply and logically cannot prove that of the 300 million people and of them, the women are unfit for marriage. That is purely ridiculous and you know that. You don't know the millions of women that live in the west nor do you know their intentions.

Statistics even remotely relevant does not predict someone's actions as predictable. It only shows merely a pattern of behavior. As far as everyone knows it who is everyone? Look, I love women from my country. I love women period. I'm sorry your a misogynist and sexist man who somehow found his way in subtley, hating women. But the fact of the matter is, in an academic setting, I don't think you could pose a valid and logical argument especially with the kind of research methods you use. You should re-evaluate your belief about women (esp. women in western countries) because it is obviously an invalid belief.



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 12:19am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

The choice for any woman or man to have sex outside marriage is their choice and in essence to that, they are not breaking any rule...

Read the Quran. You really think you can challenge God's word, do you?



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 12:50am

Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:

Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

The choice for any woman or man to have sex outside marriage is their choice and in essence to that, they are not breaking any rule...

Read the Quran. You really think you can challenge God's word, do you?

You're greatly misunderstanding me here. When I talk about people reserving the right to do what they want I'm referring to those who are not compelled to follow Islam. In this particular scenario those who are not Muslims (or those who have not confessed to be of any organized faith) are not, in the physical sense are held accountable for not being cognizant of God's laws. That means since I'm an adherent of Islam I cannot say this person or that person is wrong because they are not followers of Islam. Any statement (such as saying 'Paris Hilton is wrong for having sex outside of marriage') that addresses a person by judging them on the basis of subjective premise is only correct insofar as the person who is judging is an adherent of a religious moral code.

So Crass when you say Western women are unfit for marriage it is an opinion. When you say women who have sex outside of marriage is wrong its an opinion. I call it an opinion because its something you believe in yet its something that is not universally accepted especially if its related to morality. Hence, me saying: "The choice for any woman or man to have sex outside marriage is their choice and in essence to that, they are not breaking any rule..."



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 2:40am

Crass you are assuimng

He must thank you for such a compliment.

Assumption is a cerebral process. We have to have a mind to get involved into any cerebral process. And, we haven't had any evidence of that in the case of this one.

I am not too sure if you have ever played one of those old LPs (long playing records) on a turntable? At times, an LP would get stuck in a grove and come up with just the same line . . . I love ya aaa . . .  . I love ya aaa . . . I love ya aaa . . . again and again, for ever.

Till we kicked the turntable head past that grove!

Today, I am shy of telling this forum that the Spanish property market has started to "sink" for I know, it will ened up driven to just the one corner - chastity!

If I dare tell you that it was a unique sunny day in London yesterday - the answer will be Chastity!

Just forget about that coachload of happy children on a Saturday outing, even if I (or, even one of you for that matter) said that my grandson phoned me this morning and wanted to know what I was doing? the cause will be - Chastity!

My friend, when we are obsessed with something assumption or any other verebral processes wither away.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 5:55am
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Any statement (such as saying 'Paris Hilton is wrong for having sex outside of marriage') that addresses a person by judging them on the basis of subjective premise is only correct insofar as the person who is judging is an adherent of a religious moral code.

Israfil, fornication is wrong, regardless of what religion you believe in.

This is the problem with western women. They somehow believe that the ban on fornication is a subjective and relative issue. At the same time, they don't like to be called whores. Unfortunately, it is the one or the other.



Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 11:09am

Crass the issue with you is your assumptions. Do you notice when you say:

"This is the problem with western women"

Fornication is a subjective because it is relative to the society we live in. It's safe to assume that most societies around the world are in some way influence by the ancient Abrahamic faith (perhaps with the exception of Germany which emphasizes freedom). I also never said a ban on fornication is a subjective issue. I said the idea of fornication is a subjective issue. Yes, sleeping around is not widely accepted or always practice but in some societies some people don't see anything wrong with that. In actuality there are sub-cultures that glorify it (See: exhibitionist, swingers, porn stars, hip-hop culture).

 



Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 12:34pm

Brother Israfil,

You are feeding his fix, sponsoring a simple mental disorder. It's plain simple sexual obsessive behaviour, falls in the same category, just excepting that chastity replaces certain other unusable words, but acts to trigger exactly the same whirl.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 10 June 2007 at 9:30pm
Originally posted by Israfil Israfil wrote:

Fornication is a subjective because it is relative to the society we live in.

Fornication destroys marriage. The destruction of marriage leads to the destruction of the family. Without the family, the next generation cannot be raised successfully. Chastity is the price paid by women, to keep family and society afloat.

The western society you live in, is inevitably based on the assumption that people would form stable families and raise children. The assumption is wrong. Therefore, the western society you live in, is falling apart. The fornicatress and her illegitimate offspring can't keep any human society afloat. The number of years left to the West are counted.

Muslims should now this, because the Quran warned for this 1400 years ago.

In these circumstances, adopting anything from the West, is haram. Marrying a western woman is haram. That whole western society is simply and completely haram.

Pray for mercy to the One God. Implore His forgiveness, because the end is nigh. I cannot see the clock and tell you how much time is left. I can see like everybody else, however, that it is almost over.



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 10:52am

Originally posted by Crasss Crasss wrote:

Is chastity an illusion?

 

Originally posted by I I wrote:

Sometimes.  Consider, for a skewed example, Muslim males in the Blue Bell Nightclub in Amsterdam and never-married Muslim females undergoing plastic surgery for hymen reconstruction.

 

Originally posted by Crasss Crasss wrote:

You can blackmouth muslim females as much as you want, it doesn't help.

 

If I ever feel like blackmouthing Muslim females, I will neither require nor ask your permission to do it.

 

Originally posted by Crasss Crasss wrote:

Sports sex �

 

Sports sex?  What's wrong with trying to synchronize physical orgasm to (or with) the conclusion of a tennis match at Wimbledon?

 

Originally posted by Crasss Crasss wrote:

It's all a question of trust, and wearing hijab inspires trust.

 

Then wear one.  I don�t care.

 

Originally posted by Crasss Crasss wrote:

We decide who we want to believe, and if we want to believe Muslim women, that's something you can't change, regardless of what you say about them.

 

You asked.  I answered.  Stick to the subject and stop projecting.

 

Originally posted by Crasss Crasss wrote:

A woman who is wearing hijab, is sending a powerful message to her environment: no monkey business; only marriage.

 

By the sounds of things (Jam�s post), presumably for a pre-negotiated price, some hijabs can be at least temporarily removed from pop tarts in Morocco. 

 

Originally posted by Crasss Crasss wrote:

Are some cheating? Maybe, but that's an acceptable risk.

 

You can denigrate Muslim women all you want but that is not going to help anything.  Or something like that.  Now carry on and write some more of these festively fornicatory posts.

 

Serv



Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 7:04pm
Originally posted by Servetus Servetus wrote:

Now carry on and write some more of these festively fornicatory posts.

You seem under the illusion that things can continue like they are now. They can't.

Western women want the "freedom" to sleep around. No man is going to contribute to keeping that kind of society afloat. So, either you manage to do it on your own, or else, you sink.

It's a miracle that there is still a batch of American corn-fed Christian st**idos available, who agree to go fighting in Iraq, to do the bidding of a bunch of fornicatresses, who will inevitably stab them in the back. Some people don't see it yet. However, you can't keep counting on st**idity to keep things afloat.



Posted By: pauline35
Date Posted: 12 June 2007 at 8:54pm
Dear Crasss, what is American corn-fed? I heard about chicken that is cord-fed.


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 2:09am

Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:

Western women want the "freedom" to sleep around. No man is going to contribute to keeping that kind of society afloat.

I've heard many women going to private investigators to see what their men are up to, i think there was a show to on it american show, that was not on long ago, pathetic show really .

You are very good at putting blame on western women and single mothers thinking that they are doing wrong and sleeping around you haven't said anything (maybe you have i just missed it) about single mothers who have lost their husbands/partners though whatever cirumstance/s. And not once about men and single fathers.

You topic is always about western women and single mothers and how bad they are and wanting the freedom to sleep around and sex/fornication.

I think it is time you put away that.  



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 2:14am

Originally posted by crasss crasss wrote:

It's a miracle that there is still a batch of American corn-fed Christian st**idos available, who agree to go fighting in Iraq, to do the bidding of a bunch of fornicatresses, who will inevitably stab them in the back. Some people don't see it yet. However, you can't keep counting on st**idity to keep things afloat.

Gee and I thought they got sent because President Bush told them so , didn't know that fornicatresses sent them  

 



-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: crasss
Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 5:06am
Originally posted by Angel Angel wrote:

You topic is always about western women and single mothers and how bad they are and wanting the freedom to sleep around...

But they do have that freedom. And they use it.

And I don't mind. I just emphasize that you can't expect men to be interested in that kind of society. As I said, I expect that thing to collapse rather sooner than later. Bye bye.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 8:58am

And I don't mind. I just emphasize that you can't expect men to be interested in that kind of society.

You have got to be kidding, most men love it! I saw a video on hijab and a woman was saying she wears hijab not because men want it, but part if it, is that they'd rather have the women take it off. Men would rather have a free view.  Men like having the easy sex. You make it seem like men are rejecting this society. Not at all. They participate just as much, if not more then the men.

I have no idea where you live, but most women are too busy to be sleeping around. Especially if they have kids. I live with my sister, her husband and two kids.. Its enough to get to 10pm and not be in bed. And she is far less likely to stray then her husband. That is biologically pretty universal.

Quite a number of Moslem women are approached by Moslem men who say, you are too "pretty to be wearing hijab". You seem to think men are such innocent victims, just reacting to the women. You need to get out of the house or something.. lol



-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Whisper
Date Posted: 13 June 2007 at 10:26am

You seem to think men are such innocent victims, just reacting to the women.

We need to understand that all of our Fornication-in-Chief's posts are his reaction, as an innocent victim, of some woman's actions, somewhere in his exceptionally sad life.

I have been studying this character with professional interest and I sincerely hope that he just heals and before he harms himself or, worse still, someone in his vicinity.



-------------
Sasha Khanzadeh



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net