[QUOTE="anasbouzid"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

it's the famous "sword" verse. which i've written a rebuttal to, at least 3 times on this very forum.

remember it makes no mention of a sword (something i suspect is another Western orientalist term), the verse starts out saying "Then, when the sacred months pass" Islam has one sacred months, the Pagan's had several. the Muslims had been trying to hold a truce between the Medinan Muslims and the Meccan Pagans, and the Pagan's broke their treaty, and the Muslims still held off until THEIR months were over.

The very next verse details

"If one amongst the Pagans seek asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men without knowledge" (9:6)

It does not say force them to convert, you can tallk to them about Allah there is no harm or force in that, but if a Pagan gives up to take him to a safe place, tell me where in New Testament, Old Testament, or any ancient scripture would say "take your enemy to safe spot with no reprecussions".

Which is talking about the Pagan tribes, and anyone who knows anything about the story of Islam will know that Islam's birth was in a sea of aggressive Pagan religions. I invite you to go to a fair resource on your own and learn the history.

It is by far a favorite verse for Islamist and Anti-Muslim bigots. An Islamist loves it because he can twist the meaning to suit his want for violence, and an Anti-Muslim bigot loves it because it's one of their best shots from the Quran at trying to discredit Islam as violent. If one thinks about it the two groups feed off each other, one angers the other and continues on in a vicious circle.

Meanwhile the Mosque's and Imam's that i follow have a different understand of the verse then both these groups seem to want.

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

SaudiFury

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Mishmash94"] Qur'an 9:5 suggests otherwise.SaudiFury

it's the famous "sword" verse. which i've written a rebuttal to, at least 3 times on this very forum.

remember it makes no mention of a sword (something i suspect is another Western orientalist term), the verse starts out saying "Then, when the sacred months pass" Islam has one sacred months, the Pagan's had several. the Muslims had been trying to hold a truce between the Medinan Muslims and the Meccan Pagans, and the Pagan's broke their treaty, and the Muslims still held off until THEIR months were over.

The very next verse details

"If one amongst the Pagans seek asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men without knowledge" (9:6)

It does not say force them to convert, you can tallk to them about Allah there is no harm or force in that, but if a Pagan gives up to take him to a safe place, tell me where in New Testament, Old Testament, or any ancient scripture would say "take your enemy to safe spot with no reprecussions".

Which is talking about the Pagan tribes, and anyone who knows anything about the story of Islam will know that Islam's birth was in a sea of aggressive Pagan religions. I invite you to go to a fair resource on your own and learn the history.

It is by far a favorite verse for Islamist and Anti-Muslim bigots. An Islamist loves it because he can twist the meaning to suit his want for violence, and an Anti-Muslim bigot loves it because it's one of their best shots from the Quran at trying to discredit Islam as violent. If one thinks about it the two groups feed off each other, one angers the other and continues on in a vicious circle.

Meanwhile the Mosque's and Imam's that i follow have a different understand of the verse then both these groups seem to want.

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

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Mishmash94"] Qur'an 9:5 suggests otherwise.Mishmash94

[QUOTE="anasbouzid"]

Here is my take on this.

First off I want to discuss the Islamic ritual for a moment. I hear people say and I myself have said that one of the purposes of the ritual is to kill an animal in a humane way. Then I get asked...well if us humans find a more painless and thus more humane way of accomplishing the task why not do it the new way? Here is what I say to this. A lot of things we are instructed to do as muslims have reasons that are not completely understood by us a any one time but we do them anyway because we trust that God is indeed the All-knowing and the source of all that is good. We believe He knows his creation perfectly (he created everything afterall) and just because we do not have the knowledge that He has does not nullify the correctness or goodness of his orders. This doesnt mean we blindly do anything...we must always strive to know the reasons, but we must also be aware of our limitations...we are always finding that what we once thought to be 100% true is wrong these days. Many of the benifits of the ritual as we have so far discovered are that it is an accessible way (for all times past, present and future) of slaughtering an animal (all you need is a sharp knife); I myself have slaughtered sheep and another is that the severing of the jugular causes the animal to black out almost immediately. Another one is that we muslims believe that the ritual allows the soul of the animal to escape unheeded.

TheFlush

It's nice that you trust your beliefs. Science however doesn't work on belief and assumption. So in this case, there's a study by the EFSA that concluded thatanaesthetizing animals before slaughtering them is the more humane way.

Continuing on the previous point I made briefly about the lack of surety of human knowledge, how to we know for certain that the new methods we develope are truly humane? Do we know everything that goes on behind the scenes? What if the animal suffers greatly but we just dont see it. If we knew everything then we would know but wait God knows everything...and we are back to square one.

anasbouzid

In this case there's no lack of surety. And even if there was, that's still no proof of the validity of some god's 'answer'.
Just because we don't know the answer to something, doesn't mean we have to automatically insert an answer from a religion (doesn't matter which one you choose).
As long as we haven't gotten the answer by the empirical methods, the answer shall remain 'we don't know yet'. Which is the only rational and honest way to operate in my books. Assumption leads to screw ups.

When I read your post today, I felt kind of like you missed my points. I use the word believe assume that the choice that is made. Let me try to explain it this way. If you take God out of the picture then what you say about our lack of surety on anything is true. But suppose that a person or group of persons believe that the following three things are true (and we have the right to believe things and act upon those beliefs so long as we dont break the law of the land). One, God exists. Two, God speaks the truth and Three, the Quran contains the words of God. From these three one can arrive at my conclusion and understanding I think.

Here is my take on this.

First off I want to discuss the Islamic ritual for a moment. I hear people say and I myself have said that one of the purposes of the ritual is to kill an animal in a humane way. Then I get asked...well if us humans find a more painless and thus more humane way of accomplishing the task why not do it the new way? Here is what I say to this. A lot of things we are instructed to do as muslims have reasons that are not completely understood by us a any one time but we do them anyway because we trust that God is indeed the All-knowing and the source of all that is good. We believe He knows his creation perfectly (he created everything afterall) and just because we do not have the knowledge that He has does not nullify the correctness or goodness of his orders. This doesnt mean we blindly do anything...we must always strive to know the reasons, but we must also be aware of our limitations...we are always finding that what we once thought to be 100% true is wrong these days. Many of the benifits of the ritual as we have so far discovered are that it is an accessible way (for all times past, present and future) of slaughtering an animal (all you need is a sharp knife); I myself have slaughtered sheep and another is that the severing of the jugular causes the animal to black out almost immediately. Another one is that we muslims believe that the ritual allows the soul of the animal to escape unheeded.

Continuing on the previous point I made briefly about the lack of surety of human knowledge, how to we know for certain that the new methods we develope are truly humane? Do we know everything that goes on behind the scenes? What if the animal suffers greatly but we just dont see it. If we knew everything then we would know but wait God knows everything...and we are back to square one.

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

And it's cultural.....but due to the words dress modestly in the Quran. However that is up for interpretation.

Filthybastrd

No not really. Muslim scholars generally accept that wearing some form of veil around your hair is obligatory for women who want to practice our faith according to both the Noble Qu'ran and Sunnah. So it's not "up for interpretation", they both clearly tell Muslim women to cover themselves up.

As for the article itself, I understand that some workplaces feel uncomfortable hiring employees who regularly practice their Religion ( I know of Muslim brothers who almost couldn't get a job because of their faith), yet they still didn't make a big fuss over, much less suing them.

Unless it's clearly stated that at least a veil is required, it's still up for interpretation. Scholars "generally accepting" it is'nt a clear statement from the Qu'ran. And what do Shiah say? Since we're at it, which kind of Muslim is this woman?

I agree and disagree. Covering the hair isnt specifically mentioned in the Quran as coming under the modesty requirement, but not much really is. There are many possible logical reason for this. Anyways, one of the prophet's tasks was to fill in the details. These details are recorded in what we refer to as the Sunnah. If a muslim knows for certain that the prophet said that women must cover up their hair then the instruction is binding to a believing muslim woman. However, the "controversy" arises from the fact that its impossible to be 100.00% certain that what we believe to be the Sunnah which was recorded and analysed by human beings and thus prone to error is actually the sunnah of the prophet. Muslim scholars have research the authenticity of the records and ranked things based on evidence and quality of source. Many hadiths that say that women must cover their hair are ranked high and thus if we muslims are to be muslims as best as we know how then we must follow the things/hadith and Quran to the best of our ability with the best of our knowledge even if its unpopular and uncool.

So to those muslim women who might read this...which is unlikely...i think, it is true that you can claim that no one is for sure that wearing the hijab is a requirement for women and so you dont have to but I would look a little deeper and ask what is truely the reason you dont want to wear it? Also, dressing modestly serves a purpose remember that. Its like one person said on here: if you care about modesty why work at Abercrombie and fitch in the first place. I hate it when I see muslim women wearing the hijab with tight jeans and shirt-I mean why wear the hijab at all if you going to be immodest in other ways? Lastly, and this is a message to guys. There are dress rules for us guys too. I hate how so many guys-majority of men in the ME-are so set on forcing women to dress modestly but are horrifically lax on the attrocious behavior of men; the verses in the Quran on modesty usually apply to men as well. I mean there are two things wrong with the picture I see. One, forcing muslims to abide by what you believe to be Sharia law beyond a sensible extent is sin/wrong like forcing the Hijab. Second, to do so lopesidely-meaning discriminating based on sex, race, and status- is also evil.

I have said my piece. Good bye all

[QUOTE="anasbouzid"]Do you think the specs at http://pubvo.com/2011/06/nintendo-wii-u-specs/ are fake? That would explain why no one has responded to my postingcharizard1605

here it is

found a spec sheet for the Wii U. I dont know if its old. See here:http://pubvo.com/2011/06/nintendo-wii-u-specs/

Edit: looks like it was just posted.

[QUOTE="anasbouzid"]

[QUOTE="Evil_Saluki"]

I used to love this song by them, but don't think they were very consistent in making good music to be called underrated.

Cooper Temple Clause and The Doves are very underrated, although Doves gained a lot of popularity when they had one of their songs played on the hit movie Zombieland.

Evil_Saluki

I disagree completely. I used to think that "These Days", "Movies", "Glow" were the good songs but now I realize that those are the songs that sound closest to what out there in the mainstream. The truth is songs like "Sleepwalker", "Stranded", "Wish", "Courage", "Tia Lupe", "Flesh and Bone", "Attitude", "Summer", "Drifting Apart" are all better songs in my opinion because once they grow on you they become like crack. What I am trying to say is that songs like "Movies" and "Glow" are kind of the more musically "shallow" or great "first-listen" songs while the other one I mentioned are the deeper, more raw songs that take several listens to truly hear.

I'm aware of the fans of the band and their dislike for the 'MTV run' the band gained but i've gone stages further then that, as I spend a fair amount of late evenings doing nothing but sitting with headphones, searching for music and eyes shut listening.

You know what, I'm not going to try argue my point but take it back somewhat. Alien Ant Farm are at least better at what they do compared to many bands that hit the mainstream. There is quality to them, and a little depth, the singer can sing live and doesn't need to electronically disguise his voice, it sits somewhere between the line of pop-punk and hard rock and that automatically makes them something greater then a lot of the stuff that hits the mainstream these days. I can understand why they may grow onto people, although "slow growing" isn't really a selling point to my ears. If I am allowed to blow my own trumpet just one time, it's that I feel I can identify a song that I know I will still like years down the line compared to something which is like the equivalent of music masterbation (it felt good for a short while but then you wonder what the hell you just done). Hense why I said "I used to like this song" when linking The Movies.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. I am not a huge fan of Alien Ant Farm but its just that lately I came across their music after I havnt listen to them for a long time and found myself saying "WOW. They are AWESOME" and I find myself listening to all of their music and thinking how rare it is that a good song (more like songs) stands the test of time. This is how I came to the conclusion that Alien Ant Farm is underrated. I also am aware that my tastes are mine and that other people may not like what I like. Anyways, good discussion.