RedOranje wrote:Except that you've made posts specifically calling certain things immoral in this thread and others, without qualifying such statements at all... AND have attacked others for disagreeing with those posts. So really, I know all I need to to know that that post was hypocritical.

Thank you. That is my point.

bazinga wrote:

RedOranje wrote:Except that you've made posts specifically calling certain things immoral in this thread and others, without qualifying such statements at all... AND have attacked others for disagreeing with those posts. So really, I know all I need to to know that that post was hypocritical.

Thank you. That is my point.

That's not to say that you're in any better position in this instance.

You may not agree with his moral code but that's no real basis for suggesting he has no "grasp on morality." Differing views do not necessarily equate to wrong views.

RedOranje wrote:

bazinga wrote:

RedOranje wrote:Except that you've made posts specifically calling certain things immoral in this thread and others, without qualifying such statements at all... AND have attacked others for disagreeing with those posts. So really, I know all I need to to know that that post was hypocritical.

Thank you. That is my point.

That's not to say that you're in any better position in this instance.

You may not agree with his moral code but that's no real basis for suggesting he has no "grasp on morality." Differing views do not necessarily equate to wrong views.

If you say so.

RedOranje wrote:Except that you've made posts specifically calling certain things immoral in this thread and others, without qualifying such statements at all... AND have attacked others for disagreeing with those posts. So really, I know all I need to to know that that post was hypocritical.

What is wrong with calling things immoral? You might as well say that having a moral code is the same thing as arrogantly believing said moral code is beyond fault.

Obviously I believe that abortion (as an example) is immoral, but if I felt that anyone who disagreed had 'no grasp on morality' I wouldn't be in this section or posting in this thread.

ACMRox wrote:

RedOranje wrote:Except that you've made posts specifically calling certain things immoral in this thread and others, without qualifying such statements at all... AND have attacked others for disagreeing with those posts. So really, I know all I need to to know that that post was hypocritical.

What is wrong with calling things immoral? You might as well say that having a moral code is the same thing as arrogantly believing said moral code is beyond fault.

Obviously I believe that abortion (as an example) is immoral, but if I felt that anyone who disagreed had 'no grasp on morality' I wouldn't be in this section or posting in this thread.

Morality is not something that is absolute. You cannot make a blanket statement and say that something is "extremely immoral". Morality is relative and requires a case by case understanding of the situation.

If you are trying to tell me that the case of where a fetus is being aborted because the mother's life is in danger is extremely immoral, I will laugh at you. If you tell me that it is immoral to abort a fetus a couple of weeks before delivery, I will probably take you a lot more seriously.

Arquitecto wrote:

ACMRox wrote:

bazinga wrote:Abortion immoral? I laughed.

So you are of the opinion that murdering babies is a humorous thing?

See in the "my body my choice" ultra liberal world, its perfectly okay to purge a living breathing entity from the womb in the most merciless manner. You'll have to get used to it.

I might be wrong, but foetuses don't breathe right?

Technically they do. Mothers blood supplies oxygen.

That's not breathing, that's having a circulatory system.

Oxygen consumption of cellls and production of CO2 comes under breathing imo.

That's respiration. Air intake is breathing.

If males would have to go 9 months pregnant an give birth to babies, there wouldn't even a discussion about abortion not being legal

RedOranje wrote:

You may not agree with his moral code but that's no real basis for suggesting he has no "grasp on morality." Differing views do not necessarily equate to wrong views.

considering the guy's moral code shits on women's rights yet condones slavery and pedophilia (check out the god thread, i remember gems such as "12-year olds in the middle ages were more mature than 12-year olds now" and something along the lines of "slavery is just giving a poor man work and shelter"), i think it's pretty safe to conclude he has absolutely zero grasp on what the civilised world considers moral and also that his view is fundamentally wrong because it's not *bleep* ok to have sex with 12-year olds or demand that women have permission from a guardian to travel

che wrote:

RedOranje wrote:

You may not agree with his moral code but that's no real basis for suggesting he has no "grasp on morality." Differing views do not necessarily equate to wrong views.

considering the guy's moral code shits on women's rights yet condones slavery and pedophilia (check out the god thread, i remember gems such as "12-year olds in the middle ages were more mature than 12-year olds now" and something along the lines of "slavery is just giving a poor man work and shelter"), i think it's pretty safe to conclude he has absolutely zero grasp on what the civilised world considers moral and also that his view is fundamentally wrong because it's not *bleep* ok to have sex with 12-year olds or demand that women have permission from a guardian to travel

That's what happens when your lessons in morality are based off a 1400 year old book whose followers went around raping and killing to get people to believe what it said.

bazinga wrote:

che wrote:

RedOranje wrote:

You may not agree with his moral code but that's no real basis for suggesting he has no "grasp on morality." Differing views do not necessarily equate to wrong views.

considering the guy's moral code shits on women's rights yet condones slavery and pedophilia (check out the god thread, i remember gems such as "12-year olds in the middle ages were more mature than 12-year olds now" and something along the lines of "slavery is just giving a poor man work and shelter"), i think it's pretty safe to conclude he has absolutely zero grasp on what the civilised world considers moral and also that his view is fundamentally wrong because it's not *bleep* ok to have sex with 12-year olds or demand that women have permission from a guardian to travel

That's what happens when your lessons in morality are based off a 1400 year old book whose followers went around raping and killing to get people to believe what it said.

And what book might that be?

And the nitpicking commences.

You know what, nevermind. I cant even muster the strength to write about something incorrect

che wrote:
considering the guy's moral code shits on women's rights yet condones slavery and pedophilia (check out the god thread, i remember gems such as "12-year olds in the middle ages were more mature than 12-year olds now" and something along the lines of "slavery is just giving a poor man work and shelter"), i think it's pretty safe to conclude he has absolutely zero grasp on what the civilised world considers moral and also that his view is fundamentally wrong because it's not *bleep* ok to have sex with 12-year olds or demand that women have permission from a guardian to travel

Firstly, I do not condone slavery.

Secondly, my comments on pedophilia were (as is becoming a habit from you) taken out of context.

Do I really have to move on to thirdly?

Educate yourself. There were so many things I could use to tear apart your moral code from that post alone, but you know what? As El Sharaawy said before me, it's really just not worth it.

Educate yourself. Because all your doing right now is wasting people's time.

ACMRox wrote:

Firstly, I do not condone slavery.

http://www.goallegacy.net/t22876p252-the-god-thread-pt-ii#644907

Giving a poor man work and shelter is worse than murder?

Secondly, my comments on pedophilia were (as is becoming a habit from you) taken out of context.

http://www.goallegacy.net/t22876p252-the-god-thread-pt-ii#644919

ladies and gentlemen, context:

The reason Islam permitted marrying young girls was because they were used to it, fine with it, and mature enough for it.

see? much better...

reading through that thread again, i'm just gonna put you on my ignore list and wear your ability to "tear apart my moral code" as a badge of honor since i don't agree with *bleep* 12-year olds being ok in any historical period... have a good day

Che, do you really believe what you say? If you read through the thread, you read through my explanation (the one you conveniently forgot to post here) that pedophilia and slavery as are understood now wouldn't be accepted by Islam. The name, 'slave' meant something very different, which is why I condone that, but not the modern interpretation of the word.

But you know what, why am I even bothering? You say I'm now on your ignore list, then great. Maybe you'll come back to this discussion another day with less bias, or maybe you won't.

A pleasure meeting you.

ACMRox wrote:Che, do you really believe what you say? If you read through the thread, you read through my explanation (the one you conveniently forgot to post here) that pedophilia and slavery as are understood now wouldn't be accepted by Islam. The name, 'slave' meant something very different, which is why I condone that, but not the modern interpretation of the word.

But you know what, why am I even bothering? You say I'm now on your ignore list, then great. Maybe you'll come back to this discussion another day with less bias, or maybe you won't.

A pleasure meeting you.

Why explanation? put them forward please...

As for being more mature, how mature are they? 12 years old mature as the 16 years old girls today? still pedophilia or is it not? a 50 years old dude marrying a 20 old girl still looked upon negatively... imagine a 12 years old.

Interesting video to break some misconceptions. There is a bit of false information (like the hijab being for 2 year olds) but on the whole, you should find it very informative and beneficial.

Potential wrote:

ACMRox wrote:Che, do you really believe what you say? If you read through the thread, you read through my explanation (the one you conveniently forgot to post here) that pedophilia and slavery as are understood now wouldn't be accepted by Islam. The name, 'slave' meant something very different, which is why I condone that, but not the modern interpretation of the word.

But you know what, why am I even bothering? You say I'm now on your ignore list, then great. Maybe you'll come back to this discussion another day with less bias, or maybe you won't.

A pleasure meeting you.

Why explanation? put them forward please...

As for being more mature, how mature are they? 12 years old mature as the 16 years old girls today? still pedophilia or is it not? a 50 years old dude marrying a 20 old girl still looked upon negatively... imagine a 12 years old.

It's not about maturity (though girls back then definitely were more mature), it's about how marriages worked back then. Your wife was more like a modern day daughter than a modern day spouse. There was usually a large age gap, and husbands cared for their wives and and treated them as well as you would treat your daughter. That was just the culture. Women married at 12 or 13, and spent their teenage years under the care of their 'husband'. Aside from sexual acts (which had to be consensual) it was a completely different type of relationship.

Islam said nothing about this, neither praising this marriage structure nor degrading it (since as history will show you, there was no harm in it). It only asked that you treat your wives with the compassion, dignity, and respect that they deserved.

I have personally argued with many women who try to "liberate" me from the "brainwashing" I've been exposed to. I'm an educated American Muslim woman and this is my choice. By underestimating my own ability to make rational decisions, aren't you oppressing me too?

Well said

As I grow older, and start to witness things for myself in different countries, I learn a bit more.

First of all, I'm going to start on the example of Lebanon. Lebanon, is a country that accepts so many different things (culturally) that it's incredible. There's even a synagogue in one of the most amazing places in Lebanon. In Lebanon, you are not forced to wear the hijab by law. A man will not stare you down for not wearing one, and most of the women don't wear one. There are few cases where a woman will be BEATEN up by her family if she doesn't wear one. Most of the girls I'v met have worn it purely by choice, and frankly, some of the most beautiful girls I'v ever met wear the hijab. They are proud of it and they embrace it. It is not alien in a society that is used to it which is similar to a Western-er finding the kandora odd, and it is completely their choice, and they WILL get the respect they deserve JUST as a woman without one does. However, a hijab will make a girl backwards and restricted? I can name you ten girls that are restricted and backwards in mentality that are non-mohajabi, while I can name at the most two that are. Hijab-wearing girls are modern, and very intelligent. I'm not saying that girls that wear hijabs are SUPERIOR to girls that don't, I'm just saying it is not black and white.

Let me move on to the United Arab Emirates. As well, girls here are not required to wear the hijab by law, and despite the UAE being even more so religious than Lebanon, it is almost identical in practice to the hijab, while the people I know in Saudi, tend to find the hijab as a burden, instead of a blessing due to being forced. What I'v concluded from this, is that people, when given the CHOICE of the hijab, will choose it and EMBRACE it. While people that are FORCED with the hijab will REJECT it and conclude that it is all negativity and evil.

Now religiously:
Now, a lot of people say that the hijab is backwards as it makes women some kind of "possession". That is not how I choose to look at it. Women are beautiful, there is not a single woman on earth who is ugly (true and honest opinion from me), and they are given a CHOICE, to help men not sin by applying the hijab. It's also a testament to their faith. Now, to someone who believes in Islam, hijabs are a blessing and a gift. A woman will get rewarded for every second she wears the hijab outside her home. Imagine that...it's beautiful to imagine.

This is just my complete and honest opinion, take from it what you will.

Movement against compulsory hijab been going on for sometime now

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jun/03/the-wind-in-my-hair-one-womans-struggle-against-being-forced-to-wear-hijab

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scared-hair-irans-movement-forced-hijab-goes-viral-202244045.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw

20 years prison for #WhiteWednesdays activist against compulsory hijab in Iran. #ShaparakShajarizadeh sentenced 2 years prison+18 years Suspended imprisonment.I spoke with Shaparak she said millions of women are against compulsory hijab. Iran is a bigger prison for all of us pic.twitter.com/rLzeoTOvQa

— Masih Alinejad