General/Off-topic |
|
|
|
|
|
Cult of Virginity
|
| 30. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 07:36 am |
|
Quoting HomeSick: You love a woman for millions of different reasons and yet make an issue from such a thing. Not healty , not normal , at least for me. |
How wonderfully captured HomeSick! 
|
|
| 31. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 08:34 am |
|
Quoting catwoman: Quoting HomeSick: You love a woman for millions of different reasons and yet make an issue from such a thing. Not healty , not normal , at least for me. |
How wonderfully captured HomeSick! |
Thank you for the flowers  Since wife is away, and I need to keep awake (working.. ); Let me share an experience with you guys.
Couple of years ago, university years, I and a couple of friends of mine were discussing how crazy people out there with crazy ideas and at all. Just because of boredom I guess, we wanted to experiment it. We set up a web site that night, that clearly states our imaginary, ridicules ideas for a healty mind.
We put a feedback page, promoted the web site in search engines following months.
What shocked us is that we got very positive feedbacks,too; thanking us to air such a website; some people were thanking us to raise the issues they were always thinking about... It was quite a shock, we closed the web site immediatelly.
There are all kinds of people out there.
|
|
| 32. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 02:38 pm |
|
Quoting armegon: Let me tell you an ironic reality of Salman Rushdie, you know there is also a fatwa given against Salman Rushdie, but the book he published “satanic verses†is not originated by Salman Rushdie(I think he named his book falsely, maybe satanic hadiths more suitable), it was taken from the stories of Tabari(923) and Ibn Sa’d(845) which seen big scholars in Islamic world(ironic huh?), it is also a tradition among christian missionaries and conservative christians to vilify the Islam through centuries and the phrase “satanic verses†firstly used by English missionary belligerent Sir William Muir(surprisingly he was also a sir ). So Salman Rushdie is maybe the last person to be blamed , muslims(especially extremists) should look at themselves firstly, how did they create this crooked system?.
|
Armegon, as much as I would like to agree with you that the view that someone who criticises Islam should die is an extreme or ignorant one, I worry when I read reports like this. It seems that the UK is having to accept this as the "norm" these days and it's even considered "politically incorrect" to disagree with them. The message seems to be "come to the UK, do what you want, even threaten to murder us - we are so worried about upsetting you, we will not just ignore you, but defend you"!!!!!
Tarek Fatah
28 June 2007
[Tarek Fatah is founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and is author of Chasing a Mirage: An Islamic State or a State of Islam, to be published by John Wiley & Sons in 2008]
"Sunday, Oct. 1, 1989 was a typically chilly morning in London. That did not dampen the enthusiasm of thousands of angry British Muslims who were heading toward the Royal Albert Hall to hear a South African orator, Ahmed Deedat, rip into Salman Rushdie for writing "The Satanic Verses".
Nearly 6,000 men, some bussed in from as far as Birmingham, jammed the hall. What happened at the start of the event tells us a lot about the Rushdie saga, which it seems, will not die until the man they now call Sir Salman is sent to his death.
The first speaker read a piece from Rushdie's Satanic Verses and asked The audience how many were familiar with that passage or had read the book. Only one person raised his hand. One man out of 6,000! They had come to demand the banning of The Satanic Verses, but had not read the book.
That has been the story of the Rushdie affair for the last 18 years. If Rushdie had intended to defame Islam, his naysayers have helped him do so.
Now he has been given a knighthood by the Queen for his life's work as a writer, and parts of the Islamic world are revisiting the rage from 1989. Many are familiar with comments by Ijaz ul-Haq, the Religious Affairs Minister of Pakistan, justifying suicide attacks against Rushdie because he had "insulted Islam."
But an equally repugnant threat from the Speaker of the legislative assembly of the Pakistani province of Punjab has gone largely unnoticed. The Speaker, Chaudhry Mohammad Afzal Sahi, while presiding over the legislature, said he would kill Salman Rushdie if he came face to face with him.
This is standard and predictable fare. What has changed, however, between 1989 and today is the impact these extremists have had on the U.K. In 1989 politicians of all stripes stood up to defend Rushdie; this time the response has been at best cowardly, and at worst an attempt to appease the Islamists.
Members of Britain's Parliament representing large Muslim populations were the first to surrender any sense of dignity or self-respect. The Cabinet minister Jack Straw, still smarting from the reactions to his remarks on the Burqa, cozied up to his Islamist constituents. He cast doubt on the value of knighting Rushdie, by mocking the author's literary worth. He was quoted as saying, "I'm afraid I found his books rather difficult and I've never managed to get to the end of any of them...I'm afraid his writing has defeated me."
A Conservative MP, Stewart Jackson, launched a furious attack on Rushdie, suggesting the knighthood had "threatened anti-terrorism co-operation." Jackson did not disclose the fact that in the last election, he had narrowly defeated the Labour candidate and on the night of his victory had said he had won by "gaining the trust of a large percentage of the city's Muslim population." Jackson, who leads the Friends of Islam group, also questioned the merits of Rushdie's literary worth, saying his books are "rubbish."
Not to be outdone in this clamour to appease the Islamist vote bank, the Liberal-Democrats' Shirley Williams went on BBC's Question Time to condemn the government for honouring the novelist, without a word of protest against the goons issuing the death threats.
In London, Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim peer, said he had been appalled by the award to a man he accused of having "blood on his hands." Not satisfied with his vitriol, Lord Ahmed, who had no hesitation accepting membership of the House of Lords, compared the knighthood of Rushdie to the honouring of the 9/11 terrorists.
One would have expected the British government to haul in the Pakistani and Iranian ambassadors and protest the criminal death threats against a British knight, Sir Salman. But no. The British establishment had neither the integrity nor the resolve to stand up to the bullies. Instead, British ambassadors were hauled in to hear protests by Iranian and Pakistani officials.
It is time that the world recognized that the threat to Salman Rushdie is not just to him, but to all of us. And it is not just the Islamists who need to be condemned, but also the flaccid British response to these would-be murderers. A country that has to apologize and bend over backward to distance itself from the person it seeks to honour, is not worthy of having a knight called Sir Salman. My message to Salman Rushdie is that he should say to the Queen, "Thanks, but no thanks."
|
|
| 33. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 04:28 pm |
|
Quoting aenigma x:
Armegon, as much as I would like to agree with you that the view that someone who criticises Islam should die is an extreme or ignorant one, I worry when I read reports like this. It seems that the UK is having to accept this as the "norm" these days and it's even considered "politically incorrect" to disagree with them. The message seems to be "come to the UK, do what you want, even threaten to murder us - we are so worried about upsetting you, we will not just ignore you, but defend you"!!!!!
|
Hello aenigma x
What do you want me to say? Ignorance is not just being educated, i said audience/people hire their minds to religous leaders, do not use their intellect, and religious leaders are using this politically and to gain power/status and because of this im against Islamic states based on sheria laws, you know 90% of sheria laws are based on hadiths and traditions and it differs from country to country for instance sheria in Egypt, sheria in Iran and sheria in Suud are different actually Islam promotes “secularism and democracy†by saying “There is no compulsion in religionâ€. Also i can show you many people/auience who even not read Kuran once more in their lifes in Islamic states and muslim countries. And I think knighthood of Salman Rushdie is also political and provocative when I look at from other side. Rushdie became a pawn in everyone’s political games. This issue is all political in my opinion…
|
|
| 34. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 08:29 pm |
|
This is what the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism tells people about marriage in Turkey and its customs (including virginity).........
"...Then follows the custom of inspecting the bed sheet that is the symbol of the bride’s innocence and chastity. The aunt or cook who is responsible for organizing the wedding is informed of the situation of the bride, and then conveys this news back to the families. Sometimes, if the bride proves not to be a virgin, she may be sent back to her father’s home....."
I am shocked!  Is this REALLY the image the Turkish government want to give to others?
http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313A781CAA92714FCE066FA6A1CE407B291
|
|
| 35. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 08:55 pm |
|
Quoting aenigma x: This is what the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism tells people about marriage in Turkey and its customs (including virginity).........
"...Then follows the custom of inspecting the bed sheet that is the symbol of the bride’s innocence and chastity. The aunt or cook who is responsible for organizing the wedding is informed of the situation of the bride, and then conveys this news back to the families. Sometimes, if the bride proves not to be a virgin, she may be sent back to her father’s home....."
I am shocked! Is this REALLY the image the Turkish government want to give to others?
http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313A781CAA92714FCE066FA6A1CE407B291
|
why does it shock you?
this is a valuable tradition.
whenever i heard this thing when was a child i used to get a goose skin, but then i was told its a tradition and to respect a tradition is an honor.
but damn traditions never serve those who are weak.
traditions are created by and for those who are strong/authorities. who suffers? chldren and women!
|
|
| 36. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 09:05 pm |
|
Quoting femme_fatal: why does it shock you? |
It shocks me, not because it's anything new that I have heard, but because the Turkish government are describing this as a traditional Turkish wedding.... I rather thought they would promote the same views that Meltem does! 
|
|
| 37. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 09:41 pm |
|
It is a very silly tradition. If they don't trust girls what aobut married women? If that is so important married women shouldn't let go out without their husbands because now that they lost their virginity, it cannot be understood whether they cheat their husband or not.
And one more point, Why men are not asked about their virginity? The same silly tradition undermines men if they don't have a sexual relationship but when it comes to women they kill them or they threaten women that they are sinful according to religious rules as if men were not responsible for the same rules. Lastly, be careful about the name: tradition. did you get the message?
|
|
| 38. |
15 Jul 2007 Sun 09:45 pm |
|
Quoting Almuma: It is a very silly tradition. If they don't trust girls what aobut married women? If that is so important married women shouldn't let go out without their husbands because now that they lost their virginity, it cannot be understood whether they cheat their husband or not.
And one more point, Why men are not asked about their virginity? The same silly tradition undermines men if they don't have a sexual relationship but when it comes to women they kill them or they threaten women that they are sinful according to religious rules as if men were not responsible for the same rules. Lastly, be careful about the name: tradition. did you get the message? |
Dear Almuma - we have discussed exactly this in this thread
http://www.turkishclass.com/forumTitle_15_8306
I was making the point that, I am aware its TRADITIONAL but not so common now....so...why then is the Turkish government giving such sexist detail in their website?
|
|
| 39. |
16 Jul 2007 Mon 12:04 am |
|
i think thats better to use ''ethical filter'' while sieving ''goods&bads'' or ''trues&wrongs'',mostly not easy to catch common points with help of beliefs or religions,coz religions and beliefs so relative,so need more objective tools for find to common points ..
|
|
| 40. |
16 Jul 2007 Mon 12:27 am |
|
Quoting aenigma x: I rather thought they would promote the same views that Meltem does! |
I'd hope that they would do that too.
Culture is formed by us, and as time passes as we civilize, cultures as well civilize and should civilize with us, and if our aim is to be civilized, the backward traditidions, the traditions which contradict strongly with human rights should be eliminated as well. Culture is a living thing, so it's in our hands to make it better without losing our identity and history. And for the ministry of culture, I find it very backward and shameful to brng these traditions on to their page, how do this people with this mentality govern me? And there just under the picture of Atatürk? Sending a girl back to her father cannot even be a tradition. So just because they are happening, are we going to present "honor killings" as a tradition? I suggest them to put them there too.
These men in the ministeries are also backward, primitive people. I do not even take them serious. The current parliament where the deputies are supposed to represent turkish people is full of blockheads. I do not hope much from them. There are even a few deputies with more than one wifes. They are very good representatives. We can get very far in civilization with them.
|
|
|
