[navarre]

(Original post by Marcos135)
There are animals/food much more dangerous to eat than pork to a human being.
This whole debate is childish.
Trying to rationalise a faith (including using scientific arguments) is non-sensical. Sorry I don't mean to offend anyone.

My thoughts exactly.

[mariachi]

(Original post by hopingtobeadentist)
that teaching has led too many failures and have made the lives of women extremely hard.

exactly

thinking that relations between men and women could, in today's world, still be regulated by a 1400-year old text is pure crazyness

[For]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
1 - Pork is forbidden in Islam, because they are "impure" and "filthy". Why is this, when pigs are actually the cleanest of animals, because they excrete in the same spot and clean themselves. The only reason they role around in mud is to protect their skin against the sun. If they were to ban filthy animals, surely rats, pigeons and dung beetles would be more suitable, no?

2 - In Islam a man is allowed four wives, but not a woman is not allowed four husbands. I understand this is because after a battle, the man to woman ratios was 1:4. However, the ratio has been restored, so why has this not changed?

Just a clarification. This post cannot be racist as Islam is a religion not a race. Just shows your ignornance.

[4RealBlud]

(Original post by For)
Just a clarification. This post cannot be racist as Islam is a religion not a race. Just shows your ignornance.

I didnt say it was racist, smart-ass. That's kinda the message in the thread title.

[hopingtobeadentist]

(Original post by mariachi)
exactly

thinking that relations between men and women could, in today's world, still be regulated by a 1400-year old text is pure crazyness

I agree. But not just in today's world, that teaching shouldn't have been taught ages ago because look at how many things women have to go through today and years ago all because men think they're superior and women are weak.

[Rosi M]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Some women are capable of not being promiscuous and looking after themselves, thank you.

Yes, im sure you are but alot of women arent and alot of women prefer being provided for. Alot of women don't want to study or work.
You have to take into consideration this law had to apply 1400 years ago too, where women didnt really work and battles were frequent.

A woman in islam is allowed to work and earn and also keep that money to herself.

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by Rosi M)
Yes, im sure you are but alot of women arent and alot of women prefer being provided for. Alot of women don't want to study or work.
You have to take into consideration this law had to apply 1400 years ago too, where women didnt really work and battles were frequent.

A woman in islam is allowed to work and earn and also keep that money to herself.

All I said was that a lot of women are independent and don't become village bikes or whatever the poster said.

So I don't know what your point is really, you've not said anything I didn't know before.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Rosi M)
this law had to apply 1400 years ago too, where women didnt really work.

women have been working since day 1 of humankind

what you mean is that women "weren't really paid for working"

[Rosi M]

(Original post by mariachi)
women have been working since day 1 of humankind

what you mean is that women "weren't really paid for working"

Not really. 1400 years ago in Arabia, women didnt really go out and work like the women do today. There were maids I guess but going out and working was not common.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Rosi M)
Not really. 1400 years ago in Arabia, women didnt really go out and work like the women do today. There were maids I guess but going out and working was not common.

women have been working in the fields for centuries, and then also at home

and without receiving any salary, of course

[x.Hana.x]

(Original post by maturestudy)
You should write for the daily mail.



It always helps to have a little equality when your discriminating, I think.

Anyway, I was dubious about your statistics but I thought I'd check them out and guess what I found. Throughout the entire western, industrialised world (as well as some other areas) there are more females than males.

Red = more females, Blue = more males. Hmm, now where have I seen a map that looks like that before?



That's right, the countries with shariah law are, almost without exception, blue on the first map. That means they have exactly the opposite statistic to the one you were claiming.

Bloody hell...
Oh dear Jesus, Mary, Mohammad, Moses and Krishna.
Pbu them all.

All 'islamic' countries today dont follow the real shariah law; they just add stuff, subtract stuff according to their own ends. So dont blame islam. Blame the idiot, corrupt muslims who are unfortuneatly at the top, terrorising those normal peacefyl myslims who just want to live a good life and provide for their families, a process hindered so brutally already by repressive and tbh unislanic regines, terrororists, and foriegn trigger happy powers dropping faking bombs on their villages and towns.
The issue of four wives.
After a battle during the prophets time, there was a vast unewaul ratio between men and woman-more woman than men. This was why the four wife thing was introduced-more chance of children, population stabulising, and far less woman left on their own, single.
It might sound medieval. Wake up. It was the sixth century.
After that, there are severely strict guidelines- war is one of the few times you are allowed more than one wife. Besides that, situations such as the inability to have a child etc. And the man should take permission from his first wife. And there is a very strict warning; that if that man cannot treat his wives eqaully, give them eqaul dowry (yes, in islam, when people get married, a man has to give and promisea woman a fixed sum of money, these days something like maybe three thousand pounds if hes from a working class background, depending on income. Even if they divorce, he is bound by islam to give her her full 'huq mer', as is called. Wheres that in any other religion? And a woman can divorce a man, dusnt need his permission, and has the chouce of going back. While a man must send the divorce three times for it to be legit, and he doesnt get the choice of going back. Huh, the rights muslim woman have dont even compare to that of christianity- up until henry the eights time, christianity didnt even allow divorce. Oh and woman in islam are given fair inheritance. Whereas in christianity, I dont know of anything that states woman get inheritance from fathers, husbands or brothers or anyone. Wasnt it less than a hundred years ago that the money and land etc would be passed onto the closest male relative in the line if there were only daughters, in this christian coubtry? Hmm)
So if a man cannot treat all wives fairly, and it is stated as a warning that indeed it is hard to do in th Quran, it is best not to do it, and leave it for wartimes etc
So that how it is. Yes, I know, muslim men, mostly high up rich an poloticians etc, and kings , marry four wives, even more, but that is wrong in islam, it is not islam, and it is offensive to think that they are indeed following the real islam. The state of most so called islamic countries today, and terrorists and extremists is living proof of the corruption of certain 'muslims' today, and the fact that they have strayed, and the bad state of islam today, which is in sore need of being peaceful and pristine as it once was.
one more thing; people claim muhhamad (saw) wa, well they accuse him of being something because one of his wives was nine years old.
Let me clarify this. No he wasnt a pedophile.
Because, you morons, that was the age many girls, not only in Arabia, but all over the world, INCLUDING CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES etc, came of age to marry. So in what way did that make him, a you know? That was happening here, in britian, not only then in the dam sixth century, but lets see a three hundred ot so years ago, girls in britian, france, spain, all over europe, married at twelve, thriteen, ten etc...must I remind you of all the royal princesses, ten years old etc getting married to thirty, forty, fifty year old princes. MUST I? You guys must have SOME logic to figure it out by yourselves, I know.
Adding to that, people then naturally had shorter lives-muhhamad pbuh daughter fatima lived to about twentyfive. He died before todays british pension age.
Girls and boys got ready earlier naturally for marriage.
Sorry, mariachi, I know all this isnt all to do with your post, you can ignore that part.
And this; Muhammads first wife, Khadija, was forty years old, while he was about twenty five. SHE proposed to HIM. SHE was a succesfull businesswoman with a career of her own,which she kept when she married him. SHE is celebrated as the firsr muslim ever.
Hows that for woman powet? And here in britian, it was unheard of even less than a mere hundred years ago for the woman to propose, or even HAVE a career and keep it after marriage.
His wife aisha was a general, commanding armies after he died.

So basically, woman in islam are not oppressed as it is all hyped up and propogated- ive said it before and I will say it again-media takes advantage of the fact that there are stupid or illiterate or narrowminded or simple people out there, and makes out as if the actions of some corrupt muslims and leaders etc represents what islam stands for.

And not eating pork has nothing to do with the devil, thats crazy, god said no, just as it is commanded in the torah, as well as the original bible, for jews and christians not to eat pork. There are still copies of bibles in hebrew that has in them the commandment not to eat pork.
Phew.
:-)
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my E15i

[Masoudy]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
I didnt say it was racist, smart-ass. That's kinda the message in the thread title.

Sigh.. I don't think this debate is ending soon,

As for the first question, see this wikianswer:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_Mus...#ixzz1tdkhTmZL



This answers your first question, I know you will not read it 4RealBlud, but no one cares about you, others will.

For the second question, see this youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teJrN...eature=related



It ALSO answers your stupid second question, now I don't like your childish dirty tongue, I am not posting these evidence for you, for others that don't know that ****heads like you exists in this world.

Last point: No one forces you to believe in Islam, you have "freedom of speech" but that doesn't include insulting others.

Your title is misleading btw.

[maturestudy]

(Original post by x.Hana.x)
Bloody hell...
Oh dear Jesus, Mary, Mohammad, Moses and Krishna.
Pbu them all.

...incoherent rant snipped...

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my E15i

Dear Jim,

LOL. Sorry, but quoting someone then ranting on about the topic in general, without addressing a single point in the original post is just a sure way to get yourself a) ignored and b) labelled a complete moron.

[4RealBlud]

(Original post by Masoudy)
Sigh.. I don't think this debate is ending soon,

As for the first question, see this wikianswer:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_Mus...#ixzz1tdkhTmZL



This answers your first question, I know you will not read it 4RealBlud, but no one cares about you, others will.

I did read it, i just dont agree with it, nevertheless

For the second question, see this youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teJrN...eature=related



It ALSO answers your stupid second question,
How is it stupid in any shape or form? Men outnumber women on this planet, yet they are allowed four wives. Fair enough, as long as you treat them equally, but what man is going to assess if a man treats all his wives equally? Sure, he may go to hell, but he took the wives of three other men and no-one is there to stop him. It would be easier, if he made the four wives rule only at that point in time to accomodate the need of his followers at the time, but he didnt. He kept it. Which is why i cannot take everything in the Quran literally, because at the end of the day, it isnt universal and many muslim scholars say so too

now I don't like your childish dirty tongue, I am not posting these evidence for you, for others that don't know that ****heads like you exists in this world.
I find it incredibly ironic, that i haven't said anything to offend anyone, then you say that i have a "dirty childish tongue" and that im a "***head" Maybe you dont know that many muslim scholars encourage the questioning of the Quran and Islam to broaden our knowledge of the religion. So that, we dont grow up following what we think islam is, but in reality it isnt. But at the end of the day you are the one who will pay the price of your insolent behaviour.

Last point: No one forces you to believe in Islam, you have "freedom of speech" but that doesn't include insulting others.

Neither did i say anyone is. I myself follow a branch of islam out of choice. The most liberal and philosophical branch i know and if asking questions is an insult to you, then i genuinely feel sorry for you. I dont follow everything in the Quran, because if you know your islamic history you'll know that the Quran is not universal and many of the laws were put in place to accommodate the needs of the arabs in the 7th century, safety precautions, etc. The most liberal and philosophical branch i know and if asking questions is an insult to you, then i genuinely feel sorry for you.

Your title is misleading btw.
There are two questions about islam and neither of them are racist. I hope that cleared up the reasoning behind the title thread to you, but i bet many simple things mislead you.

Hopefully, one day you'll mature, look back at this and laugh at yourself, noticing how much you've grown up and matured.

Peace and love

[Masoudy]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
Hopefully, one day you'll mature, look back at this and laugh at yourself, noticing how much you've grown up and matured.

Peace and love

Here is some of what you wrote:

"I didnt say it was racist, smart-ass. That's kinda the message in the thread title."

No that wasn't offensive

"Give me a source that isnt from a muslim press and i'll consider it. Citing info on the health of pork from islamic journals is about as reliable as using a north korean news channel on south korean events."

Comment: Anyone gave you a source from muslim press? Hell they gave you wikipedian sources

"In fact, Mohammed changed the Qur'an throughout his lifetime to suit the needs of popularising Islam and making life easier on his followers, ie polygamy was initially wrong. The current Qur'an is different to the one that Allah initially told Mohammed to write. The fact that it is changed means that the Qur'an is not entirely the direct word of god and it's not universal. This would make it unreliable and unapplicable to this day and age. If it's not universal, then it's all just obsolete, medieval philosophy in my eyes."

Source please? You said in fact, but give us a source for this.

You even used circular reasoning that you said "In fact, Mohammad changed.. etc" then you said "The fact that it is changed means.."


Circular reasoner!!! Got you!!

Circular reasoner, you lost this debate

Circular reasoning = talking rubbish and thinking that people will believe your weak argument, well you proved to me and yourself that you argue about nothing, until you provide us with a reliable source from what you are saying

"Give me a source that isnt from an atheist press and i'll consider it. Citing info on atheism from atheistic journals is about as reliable as using a north korean news channel on south korean events"


You don't sound like you want to learn anything, just want to criticise Islam, most muslims won't be happy about what you are saying.

Oh and read this: http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Smart

I don't mean to become sarcastic by posting this, just to make everyone a bit happier and more informative

[4RealBlud]

..Are you for real???

(Original post by Masoudy)
Here is some of what you wrote:

"I didnt say it was racist, smart-ass. That's kinda the message in the thread title."

No that wasn't offensive

The man called me ignorant, because he said that it cant racist, since there isnt a race. Did i say it was racist? No, in fact i said that it isnt racist in the thread title, thats the whole point. This person, like you, is trying to be all clever and that it cant be racist to make himself look smart, by being pedantic and pointing out a small insignificant detail in the thread that i didnt even claim. Anyone with any kind of self-respect would stand up for themselves and since when is smart-ass an insult? Grow up

"Give me a source that isnt from a muslim press and i'll consider it. Citing info on the health of pork from islamic journals is about as reliable as using a north korean news channel on south korean events."

Comment: Anyone gave you a source from muslim press? Hell they gave you wikipedian sources

...yes: http://themuslimvoice.wordpress.com/...raam-in-islam/. The Muslim Voice....how on Earth did you miss that? How did you confuse that with Wikipedia???

"In fact, Mohammed changed the Qur'an throughout his lifetime to suit the needs of popularising Islam and making life easier on his followers, ie polygamy was initially wrong. The current Qur'an is different to the one that Allah initially told Mohammed to write. The fact that it is changed means that the Qur'an is not entirely the direct word of god and it's not universal. This would make it unreliable and unapplicable to this day and age. If it's not universal, then it's all just obsolete, medieval philosophy in my eyes."

Source please? You said in fact, but give us a source for this.

I dont have an internet source, but if you ever bothered to read a book on islamic history, im sure you'd find it there.

You even used circular reasoning that you said "In fact, Mohammad changed.. etc" then you said "The fact that it is changed means.."


Circular reasoner!!! Got you!!

Circular reasoner, you lost this debate

Circular reasoning = talking rubbish and thinking that people will believe your weak argument, well you proved to me and yourself that you argue about nothing, until you provide us with a reliable source from what you are saying

Congratualtions, you just took pedantic to a whole new level. You claim to have won an entire argument, not by arguing the context of the debate, but by the opening phrase of a paragraph. And that's not even the worst part; im not using circular reasoning.

"In fact, Mohammad changed.. etc", states a fact that Mohammed changed the Quran over his lifetime.
"The fact that it is changed means..", is telling you, what you can conclude from the fact that Mohammed changed the Quran. I'm not sure you even know waht circular reasoning means. Have a look at this and dont accuse people of things that you dont understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

"Give me a source that isnt from an atheist press and i'll consider it. Citing info on atheism from atheistic journals is about as reliable as using a north korean news channel on south korean events"

Most prolific western scientific journals dont even involve faith of any kind. They are not atheist, muslim, christian or in fact anything, so it should be only a google search away from you

You don't sound like you want to learn anything, just want to criticise Islam, most muslims won't be happy about what you are saying.

You sound like a stubborn little boy who doesnt know half of islam. It's because people like you that extremism appears, because they follow something without making sure that what they follow is allowed in Islam. Many muslim scholars criticise islam, not that im criticising it, im questioning. If something that someone tells me doesnt add up, im not going to nod like a goat, because that is not how you truly understand something, by getting to the core.

Oh and read this: http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Smart

I don't mean to become sarcastic by posting this, just to make everyone a bit happier and more informative

I'm not going to bother arguing with you. You are clearly a stubborn, immature, little boy who knows nothing. I came here for an intellectual debate and discussion and there seems to be nothing intellectual about what you are putting forth. You're accusations are wrong and you seem to seriously lack observational skills. I'm going to point out that you have COMPLETELY avoided the points in my last point, despite the fact that i have raised a point for every point that you have made (not that im surprised, classic troll behaviour). Not to mention that all your accusation have turned out to be incorrect and you have failed to raise any valid points and some of the points that you have made are contradictory. I'm not here to discuss such issues with the likes of you, there are plenty of users here who are worth having such a discussion with, but unfortunately you are not.

Troll off elsewhere. Peace and love

[Masoudy]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
..Are you for real??? Troll off elsewhere. Peace and love

Yes I am for real, that is what I believe in and your questioning is not affecting my believe.

Islam is built on solid basis (do you want a source for that?) Try to make your debate more objective and intelligent, I asked for a source and you kept saying "read a book on islamic history." I don't want to praise myself, but I have read islamic history books and nothing is wrong with that history, there is something wrong with your mind (yes, being subjective for this point) and if you really want to ask, go ask an islamic scholar, don't just criticise knowledge of others (assuming that you are not a muslim.)

"The man called me ignorant, because he said that it cant racist, since there isnt a race. Did i say it was racist? No, in fact i said that it isnt racist in the thread title"

Thats why I said your thread is misleading. Ok it might not be racist, but it IS discriminatory.


"im not using circular reasoning" can you explain to me what circular reasoning is then?

"Most prolific western scientific journals dont even involve faith of any kind. They are not atheist" and how do you know this for sure? do you have any evidence from various sources which remain consistant with what you are saying?


"You sound like a stubborn little boy who doesnt know half of islam. It's because people like you that extremism appears, because they follow something without making sure that what they follow is allowed in Islam. Many muslim scholars criticise islam, not that im criticising it, im questioning. If something that someone tells me doesnt add up, im not going to nod like a goat, because that is not how you truly understand something, by getting to the core."

I am 100% against extremism, I even debate (don't want to praise myself, but whatever) with extremists, I follow Sunni Islam, Shafi'i school of law, and with Sufism. You are being subjective again in this paragraph. No one understands 100% of islam except the holy prophet. I always question my Sheik about what and why should I believe in this and he replied to not most questions, but all questions I asked him, now I am pretty confident with what I believe in and happy to hear the other, opposite believes/thoughts. If you want to understand islam (now assuming that you are muslim) you can read the books of Shafi'i which explains a lot (pm for details.)

Now I assume that you don't have a Sheik (or a religious teacher), this is why you ask these questions, I don't get bothered with that, am just happy to answer any misunderstandings with what you believe, again I am assuming that you want to learn (based on what you have said).

"You are clearly a stubborn, immature, little boy who knows nothing" nope, I am not. Tell me how is it clear? Have you known me for many years?


"..intellectual debate and discussion and there seems to be nothing intellectual about.." brings some sources please so it can be an intellectual debate, just don't end the debate with "I have read it, but disagree with it"

"despite the fact that i have raised a point for every point that you have made (not that im surprised, classic troll behaviour)"

I respect you, but I don't like people who like praising themselves. This is one of YOUR points, you classify negatively. There is a saying that "although the tigers are vicious, their kittens do not harm" meaning although they may seem in a certain perspective, they could be exactly the opposite of what you are thinking them of."

"Not to mention that all your accusation have turned out to be incorrect and you have failed to raise any valid points and some of the points that you have made are contradictory"

Quote next time, so I can improve myself. People will judge my points, not my opponent

Keep going, please don't end this debate here. Bring sources with you in your next reply. I want to see if "you" can make this an intellectual debate worth debating about!

[Aneesa.x]

(Original post by 4RealBlud)
1 - Pork is forbidden in Islam, because they are "impure" and "filthy". Why is this, when pigs are actually the cleanest of animals, because they excrete in the same spot and clean themselves. The only reason they role around in mud is to protect their skin against the sun. If they were to ban filthy animals, surely rats, pigeons and dung beetles would be more suitable, no?

2 - In Islam a man is allowed four wives, but not a woman is not allowed four husbands. I understand this is because after a battle, the man to woman ratios was 1:4. However, the ratio has been restored, so why has this not changed?

Pork is not the only animal that is forbidden in Islam, all of the the animals that you mentioned above are also forbidden, as well as any other animals of prey (carnivores). Muslims have been forbidden from eating these animals for a VERY long time but it had also been scientifically proven that the meat of carnivores can be dangerous. However Muslims are allowed to eat the forbidden foods if that is all that is available and the only way for them to stay alive.

Secondly, the number of women in the world is still significantly higher than the number of men, so the ratio has not been restored. But also who are we to 'change' a religion, we can't just change whichever parts of a religion that we see fit just because our circumstances have changed slightly, and I am sure most other religions will agree. Men are also only allowed 4 wives if they treat them equally, and if all the wives agree to it. A man who is already married is not allowed to marry again without the consent of his first wife, is this not reasonable? Also in the days that Islam was founded, unmarried women were looked down upon, and men married women to protect them so they would be safe. Nowadays marrying more than once is very uncommon.

[Zahirajavaid]

Also a man is able to handle four wives where as a women she is very emotional and it may be hard for her to handle four men and also the women is the one who gets pregnant with the husbands children, thinking about it logically it would be very hard for her to give birth to four different peoples children


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[4RealBlud]

(Original post by Masoudy)
Yes I am for real, that is what I believe in and your questioning is not affecting my believe.

I didnt mean it to

Islam is built on solid basis (do you want a source for that?) Try to make your debate more objective and intelligent, I asked for a source and you kept saying "read a book on islamic history."

Again, another example of your poor observational and comprehensive skills; i told you that i dont have an internet source. I have been told this by someone who has a degree in islamic history. READ what i am writing to you

I don't want to praise myself, but I have read islamic history books and nothing is wrong with that history, there is something wrong with your mind (yes, being subjective for this point) and if you really want to ask, go ask an islamic scholar, don't just criticise knowledge of others (assuming that you are not a muslim.)

ANOTHER example of your poor observational and comprehensive skills. I already told that i am muslim. Nizari Ismaili Shia branch, which is the most liberal and philosophical branch of islam imo who has a decendant of Ali to interpret the Quran for us

"The man called me ignorant, because he said that it cant racist, since there isnt a race. Did i say it was racist? No, in fact i said that it isnt racist in the thread title"

Thats why I said your thread is misleading. Ok it might not be racist, but it IS discriminatory.

An example of your incorrent accusations. Perhaps you dont quite know what discrimination means; http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination, i am not unjustly treating anyone based on their religion to any extent, esp since i myself am a muslim. I have engaged in debate with people on this thread and have treated everyone the same. My intial post was nothing but 2 questions. You seem to have a knack of making invalid accusations dont you?

"im not using circular reasoning" can you explain to me what circular reasoning is then?

I have already explained to you why there is nothing wrong with the opening of two of my phrases and have even sent you a link ti what circular reasoning is. Perhaps the question that should be asked is, do YOU know what it means, since YOU are the one who has made an invalid accusation. I have not begun with i am writing to end up with. I have derived a conclusion based on the fact that the Quran has been changed throughout time. And the fact that you claim that i lost the argument based on the opening phrase of a paragraph, is CLASSIC troll behaviour yet again.

"Most prolific western scientific journals dont even involve faith of any kind. They are not atheist" and how do you know this for sure? do you have any evidence from various sources which remain consistant with what you are saying?

Well, scientific journals seek understanding of the universe. Religion has nothing to do with it. I have yet to see a prolific western science journal that claims that there is no god. Since you are claiming that they are atheist, why dont YOU show me a prolific atheist western science journal. Most well established scientists dont mix their beliefs with their work, Einstein himself believed in God.

"You sound like a stubborn little boy who doesnt know half of islam. It's because people like you that extremism appears, because they follow something without making sure that what they follow is allowed in Islam. Many muslim scholars criticise islam, not that im criticising it, im questioning. If something that someone tells me doesnt add up, im not going to nod like a goat, because that is not how you truly understand something, by getting to the core."

I am 100% against extremism, I even debate (don't want to praise myself, but whatever) with extremists, I follow Sunni Islam, Shafi'i school of law, and with Sufism. You are being subjective again in this paragraph. No one understands 100% of islam except the holy prophet. I always question my Sheik about what and why should I believe in this and he replied to not most questions, but all questions I asked him, now I am pretty confident with what I believe in and happy to hear the other, opposite believes/thoughts. If you want to understand islam (now assuming that you are muslim) you can read the books of Shafi'i which explains a lot (pm for details.)

I didnt say you were for extremism, you are not reading what i am writing to you properly. Debating with extremists is the most pointless thing. My problem isnt with your understanding of islam, it is with you. You are one of those cry babies who scream "discrimination" whenever people question islam. I have had such discussions with people at high positions in my mosque and none cry like you. They are understanding and explain things in detail. I've had discussions about the unjustness of the concept of hell. I criticise their concepts, to see if there is a flaw, but they respond in kind and one of my imams even told me, that the concept of hell is much debated by muslim scholars. He praised me for criticising, because he said that is how you truly understand islam. So please, dont say that this thread is discriminative, you are someone who cannot take criticism

Now I assume that you don't have a Sheik (or a religious teacher), this is why you ask these questions, I don't get bothered with that, am just happy to answer any misunderstandings with what you believe, again I am assuming that you want to learn (based on what you have said).

I am asking questions, to see people's points of view and to have an intellectual discussion

"You are clearly a stubborn, immature, little boy who knows nothing" nope, I am not. Tell me how is it clear? Have you known me for many years?

Well, i've been showing to you for a while now. You are quick to make invalid claims. You cry, because you cant take criticism. You are not reading what i am writing to you properly. You contradict yourself. You ignore a lot of the points that i am making to you. You seem to be more interested in accusing me and calling me names than actually debating. Your accusations are based on incorrect conclusions. And no i am not going to show you proof for all of them, i have already pointed them out. You can look for them yourself.

"..intellectual debate and discussion and there seems to be nothing intellectual about.." brings some sources please so it can be an intellectual debate, just don't end the debate with "I have read it, but disagree with it"

Read paragraph above. You dont need sources, you need comprehension skills for this one. I understand the pork thing now, but i dont agree with the four wife law. I have already stated why, im not gonna repeat myself

"despite the fact that i have raised a point for every point that you have made (not that im surprised, classic troll behaviour)"

I respect you, but I don't like people who like praising themselves. This is one of YOUR points, you classify negatively. There is a saying that "although the tigers are vicious, their kittens do not harm" meaning although they may seem in a certain perspective, they could be exactly the opposite of what you are thinking them of."

Another completely false claim, this is not praising oneself, it is observation. I have made a point for every point you have made, but you havent. End of.

"Not to mention that all your accusation have turned out to be incorrect and you have failed to raise any valid points and some of the points that you have made are contradictory"

Quote next time, so I can improve myself. People will judge my points, not my opponent

I am not repeating myself. Why dont you actually read what i am writing to you ffs. And dont tell me you have, because you clearly havent, because if you did, you wouldnt be asking me.

Keep going, please don't end this debate here. Bring sources with you in your next reply. I want to see if "you" can make this an intellectual debate worth debating about!

I have nothing to prove to you or anyone. I dont need your approval on whether i can partake in an intellectual discussion. This is my last post to you (although, the one before should have been), because you are trolling me dirtily and making ridiculous claims. Feel free to make false claims and not read my post properly again, but i wont respond, you have wasted enough of my time