Arab Woman Dares To Speak Truth!!!!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

^^ first of all she was replied to very well by the scholars she was speaking to.

Those were scholars? You're kidding me. Aren't scholars supposed to be intelligent? Neither of those two had the first clue about how to structure an argument, or respond in any convincing way to the points made! If they are a representative sample of the kind of person that Muslims are taught to look up to, then we really are in trouble. The ignorance, distortion and prejudice that they brought to the table makes them intellectually bankrupt.

secondly she said all of this from america, she wouldnt have said it in the arab world but ok

She would probably have been killed, wouldn't she? I still think it's very brave.

-her point on clash- middle ages and modern times. which one is correct? do both sides not have their pros and cons? whos to say the modern world is better? what is 21st century mentality? is it a mentality free from troubles? why do we have so much problems? is it because of the 'middle aged minded people' versus the forward liberated?
i dont think so

Here, you have actually attempted to address her first argument. This means that you are actually doing better than either of the "scholars". Well done.

Let's take your points one by one:

-her point on clash- middle ages and modern times. which one is correct? do both sides not have their pros and cons?

They do, but I for one would far rather live now than in the Middle Ages.

whos to say the modern world is better?

I live in a house with central heating, clean running water and all mod cons. The great majority of people in the Middle Ages had none of these things. It would be fun to live in the Middle Ages for about a week, I would say (unless you were of a privileged class), but not for a lifetime.

what is 21st century mentality? is it a mentality free from troubles?

Of course not. No civilisation is perfect.

why do we have so much problems? is it because of the 'middle aged minded people' versus the forward liberated?
i dont think so

Well, we disagree there. Anyone who thinks that beheading, for example, is a solution to anything is living in the past. This guy, for example:

and who treat women like beasts? those who allow and accept a woman can be paid to be used or those who say the woman is a human who deserves honour and respect?

I think people on both sides of the debate would say that women deserve respect.

yes this is not the case for every single person, but nor are her arguments. they are generalisations and like i said both sides have problems, shes speaking as if life in the west is one of total freedom and enjoyment with no worries and trouble, no crime or barbarity yet anyone who lives anywhere will know she is talking of something that does not exist anywhere

I agree - her comments were painted with a broad brush.

her second point on clash of civilizations, she again need to educate herself on the history of islam. does she not know roman history around then, persian history? does she not know what the jews did to the christians before then? how did islam 'start' all of this?

This argument is on the level of the playground: "Yeah, but you started it!" The question is what are we going to do about the situation NOW?

- if our books say we should kill all non muslims then why is it that we find the wars going on in the world ar non muslims attacking muslims and not the other way round?

Those wars are unjustified, and do not have the support of the great majority of people in the West. However, are you seriously suggesting that no Muslims have attacked non-Muslims?

- her point on labelling, wait a minute wheres her freedom of speech gone now? out of the window? does it only work one way?

She's not denying anyone freedom of speech, but if someone says something that is wrong or unjustifiable, then what is wrong with telling them they are wrong?

- she says we can believe what we want but not speak of other religions. as a secular human what the heck is she doing speaking of islam?

She is not denying Muslims the right to believe what they want; she is talking about the insane acts of violence that are committed in the name of Islam all round the world.

-she says jews do not kill people- what is going on in palestine?

She actually phrased it more carefully than that, and I would agree with you if you thought this was slightly underhand as a tactic. However, if you look at what she said, she's right:

"We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant." True.

"We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church." True.

"We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people." Jews have killed people, but not as part of a simple protest. Again, true.

then she compares that with statues? what is it to her if a muslim country owned run and occupied by muslims do something to their own country? what is her concern? like she said cant she keep her own nose out of it?

The destruction of the Buddha statues was one of the most reprehensible acts of cultural terrorism the world has ever seen. To destroy the sacred sites of the members of another religion is utterly wrong, no matter who is in charge.

in conclusion- she speaks as if we are a different species trying to penetrate into human life. we dont need her advice we dont need her opinions which are 100% two faced because she insults us one minute then goes and does the same thing she insulted us for doing?

She's not insulting you, she's insulting the backwards mentality that leads to so much violence in our world.

now the 3 videos posted are clear refutations of her. should they not be addressed too by those who support her wordS?

That's what I was trying to do with this post. Have a read and see what you think of it.

Can I also say to those who are objecting to guyabano's title for this thread: it is not actually his title. That was given by the person who uploaded the video to youtube.

Peace

 

[aamirsaab]

The opinion of one person is not the truth. The title of the youtube vid was obviously made by some anti-islamic - typical 15 year old who thinks one muslim calling Islam is backwards (essentially) must mean it is the truth - standard internet crap.

What I personally would like is that these tv shows actually interview proper muslims (like moi). However, since proper muslims say otherwise to what is society's main thoughts are with regards to muslims, you won't find many interviews with them.

As for the video. You can have an opinion, but it doesn't mean it is the truth. Truth is what you define it as. Thus, if you disagree with it strongly enough, it will never be the truth.

Ah the falicy of humans never cease to amaze me.

 

[crayon]

Cz, if he disagreed with it, he would have changed it. Leaving it confirms that this is his opinion.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Cz, if he disagreed with it, he would have changed it. Leaving it confirms that this is his opinion.

Fair enough. It's my opinion too - I agree with most of what she says.

Peace

 

[crayon]

That's cool. People are bound to have different opinions. When one opinion is considered truth and the other false, that's what's not okay.

Salam.

 

[جوري]

'I found no evidence of this'.. one man stated on this thread as to the prohibition of the teachings of 'Ibn Rushd' and in a loud bombastic declamation-- you know the type.. meant to sound authoritative, definitive from the last of the ' learned gentlemen'-- well isn't it amazing what a little google search might do?-- at least if nothing else to loan the 'weighty words'/rant more credence?!

Already during his lifetime, Ibn Rushd’s commentaries were being translated into Latin in Toledo. In his Latin guise, Averroes became known as the Great Commentator. Such was his sway, that the Renaissance artist Raphael included him in his Vatican fresco of the School of Athens (1510-11 CE). But in 1210 CE, barely 12 years after Ibn Rushd’s death, the study of his commentaries was banned at the University of Paris. In 1215 CE, the study of Aristotle was banned. Fifteen years later, the Pope specifically prohibited the study of Averroes in Paris. But the forbidden intellectual fruit proved to be too enticing, and Averroes and Aristotle continued to be studied, despite further bans in 1270 CE and 1277 CE by Stephen Tempier, bishop of Paris. These “dangerous” ideas advocated a rational, secular perspective of the workings of the natural world and the human mind as against the dogmatic and authoritarian views of the religious hierarchy...

http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=105848


cheers!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Thanks for your contribution, PA. Behind the insults, this one is actually quite useful, so you're making progress. Well done.

Already during his lifetime, Ibn Rushd’s commentaries were being translated into Latin in Toledo. In his Latin guise, Averroes became known as the Great Commentator. Such was his sway, that the Renaissance artist Raphael included him in his Vatican fresco of the School of Athens (1510-11 CE). But in 1210 CE, barely 12 years after Ibn Rushd’s death, the study of his commentaries was banned at the University of Paris. In 1215 CE, the study of Aristotle was banned. Fifteen years later, the Pope specifically prohibited the study of Averroes in Paris. But the forbidden intellectual fruit proved to be too enticing, and Averroes and Aristotle continued to be studied, despite further bans in 1270 CE and 1277 CE by Stephen Tempier, bishop of Paris. These “dangerous” ideas advocated a rational, secular perspective of the workings of the natural world and the human mind as against the dogmatic and authoritarian views of the religious hierarchy...



http://www.iis.ac.uk/view_article.asp?ContentID=105848

I said in my post that it was quite likely that the Pope did ban Averroes' works, just that I could find no evidence for it. What I did take issue with was the frankly bizarre idea that the Pope made this a principle of worship. The average churchgoer in the Middle Ages would not have been remotely interested in Averroes or even known who he was, so involving his ideas in worship would have been over the heads of most Christian worshippers of the time. Remember, this was a time when it was prohibited for members of the laity to have access to scripture in the vernacular, let alone to discuss the finer points of theology.

It now seems, from the information you've provided, that the Pope prohibited the study of Averroes in Paris. That's a start, but it's not the same as placing his opera omnia on the Index.

Still, thanks for your information - it's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

Peace

 

[guyabano]

That's cool. People are bound to have different opinions. When one opinion is considered truth and the other false, that's what's not okay.

Salam.

you hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what the message is. In fact, this woman love Islam and she just want that us to learn to coexist, we accept each others different faith instead of just saying 'if you don't accept my God, you're an unbeliever'. But that is exactly what most muslims do. Note that in other religions, muslims are also disbelievers as in their eyes, they don't believe in 'their' god. Learn to accept other thinking people and become more tolerant, everybody !

 

[جوري]

Greetings,

:rollseyes

Thanks for your contribution, PA. Behind the insults, this one is actually quite useful, so you're making progress. Well done.

Again coming from you, it gives my ego and morale a 50% boost. -- Yes indeed that is sarcasm!

I said in my post that it was quite likely that the Pope did ban Averroes' works, just that I could find no evidence for it.

here are your exact words

Second, the chap making the first response claims that the Pope issued a ban on the works of Ibn-Rushd, and included hatred of him as a part of Catholic worship. I can find no evidence for this, or even that Ibn-Rushd was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books (a perfectly ludicrous document if ever there was one, but that's another story),

I'd say it is rather embaressing to write in a manner and a degree that leaves so little room for doubt, then come water it down two pages later?.

What I did take issue with was the frankly bizarre idea that the Pope made this a principle of worship. The average churchgoer in the Middle Ages would not have been remotely interested in Averroes or even known who he was, so involving his ideas in worship would have been over the heads of most Christian worshippers of the time. Remember, this was a time when it was prohibited for members of the laity to have access to scripture in the vernacular, let alone to discuss the finer points of theology.

That is really of no concern to me and no relevance to the actual topic--fact is it happened, something you initially denied! using your position as a 'teacher' hoping that others will simply take your word for it as an authority figure, over our scholars-- those whom almost in the same breath you feel free to insult whenever opportune, yet are utterly outraged that your posts are met with the same degree of revolt!

It now seems, from the information you've provided, that the Pope prohibited the study of Averroes in Paris. That's a start, but it's not the same as placing his opera omnia on the Index.

The pope has always been a center of authority. I believe you often have a hard time reconciling the calibre of events for their historic period. Again a shame, but that is what often happens when one forgoes wonder and reason for materialism!

Still, thanks for your information - it's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

Peace

Glad to be of help :Evil:

cheers

 

[czgibson]

Greetings, PA,

I'm afraid you've misunderstood much of what I've written. Perhaps you could take more time over reading people's posts? That way you might not miss things all the time.

here are your exact words

I'd say it is rather embaressing to write in a manner and a degree that leaves so little room for doubt, then come water it down two pages later?.

What you've done here is the old quote-out-of-context trick. If you look at the whole sentence, you'll find this (nested, I admit, beneath perhaps too many subordinate clauses):

Second, the chap making the first response claims that the Pope issued a ban on the works of Ibn-Rushd, and included hatred of him as a part of Catholic worship. I can find no evidence for this, or even that Ibn-Rushd was placed on the Catholic Index of Prohibited Books (a perfectly ludicrous document if ever there was one, but that's another story), although he might well have been, as just about every other valuable intellectual work was.

You have actually deliberately removed those last two phrases in order to distort my meaning. Why?

That is really of no concern to me and no relevance to the actual topic--fact is it happened, something you initially denied!

I have never denied that it happened.

using your position as a 'teacher' hoping that others will simply take your word for it as an authority figure, over our scholars-- those whom almost in the same breath you feel free to insult whenever opportune, yet are utterly outraged that your posts are met with the same degree of revolt!

Amused, but rarely outraged. I was pretty shocked when you started going on about constipation for some reason the other day, though, I have to say.

I do feel free to insult these men, because they are in position of authority which they absolutely do not deserve. Neither of them could even structure a coherent argument, and I find the thought that many Muslims look up to them as intellectuals to be deeply disturbing.

The pope has always been a center of authority.

Correct. But the ban you refered to concerns Paris. I am simply wondering if it was a universal ban for Catholics or not. I'm not saying it can't have happened - in fact I think it is likely - I simply don't know.

I believe you often have a hard time reconciling the calibre of events for their historic period. Again a shame, but that is what often happens when one forgoes wonder and reason for materialism!

Why are you insulting my historical knowledge all of a sudden? I'm afraid it's you who have got it wrong this time.

Now, take a deep breath. Read this post again if you want to, just to make sure you're clear. Then, write reams of insults if you must, but please think carefully about what I've said before replying.

I'm still grateful for the information you provided, by the way.

Peace

 

[chosen]

seems like everyone is very passionate about what they feel...and that is fine..but I do agree with one thing that she said..what I believe is no ones business and what religion you believe in in none of my business...it is god that gave us free will...no man can take away from me what god has given..peace and respect must always win out..especailly in religious matters..because if they dont war will follow...more people have been killed in the name of god in history than for any other reason..we should all stop and ask ourselves if this makes god happy..

 

[جوري]

Greetings, PA,

I'm afraid you've misunderstood much of what I've written. Perhaps you could take more time over reading people's posts? That way you might not miss things all the time.

No. I misunderstood nothing, your intent is quite clear and not so subtle as you think.. at least to those of us more discerning!

What you've done here is the old quote-out-of-context trick. If you look at the whole sentence, you'll find this (nested, I admit, beneath perhaps too many subordinate clauses):

you enjoy that shadow and light technique? What you wrote first is your main objective, everything else is furnishing --you know for added support, so you don't come across like a complete ignoramus, just in case someone decides to take you up on the offer and do some auditing.. it would give you a roomy window for escape!

You have actually deliberately removed those last two phrases in order to distort my meaning. Why?

read above!

I have never denied that it happened.

Yes... just strongly opposed that it did?!

Amused, but rarely outraged. I was pretty shocked when you started going on about constipation for some reason the other day, though, I have to say.

Yes, I like our members happy and not constrained

I do feel free to insult these men, because they are in position of authority which they absolutely do not deserve. Neither of them could even structure a coherent argument, and I find the thought that many Muslims look up to them as intellectuals to be deeply disturbing.

and she is not in a position of authority? I think it rather abusive to use your title and position to foment public opinion if not down right lowely. They are Muslims scholars whose knowledge isn't limited but should heavily involve Islamic teaching and jurisprudence. What is a so-called 'psychologist' doing engaging in a religious or even a political debate?!

As for the 'non-coherency' portion.. well that is down right laughable, considering you were able to compose a fairly large piecenot only negating their sentiment but disturbed with what they had to say!
Incoherent folk tend to on street corners of the civilized west or in hospital beds with an IV infusion of what we call a 'banana bag' to salavge whatever is left of their 'mamillary body'

Correct. But the ban you refered to concerns Paris. I am simply wondering if it was a universal ban for Catholics or not. I'm not saying it can't have happened - in fact I think it is likely - I simply don't know.

The pope has held vast powers in the past --wars often broke out over 'papal infallibility' there was a time when there was rivalry on who is to come pope between, France and Italy, that is how much power and influence that position held!

Why are you insulting my historical knowledge all of a sudden? I'm afraid it's you who have got it wrong this time.

I don't believe I have and I have no problems admitting when I am wrong!

Now, take a deep breath. Read this post again if you want to, just to make sure you're clear. Then, write reams of insults if you must, but please think carefully about what I've said before replying.

What you deem 'reams of insults' is really nothing more than a taste of your own medicine!

I'm still grateful for the information you provided, by the way.

Peace

Thank you, I'll exercise my Islamic generosity by doubling your rep pts once I am able to do so..

cheers!

 

[BlackMamba]

What you said was hate filled. Don't use religion to justify your hate.

Ya I do hate her she hates me so I hate her. Whats wrong with that.

 

[chosen]

whats wrong with that is hate does nothing but destroy...if you believe in god you have to learn to be different than the haters..my mom always said the best way to bring someone to know god..is to ALWAYS act in a respectful manner..

 

[wilberhum]

Ya I do hate her she hates me so I hate her. Whats wrong with that.

If you don't understand the problems hate produces, you need to see some one.
You harm no one but yourself.

Hate is one of the most destructive forces in the world.

Do you think god wants you to hate? Do you think it pleases him?

Think twice before you embrace hate.

 

[Muezzin]

Don't give in to hate! That leads to the dark side.

And thread closure.

Play nice, everyone.

 

[caroline]

Hmmm...

I wonder if the people here who truly love God and are here to seek wisdom and understanding recognize the fact that there are some here who come only to stir up contention and to say things that are so blatantly ignorant and offensive that good people will lose their head and say things the agitators can use as fodder against them. It's a very old (and obvious) trick and responding to it is just playing into their hands.

It's called flaming. Some people call them trolls.

And yes, there is an ignore option on this forum.

Okay, now to respond to the person who posted the wafa sultan video. She was exposed as a fraud a long time ago.

Here's a decent article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6037

 

[chosen]

doesnt matter why they are here....what matters is why you are here..dont let them change the person you are..dont give them the power to create hate in you..when you do that..it is not your faith that controls you anymore..it is those who are trying to corrupt it..I am not muslim..but I have respect for you..and even if I disagree with something you write..even if it angers.upsets me I can not hate you...1) what good would that do..2) I was taught never to hate because it is wrong and actually causes more harm to the person hating than the person the hate is directed at..

 

[caroline]

doesnt matter why they are here....what matters is why you are here..dont let them change the person you are..dont give them the power to create hate in you..when you do that..it is not your faith that controls you anymore..it is those who are trying to corrupt it..I am not muslim..but I have respect for you..and even if I disagree with something you write..even if it angers.upsets me I can not hate you...1) what good would that do..2) I was taught never to hate because it is wrong and actually causes more harm to the person hating than the person the hate is directed at..

Well said, my friend... thank you.

 

[S_87]

Those were scholars? You're kidding me. Aren't scholars supposed to be intelligent? Neither of those two had the first clue about how to structure an argument, or respond in any convincing way to the points made! If they are a representative sample of the kind of person that Muslims are taught to look up to, then we really are in trouble. The ignorance, distortion and prejudice that they brought to the table makes them intellectually bankrupt.

the problem with the videos is that they arent full and we dont know which part is for what in the debate so it may not make sense. there are more parts available on youtube though..

I live in a house with central heating, clean running water and all mod cons. The great majority of people in the Middle Ages had none of these things. It would be fun to live in the Middle Ages for about a week, I would say (unless you were of a privileged class), but not for a lifetime.

yes 21st century facilites are also available in the muslim countries, i think she was talking more on middle age mentality.

Well, we disagree there. Anyone who thinks that beheading, for example, is a solution to anything is living in the past. This guy, for example:

no one should not go cut off peoples heads...

I think people on both sides of the debate would say that women deserve respect.

yup and i think she needs to realise that muslim women do feel respected. yes there are some who are truly oppressed by their men, but that is not because of islam. domestic violence and such exists all over the world.
second point if she means about women being veiled, well i as a veiled woman do not think i am treated as a beast or second class citizen, nor was i forced to do so. and i know many women who feel the same.

This argument is on the level of the playground: "Yeah, but you started it!" The question is what are we going to do about the situation NOW?

good question

Those wars are unjustified, and do not have the support of the great majority of people in the West. However, are you seriously suggesting that no Muslims have attacked non-Muslims?

yes they have, but they were without an 'amir' or leader. i can go and kill people in the name of islam, would i be justified? no 100%. can you call it a muslim problem and issue? no because i could just be some sick person.
but muslims do condemn those who kill civilians on our side, for example 11/9, 7/7, the madrid bombings without a doubt whoever did it was not right. but the problem is these people are unknown. they are given the title al-qaeda but we dont know who they are? anyhow they are wrong agreed.

She's not denying anyone freedom of speech, but if someone says something that is wrong or unjustifiable, then what is wrong with telling them they are wrong?

she is wrong because of the context in which she took the things. for exmaple ahlul kitab means people of the book, as in the Bible/Taurah. it has nothing to do without scientific and modern progress of today, but religious background.
as for her other quote it is from part of a verse in the first Surah of the Quran. to understand it one must know the history of islam..

She is not denying Muslims the right to believe what they want; she is talking about the insane acts of violence that are committed in the name of Islam all round the world.

shes looking at one side of the coin then

the jew point- yes she phrased it well but we know what she means

The destruction of the Buddha statues was one of the most reprehensible acts of cultural terrorism the world has ever seen. To destroy the sacred sites of the members of another religion is utterly wrong, no matter who is in charge.

we will agree to disagree on this point as there is more to it.

She's not insulting you, she's insulting the backwards mentality that leads to so much violence in our world.

exactly, how is it the muslim mentality thats the problem? is it only this mentality causing the violence and problems?