I'm awesome. That is all.Ps. I'm not shy, but I rarely start conversations. You could say that I'm a snob, but snob is such a negative word. I'm just hard to impress, is all. Having said that, I will always reply to someone who speaks to me...I just won't ever initiate the conversation...unless you're awesome.
No favourite stories listed.
Not following any authors
It is so easy to say others are quoting Quran out of context.I feel thats the end of reasoning and logic. This debate was never about reasoning or logic. It was never about whether or not what's written in the Quran holds any moral value any more. If that is what you wish to discuss, then we can take that to another thread. I still hold that wilful fornication is no more against the prevalent moral values. I never disagreed with you. What I can suggest is, if you willing to make an attempt to look at my reasoning, please do read just one book, "Origin of State and private Property" by F. Engles.It traces social evolution and has relied mostly from Australian old tribes and moral codes adhered too.Its an interesting read and maybe you can figure out origin of moral valuses in a society and their gradual evolution. What I can suggest is, that you do not assume you know anything about me or my points of view in regards to morality and ethics. My quarrel is not with the critique of the Religion and its morals. I encourage people to be critical, especially when it comes to powerful ideologies such as Religion. My quarrel is with critique without understanding. Nothing bugs me more. I will end this debate here. As will I.
It is hardly relevant that how substantial evidence is required.Important is the severity of the punishment. The severity of the punishment is merely a reiteration of the severity of the sin. It is not a proper representation of the legal system. These punishments are the maximum punishments that can be given for that sin, but that does not mean that every case or every accusation receives this punishment. Each case is dealt with individually and a sentence of differing harshness is handed out depending on the evidence provided and the circumstances surrounding the case. In fact, like I mentioned before, it is almost impossible for the court to have enough evidence to sentence you to the maximum punishment, especially in regards to sins carrying the death penalty. The only time they do have enough evidence, is if you were to testify against yourself. Even then, you are entitled to withdraw your testimony at any moment up until the punishment is actually carried out. Adultry is a wilful act; both parties willfully participating into.Does one think that willfully giving one's body in sexual act is punishable by stoning? I do not understand your point. But I'll answer you. Do I agree adultery should be punishable by stoning, no. However I do agree that it is a sin. But I am not here to debate morality. My entire point from the beginning was (and still is) simply, don't take things out of context. Testifying against one's own self does not justify the severity of sentence.The issue is not substantial evidence; issue is sentencing of a crime. The issue is lack of understanding, of both the religion and this argument. You seem to blame an entire religion for the (alleged) atrocities committed by the Taliban because "THESE ARE PUNISHMENTS LAID DOWN IN KORAN ITSELF. "I am trying to get you to understand that the Quran can not be quoted directly, for our religion is not based solely on what is in the Quran. There is a lot of context behind what is written and this context must be understood before we can follow the religion, or in your case, judge it. Can any civilized society think of awarding such punishments in the modern era?Surely NO. I don't have any statistics or anything, but I'm sure a quick google search will provide enough evidence that there are quite a few societies that still carry out capital punishment. These sentences were relevant only during the era of Judha (about 4000 years back) or during 7th Century (Prophet Muhammad era). Okay. These sentences were based on the concept when women were considered property of males as chattels.But with developed civilized societies, wherein women are equals, these punishments have become redundant and inhuman. ...what? I don't know how to respond to this because I don't even know what this has to do with anything. I'm not even sure I even know what your argument is.I'm assuming you are trying to say that Adultery/Fornication are no longer valid in this modern age because the whole idea of marriage is a concept of men somehow claiming possession of women.If that is what you are trying to say, then I will say once again. I'm not here to debate morality and ethics. You can believe what you want to believe about Religion, about sex, about marriage, about everything. I am not trying to convert you. I am not preaching to you. I could care less about what you believe in. What I do care about is people misquoting the Quran and claiming it to be evidence. It happens within the Religion and creates radical Islamists. It happens outside of the religion and creates radical anti-Islamists. My point is, BOTH parties are wrong. To understand the religion, you need to understand the context. Before you do that, you cannot follow it correctly and it is unfair to judge it.
Your self-claimed awesomeness is further justified. f-hihi It isn't self-claimed. There are even verses in the Quran that verify my awesomeness. ;) Baaitullah was a temple of Pagans and the Prophet Muhammad himself destroyed all pagan gods and "purified" it. Uhh.1. Baaitullah wasn't built as a pagan temple, it was built as a house of worship by Abraham and his sons. 2. It was never destroyed, merely reclaimed. Look at Mahmud Ghaznavi, what he did in India during his famous 17 campaigns. I never claimed that every Muslim ruler was just. Some people are terrible when given authority. That will never change, religion or no religion. It is a shame we as humans haven't yet evolved beyond it, but that's just the way it is. And lastly, if there was any Islamic State, which I doubt would ever be, it would be as revengeful as the earliest ones. Not necessarily. But if that is your opinion, then that's cool. What punishments Taliban Government met to thieves, adulterers etc.Can you, me or any one justify?We or at least I do feel shamfully sorry for what they did.AND MIND YOU THESE ARE PUNISHMENTS LAID DOWN IN KORAN ITSELF. In regards to Islamic punishments. If you learn Islamic law, you'd understand that while punishments can be severe, substantial evidence is required before such a sentence can be passed down. This is what makes it reasonable. Under proper Sharia law, it is nearly impossible for someone to be sentenced to death unless they testify against themselves. So again, just like the "must kill infidel" quotes, you are out of context. Yes, the punishments are listed in the Quran. But just like any other civilized culture, you have to be trialed before you are sentenced.Now I understand that in some countries these sentences are being handed out unjustly and it's a shame. These people either do not possess enough knowledge to be in a position to hand out such punishments, or they are simply oppressors. Sadly, the world is full of oppressors. I don't see it as a fault in Religion. I see it as a fault in humanity.
I'm not trying to justify anything here. Just want to give you guys a different perspective and let you dwell on it for a bit.Maybe it isn't always religious fanatics that create war. Maybe sometimes war creates religious fanatics. I mean, I'm a Muslim, living in Australia. I was born here, I consider myself Australian. I have heard many recordings of Muslim clerics around the world calling for me to go out and kill the infidels. I think they're all crazy. All of my friends and family do too. None of you infidels have ever done anything to me that I believe you deserve to be killed for.Now let's say, I was born in Iraq. I was raised as a Saddam supporter. One day, we are invaded. My village is destroyed. My president and his whole government is overthrown. A power struggle ensues between Shia and Sunni Militants. We are civilians living in Sunni territory. A battle breaks out. My family is killed by Shia militants. They were innocent, trying to live like they did before all this madness occurred. My whole country has been destabilized. My whole life has been ruined. My family has been murdered. The people I grew up with are dead or injured. I'm not in the most stable of mindsets. Now I hear those same recordings from those clerics. The things these clerics are telling me don't sound all that crazy. Their words make sense. Not only am I allowed to avenge my family, I am told that it is my DUTY. Boom, I've become a religious fanatic.Don't get me wrong, some people are fanatical for no reason. And I'm not trying to come up with a justification for being any sort of fanatic. I'm just trying to get you all to think, is it possible that most fanatics became so more due to their situation and less so their Religion?Now some of you have put up quotes from the Quran that encourage Muslims to kill infidels.I do not deny that these quotes exist. They do exist. It is our duty as Muslims to obey these commands.However, these are all taken out of context. Our Religion is not solely based on the verses of the Quran. In fact, the Quran does not even teach us how to pray. We cannot even fully embrace our Religion if we were to rely solely on the Quran. So it's kind of silly to take single, out of context verses and use it as evidence. We have to take into consideration the teachings in the Quran, the teachings of the Hadith of our Prophet and the teachings and the interpretations of past and current scholars. The Quran itself cannot complete your faith. This does lead to many grey areas...and I might have kept things a little more black and white if I were God, but yea.With the issue of the killing of infidels. The only time it applies is if they are oppressing the Ummah, and it applies only to the oppressors and those directly "supporting" them. This is the point where everything gets crazy. Some clerics interpret the "support" part as anyone living in the West as our(your?) mere presence here, is in some way funding these infidel armies. This interpretation is wrong. The general consensus is that it has to be direct support. As in, if your taxes are funding it, that has nothing to do with you. Or if you are providing funds for an army in defense of your nation, it has nothing to do with you. However if you give $20mil out of your pocket to the army specifically to aid in the war against Muslims, then I am allowed to kill you and anybody who tries to defend you. There are also many different opinions on what constitutes a legal Jihad (ie, some scholars say it can only be declared by the Khalifa) but that's not really a key point here. My point is, yes, there are quotes in the Quran that allow us, or even encourage us, to kill an infidel. But when put in context, these verses only ever apply to those of you who are trying to have us killed for being Muslim. So any other sort of killing, is a sin and should be condemned.Which brings me to something LadyX said about the Islamic community as a whole sort of (from what I understood) tolerating this radicalism and not standing up against it. Well, while I do agree with you. It's really not that simple. First of all, it's hard for me and the millions of other Muslims living in peace around the world to get up and tell someone who is living in a war zone that they are being fanatic, without looking like a douche. I mean it's easy for me to see it as fanatic. I don't live in a war zone (well, it's not as bad as Afghanistan lol). That aside, even if we were to condemn it. We really have no power. There is no "Islamic" government. There is no Islamic army. There is no real Islamic authority for these guys to listen to. I mean, if you think about it. Sadly, these guys are the only Islamic authorities. So, there's not really much we can do in that sense. If any of the so called "Islamic" nations were to get involved, they would be labelled as oppressors and supporters of the West etc. etc. So yea, quite the dilemma. These guys are all crazy as fuck, killing and blowing shit up, in the sake of trying to establish an Islamic state. And the only thing that can really bring them to justice, is a true, Islamic state. And just to get back on topic. That shit is retarded. These "pagan temples" have been around forever. None of our prophets tried to destroy them. Why in the hell should we?
Think I should just give up on life then. :(I kid, I'm awesome regardless of my height. However I have to agree that it definitely is a disadvantage. More so in the club scene than anything else though.I'm 5'4. I'm fairly attractive, overly confident and I can dance well. Despite this, I find it more difficult to "pick up" women on the dancefloor than in any other situation...period. Having said that, because of my fun an energetic nature, I've been able to "attract" women...in the sense where they'd literally follow me around the dancefloor. But this is much less a physical attraction and more to do with me projecting a "popular" and "important person" vibe. Despite this attraction, many girls still won't dance with me...like I said it isn't a physical attraction, they just try to leech off the attention I create. Lol.Now, if we step away from the dancefloor, my height disadvantage is GREATLY reduced. I have been rejected on a dancefloor by many women, only to get a hook up or a number from the same women outside, or in the smokers area or pretty much any place where my conversational prowess makes me the alpha male, regardless how puny I am.So all in all, having first hand experience, I agree that it is a fairly big disadvantage for a guy to be short. Especially in scenes where physical attraction is dominant. As well as I do with women, I strongly believe that more than 50%(at least) of the women that have rejected me, was because of my height.If you are a short guy reading this, don't feel too bad. As big of a role as physical attraction plays in initial sexual attraction, that's usually about as far as it goes. I've seen hundreds of taller guys have very attractive women dance with them all night, only to ruin all the attraction they built as soon as they walk out of the club and open their mouth. Just remember, there are different "types" of attraction. Physical attraction is only one type and all though it is fairly important (anyone who says otherwise is simply naive), it usually has very little purpose beyond initial attraction.
Dominance. That is all and I shant elaborate much. Just know that being inside of a girl's ass gives you (or maybe only me) an awesome rush of power.
Depends on your definition of ugly. To me ugly is not the same thing as unattractive. Someone can be attractive, and ugly...or unattractive and un-ugly(?). Having said that, no...I wouldn't sleep with a girl who I considered "unattractive". I have standards that anyone who wants to be more than a friend has to meet. A certain level of attractiveness (among other things) is part of that standard. Before you pull out the shallow card, know that I have refused to sleep with attractive women simply for being dumb. Again, I have standards that need to be met. Call me fussy, but I know what I'm worth...and I'm definitely too good for unattractive and/or dumb chicks."Do looks totally influence who you sleep with?"No, not totally. But they do play a big role.
As absurd as these things are...they make more sense to me than being suspected a terrorist simply for being an Arab, or a practicing muslim. I mean don't get me wrong, it's retarded...but if it's moving away from racial vilification toward actual suspicious acts then it's moving in the right direction. Who knows, maybe in about 10 years they'll get it right.
Living. I know it sounds a bit cheesy but really everything attained in life is inconsequential when we die. Therefore I cannot use anything in life as a measure of success...instead I use life itself. The simple fact that I'm not yet dead, is my success. :)
No videos posted yet.
No playlist added yet.
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.
What would you like to do?