Random Reflexions

Good post... Do read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, I think you may find it an interesting read ;).

The radicalist movement in Male' has really bloomed in the past few years. Innit? I was quite surprised when I was home for holidays last year. The rational and logical keep shut because the consequences for speaking out against the irrational and illogical are dire. The illogical and irrational are supported by Maldive law and basically given a license to kill. Oops. I've said too much already... zip.

i'v to say i agree. killing of that man from himandhoo was a crime n whoever was involved should be punished.

as for the law, i'd say it's wrong. in Islam, a person is allowed to choose his own religion.

as for the 'radicalism', here's my opinion. i'd say that decades back our level of islamic education was not so good. now more n more ppl are getting higher education n all n when ppl find out for all these days their ways were not as in Islam, they change. We can't blame them for that. N I dont think we can say "they are going back to 14th century". so i will not say THAT is radicalism.

but there is another thing which bothers me. Maldives is a poor country where we dont have so many industries. N a lot of ppl have jobs in the tourism industry. But when scholars say "the money from tourism is haraam as alcohol is sold", then I think THAT is kinda radical. cos in maldives if we shut down the resorts, there'll be a big crisis n it'll lead to all kinda problems.

thats my opinion.

I think speaking out is essential if people do not want to go down the path of 'first they came for the communists....'
Nass, I think when people adhere to what is written in the Quran and Hadiths, the more radical and backward they become.

RADICAL ISLAM SHOULD BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!!!

How do we know that the man from himendhoo was killed? Was a postmortem done on him?

On radical Islam.It is something to worry about for good reasons. I feel that it was well done by Simon in mentioning the recent Christian Radical movement going in the US. Anyone who has seen video footage of their gatherings would know what we are really talking about.

I also applaud Simon in mentioning that we are keeking too quiet on this rising radicals in Maldives.

What i dont understand and baffles me is that why arent DO or any other news source in the country like minivan noos raising this? Are they in support of this radicalistic madness ?

--the truth sleeps in the morgue--

" But the truth is that women adopt the hijab because according to recently propagated beliefs it is the ticket to a spot in heaven."

i resent this. some women dont adopt hijab because they think that it would ensure them a one way ticket to heaven. we know that it takes more than just covering up your body from the perveted eyes of men to get to heaven.

bulhaa: Its not something propogated by radical people. It is being ordered by almighty Allah 1400 years ago in the Holy Quran.

[From Surah no.24, verses 31-32]
"...And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and adornments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers...."

nass,
In Islam, a person may be allowed to choose his own religion. But if it happens to be something other than Islam the consequences are dire indeed. Read the following and tell me how Islam allows freedom of religion?

The Qur'an: Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down.

From the Hadith:
Muslim (1:33) The Messenger of Allah said: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..."

Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

Why suffer the truth when ignorance is bliss?

Nowadays piety is not about God, but about wearing salvaar gamees and trying to figure out whether husband and wife are allowed to see each other naked in relgious terms.

I find that the major problem lies in [mis]interpretation of the scriptures as well as the standard human nature described by Freud - CONTROL FREAKS. It's all about control the rest and savouring one's own life on earth.

Mmmm. Forbidden donut.

By the way, in my humble opinion:

Quran 2:256

And if one can't follow one verse of it, why bother with the rest of the verses?

mamdhooh,
Quran 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.
The official position of Sunni Islam is that the Quran contains a unique feature known as abrogation. Sunni scholarship maintains, on the basis of a few Quranic passages, that the Quran has verses that cancel or abrogate other verses within it. The verses that have been canceled or annulled are known as mansukh, and those texts or commands doing the canceling are called nasikh.

Ismail Rasheed,

Ur question: tell me how Islam allows freedom of religion?

My answer:

1) [From Surah 18:29] "Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)"

2) [From Surah 73:19] "...therefore, whoso will, let him take a (straight) path to his Lord!"

A few other examples:
+Surah 74:37
+Surah 76:29
+Surah 25:57

...and so on.

Happy now?

Q,

Thank you. I am enlightened.

Now my question is why does Sunni scholars allow cancelled verses to remain in Quran and when they do, why don't they identify them for the general public.

So if hadith and mullahs and nasikhs are abrogating the Quran into mansukhs, why aren't the people informed about this?

Anyways, Quran cancelling Quran, verses cancelling verses, sunnis cancelling verses. Any more complications to beautify the religion?

So does this mean that the existing Quran can be cut down to just a couple of verses since the others wouldn't mean anything due to abrogation?

Also which verse indicates handing over the authority of Quran to Sunnis?

I always loved lessons in religion. :)

"Distortion", Simon? I think it's read "interpretation". I had an friendly argument with a "Haabee" myself and what I couldn't get him to believe is that there is NOTHING scientific, logical or rational about religion. This is what we all have to accept. All faith is blind. As long as there are some of us who think that religious creeds and fatwas are based on logical thought we make the mistake of taking them too seriously. If you want to believe in the tooth fairy or "a flying spaghetti monster" (thank you Dawkins) please do so but don't fool yourself into thinking there is any rationality behind it.

Ismail Rasheed:
Lets say a lawyer picks out a part of a text out of context and interprets it to prove the position they wish to prove (or is that what lawyers always do?) would we accept the argument? You know that you cant always take a part of a text and interpret it separate from the rest of it(context = the text that goes with it). Verses 1-37 or sura 9 were revealed as a whole after some non-muslims violated the Treaty of Hudaybiah and if u look at the other verses (9:1-37) you will clearly see that fighting was only against those who violated the treaty. This does not apply to all non-muslims. About jizya, its a token to show that they accept the muslim government. A person living in New Zealand is supposed to accept her government, and if they rebel against the government then the armed forces would fight till they accept the authorithy of the government or are killed or captured.

Please do not try to mislead people by hiding part of your evidence and showing only that which seems to support your point.

And Kandumas you seriously don't see anything wrong in taking a practice of taxing what is obviously a second-class community created solely on the basis of their faith as an example? Let's just stop taking our cues from the mistakes of our forefathers unless it is to learn from them. The rules of sovereignty and citizenship are a work in progress as is everything, really. You speak as if time has come to a standstill and this is a common misconception. If a lawyer took a look at the treaty of Hudaiybiyah now there is no one in this world who would sign such a biased and unfair document unless under duress or coerced by occupying forces.

Hamza:

Taxing does not imply anything about the classes. All citizens are supposed to pay tax and this jizya was actually a smaller amount than what muslims paid as zakath (hence it was simply a token). Are you claiming that anyone who pays taxes or anyone who accepts the government of the contry they live in is automatically ("obviously") a second class citizen?
The non-muslims enjoyed the protection of the muslim state and they didnt even have to serve in the military.

I really do not understand by what I implied that time stopped. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

Also, perhaps you could point out to us what exactly is it that in the Treaty of Hudaiybiah was unfair towards the non-muslims. If there is such a thing I stand to be educated.

1) It is the principle behind the demand of this "jizya" that worries me.
2) You used the codes of citizenship and sovereignty as if they would never be challenged ergo the clock stopped ticking. "Internationalism" begs to differ. You are welcome to disagree on this point as it is an ongoing debate.
3) Tell me if a "Hudaiybiyyan" treaty would ever be agreed upon by the states of Israel and Palestine. Would it serve a bilateral or multilateral relationship when power is balanced? It just appears to me as an oppressive imposition of power in order to keep certain people in their place.

Furthermore, my interpretation of the refusal of non-moslems to serve in the military stinks of the same mistrust and discrimination that stopped Americans from letting black or Japanese people and now gays from doing the same.

And one more thing, "taxing does not imply anything about the classes". HAHAHAHAHA (this is the best academic response I could come up with).

dear friend, yes i am aware of that. i think u misunderstood me.

For 1 and 2, again I invite u to look at the context. What tje jizya means is acceptance of the state in which they lived in. Here there is an assumption that the sovereign state exists. If there was no such state then there is no question of paying any taxes. So (again, as i have said before) it does not mean that muslims should always fight all non-muslims until they pay jizya.

As for 3, non body is saying the words of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah should be used for a peace agreement between Israel and Palastine (are u kidding me?), if thats what you are indeed asking. If what you mean is "is a similar agreement possible?", maybe, it depends on the situation.
Here is the basic outline of the treaty:
"In the name of God. These are the conditions of Peace between Prophet Muhammad PBUH, son of Abdullah and Suhail Ibn 'Amr the envoy of Mecca. There will be no fighting for ten years. Anyone who wishes to join Prophet Muhammad PBUH and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Anyone who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so. A young man, or one whose father is alive, if he goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish, he will not be returned. This year Prophet Muhammad PBUH will go back without entering Mecca. But next year he and his followers can enter Mecca, spend three days, perform the circuit. During these three days the Quaraish will withdraw to the surrounding hills. When Prophet Muhammad PBUH and his followers enter into Mecca, they will be unarmed except for sheathed swords which wayfarers in Arabia always have with them." (Bukhari)

About non-muslims being refused to serve in the military: this again depends on the situation. Did they want to fight and were they turned down? My understanding is that they did not have to serve.

About your last comment, I stand by my claim that taxing is not an indication of class. If it was only the non-muslims who paid tax then ofcourse it would mean something about class. Paying taxes is a constant over all citizens. How could it then indicate what you want to prove namely classes (which is a variable). I am not an academic so I do not know what an academic response looks like, but your 'academic' response didnt make any sense to my humble intellect.

All you scholars of Islam, pls explain what you make out of this verse of Qura'n.

Holy Quran 24:32 -Marry among you who are single, or the vituous ones among your slaves, male or female: if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of his grace; for Allah encompasses all, and he knows all things.

As far as I am concerned the polygamy is forbidden in the verse.

The post is about the rise in radicalism in Maldives but most of the comments are miles away from the original post. It is how hot this topic is. People don't want to admit that they have a problem known as radicalism. As long as we are scared to face the problem head-on, we will never solve it.

Kandumas: Suhail is right I have veered miles away from the topic and my understanding of Islamic history is rudimentary at best. Yet I still fail to see any indication in the Quran or the Sunnah that non-Moslems (especially those of the Jewish faith) were ever offered unconditional amnesty. That's largely the reason why my initial response to any document drawn up by the Islamic empire towards non-Moslems is scepticism. However, I apologize if my childish (academic :P) response offended you. I've also always looked at taxation from a Marxist viewpoint.

The main point is that when you get down to basics, the Quran can be variably pragmatic, aggressive or even an outright call to world conquest. Debating the Quran, the Bible or the Torah is a fruitless pursuit and will not villify or vindicate "extremists" or "fundamentalists". The truth that most of us want to evade is that we (the more tolerant minority) ARE updating these so-called unchangeable religions and the fundamentalists provide the natural inertia to this change. None of the major religions in their purest form advocate tolerance or plurality. What's more, the idea of monotheism is inherently incompatible with democracy.

The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved so let's just stop taking ourselves and our religions so seriously. In the Maldivian context, the state really needs to distance itself from religion and it is on the right path to that now. What we need however are people in high places who are prepared to admit this explicitly. Sadly, a democracy will allow fundamentalists to preach their ideas to whomever will listen. I can think of no democratic solutions for this dilemma.

Hamza:
I was not offended at all but was just admitting my own ignorance.
I do not agree to most of the stuff you have said but do agree with some of it.
I would like to repeat my original intention that the verse quoted by Ismail refers to a particular situation in history and therefore cannot be forwarded as evidence that the Quran teaches intollerance. The gist of your argument (hamza) seems to rest on such claims too- namely quoting verses from the Quran out of context. Its easy and fashionable to make such claims and also claim that its logical too. However nothing can be farther from logical.

However, I respect your views and I am not trying to impose my views on you.

I would sooner quote the fairytales of the Brothers Grimm than the Quran, the Bible or the Torah but yes my understanding of all three is that they are inconsistent and written by men. I see no reason to believe in a god as yet and do not. Your humility has humbled me. I'd like to say I'm not following a trend but I can't claim to understand myself that well. However from a young age I've always questioned the beliefs we take for granted and never received answers I could swallow.

Hamzah are u an agnostic or an atheist? and do u believe in something called logic absolutes?

Muzlim: Do MY beliefs really matter? Will that change anything for you?

Is that how u answer questions? Well Hamzah it wont change anythin for me whether u are an atheist or a muslim, or even a rasfatarian..

What I meant was that from what I've seen of your rather condescending case study of people disillusioned with organized religion on your blog, I fail to see any productive outcome of debating my beliefs or lack of the same with you. But I don't want to be so rude, so the simplest answer is I don't believe in labels. We all have similarites and differences but we aren't the same so there's no generic respone you could formulate towards an expression of my beliefs in one single word without understanding who I really am and that sadly, can't be accomplished in a blog. :D

Hamza Hamza Hamza well in one of ur previous comment u said, "The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved so let's just stop taking ourselves and our religions so seriously." Well you perhaps can be better explained as a person who lack belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a Mickey mouse in a rocking chair on the moon; it isn’t an issue. You doen’t believe or not believe it.
And in your last comment to Kandumas you said, "I see no reason to believe in a god as yet and do not. Your humility has humbled me. I'd like to say I'm not following a trend but I can't claim to understand myself that well. However from a young age I've always questioned the beliefs we take for granted and never received answers I could swallow." This statement is much like of an agnostic who look at evidences and have concluded that there is no God but (by your words "yet")still say that you are open to further evidence for God’s existence.
And that is where the confusion started...and that is when I asked you that question..
Mind me for asking questions...

In the long history of our recent past, religion played the major role in our life economically, socially and morally.
The only religion that we were acquainted with was Islam, and the only source of Islam was the dictatorial regime's officially sanctioned version.

Due to the reform movement and the democratic activites of the new youth, the regime has lost control of 80% of the stranglehold on the people's life, thereby creating a power vacuum. And the regime's version of Islam has lost its legitimacy as well as its lustre.

At the time of this uncertainty and tragedy, we are trying to find new solutions for our problems. And what emerged was the de facto political party by the name of Adhaalth Party, fully cotrolled by Medhrassa-trained students (Taleban)from Pakistan and India, secretly blessed by the regime and financed by Saudis. They have hijacked Islam in Maldives and filled the vacuum left by the regime's impotency on all religious issues.

DRP or the government cannot do much, other than critcizing them to a certain extent, only to make them more popular, and weaken the reform movement. That, what I believe, is the aim of the regime at least for the time being. To weaken the Reform Movement and popularise Fanatic Islam.

MDP, on the other hand shy away from Adhaalth and their Fatwas, as they are accused of being agents of Christian Missionaries. So what they did was to recruit two of the most radical Mullahs in the country to convince the public of thier fidelty to the religion.

Now that leaves us, the moderates, with no voice but vices and no power to do a thing except accept the fate like we always do in Maldives.

All I can say is, we are a timid and cowardly people. Others will say obedient and peace loving nation of people, to which I strongly diasagree.

Muzlim, everybody is open to further evidence on all matters, be it God's existence or non-existence or whatever.

Noone will close his mind on any matter unless he becomes very obnoxious.

What's wrong with an open mind? As far as the evidences point out that is God's plan. To think, find, search and than believe.

Suhail I think the AP's status as a political party is de juris and not de facto and therein lies the danger.

Hamza, maybe you are right. Either way AP is the biggest threat looming on Maldivian horizon, far far more dangerous than the present regime. Most of the people I spoke with, do underestimate the AP's influence in our society. That is where the dangers lie in. UNDERESTIMATION.

radical islam came to maldives....not recently...but slowly some years back..it came when we all were looking at it...and i would say its growth and being more radical, was somehow caused by how we treated the problem.without understanding how bad things can be,without even thinking about what might happen...we the maldivian people attacked it harshly and the government also did the same and it was the government which called on the people to attack it.but at the same time the government helped in the spread of it...through the mathee majilis...there,mister farooq and zakariya and uttama and many others helped yound maldivians to be educated in pakistan and saudi arabia.but they also sometimes attack them.in this way all religous minded people were grouped in to one big group(yeah ...to be united against something is easier and more possible than just uniting)....which the society labeled as the 'wahhaabee meehun'..they were like aliens on this land.there were moderates among em, but they were also treated the same.and then the more extreme groups began to rise...even against the other groups in the 'wahabee community'. so, now they are many groups....but still for maldivians...they are just 'wahhaabee meehun' or 'haabee'....just like they took any one with a long,colored hair to be 'raaboa meehun' some years back...

and simon,for any reason ...if the women of maldives are adopting hijab ...that cannot be a problem ...even if maldives was a secular country.now, i am ok with maldives being a secular country ...but no..never an atheist fundamentalist country.we must repect other's beliefs and we must be tolerant,UNLESS there is danger from them....say, for example...the jihadi groups in maldives...they are dangerous...but is there any danger in women in hijab?ok..covering the face might create problems but just wearing that dress?whats the problem there?they did it by their own free will.it their CHOICE...if you say,it is because they were threatened by islamic scholars..that they might end up in hell...well...what makes them to change to the oppposite of that? the threat of not being accepted in the society?any way that is their problem...that is their belief and you also have manything in you which are directly related to what you believe.even if it is nothing.

if you say...it is leading them towards dangerous extremist thinking...why not start from being muslims...? we must then get rid of islam itself.but that is also not just!if you think what you believe is the only truth...and if you believe that others have to be converted to your belief...the again...you are no different from sheikh fareed to me....he also wants to convert every one...if he has arms and power,he would even fight to convert maldives....

and talking about fundamentalism....there is a growing population of atheist fundamentalists in maldives.or shall i say anti islamic atheist fundamentalists?anything against islam is kool for em.im not saying talking about islams' problems is a problem for me...but doing it in the sameway fundamentalists do...is a problem. we need not get rid of any religion or religous groups....we need to get rid of fundamentalism!and start thinking about all these stuff...with a free mind.we are not obliged to believe that all those who dont believe in Allah and Mohamed will go to Naraka....and in the same way,we are not obliged to believe that there is not God...or that we evolved from apes and then we stopped evolving.we are not forced to believe in flying fpaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn...we are all free to believe what ever we want.and if anyone is not happy with this...we gotta get rid of him or her,becoz that must be a fundamentalist.

Mohameeha.

What you are suggesting when you say "we gotta get rid of him/her, becoz that must be a fundamentalist."? You mean to deport him/her to Tora Bora of Afghanistan or Quetta of Pakistan or Lodonistan of UK? Or you mean to liquidate him as they say in Mafia/CIA lingo? Then it cannot be a different view from the radical's standings. So, Moyameehaa, please make yourself more clear.

I think what moyameeha is trying to say is that radicalism (or in his words "fundamentalism") of any sort is the real danger. I agree to a certain extent. Among the spectrum of atheists there are those who think that religious faith has gone beyond the possibility of preservation by dividing humanity into warring factions. That's just as harmful as throwing all unreligious people into the same pen. What we need is dialogue and acknowledgement of the existence of dissent. Our state ignores everyone else except those who adhere to the party line. We need to start talking about the existence of different forms of belief in our society and accepting them as equals. Those who do not come to the table for discussion are the real radicals.

Hamza, good, now you are more in line with the post. Thanks for making Moyameehaa's standing more comprehensive.

LOL who died and made you moderator, Suhail?

Hamza,
I agree that we must start talking about the existence of different forms of belief in our society and accepting them as equals.
However, I do not think I can accept ideas and beliefs which contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Ismail Rasheed, That would be quite agreeable when universality of UDHR is undebatable and agreed upon without coersion. Any global benchmark to measure such ideas against must be truly universal. The mechanism of reservations help to approximate universality.

The UDHR and subsequent Human Rights documents are slowly supplanting religion as the basis of morality but its weakened by this same aspiration to normativeness. However I firmly believe that the strength of the UDHR and co. lies in the fact that they can be added to and subtracted from (through the mechanism of reservations as Vanilla pointed out). The secularization of morality is inevitable as the number of people who do not subscribe to organized religions grow, and Human Rights documents provide for this basic need. It is an answer to religious conservative's concern that without religion there is nothing to stop people from killing each other or overstepping social norms. However, it is my strong belief that these societal norms were not dropped down from heaven but rather developed over ages through social interaction and compromise. Religion just built on them.

Hamza because you don’t see any convincing evidence for the existence of Almighty God that doesn’t necessarily mean that He doesn’t exist, since you, Hamza, cant know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports his existence. Therefore, it is possible that God exists meaning that faith has its place and also it means that you are an agnostic, whether you don’t believe in labels or not (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
One might thn say that it is also possible that there is no evidence at all for God. To him we say that he cant state like that absolutely since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cant be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports belief in God.

....it is my strong belief that these societal norms were not dropped from heaven but rather developed over ages through social interactions and compromise'.

Hamza, it is a fact, not something that you merely believe to be correct. Religions only legitimate them.

Muzlim,

Since all evidence cannot be known by us, does that mean we need not act?
If all evidence can never be fully revealed, the possibility of Saddam being innocent was there.
So would we not execute him? Or should wait until all evidences are revealed? Which, as per your own words will never come. So let him loose?

When you look for evidences the queston comes, "what kind of evidence is acceptable?".
If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it? And it also maybe possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable? Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example, Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic? Do you want God to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up? If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because he would violate his own nature. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can? But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Do you define the miraculous out of existence? If so, on what basis do you do this? If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.
PS: I dont like to change the subject of God to Saddam :)

Muzlim this is just a matter of how we look at things. You start from a basic assumption that god exists and then just find evidence to fit that hypothesis, which in scientific terms is deductive. I'm just a fan of inductive reasoning. I think there's an inherent flaw in starting from an assumption and setting out to prove yourself right but of course better people than me have decided that this approach can work. Still I've decided to go back to a tabula rasa and then start from there. Most of us apply this sceptical logic when it comes to Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster. Some of us treat god similarly. Anything is possible Muzlim, but that doesn't mean we all have to believe that they are probable.

Hamza, if something is possible doesnt that mean that it is probable too??
And one thing more are there such things as logical absolutes? For example... A cannot be both A and not A at the same, time.
What do you say?

No Muzlim, my understanding is that possibility does not ensure probability. There's always room for possiblity as long as evidence to the contrary does not completely snuff it out. But the extent of our knowledge on a subject lowers or increases the probability of it. I think a mathematician would be better qualified to answer you. I don't plan to say any more on this except for the observation that to me your intent seems to be to engender confusion and not lucidity.

Hamzah, ok let us stop about the probabilities and possibilities...and I am not good in Mathematics ;)
Hamzah do you believe in logic absolutes?

Hamza and Muzlim

Why don't you stop arguing about absolete stuff? And as for Fundamentalism or Radicalism, depends on who's pointing the finger doesn't it? The Westerners or more "Civilised" people say that the Muslims are the fundamentalists, because they follow a bunch of rules. I wonder what the "civilized" world is following? and who died and made anybody/belief/culture/race superior over another? Who decides what belief is more right? Who the F@#k DECIDES who or what a fundamentalist is? and what gave them that right?? If you ask me, its just a bunch of Bullshit. If a women clad from head to toe worries you, then you are the pathetic sod! Oh yeah , don't forget the so called mullahs!. If you think they are taking over then its your fault for listening to bunch of idiots. So stop worrying about them and start worrying about yourselves.
Peace out

Athena,
Well your comments reminds me the saying,"she accused me with her own iniquities and slowly slipped away"...
Cos u r sayin "stop worrying about them and start worrying about yourselves."..well u urself seems to worry about hamza and me commenting and expressing our thoughts...hehe
Peace out Athena

Muzlim

I am not worried about your thoughts or that of Hamza's. I am simply worried about the bigger picture here. Only Buruga clad women living in non-muslim countries or 'the western world' can fully understand what I am talking about here. It is so seriously not funny when you are the obejct of hatred or fear. (especially if you are judged by what you wear)

peace to you bros

Athena,

I understood you, to mean Buruga clad women in non Muslim countries are the objects of fear and hatred. Is my understanding correct, Athena?

And the other understanding that reminded me by your comment is, that in the first place (according to most of the Hijab lobbysts) the hijab is used as a way of protecting them from harassments of wild men. If the hijab is not giving the protection it is supposed to, and on the contrary is having the opposite effect, why not through the damned buruga away?

Suhail

Sure why not? throw the goddamn thing away, and if the wild westerners want you to throw away your belief system, sure why not throw it away as well? oh yeah if your freedom to dress the way you want, eat what you want and live the way you want inconveniece them, why not change? Oh no, then it would be like living in the Maldives woudn't it? I thought we were trying to fight for our own freedom, live the way we want instead of being dictated to. I don't know about you, but atleast thats what I WANT.

You mean hijab clad women are living the way they want it. I am not so sure.

My point was if the Hijab were at the first place to protect women form harassment, and infact not having the right effect, why not through it away.

I WANT to live my life the way I want it, but I also want try and make sure the others have the same. The women who are not given a proper education; taken as child brides, not given a licence to drive; taken as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th wife; faceless teachers teaching the girls; do not have liberty to go out unless chaperoned; do not have their own ID cards; being forced to marry to men as old their father or older. I don't think anyone in her/his right mind believes that these women do it by choice.

Athena, are you defending these in the name of a belief system or freedom of choice. I am not so sure what you make out of it. Maybe you are indifferent to these issues as you are not directly involved or informed. I mean no offence. Just curious.

Oi don't hate on the Westerners. It's all love people. You could dress up everyday in a steel bodysuit with Klingon make-up but that doesn't give anyone the right to criticize. As long as all our choices are informed, it's all good. Suhail, Athena seems to me to be a woman who knows what she wants and how to get it. So let's just all get along. Now pass the bong.

Gentlemen and Ladies...I recommend you all to read "Sacred Freedom"...

Hamza Thanks for the pull bro, now pass the bong to Suhail. (Or maybe something stronger if you have it)
Now that we are all calm, No I do not mean, that these "poor" women you are talking about had a choice,adn they are living a life they wanted to. But even so, they have the right NOT to be ridiculed when they out on the road. Just becuase of what they wear. Isn't a greater injustice being done to them, if you jeer on top of their misery? And what about the women who choose that lifestyle? don't they have the right to live their life? And I not defending any sort of belief system other than the freedom to live our life the way we want.
You are way off the marker if you thought me indifferent or uninvolved.

Athena,
...they have the right NOT to be ridiculed when they are out on the road. Just because of what they wear .Is not a greater injustice being done to them, if you jeer on top of their misery?'

At least you admitted that they are suffering behind the veils. If ridiculing and mocking them are the only ways to get attention to this stupid phenomenon , I am all for it.

And I do not believe there are women who have chosen this lifestyle without some sort of coercion or pressure through misunderstanding and in some cases to abuse (like going to job interviews in Burugas in some European countries so they are not hired whilst getting themselves registerd as unemployed getting the full benefits for unemployment, while they have at the first place no intenton of getting employed) and mock the Established Western System of democracy.

Yes, they have the right to live their life and we have the right to say what we think is right without being labelled anti Islam by mullahs and the threat of bodily assault by the the thugs (so-called the youth of Ummah) controlled by these Medrassa trained Mufties.

Maybe you are not defending an archaic medieval lifestyle, but I am sure you are somewhat encouraging these women to a certain extent, or at least giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Suhail

If you read my post again, I said SOME women. who have been coerced or forced or whatever, they suffer. And how can you say that by jeering at these women that you are trying to provide justice?
Its like you are booing at a rape victime and telling her off for wearing the clothes she was wearing or looking the way she was or being at the place she was!

I am not somewhat encouraging, I AM encouraging them to live the way they want IF THAT WAS WHAT THEY WANTED!
you seem to be not hearing that part.

as for unemployment benefits - goodness gracious me, few burughees getting some on their injustice while there are thousands of free loaders. BUT not I agree with you on this , they should not abuse any system. THERE are jobs they can get hired to do if they seriously look for work, even in their hijabs. BUT ITS NOT EASY!

And I belive you owe the benefit of the doubt to everyone. You can't label each and every one and thing you see on the first go. Have to look, listen and understand. Understanding somebody's point of view is not the same thing as agreeing - remember that.