• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Second Annual Woman's March Draws Massive Crowds Accross US

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
You attack the commentator and not the tweeter?

so
or

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/873575712061521920?lang=en

If you are like me and understand Islamic common rhetoric you know what is being implied and where her facts are from. Plain and simple. Do not justify her idiocy, you do not have to be involved in a dilemma that is not even apart of your community which you will probably not understand.

LOL! I can read!

He twisted and misrepresented what she said in the tweets.

Also - you sent us to a SHARIA article.

Did you notice this in the comments -

"Flutterby‏ @Flutterby2011 10 Jun 2017 "FGM isnt a Muslim issue Its banned in Saudi Arabia. Most prevalent in Africa and Arabic countries with an equal mix of Christian and Muslim."

"...Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act. In the Abrahamic tradition this act is understood as a fulfillment of a covenant with God, but there are numerous health reasons for the practice. There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however, neither in the Qur'an, the traditional reports (called hadith), nor medical theory.
Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done:

A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'–Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.

One does not want to make too much of this tradition, as it is classified as "weak" by Abu Dawud (the compiler) himself. Nonetheless, it clearly forbids severity in circumcision and bases such limitation on both the potential to harm the woman and the potential to make her less desirable to her husband. Yet, despite the restriction against severity, the Prophet did not here prohibit circumcision completely.

Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete removal of the clitoris) or infibulation (excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening), or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations. Such prohibitions are consistent with the hadithic warning against severity in female circumcision.

If the Islamic law does not mandate female genital mutilation and tolerates only the most mild form of circumcision (and that only if it produces no adverse effects in the child), then how does it come about that so many people from certain countries with large Muslim populations insist that savage acts which exceed these limits are not only permitted, but required by Islamic law? The answer becomes obvious when one realizes that Christians from many of these countries also insist that the tradition is mandated by their religion as well. People often confuse traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements.

Immigrants from such countries now residing in the United States stand between the culture of their heritage and the American culture of their environment. They cannot and should not be expected to abandon their religion. There should be no doubt, however, that the young amongst them, at least, will be willing to abandon old-world cultural practices at odds with their adopted culture when such practices are unsupported by religion. (This is because they carry no cultural bias towards such practices. On the contrary, they may absorb biases against them from their adopted culture.)

For Muslims, cliterodectomy and infibulation should be considered harâm (prohibited) practices and opposition to it should be part of our ongoing mandate to fight against superstition and oppression. As to the mildest form of female circumcision, the risks to the girl's future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband must place it at best in the category of makrûh (disliked) practices. Since it has neither hygienic nor religious value, there is no justification for Muslims to engage in this painful and potentially harmful practice and it would be best to avoid it completely.
Wa Allahu a`lam. (And God knows best.) http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm

Did you note that Christians also do this in several countries? That is because it is a part of local tradition - and obviously not from Christianity, - just as Muslims doing so, are following local traditions, and obviously not following Quran.

*
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
LOL! I can read!

He twisted and misrepresented what she said in the tweets.

Also - you sent us to a SHARIA article.

Did you notice this in the comments -

"Flutterby‏ @Flutterby2011 10 Jun 2017 "FGM isnt a Muslim issue Its banned in Saudi Arabia. Most prevalent in Africa and Arabic countries with an equal mix of Christian and Muslim."

"...Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act. In the Abrahamic tradition this act is understood as a fulfillment of a covenant with God, but there are numerous health reasons for the practice. There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however, neither in the Qur'an, the traditional reports (called hadith), nor medical theory.
Although female circumcision is not mandated, one tradition of disputed authenticity permits (but does not encourage) the removal of a minuscule segment of skin from the female prepuce, provided no harm is done:

A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'–Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.

One does not want to make too much of this tradition, as it is classified as "weak" by Abu Dawud (the compiler) himself. Nonetheless, it clearly forbids severity in circumcision and bases such limitation on both the potential to harm the woman and the potential to make her less desirable to her husband. Yet, despite the restriction against severity, the Prophet did not here prohibit circumcision completely.

Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. It follows that Islamic law prohibits clitorodectomy (partial or complete removal of the clitoris) or infibulation (excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening), or any genital mutilation which impairs the woman's ability to enjoy sexual relations. Such prohibitions are consistent with the hadithic warning against severity in female circumcision.

If the Islamic law does not mandate female genital mutilation and tolerates only the most mild form of circumcision (and that only if it produces no adverse effects in the child), then how does it come about that so many people from certain countries with large Muslim populations insist that savage acts which exceed these limits are not only permitted, but required by Islamic law? The answer becomes obvious when one realizes that Christians from many of these countries also insist that the tradition is mandated by their religion as well. People often confuse traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements.

Immigrants from such countries now residing in the United States stand between the culture of their heritage and the American culture of their environment. They cannot and should not be expected to abandon their religion. There should be no doubt, however, that the young amongst them, at least, will be willing to abandon old-world cultural practices at odds with their adopted culture when such practices are unsupported by religion. (This is because they carry no cultural bias towards such practices. On the contrary, they may absorb biases against them from their adopted culture.)

For Muslims, cliterodectomy and infibulation should be considered harâm (prohibited) practices and opposition to it should be part of our ongoing mandate to fight against superstition and oppression. As to the mildest form of female circumcision, the risks to the girl's future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband must place it at best in the category of makrûh (disliked) practices. Since it has neither hygienic nor religious value, there is no justification for Muslims to engage in this painful and potentially harmful practice and it would be best to avoid it completely.
Wa Allahu a`lam. (And God knows best.) http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm

Did you note that Christians also do this in several countries? That is because it is a part of local tradition - and obviously not from Christianity, - just as Muslims doing so, are following local traditions, and obviously not following Quran.

*

Why are you arguing with a former Muslim about this? FGM is not Islamic and what the author of the article says is of no concern to me because he is an obvious fool who touts radical Jewish nationalism. I do not care about what this man writes, the article just had a nice collection of her tweets, that is all. This man is as crazy as Sarsour just on the other side.

Anything else you write is just you informing me how bad your reading comprehension is.

Lesson learned:
. . . Don't bring a rabbit's foot to a tank fight, it just looks silly and has no combative effectiveness.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Why are you arguing with a former Muslim about this? FGM is not Islamic and what the author of the article says is of no concern to me because he is an obvious fool who touts radical Jewish nationalism. I do not care about what this man writes, the article just had a nice collection of her tweets, that is all. This man is as crazy as Sarsour just on the other side.

Anything else you write is just you informing me how bad your reading comprehension is.

Lesson learned:
. . . Don't bring a rabbit's foot to a tank fight, it just looks silly and has no combative effectiveness.

LOL! NOT!

As to the tweets - I showed that he twisted them.

As to the site -


I just provided you with a lot of info which shows that this is not In Quran, but a traditional practice of some of these countries, - participated in by some Muslims, Christians, and other religions, in those countries.

Got that? Christian and other religions in those countries do FGM too.

Here is part of it again.

"Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act. In the Abrahamic tradition this act is understood as a fulfillment of a covenant with God, but there are numerous health reasons for the practice. There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however, neither in the Qur'an, the traditional reports (called hadith), nor medical theory."

EDIT - You sent us to a site using a supposed FGM tweet against the person you hate. You used misinformation about tweets, from a person you now claim is a fool, and now you claim I am the problem? Funny. LOL!

*
 
Last edited:

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
LOL! NOT!

As to the tweets - I showed that he twisted them.

As to the site -


I just provided you with a lot of info which shows that this is not In Quran, but a traditional practice of some of these countries, - participated in by some Muslims, Christians, and other religions, in those countries.

Got that? Christian and other religions in those countries do FGM too.

Here is part of it again.

"Although there is no reference to circumcision at all in the Qur'an, there is a well-established tradition of male circumcision in Islam as a "sunnah" act. In the Abrahamic tradition this act is understood as a fulfillment of a covenant with God, but there are numerous health reasons for the practice. There is no mandate at all for female circumcision, however, neither in the Qur'an, the traditional reports (called hadith), nor medical theory."

EDIT - You sent us to a site using a supposed FGM tweet against the person you hate. You used misinformation about tweets, from a person you now claim is a fool, and now you claim I am the problem? Funny. LOL!

*

Again, you cannot read nor have I argued about FGM. Bye bye
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
He did the same with Neo-Nazis and complimented them by calling them good people.
Courtesy of the very same media outlets who said Trump didn't disavow Nazis fast enough when video and print showed that he had disavowed Nazis and the KKK numerous times over several decades. Your parroting of biased half truths and outright lies does not change the fact that Trump fully endorsed and encouraged women and men of all races,religions, and sexual orientations to exercise their right to voice their opinions.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Lets see Linda Sarsour was there and her dialogues and tweets along with her communal love from the environment was sickening.
<yawn>

So ...

More than 200,000 protesters attended the march in New York on Saturday, according to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles said 600,000 attended the march there, while organizers of the Chicago march said 300,000 attended that event. Thousands also turned out in Washington, Philadelphia, Austin and hundreds of other cities and towns around the country and world. [NYT]

... and you want to fulminate against Linda Sarsour. Good grief!
</yawn>
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Do you have an actual quote for this?

"President Trump defended the white nationalists who protested in Charlottesville on Tuesday, saying they included “some very fine people,” while expressing sympathy for their demonstration against the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. It was a strikingly different message from the prepared statement he had delivered on Monday, and a reversion to his initial response over the weekend....

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me,” he said.

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said.

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me,” he said.

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

“You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said

The “Unite the Right” rally that sparked the violence in Charlottesville featured several leading names in the white-nationalist alt-right movement, and also attracted people displaying Nazi symbols. As they walked down the street, the white-nationalist protesters chanted “blood and soil,” the English translation of a Nazi slogan. One of the men seen marching with the fascist group American Vanguard, James A. Fields, is charged with deliberately ramming a car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer.


The substance of Trump’s unscripted remarks hewed more closely to his initial reaction to Charlottesville on Saturday, when he blamed “many sides” for what happened. On Monday, after two days of relentless criticism, Trump gave a stronger statement, saying “racism is evil” and specifically condemning white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazis. Speaking to reporters shortly afterward, white nationalist Richard Spencer told reporters he didn’t see Trump’s remarks as a condemnation of his movement."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...s-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

You obviously don't stay in the United States....This was all over the news. I highlighted the bold parts to help you. Also even if we were to take Trump's comment on there were a section of people who were not Nazis or skin head racists, why would you align yourself with a hate group in the same crowd? My mother always said hanging around the wrong crowd makes you guilty by association.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"President Trump defended the white nationalists who protested in Charlottesville on Tuesday, saying they included “some very fine people,” while expressing sympathy for their demonstration against the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. It was a strikingly different message from the prepared statement he had delivered on Monday, and a reversion to his initial response over the weekend....

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me,” he said.

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said.

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me,” he said.

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

“You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said

The “Unite the Right” rally that sparked the violence in Charlottesville featured several leading names in the white-nationalist alt-right movement, and also attracted people displaying Nazi symbols. As they walked down the street, the white-nationalist protesters chanted “blood and soil,” the English translation of a Nazi slogan. One of the men seen marching with the fascist group American Vanguard, James A. Fields, is charged with deliberately ramming a car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer.


The substance of Trump’s unscripted remarks hewed more closely to his initial reaction to Charlottesville on Saturday, when he blamed “many sides” for what happened. On Monday, after two days of relentless criticism, Trump gave a stronger statement, saying “racism is evil” and specifically condemning white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazis. Speaking to reporters shortly afterward, white nationalist Richard Spencer told reporters he didn’t see Trump’s remarks as a condemnation of his movement."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...s-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

You obviously don't stay in the United States....This was all over the news. I highlighted the bold parts to help you.
Looks like your post (#14) misrepresented Trump what Trump actually said...
He did the same with Neo-Nazis and complimented them by calling them good people.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Courtesy of the very same media outlets who said Trump didn't disavow Nazis fast enough when video and print showed that he had disavowed Nazis and the KKK numerous times over several decades. Your parroting of biased half truths and outright lies does not change the fact that Trump fully endorsed and encouraged women and men of all races,religions, and sexual orientations to exercise their right to voice their opinions.


"The substance of Trump’s unscripted remarks hewed more closely to his initial reaction to Charlottesville on Saturday, when he blamed “many sides” for what happened. On Monday, after two days of relentless criticism, Trump gave a stronger statement, saying “racism is evil” and specifically condemning white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazis. Speaking to reporters shortly afterward, white nationalist Richard Spencer told reporters he didn’t see Trump’s remarks as a condemnation of his movement."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...s-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

Only a racist coward would agree with this nonsense that happen in Charlotesville.....I suspect we both agree on this.

"Prominent white nationalists quickly thanked President Donald Trump on Tuesday after the president said racists and neo-Nazis weren't exclusively to blame for Saturday violence in Charlottesville, Va.

"I appreciate the truth," alt-right activist Richard Spencer said in a text message to the Washington Examiner. "He's defending the truth
.......

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, meanwhile, tweeted: "Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...-the-truth-on-charlottesville/article/2631630

The same a****** Trump claimed not knowing who David duke was:

 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
"The substance of Trump’s unscripted remarks hewed more closely to his initial reaction to Charlottesville on Saturday, when he blamed “many sides” for what happened. On Monday, after two days of relentless criticism, Trump gave a stronger statement, saying “racism is evil” and specifically condemning white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazis. Speaking to reporters shortly afterward, white nationalist Richard Spencer told reporters he didn’t see Trump’s remarks as a condemnation of his movement."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...s-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

Only a racist coward would agree with this nonsense that happen in Charlotesville.....I suspect we both agree on this.

"Prominent white nationalists quickly thanked President Donald Trump on Tuesday after the president said racists and neo-Nazis weren't exclusively to blame for Saturday violence in Charlottesville, Va.

"I appreciate the truth," alt-right activist Richard Spencer said in a text message to the Washington Examiner. "He's defending the truth
.......

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, meanwhile, tweeted: "Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...-the-truth-on-charlottesville/article/2631630

The same a****** Trump claimed not knowing who David duke was:


So what does any of that have to do with this?
Trump fully endorsed and encouraged women and men of all races,religions, and sexual orientations to exercise their right to voice their opinions.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Looks like your post (#14) misrepresented Trump what Trump actually said...

OMFG

He did the same with Neo-Nazis and complimented them by calling them "good people."


Trump: “You also had some very fine people on both sides,” he said.

I know you like racist 45 but don't pretend to be dense....... The word fine, can be interpreted as "good" when it comes to colloquialism. For example if a woman said "yo baby you're fine as hell!" Can be interpreted that she thinks I'm attractive. Another example is me apologizing for bumping into someone. The person may say "oh man you're fine," as in, I'm alright (no need to apologize profusely). I cannot believe English class is in session....
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I know you like racist 45 ......
What on Earth does that sequence of words mean?
1945?
45ACP?
but don't pretend to be dense.......
I don't pretend.....I am.
The word fine, can be interpreted as "good" when it comes to colloquialism. For example if a woman said "yo baby you're fine as hell!" Can be interpreted that she thinks I'm attractive. Another example is me apologizing for bumping into someone. The person may say "oh man you're fine," as in, I'm alright (no need to apologize profusely). I cannot believe English class is in session....
You made a statement....
He did the same with Neo-Nazis and complimented them by calling them good people.
I was skeptical because such a quote, were it real, would've
seen great coverage in the news. So I asked for evidence.

You provided many quotes, but none supported your above
statement that he called Neo-Nazis "good people".
Moreover, you even quoted him condemning Neo-Nazis.
Are you so sure that I am the one with density issues?
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
I was skeptical because such a quote would've seen great coverage in the news.
It saw a metric crap ton of news. Not sure how you missed it.
So I asked for evidence.
You provided many quotes, but none supported your above
statement that he called Neo-Nazis "good people".
Moreover, you even quoted him condemning Neo-Nazis.
Are you so sure that I am the one with density issues?
You can quibble that trump stated that Neo-Nazi’s specifically were fine people but he did state that there were fine people on both sides.

One side consisted of Neo-Nazi’s, and white supremacists and nationalists. They marched with Swastikas and confederate flags. They chanted and held banners with anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim slogans.

Is it possible an innocent conservative just wanting to support keeping a Confederate statue got mixed up in this milieu? Sure. But that person then chose to march with the Nazis and white supremacists who were a majority and making their position quite clear.

So, quibble away. Trump stated that there were fine people marching on the side of the Nazis and white supremacists. That’s the takeaway.
 
Top