The debate is about sexual repression not the status of women within said religion.
_______________

Oh FFS you really are being a moron now.

A set of behaviours based on a rule book, if you aren't following the rule book then you aren't practising the religion.
___________________

In your opinion! They obviously believe they are following the rule book. They just interpret the rules differently.


"This is where the argument of interpretation comes into the equation and it's usually something some people hide behind"
________________

Yes. How convenient.


"People seem to think anything and everything can be interpreted differently when in actual fact people are most likely manipulating text deliberately "
______________

In your opinion. They may think theirs is the correct interpretation and who are you to say they are wrong?


" the Quran it self says not to dwell on the ambiguous verses."
_______________

How convenient. Why include them then?


" but none knows its hidden meanings save Allaah"
_______________

How convenient.


"Listening to an imam with an agenda and never studying the Quran leads to confusion."
_______________

Which just proves that religion is about how people behave and not what is written in some old book.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 18 minutes ago
A set of behaviours based on a rule book, if you aren't following the rule book then you aren't practising the religion.
___________________

In your opinion! They obviously believe they are following the rule book. They just interpret the rules differently.


"This is where the argument of interpretation comes into the equation and it's usually something some people hide behind"
________________

Yes. How convenient.


"People seem to think anything and everything can be interpreted differently when in actual fact people are most likely manipulating text deliberately "
______________

In your opinion. They may think theirs is the correct interpretation and who are you to say they are wrong?


" the Quran it self says not to dwell on the ambiguous verses."
_______________

How convenient. Why include them then?


" but none knows its hidden meanings save Allaah"
_______________

How convenient.


"Listening to an imam with an agenda and never studying the Quran leads to confusion."
_______________

Which just proves that religion is about how people behave and not what is written in some old book.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a pathetic rebutall, everything seems to be convenient because you disagree with it.

It's a fact those verses are clear as day, people either manipulate it deliberately or don't apply historical context and this happens repeatedly with the terrorism argument.

You asked me if I'd been to India, no haven't Have you studied Islam for all your life, interacted with Islamic communities all of your life, or read the Quran in Arabic?

You are going on about Islam like you understand anything about it.

Your opinion that religion is separate from the holy book which dictates religious practise is a ridiculous one!

Why did God include the ambiguous verses? Are you trying to go off tangent? What has that got to do with God commanded Muslims to obey the clear ones.

You have some how decided in your own arrogance that the verses talking about secs are interpritable to mean multiple things.

Have you read these verses? Studied them?

"Listening to an imam with an agenda and never studying the Quran leads to confusion."
_______________

Which just proves that religion is about how people behave and not what is written in some old book.





Wow I missed that beauty!

The source of the religion of Islam is the Quran, any deviation from it espeacially if it's deliberate nullifies it from being an Islamic religious practise!!!

If I decide to start eating bacon sandwiches because I wanted to be ok Islamic does it that make part of my RELIGION or am just doing as I please which would make it separate from my RELIGION?

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 46 minutes ago
The debate is about sexual repression not the status of women within said religion.
_______________

Oh FFS you really are being a moron now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you can't be satisfied sexually without being oppressed.

Women can still have great secs lives but then have their Husbands beat them because they made meat loaf again.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Zachsda(until March) (U1850)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 46 minutes ago
The debate is about sexual repression not the status of women within said religion.
_______________

Oh FFS you really are being a moron now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you can't be satisfied sexually without being oppressed.

Women can still have great secs lives but then have their Husbands beat them because they made meat loaf again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My husband would do that one time and i'd be gone like a bat out of hell
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good!

Some stick around.

For anybody saying it's not a Muslim ban, Israelis born in the 7 Arab states on the ban list are allowed to travel to America.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/israelis-born-in-arab-states-not-included-in-travel-ban-us-embassy/

The Israelis probably have more information on their own people and are willing to share it with us.

comment by Freedom FC (Welcome to Texas) (U7214)
posted 12 minutes ago
The Israelis probably have more information on their own people and are willing to share it with us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's an assumption and it doesn't excuse the double standards.

Excuse the double standards by the US?

yes

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Brilliant

comment by Freedom FC (Welcome to Texas) (U7214)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
The Israelis probably have more information on their own people and are willing to share it with us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh come on.

Having gone through the thread, I can understand the need to make a counterclaim to every accusation.

But this......... this is just weak.

@KFC Okay well, I'll try to explain my views on this so called "Muslim" ban.

First off, a lot of people fail to see that this is a temporary travel restriction. It's 90 days for 6 countries and indefinite for Syria.

Look at the 7 countries listed. Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Going down this list:

Syria: Civil War, very active ISIS network, proven attacks on western countries
Iraq:Civil War, active ISIS network
Iran:One of the largest state sponsored terrorists that opposes a lot of what US stands for
Yemen:Civil War with jihadists trying to take over
Sudan: supported terrorisms; led by a war criminal
Somalia and Libya: barely functioning states with jihadists occupying a lot of the territories

Now I'm too lazy to go look up the populations of Muslims in each of these countries, but I do know that only Iran cracks the top 10 in largest countries with Muslim populations. If it were truly a "Muslim" ban, then Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh should all be on this so called list.

Side note: Obama was the original creator of this list apparently so Trump is just following through with it.

comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 15 minutes ago
Oh come on.

Having gone through the thread, I can understand the need to make a counterclaim to every accusation.

But this......... this is just weak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it? Everyone (media and bystanders) have all been mislabeling and making loose interpretations of what has been said or done. I don't like Trump as much as the next guy but some of the stuff are flat out untrue or we don't have enough information to accurate gauge the entire situation .

There's more jihadis travelling on "friendly" passports than will ever be stopped by focussing on a few nominally adversarial nations.

I've lived in a few terror hotspots over the past few years. One thing I can say, is that they aren't total idiots.

comment by Freedom FC (Welcome to Texas) (U7214)
posted 13 minutes ago

Side note: Obama was the original creator of this list apparently so Trump is just following through with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't it an Act proposed and passed through House and Senate by the Republicans that Obama just signed it off?

Can't say for sure, but that's what I read elsewhere.

As for the actual countries listed, I think it's probably more the intelligence agencies' work than anything to do with Obama.

Hard to ignore the fact that Trump completely bypassed all the major departments - homeland security, state, justice... - whose advice a President would normally seek before signing an EO like this.



As a question to you, what do you make of the decision to include Bannan on all national security council meetings?

comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Freedom FC (Welcome to Texas) (U7214)
posted 13 minutes ago

Side note: Obama was the original creator of this list apparently so Trump is just following through with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't it an Act proposed and passed through House and Senate by the Republicans that Obama just signed it off?

Can't say for sure, but that's what I read elsewhere.

As for the actual countries listed, I think it's probably more the intelligence agencies' work than anything to do with Obama.

Hard to ignore the fact that Trump completely bypassed all the major departments - homeland security, state, justice... - whose advice a President would normally seek before signing an EO like this.



As a question to you, what do you make of the decision to include Bannan on all national security council meetings?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't like Bannon personally. It was the one of the few moves Trump made that I disagreed with. He hasn't done anything alarming yet so I'll just wait and see before getting the pitchfork out and march on to DC.

The 7 countries in the list was studied by Obama and his administration. This has been studied by experts in the field, regardless of whether or not it was under Trump's administration or Obama's. Trump could've been given the green light by his advisors on Obama's camp's studies.

comment by Gillespie Rd. (U18361)
posted 23 minutes ago
There's more jihadis travelling on "friendly" passports than will ever be stopped by focussing on a few nominally adversarial nations.

I've lived in a few terror hotspots over the past few years. One thing I can say, is that they aren't total idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's more information available from our "friendlies" regarding potentially dangerous people versus a Somalia, where we have little to no interaction and even cooperation with their government, if there's even a government at this point of the Civil War.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Because maybe we already have a working relationship with Saudi Arabia? You would think after 9/11, we would've set up something already that allows us to monitor any suspects that are plotting something on our soil.

Saudi royals have indicated that they were willing to work with Trump in relocating the refugees over in their country. That's allegedly the biggest reason. I think we already have a system in place to vet/screen them.

Also, Preibus said that they haven't ruled out putting a ban on them.

comment by Freedom FC (Welcome to Texas) (U7214)
posted 19 minutes ago

There's more information available from our "friendlies" regarding potentially dangerous people versus a Somalia, where we have little to no interaction and even cooperation with their government, if there's even a government at this point of the Civil War.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet it's mostly citizens with friendly passports or actual nationals who've perpetrated the most serious attacks on U.S. and European soil.

Feels more like a publicity stunt than a meaninful counter-terrorist measure. Quite a few GOP elderlies have expressed their concern over it too.