What do you know about arabs and muslims?

[seycyrus]

"
concerning the meat, I don`t know what microscope you would need to see the germs, but I think you can ask a biologist (or maybe you are one); so just get pork meat and chicken meat or any *"Halal" meat and compare them. That is the reasonable way, or you may research it using Google (maybe).

No, YOU research it. If it's so easy, you should be able to provide the evidence *easily*.

Do you want to have a discussion or do you want to just throw opinions at each other?

 

[lisab]

Is this an Arabic Langauge Topic? Na, so I think this is off-topic

If you are talking about Jihad in Islam, and you want to explain what "Jihad" is, you will need at least few lines, not a "word".

Actually, the topic is what we know about Arabs and Muslims...so yes, the Arabic language is certainly on topic.

So enlighten us with your expanded definition of Jihad.

 

[wajed]

No, YOU research it. If it's so easy, you should be able to provide the evidence *easily*.

Do you want to have a discussion or do you want to just throw opinions at each other?

I don`t have to, so don`t stress on "YOU".
I said:

... (... If we are going to discuss, we`ll have to discuss the first basis first)

Again, this is an extra, not fundamental at all, and this is not what I`m ready to discuss, but here is a research:
http://www.islamic-world.net/sister/h1.htm
PS: You can directly go to the title " Medical Reports", and since the author is putting references and sources on the "Medical Reports" part I posted the link.

 

[seycyrus]

I don`t have to, so don`t stress on "YOU".

I'm sorry, but yes YOU do. IF *you* want to have a logical discussion.

I
http://www.islamic-world.net/sister/h1.htm
PS: You can directly go to the title " Medical Reports", and since the author is putting references and sources on the "Medical Reports" part I posted the link.

I'm sorry, but that link is proving anything, unless you meant for it to illustrate logical fallacies.

Yes, you can get sick form pork. You can also get sick from beef, veal, chicken etc.

Now, where is your microscopic study of, pork v.s. chicken?

And to answer the original question of this thread. iFrom my experience, (you) it seems to me that some muslims/arabs have no understanding of logical fallacies and think they can just put out their opinions and expect others to treat them as fact.

 

[Evo]

I don`t have to, so don`t stress on "YOU".
I said:


Again, this is an extra, not fundamental at all, and this is not what I`m ready to discuss, but here is a research:
http://www.islamic-world.net/sister/h1.htm
PS: You can directly go to the title " Medical Reports", and since the author is putting references and sources on the "Medical Reports" part I posted the link.

wajed, that link is utter nonsense. We have a rule against posting non-mainstream and worse, utter nonsense, especially when asked to substantiate a claim.

From your link on why you believe pork is a 'dirty meat"

The life of a man is a compound of body and soul. Anything, which is harmful for the body, hurts the soul as well. Consumption of swine-flesh reduces the feeling of shame and as such the standard of modesty. Those nations, which consume pork habitually, have a low standard of morality with the result that virginity, chastity and bashfulness are becoming a thing of the past in Europe today. The number of unwed mothers is on the increase despite of the use of pills and other contraceptives.

According to a report, 60 to 70% of girls in Sweden become mothers before marriage. The formula of "skin to skin is no sin" is taking its toll but there is hardly any feeling of shame or remorse over the end-result. Since the European nations have become addicted to wine and pork, sexual freedom with all its attendant evils has got ingrained in their culture. Consequently, homosexuality has been legalized by the British Parliament.

The Holy Qur'an has prohibited the swine-flesh, hence the Muslims would not dare touch it. The Bible has also forbidden swine-flesh, but Christians disregarded this order and started consuming it. The Europeans now proclaim that pork is a very powerful diet, rich in protein. Some of them further argue that since there is a great scarcity of food-stuff in the world and swines are available in abundant quantity, they should be consumed in the diet to overcome the food shortage. If this argument is true, why don't they use dog's meat as dogs too are available in abundance? The Europeans perhaps hate the mere mention of dog's meat in the same way as the Muslims shun pork.

Another wrong notion about swine-flesh is that its consumption lengthens life-span, although this is a pure myth and absurdity. On the contrary, people, who abstain from pork and liquor, have a longer span of life.

And the nonsense goes on. Seriously, it's things like what you just posted that creates the image that some religions create and extoll misinformation.

This isn't research. This isn't even factual.

 

[mgb_phys]

. Consumption of swine-flesh reduces the feeling of shame and as such the standard of modesty. Those nations, which consume pork habitually, have a low standard of morality

Hindus don't eat meat - have you seen their temples?
There are nearly a billion of them so they must be doing something right!

 

[Evo]

Hindus don't eat meat - have you seen their temples?
There are nearly a billion of them so they must be doing something right!

I have a Betty Crocker recipe for pork shoulder steaks in red wine. I never would have guessed that Betty would be promoting debauchery with her recipe for sin.

 

[jobyts]

I don`t have to, so don`t stress on "YOU".
I said:Again, this is an extra, not fundamental at all, and this is not what I`m ready to discuss, but here is a research:
http://www.islamic-world.net/sister/h1.htm

If this website is non-fundamental, I wonder what fundamental one is.

In fact, from the other pages of this website ,I'm learning a some interesting stuff about Islam.

He was married to one wife, Khadijah, until the day she passed away. He had all his children, except one, from Khadijah. Thus,she and her children enjoyed the Prophet's full attention for as long as she was married to him; twenty-five years. For all practical purposes, Muhammad had one wife - from the age of 25 to 50. During the remaining 13 years if his life, he married the aged widows of his friends who left many children. The children needed a complete home, with a fatherly figure, and the Prophet provided that. Providing a fatherly figure for orphans is the only specific circumstance in support of polygamy mentioned in the Quran (An Nisaa:3).
Other than marrying widowed mothers of orphans, there were three political marriages in the Prophet's life. His close friends Abu Bakr and Omar insisted that he marry their daughters, Aisha and Hafsah, to establish traditional family ties among them. The third marriage was to Maria the Egyptian; she was given to him as a political gesture of friendship from the ruler of Egypt.

So it's a total of 1 + x widows + 2 friends recommendation + 1 political gesture. What's the final number?

EDIT: Ok; some website says the total is 22. (catch-22 phrase comes from that? :) The youngest one was 6 years old.

...and the westerners have low morale, because they eat pork.

 

[Santa1]

I personally believe that the ban on pork meat from 'accepted foods' in the local monotheisms was because of the relatively high occurance of Trichinosis in the meat. (Note however, this is an unsubstantiated claim. I can't provide sources on this, atleast not now.) With our current techonology it is not hard to prevent, here is the wikipedia link;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis

 

[rootX]

If this website is non-fundamental, I wonder what fundamental one is.

I haven't looked at that website but seeing some of the comments, I don't even think it's worthwhile.

I think following is much better. I was reading Taoist texts from it and they were really interesting :)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/index.htm
(there would always be some nonsense in these holy tests but for Taoist most of it was tolerable)

 

[wajed]

And the nonsense goes on. Seriously, it's things like what you just posted that creates the image that some religions create and extoll misinformation.

This isn't research. This isn't even factual.

Mam, the paragraph you quoted is utter nonsense to me too.
The paragraph titled "Medical Reports" has got references/resources, that`s why I've put the link. Please refer to the paragraph titled "Medical Reports", which what "*-<|:-D=<-<" asked for (Medical Research) and tell me if its utter nonsense or the otherwise.

 

[Pythagorean]

Nothing, but here's what I've heard:

1) They're all terrorists
2) They're not all terrorists
3) Their version of Jesus was violent
4) They're very good friends with Obama

I really don't ever watch Fox News, don't know where I picked it up.

 

[wajed]

3) Their version of Jesus was violent"

I don`t get what this means, but anyway, there was 5 messengers from God. Muhammed, Moses, and Jesus -PBUT- are three of them, according to Quran. And no, no mention of Jesus being violent (if that is what you said you were informed).

 

[wajed]

If this website is non-fundamental, I wonder what fundamental one is.

In fact, from the other pages of this website ,I'm learning a some interesting stuff about Islam.

Which website? Which is not fundamental are the questions like "why is pork not allowed", "why does Islam allow up to 4 wives", "why is wine not allowed", "why does god say that heaven is under mothers` feet", "why did Islam first prohibited drinking wine when going to pray, and then prohibited it for any situation" ... these all are non-fundamental to me.

Its not like they are off-topic, I just requested to talk about fundamental issues like: God existence, Is Quran from God, Is Muhammed a messenger from God, etc..

Those "non-fundamental" questions are essential, but first things first.

God says in Quran: "And we made a reason for everything".
Do I need to give a reason for everything to convince you that this is true?
and then go to next verse, and also try to convince you that it`s also true?

What is more convenient is to Prove that Quran is from God, by discussing God existence, and how Quran can`t be man-made.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don`t get what this means, but anyway, there was 5 messengers from God. Muhammed, Moses, and Jesus -PBUT- are three of them, according to Quran. And no, no mention of Jesus being violent (if that is what you said you were informed).

I meant Muhammed. I don't believe anything I hear about arabs and muslims right now though, because there's a lot of speculation flying around.

 

[Santa1]

I'm just wondering, how many here have actually spoken to an arab about their culture in person, or an Imam about Islam?

 

[Evo]

Which website? Which is not fundamental are the questions like "why is pork not allowed", "why does Islam allow up to 4 wives", "why is wine not allowed", "why does god say that heaven is under mothers` feet", "why did Islam first prohibited drinking wine when going to pray, and then prohibited it for any situation" ... these all are non-fundamental to me.

Its not like they are off-topic, I just requested to talk about fundamental issues like: God existence, Is Quran from God, Is Muhammed a messenger from God, etc..

Those "non-fundamental" questions are essential, but first things first.

God says in Quran: "And we made a reason for everything".
Do I need to give a reason for everything to convince you that this is true?
and then go to next verse, and also try to convince you that it`s also true?

What is more convenient is to Prove that Quran is from God, by discussing God existence, and how Quran can`t be man-made.

This is blatant violation of the forum guidelines

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated.

PF is not the place to promote or discuss particular religious dogma.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

You are a perfect example of someone that has been so endoctrinated into their religion that they appear to have lost the ability to separate fact from fiction.

I think this kind of removal of any ability to think independently and learn real world truths is one of the problems that westerners have with Islam, as we perceive it. Not that there isn't a similar problem with fundamentalist christians. Anything that dictates what someone should believe and what they can think, and how they can eat or dress is counter to healthy intellectual growth, IMO.

I don't mean to stereotype, but this thread is about what we see, and this kind of tunnel vision and the refusal to accept thinking outside of religious teachings is what we see as wrong. We believe in religious freedom.

 

[jobyts]

Which website? Which is not fundamental are the questions like "why is pork not allowed", "why does Islam allow up to 4 wives", "why is wine not allowed", "why does god say that heaven is under mothers` feet", "why did Islam first prohibited drinking wine when going to pray, and then prohibited it for any situation" ... these all are non-fundamental to me.

Its not like they are off-topic, I just requested to talk about fundamental issues like: God existence, Is Quran from God, Is Muhammed a messenger from God, etc..

Got it. I misinterpreted it as fundamentalism.

 

[wajed]

You are a perfect example of someone that has been so endoctrinated into their religion that they appear to have lost the ability to separate fact from fiction.

I've requested a logical discussion, so let`s determine if anything I said is fictional or not after we do the discussion.

I think this kind of removal of any ability to think independently and learn real world truths is one of the problems that westerners have with Islam, as we perceive it.

Where did you see the "removal of any ability to think independently" in my discussion?
I even requested members to research by themselves, and see by themselves, and even to do a practical experiment by themselves. I`m not stopping them from doing so or using logic to check whatever I say.

"Again, this is an extra, not fundamental at all, and this is not what I`m ready to discuss,"
I said this and I explained why, here:

God says in Quran: "And we made a reason for everything".
Do I need to give a reason for everything to convince you that this is true?
and then go to next verse, and also try to convince you that it`s also true?

and I also said:

Its not like they are off-topic, I just requested to talk about fundamental issues like: God existence, Is Quran from God, Is Muhammed a messenger from God, etc..

Those "non-fundamental" questions are essential, but first things first.

 

[Astronuc]

The problem with this:

Its not like they are off-topic, I just requested to talk about fundamental issues like: God existence, Is Quran from God, Is Muhammed a messenger from God, etc..

is that it violates our guidelines:

Religious Discussion Guidelines:
Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

There are other forums outside of PF where religion can be discussed in the context of truth or falsity. That's not permitted here.

The topic is about people's (ostensibly non-arab, non-muslim) knowledge about/of arab and muslim peoples. It's not about what arabs and muslims believe or whether or not such beliefs are right or wrong.

It would be better to indicate where one obtains information concerning folks from a different culture. Is the knowledge direct (personal communication or interviews by journalists) or indirect (journal or newpaper articles, books, TV news, hearsay, propaganda, . . . .)?

 

[seycyrus]

Mam, the paragraph you quoted is utter nonsense to me too.
The paragraph titled "Medical Reports" has got references/resources, that`s why I've put the link. Please refer to the paragraph titled "Medical Reports", which what "*-<|:-D=<-<" asked for (Medical Research) and tell me if its utter nonsense or the otherwise.

That reference is spouting nonsense. You are basically saying, "Go look it up here" instead of providing direct evidence to support your contention. Where is the scientific study?

The references in that site are blatantly suspicious. It's basically "ww.proveIslamiscorrect.comm"

Virtually every single logical fallacy is permeated in the site you reference. I'll give you a dollar for every single fallacy that it did not commit.

 

[JaredJames]

I repeat: I've requested a logical discussion, so let`s determine if anything I said is fictional or not after we do the discussion.
QUOTE]

You can't have a logical discussion on religion. The fact you are trying to make religions out to be factual is ridiculous. There isn't a shred of evidence to back up any religious claims. FULL STOP.

There is nothing to discuss about religion. If you can give us some peer reviewed evidence to back up your claims then yes, we will discuss, but all links to support your arguments are from websites which simply support the religion and ignore the facts.

 

[Astronuc]

This thread continues to drift off-topic.

Closed pending moderation.