Anonymouse

Are you joking? You actually want me to make direct links between what Islam teaches and its oppression of women? Let's see, womens testimony are worth half that of a man (2:282), men may marry up to four wives and have sex with slave girls (4:3) and what was discussed earlier that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of the daughter (4:11) And in the hadith Muhammed permits the beating of women in such cute quotes as "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife." Or how about the story of when a lady sought justice from Muhammed when she complained to Aishah of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. And when Aisha expressed that this woman who was a believer had suffered so much, Muhammed was unmoved by this and nor does Muhammed reprimand the husband when he appears. In fact he makes no mention of it at all. Hell, Muhammed even struck Aisha herself later. And why should't he?

I am to guess you support the destruction of America and the Western world. You continue to rehash stupid unsubstantiated and ignorant claims reflecting your lack of knowledge of American history and the Constitution, because all you have ever read and all you have ever amounted to read is the Koran and the hadith, you have no understanding of the nonsense you spew. You further continue to make larded assumptions about me as if I support what America is doing. In sum and substance, all you do is make larded assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. You dodge any opposing points when raised against Islam, and you never directly address anything. You cannot understand the concept of separation of Church and State because such a concept is anathema to a closed system such as Islam which is both a system of laws and societal norms. It cannot be separated and thus everyone must be forced to live under the veil of Islam. That is the way it goes. You have not addressed this except saying you do not propose this, but it's ambiguous. A public life without religion is impossible for you, and laws themselves are based off the religion. And one wonders, what is an Armenian doing under Islam? Is your wife Arabic? Is she Muslim? And if she is Armenian, have you proposed she convert to Islam? If your wife is Arabic or Muslim, it only proves my point that Islam is yet another factor in the dissolution of this Armenian folk. Sadly, you are not the first nor the last Armenian who has treaded down the road of Golgotha. Armenians are very much "otaramol" and they love all things foreign and different except themselves. Woe is us.

By the way, Sip was right. You never answer to any opposing points raised. All you do is either dismiss it with the typical snide comments which often invoke the word "buffet" or resort to attempts at insults, which by the way, don't reflect good on Muslim. So by mentioning China and India, I take it you do not deny Islam does that to women. What if a Musulman converts to Christianity? What happens then? Muslims oten cite the Koranic verse 4:29-30 which prohibits suicide. However in the hadith Muhammed seemed to have permitted Islam, and the influential Islamic scholar who has been dubbed 'reformist', Sheikh Yusaf al-Qaradawi, stated that the prohibition of suicide does not apply to suicide bombers because they do not intend to just kill themselves, but also the enemies of Allah. In other words, in jihad it is permitted.

It's interesting how you totally ignored what I said. Do you deny that non-Muslims were given a subservient status and taxed excessively? That would seem to contradict known historiography even from self-proclaimed Turkophiles like Bernard Lewis. Perhaps you should raise your beef not with me but with Bat Ye'or who is an authority on the dhimma, having written The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam, as well as Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Mind you these books are filled with primary sources. And while we are on it, you should consider the book Voices Behind the Veil: The World of Islam Through the Eyes of Women edited by Ergum Mehmet Caner. And how about this piece of factoid? The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences founded that over 90% of wives had been physically beaten and sexually abused for cooking either a bad meal or failing to give a male birth. And tell me, what does your religion of peace and tolerance say about a Musulman who converts to Christianity or something lesser?

Let's not forget that under the Ottoman rule, people who were not Musulmans were confined to "dhimmi" status and slapped with the jizya, just because they disagreed on what they believed. You would think that Muslims in this age would not want to reinstitute such wizardry, but no! There was that one Muslim, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in Britain, who in 2002 stated that even though there was no caliphate it did not mean Muslims could kill unbelievers simply by virtue of being unbelievers, without offering them the choice of being Muslims or subjects of Muslims. When Muslims speak of Islam not spreading by force, what is forcing an exhorbitant tax upon people thereby forcing them to convert to Islam to avoid it, but another way of using force albeit not directly?

It would be considered a nuisance under the common law, and rightly dealt as such. Hell, it might even be considered a public nuisance.

This is hilarious. Funniest thread thus far.

But you don't realize the policy toward the Middle East shifted as a result of these things. That is the point. And the most crucial point of how U.S. foreign policy was hijacked, was the State of Israel.

First of all, that is no argument. To state such a thing shows your ignorance of American history and Constitutional Law. You may as well stop this discussion and stick to things you know, such as Islam. But don't pretend to know about American History and the U.S. Constitution. The "people are product of their system" canard is only true to a very limited point, otherwise it is nothing more than a Marxian strawman. You are ignorant of U.S. history and the Constitution, as well as the intent of the Framers. You have neither read the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, or have had a class in Constitutional Law. Please don't speak about this issue which you do not even have an inkling of. Current U.S. policy, especially toward the Middle East is not a reflection of the Constitution nor the intent of the Framers. This policy has been in effect as Sip said, over the last 50 years, after World War II, and the establishment of the Bretton Woods system, and the establishment of the trading of oil in dollars. Wow, so you actually propose establishing a theocratic state huh? You cannot simply live with your own religion and letting others live as they please? You do realize this doesn't help you from people who attribute Islam with violence and forcing their lifestyle on others.

Well, I'm sure in his society you would be spared as long as you proclaimed your "People of the Book" status, albeit you will be taxed to death. But if you dared say you're an atheist, well Sip, I would just start to run as fast as you can. Maybe if you get a head start you can out run them.

First, Nairi was the one who resorted to derailing the thread and making it personal with her reference to me and Islam, and if you were not so myopic and read the other thread, you can see who was out of line first. Second, you are reading far too deeper into that post than was intended, so I cannot help you there. I already said what I meant.

Well, that's one way of dismissing the other side when thoughts and logic fail you. There are too many things wrong with this picture. I don't know whether it's your assumption of the Framers' beliefs and how they were not religious and conclude they were followers of a "buffet attitude" (whatever that is), or whether it's your ignorance of U.S. Constitutional Law and U.S. History. You also assume that I somehow support Bush or his phony war on terrorism. Like I said, for a Musulman, you sure seem to be getting quite a few emotional bursts and tantrums, contrary to the peace and tranquility you were supposed to have gained from this new faith. Why do you assume that I only imagine a materialistic world, and for that matter other people? For you, you either have a theocratic regime or not, and not once does it cross your fanatic mindset that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's easy to give a diagnosis of the problem plaguing the western world, and believe me there are many, but it's far more complex than the simplstic tar brush of "oh they lost their religion therefore they are corrupt". This is unfortunately the problem that occurs when one embraces and succums to any ideology or ism, with their entire self, be it Islam, Christianity, or fascism, or socialism, etc. I guess Islam did not teach you the first law which is not to succumb to any ideology that claims to have answers to everything, for that is how deception occurs.

Why don't you first see the way Nairi replied to me and our discussion in the homosexual thread before you ostracize me, Muslim. If you don't know the whole story, stick to your Seven Pillars. And as far as my reference to Christianity, no, I did not state there are different Christianities. What made you interpret it that way? What I was saying is we don't have to worry about Christianity taking over our lives because of the separation of Church and State.

Now, now, do not get worked up my Koranic disciple. What did I define myself in terms of? The reason I pointed out Islam is an all or nothing deal, and which you just admitted, is because in such a society, you are nothing but the product and thought of Islam. You are jumping from A to C without going through B and in the process your Islamic dislike of all things non-Islamic is crawling out. Drawing a fallacious conclusion is not limited to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or secularism. With that said, you are too myopic to notice what I was saying through your Islamophile lens. In the process, you have painted a typical egotistical religious fanatics picture, that you and you alone have discovered truth and the word of God and everyone else is mired in the fields of misanthropy. You are then basically saying that the Framers of the Constitution who perhaps devised one of the strongest, and most creative legal documents in the history of mankind were weak-minded (bear in mind these were all religious men!) who decided to separate religion from public life. Islam does not recognize this, thus Islam never had a concept of liberty and the freedom of the individual. Sure, they will point to some Koranic verse, but looking at the history of the Islamic world, will give one a clearer picture. You forget that because of the West's adoption of liberalism (in the classical sense), the idea of private property, and the Industrial Revolution, created a prosperous society, while the Islamic world never experienced such a revolution in terms of wealth, prosperity and the overall advancement of the status of the individual both in terms of happiness, wealth and freedom. Your fanaticism and dislike of infidels is seeping through and it's not becoming. Your rant against "materialism" whatever that means, and in turn free markets, is reminiscent of Marxian strands. What is wrong with iPods? So are people who have iPods cursed by the devil and possessed by an evil scourge? I guess you would fair better in the desert with a camel and dressed like a genie.

I know that, believe me. However, this thread is dealing with Islam, hence why I said it in reference to Islam. We don't have to worry about this with Christianity because Christianity, unlike Islam, is not the total societal package in the "Western world".

Nah, Islam isn't my place because ( a) you intentionally misrepresented the things I believe and stand for ( B ) you intentionally misrepresentated my stance on homosexuality and ( c) I will reply if I feel like it because dried fruits (read "chir" in Armenian) have no business telling me what I can or cannot do.

Because Sip, Islam still believes in controlling every thing you do or think. The freedom to question even God is forbidden in Islam. As Nietzsche would say, the inability to break old virtues and break those old tablets, cannot allow for the creation of new values. In other words, much like all other ideologies and isms, it becomes a victim of its own success, a closed system.

This is fallacious. This is why Islam is so stagnant and stuck where it is. I will tell you: I am not an atheist. I do believe in God. However, you paint picture of an all or nothing deal. With that said, your rant against secularism as somehow devoid of spirituality is erroneous. If anything, the spirituality has been devoid due to the growth of government, and the philosophy that sees the government as savior of all things. The free market, which you also rant against, is perhaps the most consonant thing with the idea of the individual, and private property and privacy. It only shows that Islam cannot make these distinctions and that everything is essentially an Islamic question. This is why Islam and the Arab world has been stagnant. Islam as a philosophy is more regressive than Christianity.

Strange that you defend Islam and with the words "Peace out" in one sentence. Irony.

The reason for this is because Islam as a religion does not care about race or culture. It accepts everyone as long, uniting under the banner of the Prophet Muhammed. In that sense, it is quite "egalitarian" in its effrontery. Malcolm X himself witnessed the "diversity" of Islam when he visited Mecca, and realized that Islam transcended national and ethnic boundaries. As lovey dovey it sounds, it is "globalesque" in its intents and purposes. In that sense, all ideologies, whether they be imperialism and secular humanism, or Islam and Christianity, seek the consumption and absorption of greater wholes on a global scale. Armenians, however, are a race and culture. It is more localized. When causes of self-determination, and cultural creativity and racial or cultural preservation are supported, it is not an issue of globalization. In essence, what any true spirit of Armenian should be advocating is causes on a local level. Why I consider Christianity important to Armenians is because of its interwoven history with us, and in relation to those around us. It is, however, ancillary to being Armenian, yet a pivotal part. Had it not been for the Christianity, perhaps our alphabet may not have even been there. So the question of whether one is a Muslim or an Armenian first is paramount to understanding where it stands and the implications of the viral nature of promoting Islam. Then, marrying and intermarrying Turks, Arabs and Persians becomes only a matter of taste and conventions of which Muslim is better. Then if that's the case, we may as well have cursed our Armenianness and just accepted some variant of Islam and just mixed with the Mongoloids from the East and just thrown in the towel. This is akin to how Charles Martel stopped the advance of Islam into France at the Battle of Tours in 732. However, anyone who knows someone from France or has been to France can say that the jokes on the French, as in 10 years, Martel may as well not have stopped the Saracens since it would have made no difference whether they came into France then or now.

Oh my poor, neglected homosexual proponent, which questions do you seek answers for? - Your resident homophobe

Separation of church and state for starters. The rights afford by individuals and a free market. You will notice, this was best codified in the Constitution of the U.S. It would have been a travesty had those sneaky freemasons intertwined Christianity in the mix, much less Islam, don't you think?

So what do you have to say to that? Islam's evolution is revolved around it's creed as being both a religion, a way of life, and culture, whereas in the West, starting from the times of Erasmus, Marsiglio of Padua, and Machiavelli, and down to Brutus in Vindicae Contra Tyrannos, laying the foundations for the gradual separations of the public or secular life from the religious.

I don't think you will agree with here, but I agree with the economist and thinker Ludwig von Mises when he said that Islam is a despiritualized religion that has never had an idea of a separation of church and state, it has never known about the idea of a free market, or the right of the individual. "The religion of Islam has not changed since the days of the Arab conquests. Their literature, their philosophies continue to repeat the old ideas and do not penetrate beyond the circle of theology. One looks in vain among them for men and movements such as Western Christianity has produced in each century. They maintain their identity only by rejecting everything foreign and ‘different,’ by traditionalism and conservatism. Only their hatred of everything foreign rouses them to great deeds from time to time. All new sects, even the new doctrines which arise with them, are nothing more than echoes of this fight against the foreign, the new, the infidel."

Armenian musulmans are the last refuge of this ailing and dying race. Woe is us.