A Muslim On board....I'm Muslim...dont be scared

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:58 pm

spot;1205016 wrote: There is no God.

Well lets be reasonable. You dont believe in God the way many others do.

Would that be more accurate ?

Seriously there are just too many definitive truths floating around.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:21 pm

Nomad;1205245 wrote: Well lets be reasonable. You dont believe in God the way many others do.

Would that be more accurate ?

Seriously there are just too many definitive truths floating around.

My definitive truth is more supportable than your definitive truth, how's that?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:26 pm

Abram Is Muslim;1205237 wrote: the Darwin's Theory Of Evolution was proved to be fake.

Darwin's theory did not try to explain the creation of the universe we abide in.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:43 pm

spot;1205273 wrote: My definitive truth is more supportable than your definitive truth, how's that?

No.

A person of great faith doesnt have to fight to convince others how much truthier their truth is than your truth. Their faith is as concrete to them as your science is to you.

Thats indisputable.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:54 pm

Nomad;1205291 wrote: No.

A person of great faith doesnt have to fight to convince others how much truthier their truth is than your truth. Their faith is as concrete to them as your science is to you.

Thats indisputable.

That's a person with a belief, it has nothing to do with faith. I have faith but my brain's not addled with dogmatic assertions.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:06 pm

spot;1205298 wrote: That's a person with a belief, it has nothing to do with faith. I have faith but my brain's not addled with dogmatic assertions.

Thats part of the package.

But cmon clearly your brain is addled.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:07 pm

Nomad;1205307 wrote: Thats part of the package.

But cmon clearly your brain is addled.

But not, I would maintain, with dogma.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:09 pm

I'm kind of warming to you Muhamed. You've come in here with a mission and are expressing your beliefs and defending them against all comers. You are one of our youngest members, and I think it has been easy to forget that. I remember the time when my son knew absolutely that everything was black and white and pure and simple and felt in a position to judge. You are filled with zeal and love too, and it's endearing. I think, for many of us, life has kind of kicked out a lot of our earlier certainties. I hope you fare well in yours. In lots of ways you've reached out to us, who you see probably as alien. I try to reach out to people here of different faiths as I go about my daily business. I have Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Atheist and Agnostic friends and colleagues. We are all human, all fallible, and all trying to understand the meaning of life, the universe, everything. Peace!

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:07 pm

how much truthier their truth is than your truth.

Come again?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:03 pm

Dear Abram: you've stayed the course this far. I must warn you that spot is Welsh and is therefore by definition one who is capable of having a full-scale row alone in an empty room. The problem is that he's often right.

God is God, and our petty rows about what he/she wants are like mosquitos arguing about whales (understatement and just plain wrong, but I hope you get the idea of the analogy). All of God's will comes to us through human brains, which are capable of terrible mistakes no matter how much we try.

About the only thing I'm certain of is that killing eachother in the name of God is the most appalling blasphemy. Christians and Muslims both have dreadful records in this matter. If this is what God wants, then I'm with spot, and God is not worth worshipping.

(btw, spot, are you familiar with the poetry of William Blake? I know I'm not as much as I should be)

Abram Is Muslim · Post by **Abram Is Muslim** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:14 pm

AussiePam;1205312 wrote: I'm kind of warming to you Muhamed. You've come in here with a mission and are expressing your beliefs and defending them against all comers. You are one of our youngest members, and I think it has been easy to forget that. I remember the time when my son knew absolutely that everything was black and white and pure and simple and felt in a position to judge. You are filled with zeal and love too, and it's endearing. I think, for many of us, life has kind of kicked out a lot of our earlier certainties. I hope you fare well in yours. In lots of ways you've reached out to us, who you see probably as alien. I try to reach out to people here of different faiths as I go about my daily business. I have Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Atheist and Agnostic friends and colleagues. We are all human, all fallible, and all trying to understand the meaning of life, the universe, everything. Peace!

Friend

I worked for an American company training for 3 years next to my studies, and whole my friends there were Americans, Germans,and Britishes , I have Italian Cathoilic relativies in my family, my fiance is American ,she converted into Islam ,while her family still Baptist, I dont see the other as Alien , I even used to put my self in the other'sposition to think in his way, and for (the mission), Im not a CIA agent

, its just like you dont know how much troubles the Muslims face because of the Media , well just an American ancient Irish would feel what I meen ,the Irish were treated so bad in America in their start , the propeganda was made around them there,made the people be away from them ,even like what the black suffered for years..

Its about teaching the Others about who Iam.... like giving them my glass to see the world through my glasses, to understand me , at least I did the same , I wore their glasses and looked at their world, its time to try my glasses to know me well..

Peace cant come without knowledge

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:02 pm

Abram Is Muslim;1205354 wrote:

Its about teaching the Others about who Iam....

That's a youth thing. Feeling called upon to teach. Feeling that you are in an enlightened enough position to be worthy to teach. I don't think wisdom comes with age, necessarily. Just look at all the elderly foolishness around!! But with maturity often comes the awareness that youthful dreams get shattered, that life is about learning - and it is the willingness to continue to learn that in itself teaches...

What I hope for you is that you will feel able to enter some of the non-religious, non-political wider life around you and by your living, rather than by your preaching, let the people you come in contact with know who you are.

Abram Is Muslim · Post by **Abram Is Muslim** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:10 pm

AussiePam;1205371 wrote: That's a youth thing. Feeling called upon to teach. Feeling that you are in an enlightened enough position to be worthy to teach. I don't think wisdom comes with age, necessarily. Just look at all the elderly foolishness around!! But with maturity often comes the awareness that youthful dreams get shattered, that life is about learning - and it is the willingness to continue to learn that in itself teaches...

What I hope for you is that you will feel able to enter some of the non-religious, non-political wider life around you and by your living, rather than by your preaching, let the people you come in contact with know who you are.

:)Thank You for the advise

How could I tell about my self ,while someOne think me as Something rather than what Im, and point at me saying lies,he heared or watched or media, I was really going to share in whole the others forum , but I had something to answer first for whole the members, Who am I...?? and How I think....??

And coz Im religiouse person , I cant seperate between my faith and My self, so I posted a Muslim on board , to teach more about my self.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:15 pm

Abram Is Muslim;1205237 wrote: the Darwin's Theory Of Evolution was proved to be fake.

Absolutely, unequivocably, undeniably "proved to be fake."?

Here's another's thoughts on it. It's lengthy but has some good points:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Copyright Â© 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak

[Last Update: October 1, 2003]

Other Links:

A Creationist Rebuts this FAQ

Creationist Tim Wallace has written a rebuttal of each of the points made in this FAQ. (Despite its pilfered masthead, Wallace's web page is not a part of the Talk.Origins Archive.)

A Critique of Wallace

Evolutionist Wayne Duck responds to Tim Wallace's rebuttal.

A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

Evolution has never been observed.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

There are no transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see talk.origins newsgroup for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:21 pm

I wouldn't presume to advise you, Muhamed. I was writing what I hoped for you. I think some of our communication problems are language ones. You obviously have very good English, but it's not perfect. I have no Egyptian but do speak a couple of other languages, and know how hard it is to express yourself fully in a language other than your mother tongue.

In this English speaking forum we have considerable problems understanding all the nuances etc of our own native speakers. The Scots, the Irish, the English, the Welsh......., the Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc.... And we also have considerable cultural differences, the one from the other.

I spoke earlier of my own son. His best friend at primary/grade school was from Egypt. My son used to visit the family often, helped them settle into Australian life, translated business stuff for the father, was transported into the wondrous flavours of an Egyptian kitchen by the mother, and was a good mate in the school yard to both sons. That's multidirectional learning.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:52 am

AussiePam;1205312 wrote: I'm kind of warming to you Muhamed. You've come in here with a mission and are expressing your beliefs and defending them against all comers. You are one of our youngest members, and I think it has been easy to forget that. I remember the time when my son knew absolutely that everything was black and white and pure and simple and felt in a position to judge. You are filled with zeal and love too, and it's endearing. I think, for many of us, life has kind of kicked out a lot of our earlier certainties. I hope you fare well in yours. In lots of ways you've reached out to us, who you see probably as alien. I try to reach out to people here of different faiths as I go about my daily business. I have Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Atheist and Agnostic friends and colleagues. We are all human, all fallible, and all trying to understand the meaning of life, the universe, everything. Peace!

Yes !

I had another "moment" yesterday. I met a Dutch couple and he was wearing a shirt with Native American symbolism printed on it. I asked him what it meant. He replied were all the same. We talked briefly about our views and we were all kind of wide eyed and he said he had chills. Maybe you had to be there. I keep having these dynamic connection moments with people of different cultures and faiths. Not sure why but I really enjoy it. I feel like Im closing in on something, a valuable understanding of sorts. Its very exciting.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:16 am

Abram Is Muslim;1205237 wrote: the Darwin's Theory Of Evolution was proved to be fake.

A theory is an explanation of something based on the available evidence. If new evidence is found or the evidence is found to be incorrect the theory will be altered accordingly.

The theory of evolution is just that-an explanation based on the available evidence. It is not an immutable belief system like a religion. It is not an article of faith despite the insistence of some religious denominations in treating it as such.

A religious belief is something people belief to be true regardless of the ability to prove the truth or otherwise of that belief.

In what way has the theory of evolution proved to be a fake?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:20 am

Nomad;1205590 wrote: Yes !

I had another "moment" yesterday. I met a Dutch couple and he was wearing a shirt with Native American symbolism printed on it. I asked him what it meant. He replied were all the same. We talked briefly about our views and we were all kind of wide eyed and he said he had chills. Maybe you had to be there. I keep having these dynamic connection moments with people of different cultures and faiths. Not sure why but I really enjoy it. I feel like Im closing in on something, a valuable understanding of sorts. Its very exciting.

Love your pic in your siggie, Nomad......

Gotta love those Native Americans.................

*back on topic*

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:17 am

Nomad;1205590 wrote: Yes !

I had another "moment" yesterday. I met a Dutch couple and he was wearing a shirt with Native American symbolism printed on it. I asked him what it meant. He replied were all the same. We talked briefly about our views and we were all kind of wide eyed and he said he had chills. Maybe you had to be there. I keep having these dynamic connection moments with people of different cultures and faiths. Not sure why but I really enjoy it. I feel like Im closing in on something, a valuable understanding of sorts. Its very exciting.

I can understand perfectly what you are saying. When I learn something new, it's very exciting. I hope to learn something every day even if it's just a small thing. I ask a lot of questions and it's interesting to see how people just open up and want to tell you things about themselves. My daughters used to be slightly embarrassed by this but lately I've noticed them doing the same thing-engaging strangers in conversation.

Abram Is Muslim · Post by **Abram Is Muslim** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:14 am

I wil comment more more about Darwin later after my Exam:)

Abram Is Muslim · Post by **Abram Is Muslim** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:15 am

AussiePam;1205379 wrote: I wouldn't presume to advise you, Muhamed. I was writing what I hoped for you. I think some of our communication problems are language ones. You obviously have very good English, but it's not perfect. I have no Egyptian but do speak a couple of other languages, and know how hard it is to express yourself fully in a language other than your mother tongue.

In this English speaking forum we have considerable problems understanding all the nuances etc of our own native speakers. The Scots, the Irish, the English, the Welsh......., the Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders etc.... And we also have considerable cultural differences, the one from the other.

I spoke earlier of my own son. His best friend at primary/grade school was from Egypt. My son used to visit the family often, helped them settle into Australian life, translated business stuff for the father, was transported into the wondrous flavours of an Egyptian kitchen by the mother, and was a good mate in the school yard to both sons. That's multidirectional learning.

Thats lovely really:D

I wish they were the same lovely to your family

I love Austerlia so much really

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:26 pm

Best wishes for your exam Muhamed.

Do you live with your parents? Do you have brothers and sisters? Has your father got more than one wife? What is your favourite food? I'd love to hear a bit more about your everyday life.

We have a little one in the family. He is almost 8. At the school he was at last year his best friend was Muslim and his parents were great. Very devout. Funny story. My little one had a money box in the shape of a pink pig and this was his favourite toy, so of course he brought it to share with his friend... an unclean animal toy.. grin. We all had a good laugh, and nobody was offended. It was done in innocence, but a cultural lesson.

Talking to you has brought back lots of merry memories of children's birthday parties - where, in this multicultural society, some kids left their shoes outside the house, some couldn't eat pork, some couldn't eat beef, some needed chopsticks. Kinda nice really - and I think my kids are much the richer for all that. My son is about to move from Europe to Asia now, and looking forward to that. He has some Mandarin and some Cantonese too.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:00 pm

Abram Is Muslim;1200493 wrote: Hi all :-6

I'm Muhamed , an Egyptian sinior Engineer :driving:

Nice to meet you all ,I wish answering nay Question u have about my faith:-3

I have a question about how Islam views books such as Princess Sultana's Daughters by Jean P. Sasson? I read this a couple of years ago and found it very disturbing. I have one I haven't read yet, Unveiled, by Cherry Mosteshar,(an Islamic bride born in Iran, but educated at Oxford) which is, to quote the jacket, "her courageos quest to expose the hypocrisy and corruption of Islamic Iran, as experienced by 'women under the veil'. "

I have another question which I'll put in a different post, concerning the Internet.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:13 pm

Zapata - I haven't read those books, but I did read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali - it's very hard for any woman reading that not to react in horror. Anyway, there is a part of that where Ayaan speaks of her difficult time in Saudi Arabia. I was interested to read in the paper the other day that Saudi Arabia is going to relax the laws that state a female, like a child, must always have a male guardian. Woman will eventually be given full legal identity.

Saudi to end male guardian rule for women

Maybe we should make a separate thread. I don't want to discourage Muhamed from talking to us all by bombarding him with our concerns about the status of women under Islam. But I do appreciate the fact that for many of us women in Forum Garden this is always what we consider first when we interact with islamic people. Not religious minutiae, not oil, not suicide bombers etc.. but how our sisters live. For me, it's always there in the back of my mind. I expect a put down from the non-moderator-general for venturing in this direction again ... but ...... he's not a woman.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:16 pm

I have a question concerning the Internet. I've been getting a lot of promotions for dating sites for Muslims.

The Internet and the Veiled Ummah of Islam

This is the site for the full article.

"Question: Is it permissible to go on Islamic chats?

Answer: This is from the pathways of the Shaytaan. There is no such thing that is called â€œIslamic chatâ€ - meaning that there can be no relationship between a man and a woman outside of the realm of marriage. Rather, this is a satanic relationship and not an Islamic relationship. Islam came to prevent the means of evil, and preventing the evil takes precedence over bringing about good. So many of these kinds of relationships, which people call by other than their proper names, lead to temptation and having meetings (i.e. dates), and maybe that may lead to fornication or holding lust for one another. Therefore, we say that this door must be closed and we must be warned about the Internet and using it in wrong ways, because in the Internet there can be found trials and tribulations and channels that corrupt the person's character. So the Muslim woman must fear Allah and not follow the footsteps of the Devil, by establishing these kinds of relationships over the Internet And how many of these types of relationships have corrupted women towards their husbands and men towards their wives, and the children - boys and girls? And we ask Allah's forgiveness.

I wonder what they are afraid of most, the idea that Islamic men and women might be able to think outside of religious sphere,thereby allowing democracy to take hold and banishing religion to the realms of the dark ages, where it belongs or allowing the Islamic people to grow both economically and intellectually. For them to have equality amongst all their citizenry is of paramount importance.The global movement, through the Internet and engineered through democratic priciples, enabled Muslim extremists to try global warfare in the name of Islam How can they not see how they are being manipulated by the forces of their culture,who trap them in lives of misery by suggesting that they fight a Jihad in the name of Allah. Is the fear really about pleasing Allah and preventing Muslim people from going to the fires of hell? "

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:28 pm

AussiePam;1205796 wrote: for many of us women in Forum Garden this is always what we consider first when we interact with islamic people. Not religious minutiae, not oil, not suicide bombers etc.. but how our sisters live. For me, it's always there in the back of my mind. I expect a put down from the non-moderator-general for venturing in this direction again ... but ...... he's not a woman.

You wouldn't dispute that women are physically safer in those countries governed by Islamic law than those in Western societies? That's a good starting point. If you do we could go down that road and see what the facts are.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:33 pm

I didn't know where to post it, AP. That's why I led off with Muhamed's quote about answering questions about Islam.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:38 pm

Spot - If you put your money in a locked box and bury it in your cellar - it will probably be quite safe. And as this money is a possession of yours, you may choose to do that with it. The money is a thing, not another human being. That's my starting and finishing point.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:05 pm

Hmmm I'd also like to add that the books I have read, and the books Zapata has quoted, directly lead to one of the untruths of the Islamic world. spot you've mentioned the crime rate of Islamic countries .

Yes indeed, having my hand cut off would deter me from stealing but if I was starving I sure would risk it. Just like many countries the poor are still going to prison, albeit less a hand.

Things have changed over the years in Western countries , children are not taught stranger danger so much anymore for good reason. Most crimes committed against women and children of this world are committed by someone known to them. When we put this scenario into an Islamic country where women are stoned or shot or imprisoned for adultery (and adultery comes under the premise that during rape she has no wittness nor screamed loud enough) and a whole system of law supports and upholds the belief that women should keep their mouths shut or risk dying or being ostricised or worse, then you can see there is little in the way to support your comment of a low crime rate. The books quoted are testimony to that not being the case.

It's easy to say there is no pedophilia when under age marriage is legal, it's easy to say that children are not abused because to have sex with a young boy is nothing to be ashamed of. It's easy to say there are no slaves when a man has multiple wives, and girls have dowries.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:11 pm

You know one odf the reasons Aayan hirsi ali had a death threat against her? (one of many ) .......a beaty pageant was going to be organised in an Islamic country. It was frowned upon as a show of female vanity " what would Mahummad think?" Aayan made the comment "he'd probably choose a wife from them"................................Was she wrong to say that? was it an untruth? or a statement of offense? I reckon he would too , heck most men would given the chance. should this statement cost aayan her life?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:27 pm

The sub-domination of women by Christians, and by Muslims. I have yet to understand its basis in fact. I cannot speak for the Muslims because I do not know the Muslim strictures.

I know that the Jews sub-dominated women by blaming Eve for seducing Adam to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Further, this tree was associated with sexual acivity. Yet, in my mind, it's label has nothing to do with sexual activity. To presume sexual activity is the knowledge of good and evil is to preclude against God's command to go forth and multiply and fill the world.

In other societies, the woman had a more major role. Pagans, for instance, viewed the woman as the lifegiver and she was revered for this reason. Judaism and Christianity presumed that the father had the natural rights over the child rather than the woman. Yet, mitochondrial DNA shows that the opposite is true. Pagans were true to the latter.

By controlling sexual activity, religious orders have successfully reined in the people. Simultaneously, they have created sexual deviation such as BDSM. For instance, flagellation would be practised by early Christians to rid themselves of their sexual lustings.

Jews do not actually subjugate the role of the woman except that they place the man as the head of the household leaving the woman free to fulfill her role fully. The male Jew has an obligation to his wife to ensure that she is well taken care of in all aspects of her well-being.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:53 pm

Jews do not actually subjugate the role of the woman except that they place the man as the head of the household leaving the woman free to fulfill her role fully. The male Jew has an obligation to his wife to ensure that she is well taken care of in all aspects of her well-being.

Yep your right openmind but paganism too has it's fair share of deviance in as much as 'cult' activity.

My religion does not blame Eve but Adam - He should not have been sucked in by her pleading, he knew better, where she didn't. ( and knew better because he'd been around longer and not because he was more intelligent than her) Also my religion does not equate the fist sin to sex, it equates it to disobeying god for their own gain . Their punishment was to be sent out to see what God sees. "there eyes were opened" . Another words- god is saying - if you think you can do this without me then do so .............And with a wave of his hand and a 'good luck ' they were sent out of a very special and protective place to do their own thing.

Abraham proved your point by helping his wife prepare a meal for extremely important visitors to his home, instead of sitting with them and making her do all the work. this lesson to us flies in the face of women have certain work and men another. In fact Abraham proved a partnership rather than a dominance over his wife.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:00 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1205834 wrote: Yep your right openmind but paganism too has it's fair share of deviance in as much as 'cult' activity.

My religion does not blame Eve but Adam - He should not have been sucked in by her pleading, he knew better, where she didn't. ( and knew better because he'd been around longer and not because he was more intelligent than her) Also my religion does not equate the fist sin to sex, it equates it to disobeying god for their own gain . Their punishment was to be sent out to see what God sees. "there eyes were opened" . Another words- god is saying - if you think you can do this without me then do so .............And with a wave of his hand and a 'good luck ' they were sent out of a very special and protective place to do their own thing.

Abraham proved your point by helping his wife prepare a meal for extremely important visitors to his home, instead of sitting with them and making her do all the work. this lesson to us flies in the face of women have certain work and men another. In fact Abraham proved a partnership rather than a dominance over his wife.

If you don't mind my asking, what is your religion, Fuzzy?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:22 pm

Jehovahs Wittness but I'm not devout.

I use the teachings as my moral guide rather than a strict basis of understanding. Basically I think they got it right .:-6:)

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:39 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1205846 wrote: Jehovahs Wittness but I'm not devout.

I use the teachings as my moral guide rather than a strict basis of understanding. Basically I think they got it right .:-6:)

By my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians.

I can't put a name to my faith as yet. It is drawn from a study of various religious and scientific disciplines as well as simple experience. But my study is by no means at an end as yet.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:45 pm

Most women are - in external physical strength terms - weaker than most men. Also, their natural instinct to hang on to their children would probably have made them less able to defend themselves if attacked, so one way or another, men took charge. Humans like power, and in my opinion use whatever they can to get it and hold on to it. So men controlled women, and made sure that their religions and legal systems (mostly instituted and maintained by men) both institutionalised their power and made it righteous in the eyes of their idea of God too. Women were coerced or conditioned into obedience. That's my nutshell view of the history of this.

But - history is the past. I'm referring to the position of women in islamic countries right now in the 21st century.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:53 pm

Yes Christian but seperate themselves from "christiandom." namely the big christian churches, Catholics, Uniting, Baptists, C of E etc. Very different interpretation and understanding of scripture.

I find it remarkable when people believe Christ was a Christian .............He was a Jew and obeyed Jewish laws and doctrines..........to the extent of being persercuted by his own for it.. Christianity began with his apostles/deciples after his death. although when you think about it (and this is what the churches of christianity believe and teach , his coming (first appearance on earth) was prophetised in Genesis. When god is giving satan a good telling off for "lying" to EVE.

I like the JW's because they have taught me much about history and religion and turned my understanding of christiantiy on it's head and backed it up as you just did..........God's command to go forth and multiply and fill the world.

Ecause I was taught that if you had sex before marriage you went to hell, at the age of eight (because I was molested) I thought I was going to hell and spent my entire childhood believing that. It was nice to actually read 'from the horses mouth' (so to speak) that it wasn't true.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:57 pm

AussiePam;1205856 wrote:

But - history is the past. I'm referring to the position of women in islamic countries right now in the 21st century.

I think like most cultures this depends on whether you are rich or poor. Rich women in Iran don't get sent to prison/or beaten where they stand for not covering their head . but you can bet your bottom dollar that the average woman in the street would.

It's these women we should be standing up for.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:00 pm

AussiePam;1205856 wrote: Most women are - in external physical strength terms - weaker than most men. Also, their natural instinct to hang on to their children would probably have made them less able to defend themselves if attacked, so one way or another, men took charge. Humans like power, and in my opinion use whatever they can to get it and hold on to it. So men controlled women, and made sure that their religions and legal systems (mostly instituted and maintained by men) both institutionalised their power and made it righteous in the eyes of their idea of God too. Women were coerced or conditioned into obedience. That's my nutshell view of the history of this.

But - history is the past. I'm referring to the position of women in islamic countries right now in the 21st century.

You think so? Traditionally, women are not weaker than men physically though their strengths are different. For instance, women are better at carrying then men who are better at lifting. Take a look at this article: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/bizar ... ost1205859

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:08 pm

ahh you're right open mind. It was once stated (I think Ghandi but don't quote me on that) who said that 'a woman who's children are threatened is like a tigress protecting her cubs.' could get pretty messy, but that is apparently an instinct thing. And yes womens legs and different parts of us are stronger than mens but have reason to be. Not weaker but different yes.

Men also have a protective instinct but display it differently . Overall a woman is tuned into her baby so hears it before the father. A male is tuned in to protecting his family unit therefore is more likely to hear an intruder before his wife. Interestingly though this is only for short periods of time during years where a couple will have young families.

(Sokay i just pick up interesting facts and find them fasincating:o )

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:11 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1205858 wrote: Yes Christian but seperate themselves from "christiandom." namely the big christian churches, Catholics, Uniting, Baptists, C of E etc. Very different interpretation and understanding of scripture.

I find it remarkable when people believe Christ was a Christian .............He was a Jew and obeyed Jewish laws and doctrines..........to the extent of being persercuted by his own for it.. Christianity began with his apostles/deciples after his death. although when you think about it (and this is what the churches of christianity believe and teach , his coming (first appearance on earth) was prophetised in Genesis. When god is giving satan a good telling off for "lying" to EVE.

I like the JW's because they have taught me much about history and religion and turned my understanding of christiantiy on it's head and backed it up as you just did.......... Ecause I was taught that if you had sex before marriage you went to hell, at the age of eight (because I was molested) I thought I was going to hell and spent my entire childhood believing that. It was nice to actually read 'from the horses mouth' (so to speak) that it wasn't true.

This was a point I was going to make.Jesus was a Jew and I do not believe his intention was to create an offshoot religion. He wanted to recreate the 'church' (in its original meaning of the word), not another religion. Christianity, as we know, wasn't created by Christ or his disciples. It was created by the Romans. Yet, it was prophesied and Daniel's image depicts both the Christian and Muslim powers in the clay figure (I use the term powers instead of religions on purpose). Both Christianity and Islamism have been used to coerce people to a regime in order to make them easier to rule.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:15 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1205865 wrote: ahh you're right open mind. It was once stated (I think Ghandi but don't quote me on that) who said that 'a woman who's children are threatened is like a tigress protecting her cubs.' could get pretty messy, but that is apparently an instinct thing. And yes womens legs and different parts of us are stronger than mens but have reason to be. Not weaker but different yes.

Men also have a protective instinct but display it differently . Overall a woman is tuned into her baby so hears it before the father. A male is tuned in to protecting his family unit therefore is more likely to hear an intruder before his wife. Interestingly though this is only for short periods of time during years where a couple will have young families.

(Sokay i just pick up interesting facts and find them fasincating:o )

Exactly so. It creates an enormously efficient survival unit. And it's fun. Or it used to be.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:20 pm

hmmm not sure how to put this properly . Yes the romans secured Jesus in history but only because (as the romans called them ) "Christians" were a threat. This is why christiandom celebrate Jesus birth on the Roman Sun gods birthday 25th of December. The Romans had to appease the christians and therefore gave Jesus a prestigous date of celebration in their calendar Easy to work out that it's not he's birthday- take 33 1/3 years away from nissan 14 passover date and it can't be the 25th of December even the actual year is wrong. But a lot of Christians would say it's the thought that counts.

But anywhoooo.

Daniels image of the statue you mean ? Hang on I have to think...............I believe as memory serves me at this time of the morning. That the image depicts world powers not religions....... I'll have to look that up I might have the wrong image and person and statue:o

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:30 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1205869 wrote: hmmm not sure how to put this properly . Yes the romans secured Jesus in history but only because (as the romans called them ) "Christians" were a threat. This is why christiandom celebrate Jesus birth on the Roman Sun gods birthday 25th of December. The Romans had to appease the christians and therefore gave Jesus a prestigous date of celebration in their calendar Easy to work out that it's not he's birthday- take 33 1/3 years away from nissan 14 passover date and it can't be the 25th of December even the actual year is wrong. But a lot of Christians would say it's the thought that counts.

But anywhoooo.

Daniels image of the statue you mean ? Hang on I have to think...............I believe as memory serves me at this time of the morning. That the image depicts world powers not religions....... I'll have to look that up I might have the wrong image and person and statue:o

Indeed, I am aware that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Daniel's clay statue refers to the world powers but if you think about it, there are more than two world powers and a lot of undercurrent powers. When you actually narrow down the terms, you find two conflicting religions. Strangely, the Jews aren't even a part of this conflict although they are often referred to and the Jews are spread everywhere around the world. They always were a wandering nation.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:46 pm

OK, you two have succeeded where Spot failed. I'll give up and just go away quietly.

:-6

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:09 am

fuzzywuzzy;1205860 wrote: I think like most cultures this depends on whether you are rich or poor. Rich women in Iran don't get sent to prison/or beaten where they stand for not covering their head . but you can bet your bottom dollar that the average woman in the street would.

It's these women we should be standing up for.Do you know, there are some countries in the world where women who prostitute themselves on the streets in order to just survive economically from one week to the next at a subsistence level are arrested, held in jail, given a criminal record, fined. Oddly enough they tend to be rich Western capitalist countries. Not a lot of protection there, then - that's the one class of prostitute against which accusations of immorality are meaningless.

AussiePam;1205934 wrote: OK, you two have succeeded where Spot failed. I'll give up and just go away quietly.You're ascribing to me motives I don't possess.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:23 am

Yet, it was prophesied and Daniel's image depicts both the Christian and Muslim powers in the clay figure

I have never heard that interpretation before, OM. Could you expand on that? From what I have always heard it stood for: gold head/ Nebuchanezzer's/Babylonian kingdom, silver/ Persian and Median kingdoms, bronze/Greek, iron/Roman kingdom, feet of iron and clay/10 kingdoms, new "Roman Empire," it is an end-time prophecy.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:46 am

chonsigirl;1206011 wrote: I have never heard that interpretation before, OM. Could you expand on that? From what I have always heard it stood for: gold head/ Nebuchanezzer's/Babylonian kingdom, silver/ Persian and Median kingdoms, bronze/Greek, iron/Roman kingdom, feet of iron and clay/10 kingdoms, new "Roman Empire," it is an end-time prophecy.

My interpretation is a variation of the one given by the Jehovah's Witnesses. To be honest, I can never find the one given in the Old Testament.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:52 am

Oh, thank you OM. This is a link that explains it, from an end-time prophecy viewpoint and the verses themselves.

The Great Statue in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:58 am

chonsigirl;1206024 wrote: Oh, thank you OM. This is a link that explains it, from an end-time prophecy viewpoint and the verses themselves.

The Great Statue in Nebuchadnezzar's Dream

Thank you, Chonsi. I will mark that for future reference.

The Jehovah's Witness's interpretation also treats the image as an end-time prophecy - just applied to a different end-time.