The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Muslim and starting to doubt my religion

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Ishax
The statement just made it kind of ironic considering you've been giving me essays, ah well. I couldn't care less. You told me to go marry my cousin and I explained it's not allowed. Anyway, have a nice life :smile:


You have not demonstrated that it is not allowed - that's your own view, not the teaching of Sikhism
Original post by h333
Prsom. Lol how did this get to marrying cousins? :rofl: It is as if someone is murdering someone by marrying their cousin? :redface: I have seen many of my relatives do that and by their own choice and they are all happy.


They made a point that Sikhism teaches not to marry cousins, saying only Muslims do that in a post to someone else; I disagree as some Sikhs have married their cousins, and there is nothing in Sikhism which prohibits it - it's just a matter of culture :holmes:
Original post by Zamestaneh
You have not demonstrated that it is not allowed - that's your own view, not the teaching of Sikhism


I don't understand why would anyone want to marry their own cousin anyway? There are few religions that do allow cousin marriages. Sikh isn't one of them, if you choose not to believe that. That's your problem, not mine.
Reply 363
Avatar for ssaros
ssaros
1
Think of it all like this. Mohammed was a dude 1400 ish years ago. Lets say he was a good man. He genuinely wants to change his society for the better. Surrounding him to the north you've got the Roman (Byzantine) Empire with Christianity and the Persian Empire with Zoroastrianism (worship through fire). Lets just say the Romans had a far more civilized society. Mohammed was a tradesman and was familiar with Christianity, Medina at the time in fact had a Christian leader and a dominant Jewish community,

Now, would you like to know the greatest incentive on earth. It's heaven. And the greatest de-incentive - it's hell. Look at the Roman Catholic Church and what it pulled of with those two things.

The important part here is that Religion is man's greatest tool for controlling society. Heaven gets people to gladly blow themselves up. Hell is prison times infinity.
Now, to marriage things. Note that the passage in the Quran that allows men to have several wives was revealed after The battle of Badr. The Muslim community had just lost a fair amount of Men, and there were widowed wives and orphans - I expect their financial well being wasn't great. Solution: Allah says it's coolio for men to take on more wives : problem equals solved. Of course the implications a thousand years down the line weren't exactly at the forefront of Mohammed's mind at the time.

Remember this, divine religeous edicts can never bend, for to bend is to not be divinely correct.

The more and more you look at the timing of Mohammed's sayings the more and more you will begin to realize how political and economic incentives tinge the Quran. Ever wonder why Mecca was made the spot for pilgrimage instead of Jerusalem after it was under Mohammed's control - think money.

Oh and the best part of all. Google 'waswas'. It's this laughable concept. I say laughable but while you read up on it remember that thought crime is an attribute of a totalitarian state.

Of course I won't even get into the whole paradox of an all powerful deity, a deity that over comes any possible refutation (remember there are creationists who believe the devils playing a joke with dinosaur fossils - and the devil isn't even all powerful)
Reply 364
Avatar for h333
h333
16
Original post by Zamestaneh
They made a point that Sikhism teaches not to marry cousins, saying only Muslims do that in a post to someone else; I disagree as some Sikhs have married their cousins, and there is nothing in Sikhism which prohibits it - it's just a matter of culture :holmes:


Oh right. I have a sikh friend and I do not think that is the case as you said, it probably is culture. In islam we are allowed but I think it is recommended to have generation gaps in between something like that lol. But yeah nothing wrong with marrying your cousin overall.
Original post by h333
Well aren't expressions funny :lol: but can you explain properly what it means please like I think I don't fully get it.


Well, it's basically a charge of hypocrisy. The common form is 'the pot calling the kettle black' - the idea is that the pot, which is itself covered in black soot, is in no position to criticise anything else for being sooty (or, to put it in more familiar terms, a munafiq is in no position to scold others for having weak imaan). The way I said it, it additionally implied that HAnwar is more guilty of not 'accept[ing] the fact they got owned BIG time' than most people.

Original post by Zamestaneh
you say that to make a swipe at me when you always stop responding to debates with me like one or two posts in


I stand corrected:

Original post by Hydeman
Well, aren't you the blackest pot I ever did see talking to a kettle... :rolleyes:


Am I to take it that you've abandoned the lion-and-dogs doctrine? :rolleyes:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Hydeman
Well, it's basically a charge of hypocrisy. The common form is 'the pot calling the kettle black' - the idea is that the pot, which is itself covered in black soot, is in no position to criticise anything else for being sooty (or, to put it in more familiar terms, a munafiq is in no position to scold others for having weak imaan). The way I said it, it additionally implied that HAnwar is more guilty of not 'accept[ing] the fact they got owned BIG time' than most people.

I stand corrected:

Am I to take it that you've abandoned the lion-and-dogs doctrine? :rolleyes:


That was TMG who posted the lion and dogs quote :lol:
Original post by Zamestaneh
That was TMG who posted the lion and dogs quote :lol:


I'm aware of that. But you still follow the doctrine. :tongue:
Original post by Hydeman
I'm aware of that. But you still follow the doctrine. :tongue:


I find it amusing and more like:
Original post by Zamestaneh
I find it amusing and more like:


So you've not giving it up, then. In that case, I maintain:

Original post by Hydeman
Well, aren't you the blackest pot I ever did see talking to a kettle... :rolleyes:


:lol:
Original post by Anonymous
You sick prick, why did you hit Achaea like that...


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Original post by Hydeman
So you've not giving it up, then. In that case, I maintain:



:lol:


Reply 372
Avatar for h333
h333
16
Original post by Hydeman
Well, it's basically a charge of hypocrisy. The common form is 'the pot calling the kettle black' - the idea is that the pot, which is itself covered in black soot, is in no position to criticise anything else for being sooty (or, to put it in more familiar terms, a munafiq is in no position to scold others for having weak imaan). The way I said it, it additionally implied that HAnwar is more guilty of not 'accept[ing] the fact they got owned BIG time' than most people.



I stand corrected:



Am I to take it that you've abandoned the lion-and-dogs doctrine? :rolleyes:


Wait, no way HAnwar is too good to get owned :lol: be aware.
Reply 373
Avatar for h333
h333
16
Original post by Zamestaneh


It is supposed to be black not blue :tongue:
Original post by h333
It is supposed to be black not blue :tongue:


Exactly - I'm not a hypocrite (InshaAllah) :tongue:
Original post by Zamestaneh


Teapot != kettle. :rolleyes:

Original post by h333
Wait, no way HAnwar is too good to get owned :lol: be aware.


We will have to disagree on this. :tongue:

Spoiler

Reply 376
Avatar for h333
h333
16
Original post by Zamestaneh
Exactly - I'm not a hypocrite (InshaAllah) :tongue:


I see what you did there :biggrin:
Reply 377
Avatar for h333
h333
16
Original post by Hydeman
Teapot != kettle. :rolleyes:



We will have to disagree on this. :tongue:

Spoiler



:erm: I think.....as in when someone is dissed out not literally owning her.
Original post by h333
:erm: I think.....as in when someone is dissed out not literally owning her.


Yeah, that's it, more or less. :yep:
Original post by h333
:erm: I think.....as in when someone is dissed out not literally owning her.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Owned

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you