vahan79

Well, then, Islam has to be wrong. Also, what you are saying doesn't follow logically. If marriage is a contract and not a heavenly act, why would God* require it in order for couples to engage in sexual intercourse? You must see the flaw here. God doesn't require marriage just for the sake of marriage. If marriage is reduced to a mere human contract and has nothing to do with God, then why would God require it? Islam is treating marriage as if it were just an obstacle to having sex and it thinks it found a nice way around it. But, it clearly mocks God. It treats marriage as though it is a meaningless task, as if God could have said eating three apples is required every time you have sex, so let's just eat the three apples. My point is that God must have a reason for requiring marriage. He is not whimsical in His rules that govern us. Moreover, Christians view marriage not only as a contract between the husband and wife, but as a contract between the couple and God. Otherwise, marriage is meaningless. Also, you reduce God's purpose in having marriage as only for sex. God doesn't require marriage in order for couples to have sex because marriage is about sex. Indeed, it's because relationships are NOT about sex that God has this rule. God wants us to show our commitment to another person before we get lost in the lust of the body. By your description, this lust has seemingly overtaken Islam. * I don't say "Allah" because I think it is kinda foolish when people translate Allah, which simply means God in Arabic. It's like saying "Adzvats" when talking about the Armenian Apostolic religion. Also, it creates further devisiveness and makes it seem like there are multiple "Gods", which none of the Abrahamic religions believes.

(1) Obviously there is room to disagree on whether these sham marriages are sanctioned by God, since even Muslims disagree. They are, however, illogical. If there is some important reason why sex must be in the confines of marriage, it must be for something other than the sheer formality of state-recognition. If you don't plan on long-term commitment, the marriage is a sham marriage...no matter how many Hadiths are issued. (2) Why should physical strength be the touchtone of protection nowadays when this is seemingly irrelevant? What about intelligence (since this is how money is often made and money is how men "take care" of women now?) What if in a particular case the woman is stronger than the man (physically), then do the rules change? The problem with this is that it is a post hoc justification, not the actual reason. Some tribes (the NaXi of China, for instance) treat the woman as physically superior.... (3) Then explain hymen reconstruction? Why does it exist in Islamic countries? It is still very very very alive and well.

Why did you convert to Islam? I mean, really, why? Someone you are dating or something.

Okay, so my friend wants me to go to some gay Armenian club...Club Nur (նուռ???) or something. It's Thursday. I'll keep you posted on my journey into gay Armenian culture.

Okay, I know I am replying to myself, but I forgot a crucial point on this debate... The possessive/genitive form is probably the "correct" form for another reason. We often say "mot@s" (near me), etc. For example from an old TaTa song that I just happened to hear (and reminded me of this) [not sure I have the line exactly right]... "Yete fayton@s ch'nstes, mot@s ch'gas, ch'sires, menak k'mnam yes arrants kez...arrants keeeeeez" (me "singing") Wait, I just learned about the transliteration typer thingie...is that what everyone uses? Let me try it...it will probably come out all funky.... եթե ֆայթոնս չ ՚ նստես, մոտս չ ՚ գաս, չ՚սիրես, մենակ կմնամ ես առանց կեզ.

(1) You aren't fooling God with these sham marriages. There is no way that they are acceptable in His eyes. (2) Different roles would be one thing, but when "different" means inferior, then it means quite another. No one is checking a man's virginity (unruptured hymen, etc.), no one is forcing a man to cover anything (though I know some Muslims that cover knees and elbows), you don't need more examples, do you? That "different roles" dogma is just a modern Islamic sophisticated academic response to accusations that Islam is sexist and oppressive of women. Don't get me wrong, Christianity in its true, Biblical sense is sexist (i.e., women are a man's property), but most sects have evolved past that. Islam remains antiquated, except among some academics. These academics contort Islam to fulfill the role they WISH it did. They reinterpret Islam through a false lens in order to make it fit their needs. (3) Islam can only function as a good religion when it is not tied up with the State. Separation of Church and State is essential to a healthy society. This is why Islam has become unruly. Each state (divided up by Brits, mostly) has its own practices and everything the oppressive governments want to do is justified in the name of God, rather than what it really is. Also, we have Islam dictating modesty among the women, while Jordan and Syria are led by supermodel, make-up wearing, anhijabi (hijab-less) women. It's weird, man.

he is 26

Isn't this true of all religions? Christians aren't supposed to be having sex outside of marriage either...those European girls aren't "true Christians" either. Also, isn't a religion that has different rules (muslim man can marry whomever, but not vice versa) for each gender kind of unappealing, Sassun? Also, zawaj mutaa is an abomination, I can't believe that ture Shi'ites think it's okay either (the woman will be unmarriable). But on a sidenote, the double standard is alive and well in Armenia, too. Armenian women virtually encourage their boyfriends to have sex with prostitutes (often Russian) to avoid loosening their own virginity, but to keep the man happy...

Uh, that's kinda the point of hijab...to NOT turn men on.

Hey all, I thought I'd bring this topic up. Basically, I have a friend (Armenian) that just came out to me (and no, it's not me using "friend" to pretending to have a "friend"). Apparently, he has been "out" for a long long time in his circle, but didn't want to tell any of his Armenian friends because he was afraid we'd be judgmental/non-accepting/tell people and it would get back to his parents (he didn't tell them). He does have some gay Armo friends and there is even a group I guess in LA, something like GALAS (not sure what all the letters stand for ) Anyway, let's talk; I'll start off with some questions, but say whatever: (1) Are we, as Armenians, less accepting of gay people among us (i.e., we accept odarner/otarner that are gay, but not "our own")? (2) Why do we care? (3) Do gay Armenians have the same pressure to partner with another Armenian (despite the whole kid thing being a sort non-issue)? (4) How do you personally feel about gays/lesbians/etc.?

Well, did he?

Speaking of phone books, what's with the scary lawyer guy that's been on the back of every issue of the Armenian phonebook since I was a child. I just can't get used to him....what's his name Vikan something or other?

You obviously don't live in LA.

(1) Why would you want to hide your Armenianness (2) With a name like "Nairi" you aren't hiding anything.

Hmm...I see your point, but I don't know that simply because the Church as an institution has been involved in our preservation that we should commit our souls to damnation if we don't believe that it is the true source of salvation by God. Don't get me wrong, I still go to the Armenian Church and believe in it. Also, it's annoying to me that there are two armenian church sects. we are becoming catholics/protestants/etc. has there been a post about that? I need to check....

I have seen comments like this all over this forum. I understand a hatred of the Turks but to the point of denying reality. "There really is not a Turkish language"...I mean, come on. As someone has pointed out, Turkish is an Altaic language unlike Arabic (Semitic) and Persian (Indo-European, like Armenian). It is real. It has lots of Arabic loan words, and I think the point is that "we" got some of our Arabic words via Turks. Maybe I'm missing your point.

I don't agree with this. Armenians (according to our own legend) converted to Christianity because some king dude forced it upon us all because of a superstitutious belief that a saint cured him from being a pig (which by the way has NO Biblican support or relation to Christianity whatsoever). Bottom line: Tiridates III forced us all to convert to Christianity based on a superstitous encounter with a priest in 3rd century AD. Our history dates back WAY before that. Thus, there is nothing intrisically "Armenian" about "Christianity."

Sorry, but this question makes very little sense. Are you overcome with a belief in the Qur'an and the prophet Mohammad? If so, it seems you are already a Muslim. If not, you aren't. Conscious decisions to change religions (I am assuming you are Christian) seem odd and forced. Why Islam, anyway? Baha'i is much better if you are just trying to find another religion. I guess I'm saying that if these are your beliefs, why should you let your ethnicity prevent you from salvation? If they are NOT your beliefs, then you are making a conscience effort to force them to become your beliefs, which is odd (though common) and not recommendable. Either way, your question becomes moot. Which brings me to another point. Conversion usually happens for one of two reasons: (1) marriage [in which case it's disingenuous]; and (2) boredom with one's current faith [in which case it's just sad. how many whities run out and become Buddhist because it is "trendy" and "exotic". Is Islam your exotic "mix it up" choice, Sassun. If so, I'd say "no! don't do it!".

"պիտի" is different in EA and WA. In EA, it isn't really "will," it's more "must", virtually equivalent to "պետք է." So: Pidi kaylem = I must walk Pidi kaylei = I had to walk [sorry I don't have armenian font, I just cut and paste what others write for the armenian parts...]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Also, the fact that you are using French to give an example of something we have in Armenian, makes me question your Armenian level. (Have you not heard of "du" and "duk"?) Also, your "questioning" the continuous nature of "gor" when it is used in the imperfect past tense shows that you are seriously confused. Imperfect IS a continuous past tense...that's what it means. Just like they/we have been saying all along, the "um" that EA uses to do continuous (past or present) is equal to the "gor" used in WA for the same purpose. Consider this: Yes kaylum em = I am walking or I walk Yes kaylum ei = I was walking or I used to walk Yes kaylelu em = I will walk And: Yes kayletsi = I walked Yes kaylem = (That) I walk Yes kaylei = (That) I walked Yes kkaylem = (That) I will walk Yes kkaylei = (That) I would walk All these tenses are incredibly hard to translate into English and I am not sure my translations do justice. My only point is that Nairi is forgetting about SO many tenses when she talks about the language. And I didn't even do the "had/have" versions (the perfect tenses) or the "passive tenses" (we call them in Greek, I don't know what they are called in English, but in Armenian we call them "antsyali harakatar (zhamak)"....like "I was walked"...you know, if I'm a dog or something...)

Okay, so I did a quick google search: "քեզ հետ"gets 2,350 hits "քո հետ" gets 524 Interestingly: "քու հետ" gets 5 hits (used in Eastern Armenian, though) "քեզի հետ" gets 226 hits Also, interestingly, on this forum քո հետ was used: (1) By Johannes when he said: "Համաձայն եմ քո հետ" (http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14450&pid=188965&mode=threaded&show=&st=&) (2) In Harut's post in "literature" of the "ՀԱՅՈՑ ԱՆՈՒՆՆԵՐԸ" (http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9113&pid=128356&mode=threaded&show=&st=&) Okay, I am done with this topic. Back to arguing "gor"....

What are you basing this on? I think you are right, but you have it backwards. Everyone says "indz," using "im" is not slang. I've had this discussion with Kevork Bardakjian who is a scholar and linguist of Armenian language and I think he is the one that told me that "im" was the correct version. In any event, I don't care. Both are widely used, so both are "right" in my book...

"Gor" is used in standard spoken WA. All EA speakers know about it and it doesn't distract from EA speakers understanding of it, so there is no reason to make that kind of effort. I see what you mean though in cases where it is hard to understand or where using a different word or something will make communication easier. But that is just personal choice. For instance, when I speak to both of my parents (one is EA, one is WA), I use words that I know both have, like "jermak" instead of "spitak." But that is something I personally have developed from my household which is why when I speak EA, more WA speakers can understand me than when my cousins speak EA. As for your local accent, you are right...but in general, parskahayeren is usually not hard to understand, just painful. (just kidding...) Anyway, I don't think any of this matters much. I will speak in Artsakh dialect from now on... Lyokh lav a...

Thanks, but I'm not sure that persuades me one way or the other...

(1) left to write! and you criticize using "Դ" instead of "Թ" for "yertal"? (2) I think this theory is an interesting one, though I'm not sure if it really holds up. It could just be that those sounds (ph, th, etc.) didn't exist in Armenian (as they don't now, except for loan words where they use "fe"), so "Թովմաս Թադտեոս" might be approximations of how to pronounce loan words in Armenian. (3) How do you explain the extra letters? Greek only has 24 letters, so how do you explain all the extra letters if you can't by reference to Greek? (4) So, do you really go around pronouncing your name as "Arpha"?