format_quote Originally Posted by
bezimany 071
elisted guys get married as much and even faster than officers.
They are still younger and, besides, there are a lot more of them.
the point about the the cartoon is that cartoons targeted muslims....and as right to freedom of speach , we spoke back.....the same way some activists spoke back and protested the war in iraq......yes everyone has freedom of speach to offend anyone else.....but this topic dealt with morals, not freedom of speech....whats moral about disrespecting someone else?
The cartoons high-lighted the problems Muslims have accepting basic but important Western values (and so by the way probably helped the Far Right oppose any more immigration). In the West you have the right to free speech. Of course in Islamic law no one does, and non-Muslims even less than Muslims.
I have consistently said, it is wrong to insult someone's religion. But it is not and should not be illegal.
Umm, i never said that NATO flew over Bosnia....and if serbians were not there officialy who was killing innocent children and women with snipers from the hills?.
Bosnians of Serbian origins. Besides "officially" is one thing and "really" is another.
we were protected by europe and west, after 3 years of ethnic clensing .... after holocaust, the world swore not the let that happened again.....it still took 3 years to stop it.....its harder to help right away than after the mass damage is done.
Everyone went in for ethnic cleansing. It was, and is, hard to work out who the bad people were. It took time for the Serbs to be shown to be the worst although everyone was pretty bad. What else could be done? The West does not, on the whole, interfere in other countries unless pushed to. Why should they have interfered in Bosnia any more than in Afghanistan?
..look at katrina.....media doesnt even talk about it anymore, destruction of such magnitude could have been prevented, yet it was neglected.....president doesnt care about his own people, let alone some other folk in different country....
That is an absurd claim.
bosnian flag was denied, since union and west said that bosnian muslims fought under that flag......but in fact under the flag that we fought under were muslims christians and catholics......muslims were majority tho...
Describe the Bosnian flag for me. Does it look like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina?
Who said that it was "denied", whatever that means, because Muslims fought under that flag? As it happens it is not the place of the West ot decide what flag Bosnia ought to have and so they do not.
and as far as language goes.....it is not the same....i speak it, and i know the difference.....serbs even have different alpahabet with letters that we never use.
A different alphabet. The Serbs are Orthodox and so use a Cyrillic alphabet like the Russians and Greeks. The Croats are Catholics and so use a Latin one like the Italians and Austrians (and the other Western Europeans). I assume that the Bosnians used to use an Arabic one but now use a Latin one because the Turks do. But it is still the same language. Can you understand what Milosevic says?
...yes they have the right to know and spy to find terrorists.....so why dont they spy in churches.....Timothy McVeigh ( i might have misspelled his last name) made an act of terror by blowing up oklahoma building, but they dont spy on regular american folk.......there is militia in flin michigan, they dont mess with them
Actually they do. They do keep an eye on militia especially after the Timothy McVeigh incident. But there is no need really. The militia movement died away because of the bombing and has never recovered - Americans have some shame after all. Why spy in Churches? Where are the Christian terror groups? They spy on the Communists, the KKK, the other fringe radicals to some extent. Why not spy on those people that are dangerous?
bosna was recognized as a country on 1 march 1992.......so yesterday was our independence day...yes used to be part of yugo.....just like croatia and macedonia and other countries who got their independence as well
bosna exists because Allah wills for it to exist we fought with sticks and rocks ....justlike palestinians throw rocks at the tanks......it doesnt exist because of the west......
From Wikipedia agan
The Bosnian-Herzegovinian declaration of sovereignty in October of 1991 was followed by a referendum for independence from Yugoslavia in February 1992 boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs.
Bosnian Serbs responded shortly thereafter with armed attacks on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croats and Bosniaks aimed at partitioning the republic along ethnic lines and joining Serb-held areas. The UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force) was deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in mid-1992. 1992 and 1993 saw the greatest bloodshed in Europe after 1945. Following the peace agreement proposal by Lord Owen in 1993, which practically intended to divide the country into three ethnically pure parts, an armed conflict developed between Bosniak and Croat units in a virtual territorial grab. It was later established that Croat military actions were directly supported by the government of Croatia which made this also an international conflict [2]. At that time about 70% of the country was in Serb control, and the rest was controlled by Bosniaks and Croats.
In March 1994, Bosniaks and Croats reduced the number of warring factions from three to two by signing an agreement creating a joint Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Each nation reported many casualties in the three-sided conflict, in which the Bosniaks reported the highest number of deaths and casualties. However, the only case officially ruled by the U.N. Hague tribunal as genocide was the Srebrenica massacre of 1995. At the end of the war approximately 102,000 people had been killed according to the ICTY [3] and more than 2 million people fled their homes (including over 1 million to neighboring nations and the west).
On November 21, 1995, in Dayton, Ohio, presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Alija Izetbegović), Croatia (Franjo Tuđman), and Serbia (Slobodan Milošević) signed a peace agreement that brought a halt to the three years of war in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the final agreement was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995). The Dayton Agreement succeeded in ending the bloodshed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it institutionalized the division between the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslim and Croat entity - Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (51% of the territory), and the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Serb entity - Republika Srpska (49%). Inter-Entity Boundary Line delineates the administrative division of the two Entities.
The enforcement of the implementation of the Dayton Agreement was through a UN mandate using various multinational forces: NATO-led IFOR (Implementation Force), which transitioned to the SFOR (Stabilisation Force) the next year, which in turn transitioned to the EU-led EUFOR at end of 2004. The civil administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina is headed by the High Representative of the international community.
Recognised by who? Personally I think if Bosnians, Croats and Serbs cannot live together in peace in Yugoslavia there is no point forcing them to live together in Bosnia and so partition is inevitable. But no matter.
Shia are muslim too.....noone is denying them their pracitce
Plenty of people deny that they are Muslims - someone did here the other day before the Mods told him off - and their practices are denied pretty much everywhere in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia for instance.
how exactly are muslim treated better in US, sice there is contant sterotype and racial profiln on television chanles, since every bomb that goes off is claimed to be muslims fault, since they spy on us on daily basis nd still cant stop the terror.....obviously theyre barking up the wrong tree...u watch too much televison
Muslims are queing to get in and few are leaving. Clearly they don't object to this sort of treatment and how do you think Muslims are treated by Muslims?
Most bombs are the fault of Muslims. How many Buddhist terrorists do you know?
my mom lives in US since 1996......she never wore hijab, other than mosque, or when she prays....my grandmothers wore it back home even during Titos dictatorship.....i still dont see why youre trying to prove me wrong here....in egypt for example women dont have to wear hijab unless they want to....its not west and they still have that freedom to choose.....
Egypt does not yet have an Islamic government and what they do have is a constant social pressure to cover up. But Islam will come to Egypt and then they will have to. Do you think that would be a good thing?
read it over again.....i am driving a point across about morals....since this is the topic
Then call it immoral, don't call it oppression.
.....i havent come across hadith that said anything about woman getting stoned....if you can send it to me i would appreciate it, and than we could perhaps start a new topic
I really like this hadith (because of the historical information it contains) so I will quote it in its entirity even though most of it is not relevant.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership)."
'Abdur-Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.' On that, 'Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina."
Ibn Abbas added: We reached Medina by the end of the month of Dhul-Hijja, and when it was Friday, we went quickly (to the mosque) as soon as the sun had declined, and I saw Sa'id bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail sitting at the corner of the pulpit, and I too sat close to him so that my knee was touching his knee, and after a short while 'Umar bin Al-Khattab came out, and when I saw him coming towards us, I said to Said bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail "Today 'Umar will say such a thing as he has never said since he was chosen as Caliph." Said denied my statement with astonishment and said, "What thing do you expect 'Umar to say the like of which he has never said before?"
In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.
I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.' Then Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah's Slave and His Apostles.' (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.
And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa'd bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.'
When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own-self suggests something I don't feel at present.'
And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.'
Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa'd bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."
You may have a different opinion about what that says compared to me. Not that anyone is going to care about my opinion. But what do you think it says?