text:
1. How did Lynch ever conceive of such a bizarre movie? He has said the inspiration came from several ideas that had been floating in his head as far back as 1973. One was the image of a severed ear in a field. Another was a saloon with a neon sign out front. Another was the 1963 Bobby Vinton song that became the film's title and was included on its soundtrack.
2. Another inspiration, for the look of small-town Lumberton, was the imagery of small-town Americana he'd known as a child growing up in the Pacific Northwest. "My father was a research scientist for the Department of Agriculture in Washington. We were in the woods all the time," Lynch once recalled. "I'd sorta had enough of the woods by the time I left, but still, lumber and lumberjacks, all this kinda thing, that's America to me like the picket fences and the roses in the opening shot. It's so burned in, that image, and it makes me feel so happy."
3. Most notoriously, the scene where Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini) appears naked on a neighborhood street was inspired by a similar incident Lynch and his brother witnessed as children. The event was so traumatic it had made Lynch cry.
4. It was Lynch's massive critical and commercial failure with 'Dune' that, paradoxically, gave him the chance to realize his vision for 'Blue Velvet.' Despite the poor reception for the sci-fi epic, Lynch had maintained a strong working relationship with its producer, Dino de Laurentiis. The Italian film-industry veteran asked Lynch if he had any more ideas for movies, and Lynch pitched him 'Blue Velvet.' De Laurentiis agreed to give Lynch complete creative control on the condition that the director halve his salary and keep the budget below $6 million.
5. Lynch was also on good terms with Kyle MacLachlan, who had made his film debut as the messianic hero in 'Dune.' Lynch said he felt that the 27-year-old actor could play Jeffrey, the much more naive teen sleuth at the center of 'Blue Velvet' because MacLachlan could convey the impression of someone thinking on screen.
6. Helen Mirren almost took the role of Dorothy, the lounge singer trapped in a sadomasochistic relationship with the man who kidnapped her husband and son. Indeed, Lynch credits her with helping him work out some difficulties in the script before they parted ways. A meeting at a New York restaurant with Rossellini -- then best known as a Lancome cosmetics model, who'd worked on only one English-language movie ('White Nights') -- could handle the part.
7. Filming had already begun in Wilmington, N.C. before Dennis Hopper was cast as sadistic villain Frank Booth. Hopper had seen the script and had phoned the director, demanding to be cast, saying, "I've got to play Frank! I am Frank!" Indeed, the star had famously lived on the edge for years, and while he'd finally gone to rehab and been drug-free since 1983, Lynch still had some trepidation about hiring him. "Dennis had to have been through experiences on the dark side to have owned that character," Lynch recalled in a 2007 interview. "When Dennis called me and said that to me, he had been clean and sober for about a year-and-a-half, and had already made another film clean and sober, but he had held all that he had learned from his suffering. He could bring that now in a very strong way to characters without screwing everything up"
8. Hopper certainly brought his knowledge of hard drugs to bear on his portrayal of the gas-huffing Frank. Lynch's script had called for Frank's cylinder to be full of helium, but Hopper knew that helium doesn't get you high, it just gives you a squeaky voice. He suggested he play Frank's scenes as if he were inhaling amyl nitrate or nitrous oxide and called upon his own sense-memories to replicate the experience. Years later, Hopper told Bob Costas in a TV interview that he almost wished he'd stuck to the script because a chipmunk-voiced Frank might have been even more freakish and disturbing.
9. Hopper and Rossellini met for the first time on the day they were to shoot a scene of Frank raping Dorothy. Under her robe, Rossellini wore no panties because the camera would have captured them when the robe came off. Hopper didn't know this and was surprised during shooting to find himself up close and personal with the actress he'd just met.
10. Wilmingon locals had no idea of the nature of the movie Lynch was making until the filming of Rossellini's shocking public nude scene. In her memoir, she recalled,
11. Lynch had hired musician Angelo Badalamenti as Rossellini's singing coach for her cabaret scenes. He was so pleased with the results that he commissioned Badalamenti to write a song ('Blue Star') for her to sing. (He also appears in the movie, as the piano player.) Eventually, Lynch had Badalamenti compose the movie's entire score. Thus began a partnership that made Badalamenti Lynch's composer of choice for the next 15 years.
People came out with blankets and picnic baskets, with their grandmothers and small children. I begged the assistant director to warn them that it was going to be a tough scene, that I was going to be totally naked, but they stayed anyway.... I apologized to them in a loud voice, knowing they were going to be upset, and concentrated on my scene.... Once David called, 'Cut -- we have it,' someone came with a robe for me to wear and my attention returned to our surroundings. Everybody had left. The next day a notice from the police told us we would not be given any more permits to shoot in the streets of Wilmington, North Carolina.
12. Dean Stockwell has said he based his performance as Ben, the face-painting, lip-synching pimp, on a character from a Carol Burnett comedy sketch. He also came up with the idea of using a work light as a mock microphone. In rehearsal, he picked the light up and sang into it, assuming it was a prop, and Lynch liked the way that looked.
13. Roy Orbison did not grant the filmmakers permission to use 'In Dreams' for the lip-synch scene, but they got permission elsewhere. Orbison didn't even know that his song was in the film until he watched it in the theater. Nonetheless, Lynch and Orbison collaborated on a music video for the song, using images from the movie. A late career comeback for the operatic rockabilly crooner followed, including his stint with the likes of Bob Dylan and George Harrison in the Traveling Wilburys.
Blue Velvet by David Lynch from oastronauta.tumblr.com on Vimeo.
15. The MPAA initially thought the film was too violent to earn an R rating, citing a scene where Jeffrey watches Frank slap Dorothy. (Really? Of all the movie's extreme content, that was the straw that broke the camel's back?) Lynch agreed to amend the scene so that the slap occurs off-screen, but Jeffrey is seen wincing when he hears it. Lynch thought this edit actually made the scene even more disturbing than it had been before.
16. Altogether, Lynch trimmed nearly half the footage from his rough cut, in order to deliver a film under two hours, as his contract stipulated. Most of that footage was assumed to be lost forever, but Lynch announced at the beginning of 2011 that fifty minutes of footage had been found and would be released as deleted scenes among the extras on the new Blu-ray.
17. One legendary lost scene, one of Lynch's favorites, invoved an actress who performed a trick that involved setting her own nipples on fire. The scene, which took place in Ben's brothel, was part of the found footage and is included on the Blu-ray. You can watch the (obviously NSFW) scene at Slashfilm.
18. When Lynch presented de Laurentiis with the completed film, the producer wasn't sure what to do with it. He thought of trying to release it as a midnight movie. No distributor would touch it, and de Laurentiis eventually founded his own distribution arm, De Laurentiis Entertainment Group, to put the film in theaters.
19. DEG never managed to book a release wider than 188 theaters in North America. It grossed only $8.6 million domestically, though de Laurentiis eventually made a profit from overseas screenings and home video.
20. Critics were sharply divided over the film. Some hailed it as genius, others found it repellent. It earned only one Oscar nomination, for Lynch's direction.
21. 'Blue Velvet' is widely credited with launching Hopper's comeback, proving his enormous gifts and setting him on the path of playing baroque villains that would mark the rest of his celebrated career. It also marked a comeback of sorts for Stockwell, leading to his casting as a flamboyant mafia don in 'Married to the Mob' and as Scott Bakula's sidekick on the hit TV series 'Quantum Leap.'
22. Rossellini has said that her performance earned her plenty of attention, much of it negative. She said de Laurentiis was embarrassed for her, having known her since her childhood and having been a friend of her legendary parents, director Roberto Rossellini and actress Ingrid Bergman. Italian reviewers speculated that she must be so desperate to be a movie star like her mother that she'd act in anything, even this piece of semi-pornographic trash. Her agents at ICM dropped her. And the nuns who had taught her in school told her they were praying for her soul. Nonetheless, the film put the model on the map as a serious thespian.
23. 'Blue Velvet' launched what became the Lynch repertory company. Along with composer Badalamenti, there was MacLachlan,who went on to star in Lynch's TV drama 'Twin Peaks' and its movie prequel 'Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me.' Dern went on to star in Lynch's 'Wild at Heart,' and she starred in and co-produced Lynch's most recent movie, the surreal 2006 epic 'Inland Empire.' And of course, there was character actor Jack Nance, who'd been a Lynch regular since starring in Lynch's first movie, the notorious 'Eraserhead.'
24. After 'Blue Velvet,' Lynch and Rossellini became a couple and lived together for five years. They acted together in Tina Rathborne's 1998 family drama 'Zelly and Me' (Lynch's first real acting role), and Rossellini appeared in 'Wild at Heart' before the couple split in 1990.
25. Yeah, Frank Booth uses the F-word in nearly every sentence, but he's the only one in the movie who uses it. (Except for Ben, when Frank goads him into saying it.)
[Photo: MGM]
Follow Moviefone on Twitter
Like Moviefone on Facebook
Follow Gary Susman on Twitter: @garysusman
A man (Kyle MacLachlan) ties the mystery of a severed ear to a roadhouse floozy and her tormentor. Read More


text:
Founders Journal 70 · Fall 2007 · p. 33
Dr. Ascol,
I am stunned. I had no idea that the SBC had reformed roots. To be honest, that has hit me like a ton of bricks.
I am a Southern Baptist layman (I teach SS and some other classes from time to time) and have been studying reformed theology since just after last year's Southern Baptist Convention. I watched (online) the discussion Dr. Mohler participated in at the Pastors Conference and was curious what it was all about. Truthfully, I began because I wanted to be prepared for the coming problems that the increasing influence of reformed theology would cause in the SBC. I actually expected it to be a short process; boy was I wrong. Now almost a year later I am still studying and reading. During my studies, I recently came across www.founders.org. I can see that my studies will now take an expanded focus.
I see that there are some great resources listed on your site. Where would you recommend I start in understanding the historical baptist position on reformed theology? Thanks for your help.
T.S., via email
Response from the Editor:
Thanks for your email. It is a real encouragement to read how the Lord has led you in your studies of His Word. I am glad that Founders Ministries has been a source of helpful information for you and trust that it will continue to be that. We have many good resources available for free on our website. Check out the Library section. Beyond that, Tom Nettles' book, By His Grace and For His Glory, is the most thorough treatment of our historical roots. The Founders Journal (also available from our website) has many good articles through the years on our doctrinal origins. In addition, Sound Word Associates, linked on our site, has audio recordings of all of our national conferences going back 24 years. There have been some great talks given about this subject in those meetings. A sampling of those messages are collected in the book, Reclaiming the Gospel and Reforming Churches. A short booklet that you can download from our site is From the Protestant Reformation to the Southern Baptist Convention: What Hath Geneva to Do with Nashville?
May the Lord richly bless your life and ministry as you continue to serve Him in your church.
Tom Ascol

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Wife Gangbanged While Hubby Watches tube, Wife Gangbanged While Hubby Watches movies, and Wife Gangbanged While Hubby Watches pics
|Wife Gangbanged While Hubby WatchesSearch results: 907
Home |
Register |
Login |
Search |
Upload |
Members |
Groups |
2257 |
Terms |
Privacy |
Report abuse |
Contact us |
Advertise |
Mobile Version
Ass Point, it's owners, designers, partners, representatives and this web site are not responsible for any action taken by its members on this site. Liability for any content contained in a post is the sole responsibility of the person(s) who submitted them.
Copyright © 2006 - 2011 Titan Websites, Inc., all rights reserved. AssPoint™ is a trademark of Titan Websites, Inc.


text:
Thank you for visiting our past auction result archives. If you have an item identical (or similar) to this auction lot, please call, write or contact us to discuss. We will be able to help you.
Lot # 867 (of 1525) < Previous Lot | Next Lot >
1926 World Series Yankee Stadium Beech-Nut Tobacco Advertising Display
Starting Bid - $2,000.00, Sold For - $4,930.00
The finest example we have ever seen of this extraordinary baseball advertising classic. In fact, this may be the first example we have ever seen that has not been restored. The graphics, large format, design, content, and rarity of this piece all combine to make it one of the best of all baseball advertising displays, especially among those dating from the 1920s, an era which is not known for impressive advertising displays. The full-color tri-panel freestanding cardboard advertising display features a panoramic view of a game in progress at Yankee Stadium during the 1926 World Series. The stunning design of the piece includes an illustration of a large package of Beech-Nut Tobacco suspended in midair above the ball field beside the sky-written message "The Big League Chew." The bottom portion of the display features an additional advertisement for "Beech-Nut Chewing Tobacco." Within the center section is a box which reads: "Photographic reproduction of the Yankee Stadium - New York City. As it appeared in the World's Series 1926. Record Attendance 63,600." The store advertising display is designed with two vertical folds which separate the three sections. The two smaller side sections are designed to be folded slightly forward to allow the advertisement to be freestanding. There is a very small amount of edge and corner wear, mentioned strictly for the sake of accuracy, which is especially insignificant considering the large dimensions of the piece. Due to its size, intended use, and fragile nature, restoration is essentially routine with these Beech-Nut displays. The offered example is a very rare exception. Overall in Excellent condition. One of the finest store advertising pieces ever produced. Dimensions: 60 x 38 inches. Reserve $2,000. Estimate $4,000/$6,000. SOLD FOR $4,930.00
(Click the smaller thumbnails to the left and right (if any) to cycle through each photo in the gallery of images for this lot.)


text:
Women Lawyers and Governance in the Progressive Era
Carol Nackenoff
Swarthmore College
Kathleen Sullivan
Ohio University
September 7, 2009
Progressive Era court reform led to creation of new courts that had both formal and informal positions, some of which were filled by women lawyers and representatives of women's organizations. The Juvenile Court in Chicago, the Chicago Morals Court, and the New York Night Court (subsequently Women's Court) differed in the network of activists promoting their creation, and therefore also differed in the amount of influence organized women and women lawyers wielded in these institutions.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 44
Keywords: law, gender, american political development
Date posted: September 9, 2009
Suggested Citation
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.187 seconds


text:
Don't let it get away!
Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.
Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI ) continues to amaze. After going on a run of record-breaking days back in the spring, than tanking and losing nearly 5%, the market has once again reversed course and is back to its old ways of setting record highs on a consistent basis. On Monday and Thursday, the Dow set new all-time closing highs, while also setting a new all-time intraday high on Thursday. For the week, the blue-chip index closed higher by 79 points, or 0.51%, and now sits at 15,543. The S&P 500 had a slightly better week, gaining 0.7%, but the Nasdaq lost ground over the past five trading sessions, as it ended the week down 0.34%.
Before we hit the Dow losers, let's look at this week's best performing component. Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ) increased by 7.03% for the week after the company released strong earnings and got an upgraded price target from UBS. Nearly all of the banks that have reported results up to this point have impressed investors, and Bank of America certainly fell into that category. UBS believes Bank of America can continue to improve earnings if it remains diligent on cost controls. That's a great sign that the company can continue showing strong profits despite whatever pace the economy recovers at.
The big losers
Shares of Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ) led all Dow losers this past week with an 11.97% drop, largely spurred by a poor earnings report. The company's release didn't paint a great picture of the Surface tablet, on which Microsoft took a $900 million charge-off. In addition, the company's most important product, Windows, showed weakness in Q2. That was perceived not just as a problem for Microsoft, but for the PC industry as a whole.
And that's why Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ ) came in as the third worst Dow component of the week, with shares down slightly more than 4%. As signs continue to point toward a weak PC industry, and with shares of Hewlett-Packard up more than 76% year to date, investors began selling off the once-dominant PC company. And although Meg Whitman is attempting to move the company away from relying on PC sales, HP still needs the industry to remain strong in the interim, and Microsoft's weakness in that area didn't give investors the confidence they were looking for.
Finally, American Express (NYSE: AXP ) was the second worst Dow stock of the week, as shares declined 5.45% after not one, but two firms downgraded the company after it beat second-quarter earnings estimates and posted revenue more or less in line with expectations. Both downgrades came as a result of a possible European Commission ruling that would limit debit and credit card transaction fees to 0.2%. One analyst has estimated that such a restriction would cost American Express around $4.5 billion in fees.
The other Dow losers this week:
(For more information on why shares of the other losers fell lower this past week, click on the following links.)
- Alcoa, down 0.37%
- Caterpillar, down 1.74%
- Cisco, down 0.42%
- Intel, down 3.59%
- McDonald's, down 1.29%
- Merck, down 1.54%
- Procter & Gamble, down 0.22%
- Verizon, down 0.91%
- Walt Disney, down 2.71%
More Foolish insight
Tax increases that took effect at the beginning of 2013 affected nearly every American taxpayer. But with the right planning, you can take steps to take control of your taxes and potentially even lower your tax bill. In our brand-new special report "How You Can Fight Back Against Higher Taxes," The Motley Fool's tax experts run through what to watch out for in doing your tax planning this year. With its concrete advice on how to cut taxes for decades to come, you won't want to miss out. Click here to get your copy today -- it's absolutely free.


text:
About This Activity
Location: Scottsdale Ranch Park Tennis Center, Division: BG(18-12)s; BG(10 (60'Court/Orange Ball) )s, Notes: ALL MATCHES FOR THIS TOURNAMENT WILL BE PLAYED AT SRP: SCOTTSDALE RANCH PARK, 10400 E Via Linda, Scottsdale, AZ. This sanctioned singles tournament is for USTA Juniors ONLY, played on hardcourts and under the lights. This tournament has a full feed-in consolation backdraw through the quarters, with a third/fourth place playoff. Tournament play will be held entirely at SRP: Scottsdale Ranch Park (10400 E Via Linda, Scottsdale AZ). There is NO WATER provided at SRP--bring your own water; there are water fountains and a chilled water dispenser in the tennis center!! Matches will be played under lights on Thursday and Friday evenings. Match play begins at 430pm on Thu, 430pm on Fri, 8am on Sat/Sun---Please do not sign up for the tournament if you cannot play at 430pm on Thursday or Friday---NO MATCH TIMES/LOCATIONS WILL BE RESCHEDULED FROM THE PUBLISHED DRAW. It is the player's responsibility to sight verify their matches. Match tie-break will be played in lieu of a third set if any USTA - Boys' 18 Singles, Boys' 16 Singles, Boys' 14 Singles, Boys' 12 Singles, Boys' 10 Singles, Girls' 18 Singles, Girls' 16 Singles, Girls' 14 Singles, Girls' 12 Singles, Girls' 10 Singles
Map & Direction
Scottsdale Ranch Park Tennis Center, 10400 E Via Linda Scottsdale, AZ 85258Get Directions


text:
When temperatures in northern Ontario dropped to 41 below zero, South Porcupine (yes, that's really the name) resident Chris Gillett found an inventive way to have some fun in the frigid temperatures.
He filled a pressurized water gun (known as a "moose-soaker" in Canada ... not really) with boiling water and started firing it off his front porch.
The result is: a) really cool-looking, and b) something we never want to see the business end of, ever.
Like us on Facebook for more stories like this!


text:
Flea and Josh Klinghoffer talk to HLNtv's Dianna Hill about the Red Hot Chili Peppers' induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on April 14th, 2012. Published April 12th 2012.
"I like Halls of Fame. I think they're cool."
Our sentiments exactly, Flea.
And as of this weekend, Flea, Anthony Kiedis and several other current or former members of The Red Hot Chili Peppers will be official inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Among them is current guitarist Josh Klinghoffer, who will become the youngest member ever at 32.
"I don't necessarily feel like I've done a lifetime's worth of accomplishments to, you know, be in a hall of fame, but I'm honored every day to be in this band and to play with these guys," Klinghoffer tells HLN.
You might be surprised to hear that comedian Chris Rock will be presenting the band at the Hall of Fame ceremony, where they're also performing. But Rock actually directed the music video for one of their songs, "Hump de Bump."
"We've just been friends with him for a long time, and he's been a real great supporter of us … and he's just a really smart, cool dude who loves music very much, and definitely will be a different take than the normal induction speech," Flea said.
When he's not making rock history, bass player Flea also runs a non-profit music school called The Silverlake Conservatory of Music in Los Angeles. He says about 700 kids take classes there including his 6-year-old daughter Sunny, who is learning piano.
Flea's older daughter, 23-year-old Clara, is already an accomplished photographer. She did the photo booklet for their latest album, "I'm With You" and even joins the band on the road when she can. They already have tour dates booked around the country and the world into November.
"The truth is … I feel like we're just scratching the surface of what we're capable of," Flea said. "I'm really excited about making a new record after doing this (tour) because I think we're really gelling as a band."
Source: HLNtv.com


text: type Sig a = T -> a type SF a b = Sig a -> Sig bBy restricting constructors for SF, it is possible to protect against anti-causal behaviors (where we look into the future of the input) and enforce other efficiency properties. Discrete-varying FRP is also popular, i.e. where behaviors change only at specific instants. They allow much greater performance.


text:
14 Toilet Paper Roll Craft Ideas
Bonus: Get our newsletter & special offers for free. We will not share or sell your email address. View our Privacy Policy
Heart and Flowers Gift Tag
We are adding the craft to your Craft Projects.
The project was added to your Craft Projects.
Click here to view your Craft Projects.
By Maria Nerius for Arnold Grummer's
This handmade gift tag will be the perfect touch to all your gift wrapping needs!
- Arnold Grummer's Cotton Linter Casting Squares: 2 oz package
- Arnold Grummer's Heart & Flowers Ceramic Casting Mold
- Arnold Grummer's Medium Template: Gift Tag & Envelope
- Arnold Grummer's Papermill Complete Kit
- White paper to recycle: photocopy or junk mail envelopes
- Red tissue paper
- Origami mesh: red, 2 1/2" square
- White glue, red paint (watercolor or acrylic), paintbrush
- 3 small red beads or rhinestones
- Ribbon
- Blend white photocopy paper or junk mail envelope with red tissue paper.
- Insert Gift Tag & Envelope template into handmold. Make paper in the usual way. Let paper air dry to get the rough texture shown.
- Make paper cast using Hearts 'N' Flowers casting mold. Follow directions for paper casting on any Cotton Linter package.
- Paint paper cast using white glue mixed with a small dab of red paint. Set aside to dry.
- Use a needle to poke holes in paper cast flower centers. Fill holes with glue, press rhinestones or beads into glue.
- Fold gift tag. Layer mesh and cast on tag front, finish with ribbon.
Tags / Related Topics
Your Recently Viewed Projects
Images from other crafters
Love these projects? Get MORE delivered to your Inbox – FREE Click Here!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Are you sure you would like to report this comment? It will be flagged for our moderators to take action.
Thank you for taking the time to improve the content on our site.
What's Hot
- 55 Adult Coloring Book Pages
- 7 Adult Coloring Pages free eBook
- "Fuse Creativity System Project Guide: Fun Party Themes, Ideas for Handmade Cards, and More Paper Crafts from Fiskars" eBook
- 17 Flower Craft Ideas: How to Make Paper Flowers, Easy Fabric Flowers and More free eBook
- 15 Printable Free Coloring Pages for Adults free eBook
- "Crafting With The Craftwell eCraft and eBosser: Scrapbooking, Paper Crafts, and So Much More" Free eBook
- Big Eyed Owl Adult Coloring Page
- Mandala Mania: 13 Mandala Coloring Pages
- Book Page Fall Leaves
- How to Use Distress Inks by Tim Holtz
Something worth saving?
- SAVE all your favorite crafts
- ADD personal notes
- QUICKLY reference your crafts
Free eBooks
- 13 Spring Crafts: Easter Craft Ideas, Spring DIY Home Dcor, and More
- 17 Flower Craft Ideas: How To Make Paper Flowers, Easy Fabric Flowers and More
- 18 Projects Every Crafter Wants
- 23 Fabulous Picnic Craft Ideas + Restaurant Copycat Recipes
- 25 Cool Things to Do with Wine Bottles
- 26 Spring Crafts for Kids
- Easter Craft eBook: Blogger Edition
- Garden Crafts
- Hop into Spring: Easter Crafting and Recipe
- Trash to Treasure: 28 Recycled Crafts
Our Newest Projects & Articles
- Paper Piece Diamond Quilt Pattern
- Preparing Your DIY Quilt for Quilting
- Purple Beginner Shawl
- Recycled T-Shirt Quilt Pattern
- Shawl Scarf Crochet Pattern
- Stunning Leather Trimmed Crochet Scarf Pattern
- Knit Look Cowl Crochet Pattern
- Bean Stitch Cowl Crochet Pattern
- Plush Basketweave Baby Blanket Pattern
- "18 Projects Every Crafter Wants" free eBook


text:
Motorcyclist injured in crash with barrel on U.S. 45
A man was hospitalized with severe head injuries Saturday night after a motorcycle crash on northbound U.S. 45 near Watertown Plank Road, according to the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office.
The motorcycle operator was traveling north on U.S. 45 at 5:46 p.m. when he crashed into a construction barrel, a sheriff's spokeswoman said. The office had not received an update on the man's condition Saturday night and would not yet release any identifying information.
Deputies closed two lanes of U.S. 45 for several hours to investigate the crash. The lanes reopened at 10:46 p.m.


text:
Allegiance Health has been certified through the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. An affiliate of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, QOPI is a voluntary self-assessment and improvement program that helps hematology-oncology and medical oncology practices evaluate the quality of care they provide. Certification is awarded to cancer programs that meet or exceed national quality benchmarks and demonstrate commitment to quality care.
During the process for QOPI certification, Allegiance Health successfully completed an on-site review of policies and procedures that affect patient care and safety. Among the areas evaluated were chemotherapy preparation and administration, patient monitoring, patient education and emergency preparedness.


text:
There are many reasons Ex-Muslims have for not going public. For some, they fear retaliation because Islam instructs Muslims to kill apostates. For others, they are concerned that Muslims in their communities will gossip about them. And for some it's about wanting to teach their kids morals while believing that religion is only way to teach morality. I'll explain why these last two ideas are wrong, and how they are both caused by another much more general problem that applies to all people, not just Ex-Muslims.
The first idea is about caring what other people think of you. It's something people learn during childhood. It's ironic because as parents we tell our kids not to care what other kids think of them, and we do this to persuade them to say 'no' to peer pressure.
So, clearly we know this principle that it's wrong to make decisions based on what others think. So, why do these same parents still care what others think of them? With respect to Ex-Muslims, they tend to care about what Muslims in the community are going to say about them. So, why is there this inconsistency in their thinking?
The answer lies in the fact that, like most people, they have conflicting ideas about lots of things in their lives. But surely a lot of people notice the inconsistencies in their thinking, so why don't they fix them? Well, it's because it's not so straightforward, because many of our ideas are known subconsciously. How could this be? The answer lies in how people learn ideas.
We learn ideas mostly from society (which includes our parents). We also learn ideas on our own using our own creativity and logic. As for the ideas learned from society, a lot of these ideas are learned subconsciously, and are also taught subconsciously. To illustrate this, consider that a lot of people dress up nice when they go out for dinner; it's a social norm. Their kids see this and what do they learn? That it's important to look a certain way so that other people think about you in a certain way. Now some parents will deny this, stating that they want to look good for themselves not for others. But what they explicitly say doesn't matter. What matters is that kids learn ideas using their own logic and the details of the situation they are presented with. So, say for example that mom asks dad how she looks in her dress. She is expressing that she cares what others think of how she looks. So that's what most kids learn, to be concerned with what others will think of them.
So, parents teaches an idea while not being aware that they are teaching it (i.e. subconsciously) and kids learn that idea while not being aware that he learnt it (i.e. subconsciously). And these ideas exist subconsciously in the kid's mind and they pervade a lot of his thinking without him being aware of it. And then he does the same with his kids, and the cycle continues. This is a serious problem so how can this be stopped?
The answer lies in the difference between people that care what others think and those that don't. What's the difference between them? Well, society has an answer. They label the latter group as "asocial". This label carries with it a negative connotation, that there is something 'wrong' with them, and kids pick up on this. What is the implication? It's that if you don't follow society, then you are living immorally.
Notice that this idea presupposes that society is always right. But it's common knowledge that there are many things wrong in society, in society's social norms, for example Islam. In Islamic communities, the social norm is to believe in Islam. So this raises the question: Is it wrong to 'break away from societies' norms when you think society is wrong about a specific idea'? Of course not! So this contradicts the previous idea that 'breaking away from society is living immorally'. And since these two ideas contradict each other, only one of them could be true. So which one is it? Well, one of them hinges on a falsehood while the other doesn't, which is that society is always right. Now you decide. You judge for yourself, which idea is the right one?
So, why is it that some kids do what they think is right even if it goes against society? It boils down to how people judge ideas. Most people do it by popularity. But history shows us that this is the wrong way to approach ideas. A good example is that of the ancient view that the Earth was flat. So, when the first guy started saying that the Earth was round, should people have judged his idea to be false because it wasn't the popular view? Of course not! So, judging ideas by popularity is false logic. That means you should never, under any circumstances, judge ideas by popularity. Truth cannot be determined by popularity contests.
So how should a person judge ideas? Should he judge by authority – like his parents, or teachers, or religious or political leaders? Well, they are often mistaken like society is often mistaken. So, judging ideas by authority is wrong too. But what about judging ideas by science? Doesn't science have the answers? Even science is mistaken sometimes, actually often. For example, Einstein's theory of gravity showed that Newton's theory of gravity was false. Newton's theory *approximately* (i.e. contains some error) works in some situations and it is completely wrong in other situations (where objects are moving close to the speed of light).
And there are many other instances in history where science was found to be wrong. This is why science uses the term 'theory' instead of 'fact'. We don't say Einstein's Fact of Gravity. Why? Because we know that there is the possibility that in the future someone will show that it's false. Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics. And the early Quantum Mechanics theorists were found to be wrong by Everett about the implications of Quantum Mechanics on reality, which is that the Universe is actually a Multiverse.
The right way to judge ideas is the focus of epistemology, which is the study of knowledge and of how knowledge is created.
Ever since Aristotle created his epistemology, which is now known as Justified True Belief (JTB), philosophers and society in general have been using it to judge ideas as true or false. This theory claims that it is possible to know absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, that an idea is true. And if it's not known to be true, then it's not knowledge. Sound promising? Well, in the mid-20th century, Karl Popper showed that this theory is false.
Justified True Belief theory says that for an idea to be true, it must be justified by an underlying truth. So, what about that underlying truth? How do we know that that underlying idea is true. Well, we have to use the same logic, that the underlying idea must be justified by a truth. So, how do we know that that underlying idea is true? Well, we have to use the same logic again, that the underlying idea is justified by a truth. But where does this end? Well it doesn't end because it can't end. It runs infinitely. This is known as an infinite regress problem. And so this refutes the JTB theory. So, Popper showed us that an idea cannot be labeled as the truth by justification. So, we should not, under any circumstances, judge ideas by justification.
Interestingly, the vast majority of society uses Aristotle's epistemology. You can see it in their reasoning when they have disagreements. They respond with statements like:
- "Why should I believe you… what are your credentials that prove that you know what you're talking about?" -- Here the person is judging an idea by asking for justification by the authority of the other person's credentials.
- "My Daddy said so, so you're wrong." -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his father.
- "I saw it with my own two eyes, so I know it's true." -- Here the person judges his idea by justifying it by the authority of his senses.
- "I know she wouldn't cheat on me because she loves me and I love her." -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his emotions.
- "I know your idea is false because it contradicts my entire life's worth of experiences and the experiences of everyone I know and everything I've ever known." -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of experience.
- "I know it because I remember it so vividly." -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his memory and of his perceptions of his senses.
- "I know Allah exists because the Quran proves it, because the Quran is absolutely perfect, and no other holy book has this quality of perfection." -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of Muslim scholars who claim that the Quran is perfect.
- "I know Islam is right. How could a billion people be wrong?" -- Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of popularity.
All of these statements use this false JTB logic about how to judge which ideas are true.
So, how should we judge ideas? I already gave you the answer. I said to judge ideas for yourself, using your own reasoning. This is the only way that works, because it's the only way that can correct errors. All the other ways of judging ideas causes you to adopt other people's mistaken ideas with no possibility for correcting them. Will you be wrong sometimes? Of course! You'll be wrong a lot. We are fallible beings. We can be mistaken about any one of our ideas. And from any one person's perspective, everybody else can be mistaken about any of their ideas. So, no one should judge an idea to be true, just because other people believe it. Your parents could be mistaken. Your religion could be mistaken. Your doctor could be mistaken. Your perception of your senses, your emotions, your gut feelings, and your memory can be mistaken.
So, each person should judge ideas using his own best judgment. How does this work? When he notices a problem in one or more of his ideas, then he can use his best judgment to try to correct it. A problem is a conflict between two ideas. It's a problem because one of them must be mistaken. Actually, both of them could be mistaken but this doesn't matter. What matters is that you can work towards solving the problem by judging that one or both of those ideas is false, again using your own best judgment.
So, how does this work in practice? Popper explained that knowledge is created by guessing and criticizing. You guess an idea, and then anybody criticizes it, and then anybody criticizes those criticisms. And the guesses left uncriticized are considered the "truth", for now. In the future, someone may come along with a new criticism of that "truth", and the cycle continues. So, a "truth" is only an "idea" that I currently don't have any criticisms of.
It's important to note what I mean by "truth". I mean 'conjectural' truth, which is distinct from objective truth. Conjectural truth comes from our guessing and criticizing. Objective truth exists independently of us humans. Our goal is to evolve our conjectural knowledge towards the objective knowledge. Step-by-step, as a society, and each one of us as individuals, are evolving our conjectural knowledge towards the objective knowledge.
So, how do we know when we've reached it? How do we know when one of our conjectural truths has reached the status of objective truth? We don't. We can't. We can't know which of our ideas isn't mistaken. Any one of our ideas can be mistaken. So any one of our conjectural truths can be an objective truth, but we don't know which ones. So, for example, it's possible that our current moral theories about parenting are perfect, but we don't know whether someone will come along in the future and find an error in it and correct the theory, or refute the whole theory altogether, similar to how the JTB theory was refuted altogether.
What are the real implications of this? It means that all truths are on the table. All truths are open for criticism. That means we are open-minded about every one of our ideas. All of them are open for debate. No idea is protected from criticism.
Does this feel pessimistic – that we can't know anything for sure? The reality is that we always have mistaken ideas. And these mistaken ideas cause us to make mistakes in our lives. These mistakes are life problems, which are the sources of our suffering. And by living a thoughtful and consistent life, by judging ideas for ourselves, we are able to correct mistaken ideas and reduce the total number of mistaken ideas over time. And what comes with that is making fewer mistakes in life, which means less suffering. So, with each correction of a mistaken idea, one becomes a better person. This is very optimistic!
This brings me to the other reason Ex-Muslims don't go public. They believe that religion has a monopoly on morality. They think that there is no other way to teach morality to their kids. But the reality is that morality is just a set of moral ideas, ideas about good ways of living. And so, these ideas too have to be created and evolved in the same way we create any other ideas, by guesses and criticism – not by justification by the authority of God.
As an example, consider the Golden Rule. It's a moral idea that Western society believes to be true, but that Islam hasn't adopted it. It says that we should do to others what we want them to do to us. But this is flawed because it presupposes that all people have the same preferences, while it's common knowledge that people have different preferences. So, if you follow the Golden Rule, you could do something to someone that they didn't want done to them, which causes suffering. This critical idea explains the flaw in the Golden Rule. And this is a problem, that there are two ideas that conflict each other. So what's the solution?
We can create a new moral idea that uses part of the original idea and we can change the part that is problematic such that it is consistent with the new critical idea. So, the new moral idea is: Act towards others using common preferences, and be willing to find common preferences by rational discussion. With this idea, everyone gets what they want, so no one suffers. And suffering is what the Golden Rule is trying to address.
Now this does not mean that this new moral idea, called Common Preference Finding (CPF), was created by correcting a flaw in the Golden Rule. Ideas can be independently created by many different people from many different angles. For example, David Deutsch arrived at the idea of CPF by first understanding Popper's theory of the growth of knowledge in science and in society. Then he realized that there is a deep, underlying epistemological theory there (and he wasn't the only one to realize this). Then he realized that this has implications for how the mind works, and hence for education. Then he applied the epistemology to a knowledge-creating entity consisting of two or more people, such as a family.
The reality is that today's moral knowledge is far more advanced than religious morality. Our current best explanations about people, how they learn, how people should approach conflicts, and how people should live good lives in general, is only a few years old as it evolves continually. But Islamic morality is frozen in time, which was engraved in gold 1,400 years ago, and stopped evolving since. Interestingly, Muslims says that one of the reasons we should believe it to be true is that it hasn't ever changed, while other religions, like Christianity and Judaism, have changed over time. So, in the words of Muslims, Christian morality has been evolving with time, while Islam never evolves. That is a minus on Islam, not a plus. How ironic!
So, among the reasons Ex-Muslims use for not going public, there is only one that makes sense. If you believe that your life would be in danger, let's say because you live in Saudi Arabia, then lying about your Ex-Muslim status is the preferred option. But if danger is not a problem for you, then what reasons do you have for preferring to lie about your religious beliefs?
Some of you do it because you are concerned about what others will say about you in the community. But does that actually hurt you? "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Do you believe in this principle? If you do, and if you continue to lie that you are a Muslim, then you are teaching your children to be Muslims, to care what others think of them, and to live their lives with known inconsistencies. And no matter what you explicitly say to them, they are learning these ideas from you subconsciously.
And some of you don't even tell your kids that you don't believe in Islam because you want to teach them Islamic morals. But as I've explained, our best explanations of morality are far more advanced than any religious morality, especially Islamic morality.
You are your child's role model. What moral ideas are they learning from you?
On a final note, there is an important reason that Ex-Muslims should go public. We know that Islamic thinking hurts people – themselves, their families, and others. We know that Islam teaches anti-liberal views. For example, it's forbidden for people to have dissenting ideas. This is why Islam instructs Muslims to physically force people to convert to Islam and to kill apostates. We know that this kind of thinking promotes hate and that Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism. And by lying about being Muslims, we are promoting the replication of Islamic ideas to the next generation of young minds. Do you want your children to live in a world where people continue to turn to terrorism?
Rami Rustom's website: http://ramirustom.blogspot.com/
Further reading: http://beginningofinfinity.com/
written by Worldpeace , September 13, 2012
written by Worldpeace , September 13, 2012
written by Malem , September 13, 2012
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 13, 2012
I noticed that you called Worldpeace's statement BS. Why don't you just consider his line to be a mistake?
His line was in fact a mistake. And you have added the label of BS in order count the mistake as something really bad. But is it really bad? Does his mistake change the substance of his or my argument?
Why sidestep his or my argument and address such a small and insignificant mistake?
I think I know why. Your self-image is that you are a Muslim and that Islam is good. And Worldpeace's statement criticized Islam because Islam hasn't eradicated capital punishment while western society has done so. And this implies that Islam is bad, which conflicts with your self-image.
That conflict caused you to get offended. So you chose to attack Worldpeace by pointing out his mistake and giving it a negative connotation by labeling it as BS. I bet you thought he did it on purpose to attack Islam or something.
This is exactly the sort of negativity that I'll be discussing in my next article.
written by abc , September 14, 2012
Islamic thinking hurts people???
Force people to convert??
That blanket statement "kill apostates"???
Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism?
I think you have some explaining to do my Iranian friend?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
Q-4.15 - Imprison your adulterous wives until they die.
Q-4.34 - Beat your wife if she disobeys.
> Force people to convert?
> That blanket statement "kill apostates"?
> Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism?
Q-5.33 - Kill people who attack Allah.
Q-9.5 - Kill pagans.
Note that my answers all come only from the Quran. There are many more in Hadith.
written by Malem , September 14, 2012
So you are also a "partial Quran quoter" eh? You dont list the part of Q 4.34 that says NOT to seek ways to harm them, or maybe you also forgot that There is NO compulsion in Islam as for 5.33 it does not say what you state (Sad, like Worldpeace you present false statements) THe surah deals with how to deal with people who are at War with you. Maybe you would like to shake their hands, bring them flowers, and make sure they are comfortable. That doesnt happen in real life, you war against people and chances are they will do the same back. Just look at the little Drone work in the Saudi pennisula that goes on weekly..mmm capital punishment without judge or jury, especially for the innocent bystanders.
written by Guy Macher , September 14, 2012
As for liars who think that kill those who attack Allah does not render perfectly the gist of 5:33, here's the verse:
The recompense of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Al-Ma'idah 5:33)
نَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَه ُُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَاداً أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلاَفٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْي ٌ فِي الدُّنيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيم
Why are Muslims ashamed of their Koran, their prophet, and their Allah?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
What I hear is that you agree that the Quran instructs to do bad things but that it also instructs not to do those same things. So you've illustrated an inconsistency. A conflict of ideas.
Note my article. Inconsistencies are bad. Its a bad way to live. Why? Because when you have an inconsistency, its impossible to know which of the conflicting ideas is wrong and which is right. Thats why so many Muslims beat their wives. Because they have inconsistencies in their thinking. Many Muslims criticize this by saying that Westerners also beat their wives. But they too have inconsistencies in their thinking.
I call on all people to try to live lives without inconsistencies. Every time you find an inconsistency in your thinking, work to fix it.
Here you have exposed an inconsistency in Q-4.34. That husbands should not seek ways to harm their wives, but if they disobey, to beat them. Clearly this is a conflict of ideas. How should we resolve this conflict?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
No. It says how to "wage war against Allah and his prophet". What does that have to do with a person? It doesn't. And somehow you and others confuse "against Allah and his prophet" with "against you".
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
I agree with using physical force in self-defense against someone using physical force against me.
> Just look at the little Drone work in the Saudi pennisula that goes on weekly..mmm capital punishment without judge or jury, especially for the innocent bystanders.
They are not innocent bystanders. The Saudi government financially supports terrorism. And Saudi people are responsible for the actions of their government. Therefore the Saudi people are not innocent.
The same goes for people who allow terrorists to hide among them. Muslims say that innocent people are murdered when drones hit terrorist targets. But those "innocent" people could call the police to expose the terrorists. Why don't they? They are guilty!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
Here you say that there is no compulsion in Islam.
But earlier in your post you agreed that Q-4.34 instructs mean to beat their wives.
Your position is inconsistent. How will you resolve this inconsistency?
written by abc , September 14, 2012
Let's take it one point at a time:
1. Sahih International
Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
That's the full reading of the verse.
Simple scenario, the deed has been done, what are your chances of having 4 whitnesses? So no 4 whitnesses no trail or conviction.
Trail infort of whom?? a judge.
Sounds like you need am islamic state for the punishment to be applied!
I think you misunderstand the verse!!
Is this verse has been abrogated!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
> Simple scenario, the deed has been done, what are your chances of having 4 whitnesses? So no 4 whitnesses no trail or conviction. Trail infort of whom?? a judge. Sounds like you need am islamic state for the punishment to be applied! I think you misunderstand the verse!!
I understood it exactly the way you presented it.
Why does it matter how the judgment should be applied? The point is that the Quran advocates that adulterous women should be imprisoned until death. And sure it outlines a method of judgment which is practically impossible to do today, but why does this point matter?
The substantive point is that the Quran thinks its moral to imprison your wife! And notice how it doesn't say anything about what happens if a man commits adultery. So the implication is sexism!
> Is this verse has been abrogated!
What do you mean abrogated? The verse still exists in the Quran. People are still reading it. They are learning from it!
written by Kaser , September 14, 2012
No compulsion in Islam??? Are you deluding yourself?
Boko Haram? Al Quaeda? 9/11? 7/7? The Danish cartoon worldwide uproar? The recent attacks on the consulates? Tombuktu destruction? The budha statues? Taliban banning education for wemen? Acid attacks? Honor killings?
Need I go on???
written by Kaser , September 14, 2012
YOUR WOMEN ? You own them?
Who the hell can tell a man and a woman, sound of mind, that they can or cannot have a sexual intercourse??? Whose business is it abc????
And in your same thought patter abc, it's ok for Muslims to marry for a day and then dump their 14 year-old "bride" ...
I'm unimpressed abc, unimpressed...
written by Worldpeace , September 14, 2012
Take slavery, for instance. You do not find any categorical statement on its abolition in the religious texts. It took evolution of human morality to ban this unti human practice. Humanity is guilty on the count of its practice, but it has evolved and slavery is history. Or, is it.
Do not miss the point, this time around, which is, humanity does not require religion to be moral. Look at the way Muslims react recently to the vedio on Muhammad. Even if the contents are offensive, it is morally incorrect to attack innocent people. Morally advanced people will take legal action that will bring the culprit to book. Muslims can offend non Muslims without remose but they react irrationally(violently) when the truth about Islam is told.
Be in peace.
written by abc , September 14, 2012
No ownership implies or stated.
FFS- this is what happens when the uneducated try to interpret scripture.
I don't know what you mean bump someone??
written by non believer , September 14, 2012
written by abc , September 14, 2012
Whenever a reformist scholar says something you have sites like this jumping up and down screaming taqiyya. Or accuse the person to talking with a forked tongue.
However before anything can happen, Islam and Muslims have to have an Islamic state which will have the central authority to reform.
Not long now!!
written by bundypig , September 14, 2012
written by Infidel and More Proud , September 14, 2012
KSA is a islamic state. So is Pakistan.
If islam has failed in these places to name a few how ill it work in even bigger entities?
You mean it will be a bigger failure?
written by bundypig , September 14, 2012
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
How would Muslims reconcile the fact that the Quran explicitly states that it can not be reformed?
written by xyz , September 14, 2012
Islam and creativity are two opposite phenomenon. Muslims have to go against "Allah's Will" to reform Islam.
written by HARKAT UL JIHAD EI KAFIROOON , September 14, 2012
muslims can do anything and get away.
we ex-muslims r screwed.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
Muslims might be more violent than ever before, but lets ask why they are. Is it because their faith in their God and religion is stronger?
I don't think so. I think its because they are more desperate and more offended than ever before. I see it as an emotional response.
Consider a temper tantrum, of a 2-year old or a 30-year old. They ask for something they want from someone. That someone refuses. How does the person react? He will react the way he knows how. Some people (young and old) only know how to react physically. So they yell and flail their arms to shock the other person into giving in. This is what many Muslims do today. They haven't learned better ways that can actually solve their problem of getting what they want.
But people do learn. They learn new ways of reacting to their problems. Ways that actually solve their problems.
Please don't take my tantrum analogy the wrong way. Its fairly different than the Arab situation. For one thing, 2-year olds are controlled by their parents. The 2-year can't decide to change his situation. If the parent is a piece of shit, the 2-year old can't change that.
Arab people are not controlled by anyone. Not by their dictator leaders and not by America. The Arabs will soon learn that they must take responsibility for their countries. They must take part in the politics of their countries and stop assuming that Allah will save them.
written by The Real Indian , September 14, 2012
written by Kaser , September 14, 2012
1- Islam will reform... Rare that a Muslim will admit to Islam needing reform, thank you abc. But I am curious, reform what exactly? Re-write the scriptures or re-interpret them for modern times?
2- A cental Islamic State? Is that not Saudi Arabia?
3- Not "bump" but "dump" - dump ans in throw away after usage. Like a used tissue paper.
4- "Uneducated" ? Please abc, enough with the insults, you are a grown person. Simply answer my question as to why Islam gave itself the right to control the sexual lives of sound-minded adults?
written by Malem , September 14, 2012
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 14, 2012
The idea of responsibility is not as simple as you describe it. In the case of the Holocaust, the solution was to use military power to bring the German military down and get rid of the evil Nazy government. Some German citizens died. Should we say that we shouldn't have used military power because of those German citizen were innocence? No. Why? Because they do have a degree of responsibility in the actions of their government. Are they responsible to the degree that they should be held accountable (by jailing them) for Holocaust victims? No.
> Tunisia, Libya etc.. all run at one time by dictators, but still all the people are responsible?
Yes they are responsible for changing their government. Who else is going to do it?
If their dictatorship government wages war against a religious sect within their own population, are they responsible for changing their government so that the genocide stops? Yes.
written by fineliving56 , September 14, 2012
It is funny, how abc thought you are an Iranian ex Muslim, it is telling of how meager his knowledge of Quran's and Muhammad's language … if he did know, he would have a completely different post.
I commend you on your courage to have your article under your real name ..it is fitting, considering your article's subject.
You are fearless, especially, after the latest deadly demonstrations by the blood thirsty devout Muslims all over the Islamic world happening right now .
written by Infidel and More Proud , September 15, 2012
RW, Malem, Kope and AKI bring it on... you guys seem to be losing steam
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
Religious texts are vague enough to provide both an excuse and a condemnation for almost any human behavior. The people who say islam promotes killing, and the people who say islam is a religion of peace, are both correct. Islam is a religion that can be bent to supposedly justify nearly anything you want it to.
I think all the religions of the world, including the largest ones - christianity and islam and judaism, are not just wrong, but ridiculously so. Yet I find it hard to assign these religions blame for specific behavior that is rare among their followers. On the other hand, I do assign religions blame for behavior that is universally or nearly so taught by its leaders and implemented by its followers.
Some teachings / behaviors that are nearly universal: Faith instead of critical thinking. Altruism. Respect for authority. Virtue of sacrifice. Man's inherent evil nature. Supernatural forces. Beings beyond human comprehension. These are damaging, poisonous, dangerous ideas. They aren't unique to islam or christianity or judaism - these bad ideas permeate them all. I condemn these ideas and the religions that promote them.
Beyond that, thugs will be thugs, cowards will be cowards, and when asked to explain their despicable behavior it makes little difference if the thugs and cowards and their enablers cite the Quran, the Bible, Ted Kaczynski's Manifesto, or Karl Marx.
written by Archpagan , September 15, 2012
(1) Have you ever heard that a Christian/Jews priest goaded his flock to attack Saudi /Paki (or a non-Christian country's) embassy for terrorist attack in his country, or any perceived insult to Christianity/Judaism ?
(2) Do Osama bin Laden and the Dalai Lama deserve the same treatment from us (non-Muslims or non-Buddhists) because both of them come under the category of "religious leader"?
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Sorry I don't think you did understand the way I presented it.
"Why does it matter how the judgment should be applied? The point is that the Quran advocates that adulterous women should be imprisoned until death. And sure it outlines a method of judgment which is practically impossible to do today, but why does this point matter?"
Of course it matters how the judgement is carried out.
There are due processes to protect certain people and convict the guilty.
Yes the Quran did say that but made punishment of that sun virtually impossible.
Why do you think that would be?? Because it's a warning, a guidance to people that this may happen to you if you do not adjust your behaviour.
"The substantive point is that the Quran thinks its moral to imprison your wife! And notice how it doesn't say anything about what happens if a man commits adultery. So the implication is sexism"
Wrong again.
The point is that the Quran is warning you of the dangers of immoral behaviour.
It prescribes a sentance which is nearly impossible to do.
If a person cannot be trusted to behave, then withdraw them.
" Is this verse has been abrogated!
What do you mean abrogated? The verse still exists in the Quran. People are still reading it. They are learning from it"
You know full well that the verse we are talking about has been abrogated.
Rami you must know the punishment is no longer for just females but makes as well and it's not withdraw to a room.
Here is the thing. Your first point back to me is false. The other points you give can be proved false too. So where dies this leave your article.
You cheerleaders will no doubt try to defend you.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
3- Not "bump" but "dump" - dump ans in throw away after usage. Like a used tissue paper.
4- "Uneducated" ? Please abc, enough with the insults, you are a grown person. Simply answer my question as to why Islam gave itself the right to control the sexual lives of sound-minded adults?
2: the Saudis are traitors to Islam and the day their tyrannical regime gets the boot the quicker the better! Have you read up the history of Saudi Arabia?
4. Look fella if you cannot read a line as it was intended and go all jackanory with it then what am I to assume?
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Rami you have done a great job of exposing the inherent contradictions.
RW, Malem, Kope and AKI bring it on... you guys seem to be losing steam!
Hey does this post come with a uniform? Tight top and skirt?
Maybe some pom poms? Do you have a routine?
I bet you do you sly dog!
Unlike you the rest of us have lives and respond when we can!!!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
So fear mongering! The Quran teaches fear mongering.
Also it warns women but not men. So it teaches sexism.
Do you believe in this morality?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
I said that Islamic thinking hurts people. It teaches fear mongering, sexism, agism, noncritical thinking, and other bad ideas.
Do you agree that these ideas are bad and thus hurtful?
Your own posts corroborate my theory.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 15, 2012
Rami and abc. May I interrupt in your discussion. I dont know who of you wrote "adulterous women should be imprisoned until death."
It is not for adulterous woman. That punishment is not restricted for women and both man and woman will get 100 each.as prescribed earlier. That too is forgivable.
Confining in the houses is prescribed for those wives who go out and do immoral things. Asking them you will never go out is not a very deal. I read for you
وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِن نِّسَائِكُمْ فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةً مِّنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّـهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا ﴿١٥﴾ وَاللَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا ۖ فَإِن تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمَا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا ﴿
Provision of forgiving is also there in verse 4:16 is another option. If they divorce and abolish nikah, the man has no more control on her.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
You are pointing out that Islam is worse than other religions. I agree. Much worse.
But note that the poster condemned some morals that even Christianity has. Like altruism.
Altruism means to sacrifice one's own preferences so that other's can have their preferences satisfied. This is horrible! See Ayn Rand, _The Fountain Head_.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
If the entire book was given in one go it would be too difficult to adhere to.
That verse was initially given as a warning.
The mechanism to get punished is impossible.
The idea is to get you to think. Why is the punishment for adultry serious?
Is there any good that comes from a mans wife sleeping with another man??
This verse was then abrogated as reed points out.
The punishment is now different and applies to men as well.
The more you write back the less I think you know about Islam.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Forgiveness is better for you than the punishment.
Repentance is better for you than punishment.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Sure that's exactly what you said and I read your concluding paragraph and pointed out its inaccuracies.
To which you gave me a list of quranic points.
The first point was easy to prove false. Shall we move to your second point
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
You're missing the point. ALL PUNISHMENT IS BAD!!!
So Islam forbids behavior X. And says there is punishment if you do X (here and/or in afterlife).
But punishment does not cause learning. Punishment does not cause someone to change his values such that he believes X to be immoral. Punishment only causes one to change his behavior (avoid doing X) but only if he thinks he'll be caught and then punished.
So if the person thinks he won't be caught/punished, then he'll do behavior X. Why? Because he values X.
What's the alternative? Persuasion. Persuasion is the only tool that can help people change their values. Coercion (which includes punishment) doesn't work. It only deters the behavior and only while the person wants to avoid the punishment.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
All those ideas are bad.
Punishment I've already refuted. It should *never* be done.
Forgiveness presupposes that you were mad at another person. You shouldn't be mad in the first place. All he did was make a mistake. Mistakes are common. We all make them. And we should all be working to fix them so that they don't happen going forward. So there is nothing to forgive.
Repentance presupposes that you are upset about your past mistakes. This is horrible. Say you made a mistake and you solve the problem such that you won't make that mistake again going forward. So you have improved yourself. Today-you is better than past-you. What is there to be upset about?
written by abc , September 15, 2012
That is absolute tripe and you know it.
Persuasion is not enough, although its powerful tool.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Rapist will give you every reason under the sun.
Are you convinced by persuasion that it's wrong?
Rapist will tell you he/she is convinced.
Yet they still commit the crime?? So persuasion only dies not work.
Since you are into child like analogies then this will be up your street.
A baby has learnt how to crawl and wants to explore. You out it on a sofa and it gets to the edge. It's faced with a choice, turn back or keep going.
The ones that kept going fell off and managed to bump themselves.,
Now same scenario again. The baby that fell will not go near that edge because it associates that edge with a fall and pain.,
Once you have felt the punishment you do not want to go back.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
You are confusing learning with protecting society from people that commit crimes against people's freedoms.
That rapist should be put in jail so that he doesn't rape others.
While in jail, if he is punished, the punishment doesn't cause him to no longer value rape.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
Now same scenario again. The baby that fell will not go near that edge because it associates that edge with a fall and pain., Once you have felt the punishment you do not want to go back.
That is not punishment. Punishment is an act done by a human to another human.
What you've described is that physics is delivering pain to the child. But physics can't punish because it isn't a person and thus doesn't have he capacity to choose.
With punishment, a person chooses to perform the act. And he is choosing to inflict pain onto the other person. In your hypothetical situation, physics isn't *choosing* to inflict pain.
written by Worldpeace , September 15, 2012
Majority of ex- Muslims, including yours sincerely, do not declare their apostasy because of the first reason given in the article, i.e. Fear of ostracism or death. Open apostasy in the midth of Muslim will ordinarily require the apostates to explain their reasons, which when they do will naturally be criticism of Islam. We all know and agree that open criticism of Islam is not only unacceptable but dangerous. So the easy path is that of hypocrisy. Islam carries a hefty number of hypocrites by its creation, the more reason why it is evil and should have no place in this civilising world.
written by fineliving56 , September 15, 2012
The exact word in Arabic to mean Adultery is ''zina'' …
the word '' Fahisha'' that is used in Q/4/15 is a general word for indecency but *includes* the crime of adultery in Islam.
That same word is used in 4/16 to describe the indecency of homosexuality in Islam … [ BTW …note the
The word ''Fahisha '' in 4/15 '' indecency is meant to be only for adulteries because the meaning is collaborated by sharia and hadeeth, any other crimes are punished in different ways like cutting hands for theft .
Reed …during the time I took time off …I have skimped over your posts and I detected many translating mistakes [ deliberate mistakes I might add ] and I was too distract to call you on it to post about it .
Reed …forgiveness looses it value completely when proceeded with cruel threats … your Quran is full of them and that is one of the many reasons, it is loosing believers every day .
Thank you for welcoming me … you are such a gentlemen
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Ah but memory and the pleasure/pain reflex remains. These two are simply the two key drivers of all human interaction.
Irrespective of drivers (probably a poor example in my part)
Pain of punishment serves to remind a person that the crime was unacceptable.
Persuasion alone dies not and never has worked!!!
written by fineliving56 , September 15, 2012
I did not know you are an apostate from Islam like I am and Rami and the Admin and so many other posters …
Rami is showing the need to come out, in spite of danger and scrutiny from other Muslims, because if we do not, we are not only being hypocrites like you said, we are being enablers and helpers, as much as, moderate and peaceful Muslims, are . They are practicing their religion neglecting speaking out against the violent Muslims … they do not see, they carry some of the guilt as them …I understand the danger for them and us … but it has to be done .
I am thinking about it my self to post under my real name … as a women my self it is harder considering the subject '' Islam'' .. everything is double on women shoulders in Islam even shame.
written by abc , September 15, 2012
Now in an Islamic state personal and state beliefs are the same.
If you choose to leave Islam, stop doing your fard actions. You have left. It's simple.
However if you choose to stand infront of a mosque and start ranting and raving as to why you left then that's considered as working against the state. That's treason and hence it's treated as such!
written by fineliving56 , September 15, 2012
Islam is a religion [ fake ] .. not a state .. the pope is a head of the relgion of Christianity and Christianity is a religion and, if people ranted in front of church, Christians doe not considered committing treason , they are considered rude and insulting …nothing more .
You, abc, say that , because you want TO EXUSE THE CRIME OF KILLING THE EX MUSLIMS and give it a legal term … the fact that you call it treason is a crime in it self …
You are guilty of helping a Muslim criminal terrorist to commit his crime by call it a treason … nothing more nothing less.
Do not do that … you are playing with fire … real lives at stack
We ex Muslim will never stop criticizing and exposing Islam …
It is called freedom of speech.
written by Reed Wilson. , September 15, 2012
I swear I dont translate. I dont know much Arabic to do this job. I keep my Arabic in my tummy and use readymade translations. I give text also to absolve me of the blame. Sometime I do select from the available translations for the sake of readers.
You know I follow Quran which does not authorize me to make amendments. Read 10:15.
Deliberate mistakes!!! Only author can do that. You know I am not God. .
"Reed …forgiveness looses it value completely when proceeded with cruel threats … your Quran is full of them and that is one of the many reasons, it is loosing believers every day."
Loosing believers, too, is my least consideration. So also persuading. I am not required to do that.
In the text the words الْفَاحِشَةَ and اللَّذَانِ are used. I am answerable to what I comprehend. We cannot hide our intentions from Allah.
I did miss you fineliving and wished your welfare. You have earned that; all the more when duh is not around. I hope every thing was fine.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
No. That only works for animals. Animals change their behavior in response to a physical pain source. But humans don't do that.
Humans often want physical pain. Consider masochists and eating wasabi and wanting to be slapped during sex. Here humans want physical pain and they get gratification.
Besides, punishment doesn't even do what you're saying it does. You think punishment prevents someone from doing behavior X. But as soon as the person believes that he won't be punished, then he'll do behavior X. People commit crimes because they value the behavior and they believe that they won't get caught/punished.
> Persuasion alone dies not and never has worked!!!
Worked at doing what? Learning? My entire article was persuasion. Many people have learned from it and have changed their behavior. What happened was that they agreed with the ideas in my articles. And so they've changed their values, on their own accord.
So what do you mean that persuasion never works? Here it is working right before our eyes.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
Shame is a misleading concept. The dictionary says its about feelings of guilt. Guilt means that you think you did something wrong. So what did you do wrong? Switch some of our values? State some of those values? Whats wrong with this?
Who is delivering the shame? The Muslims. Who is receiving the shame? You.
The Muslims believe you are guilty (for changing your values and for stating them). By you accepting that shame, you are letting them frame the discussion. You are playing by their rules.
Live your own life! Don't play by anyone's rules but your own. Rules are bad (unless you made them for yourself).
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 15, 2012
I agree that its bad to stand in front of a Mosque and voice your anti-Islamic opinions. Its bad to do things to people against their preferences.
Muslims don't want people to chant anti-Islamic sentiment in front of their Mosques. Therefore you shouldn't do it.
Now voicing your opinion on the internet is another story. The Muslims can simply not go to those websites.
written by Yibel , September 16, 2012
"in an Islamic state personal and state beliefs are the same. "
But abc did not go far enough:
The fact is - in Islam there are NO PERSONAL BELIEFS, THOUGHTS, OR ACTIONS ALLOWED.
Islam is a complete totalitarian system that does not allow for the individual to even exist. Any action against Islam - whether it is a cartoon, a movie, or just having the audacity to NOT believe anymore - is, as abc stated, "treason and hence it's treated as such!"
I urge you to post only under the name fineliving56 and keep your personal information - which could lead to your identity - carefully hidden. These are very bad times that we live in. The enemy is deceitful and cunning and cruel and so very many have been deceived into believing that evil is good. Remember, when it comes to Islam, one cannot trust even one's own family members.
May the Good Lord bless and keep you save.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
Should I fear for my life? What could happen?
Will Al Qaeda put out a hit on me? I don't think so.
Would some random Muslim try to kill me or burn my house down?
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
By what process would that happen?
And what would be done about the Non-Muslims currently living in the place that the Islamic state would be created?
written by abc , September 16, 2012
In an islamic state, if you decide to become an apostate thats entirely your decision. Just stop doing your fards.
In an islamic state if you start to spreading your BS then that would be considered treason and hence punished as such.
IN AN ISLAMIC STATE. Only the STATE has the authority to try and convict and punish as it sees fit.
Since there is NO islamic state then there can be no trials, or punishments.
So to answer your question.
Yes you can use your real name, you do not live in an islamic state, no individual has the authority to carry out any punishment. However there are plenty of nutters who do not understand that concept and hence i would personally advise against it. Unless you feel 100% secure.
In answer to your other question.
There are three distict phases as defined by an nabhani in his book.
Private phase- eduacte the the muslims regarding the need for a state
Public Phase- Declare openly to all and sundry that islam when applied correctly can be an alternative solution to their problems.
Power Phase- When enough people are convinced then implement the book by the request of the majority.
What do you mean what will be done about the non muslims?
They are a part of the state.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
What do you mean by "spread"? Do you mean talking to my friend in my house about my ideas? How about typing on my computer to the internet? How about talking on the phone? How about in a private school that I opened?
written by abc , September 16, 2012
There is plenty to choose from!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
If you're going to act like this, I prefer that you don't engage me again.
written by abc , September 16, 2012
I'm my book you seem like a much better than the other writers. You take the time to respond!
When was the first time you heard the term taqiyya?? Were you taught by your nearest and dearest or even a mosque teacher???
Ok try this then:
When did you first know that it was ok for you to have sex with your grandmothers???
Ok try this one then:
When was the last time you had sex with a corpse???
I mean these are the type of articles that have appeared here!
Let me ask you, what do you make of the silly cartoons and caricatures that are supposed to depict Muslims on this site???
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
They might be too busy. I'm not.
> When was the first time you heard the term taqiyya??
I think 30 seconds ago. Its possible before but don't recall.
> Were you taught by your nearest and dearest or even a mosque teacher???
I went to an Islamic school.
> When did you first know that it was ok for you to have sex with your grandmothers???
That is immoral. What are you talking about?
> When was the last time you had sex with a corpse???
Never. Also immoral.
> I mean these are the type of articles that have appeared here! Let me ask you, what do you make of the silly cartoons and caricatures that are supposed to depict Muslims on this site???
They do those things as a way to poke at you. To hurt you. Its a game. And by getting hurt and reacting to it, Muslims are playing along. Its dumb on both sides.
They want to persuade Muslims. They play this poking-fun game but it sabotages any chance at persuasion. It only antagonizes Muslims.
Muslims play along not realizing that they look stupid (to the non-Muslims) when they get offended and physical.
Non-Muslims would do better to just persuade. But they don't because they suck at it. They resort to name calling. Calling human beings animals. Its disgusting.
But then there are cartoons like South Park. Now that is some funny stuff. They make fun of everybody, every religion. And ts funny because its true (with a little hyperbole). And its good for learning. For exposing the hidden truths that most people don't pay attention to.
written by Yibel , September 16, 2012
Should I fear for my life? What could happen?
Will Al Qaeda put out a hit on me? I don't think so.
Would some random Muslim try to kill me or burn my house down?"
Yes, you are not safe even in the USA! Not only are ex-Muslims unsafe, so are Muslims, especially females, who do not follow all the rules of shari'ah (ever heard of "honor killings"?) and anyone who speaks the truth about Islam or makes fun of their so-called prophet (with drawings for example).
You mention South Park. Well, the creators of South Park received death threats for their cute depiction of Muhammad in a teddy bear suit. They got the message - no more Muhammad cartoons.
For a Muslim , if they don't follow the Islamic code, then they are living immorally.
To understand the Islamic code it is necessary to read the aHadith, the sunnah, the Qur'an and The Reliance of the Traveler. Murder is good if done for Allah and Muhammad. All lands and goods belong to Muslims. All "others" must either submit (join Islam), pay jizya tax (extortion/protection money) , or get their heads chopped off.
Yes, you should fear for your life - and take precautions. There are hundreds of US citizens who are now living in hiding because of death threats from Muslims who feel they must defend Islam because the Qur'an mandates this.
I don't know about Al-Qaeda putting out a hit on you, but any over-the-counter, random Muslim has the potential to be an assassin. It's built into the cult theology.
written by Worldpeace , September 16, 2012
As it is Muslims are sub human, they do not value even their lives when it comes to the defence of their evil trinity- Allah, Muhammad and Islam- from the most trivial issue.
I live in Boko Haram infested Northern Nigeria. It is not wise for me to declare my apostasy in the circumstance. However, I do not use Islamic morality in bringing up my children which is enough for the moment.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
Are you saying that anyone of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran?
Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
I just did a quick internet search looking for stories about Americans being attacked/threatened by Muslims as you describe. I didn't find anything. If you have a link about some stories, please post it.
written by Worldpeace , September 16, 2012
You said "Belief is a personal thing"
you are correct on this count.
You also said, " in Islamic state personal and state belief are same".
In that case humanity doesn't require an Islamic state. You have proven it yourself that Islam is anachronistic, an aberration in the 21st century.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
So if he posted his BS to the internet, while he lived in the Islamic state, he is guilty. But if he went to the internet cafe across the border (to a country that isn't an Islamic state) and then he posted his BS to the internet, then he isn't guilty.
Do you agree with my hypothetical situation and that the Islamic state couldn't tried the second guy for treason?
If not, why not?
If so, what is the point of the law? What problem does it solve? It doesn't prevent people from spreading their BS. Right? So why have a law that doesn't solve a problem?
written by abc , September 16, 2012
Citizen if the Islamic state can be sitting in an Internet cafe on mars. As long as he/she is a citizen of the Islamic state then he/she is bound by the laws.
If he she renounces citizenship and chooses to live elsewhere then they are bound by the laws of the land they have chosen. Do what they want???
written by abc , September 16, 2012
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 16, 2012
Every Muslim I've met was relatively good. They try to be good parents, good employees, good community members, and good citizens.
Are you saying that anyone of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran?
Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
I just did a quick internet search looking for stories about Americans being attacked/threatened by Muslims as you describe. I didn't find anything. If you have a link about some stories, please post it.
Yes yibel do tell? I'm dying to hear this one!
Please make it original and not the copy and paste dribble!
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 17, 2012
I see. Note that your answer does not change the substantive aspect of my argument. Millions of Ex-Muslims are criticizing Islam on the internet. Muslims within the Islamic state are forbidden to do this because of the law you mentioned.
So what is the point of the law? What problem does it solve? It doesn't prevent people from criticizing Islam on the internet. And Muslims within the Islamic state can easily read the criticism of Islam on the internet while they reside in their state. So the law doesn't solve the problem it is supposed to solve. Or am I missing something?
written by Reed Wilson. , September 17, 2012
You write "I agree that its bad to stand in front of a Mosque and voice your anti-Islamic opinions. Its bad to do things to people against their preferences.
Muslims don't want people to chant anti-Islamic sentiment in front of their Mosques. Therefore you shouldn't do it."
The mosques are not mosques as defined by Allah where only Allah is addressed. Not only mosques, all the so called places of worship are business houses where people are robbed.
Mutual respect is a human consideration and all those disregard that are not doing the right thing. Behind all that mischief, there are ulterior motives and vested interests.Religion has nothing to do with that.
I fully agree with you.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 17, 2012
written by Kaser , September 18, 2012
When someone is willing to end his life - there is an important presence of despair (and possibly hatred) but with a purpose.
Despair (and hatred) as in "I have no life, no future, no woman by my side, and tons of frustrated friends around me screaming, fist-in-the-air their outrage at something".
Since they hate that "something" so much, I learned also to hate it vehemently. It's sooooo easy to hate. Much easier than to learn, understand, compromise, soothe, accept and work for positive change.
Hatred is so powerful... Collective hatred, even more so...
So I despair, and I hate this "something"... Then comes purpose.
Purpose as in "a way for me to become a hero!" Since I have no life, no future, no woman by my side, I despair, and I hate, I will become a martyr. And (if I'm dumb enough) I'll even believe that an eternal, 72-virgin orgy awaits me in the afterlife... The one thing I crave so much, a woman, that I cannot have in my current life, is waiting for me in the afterlife...
And before I go, I become a hero... I become someone! I am adulated, I am told that glory awaits me!!!
I despair no more! My hatred has found purpose and reward awaits...
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 18, 2012
But if the goal is to kill as many jews as possible, take push Israel into the sea, and the tactic is to suicide bomb a bunch of civilians, then this is immoral. Because the goal is immoral.
If the goal is to kill any Americans because some Americans are criticizing my Quran/Allah/Mohamed, then this is immoral. Because the goal is immoral, also illogical. How can *all* Americans be responsible for some Americans creating videos? Do they think that the American government has the legal right to stop American citizens from creating videos? And even if they did have the legal right to do so, do they think its technologically possible to stop them?
Its so stupid.
written by Kaser , September 18, 2012
2- An "immoral" Suicide Bomber = 9/11 hijackers and all those exploding themselves in public places where non-military are present = Terrorist = Coward. There is no honor in killing innocents in such a coward way. See my post above for what I think motivates these freaks of nature. Notice I do not judge in my previous post the morality (or not) - simply what I believe is the answer to your question - why do they do it.
written by Kaser , September 18, 2012
written by Yibel , September 18, 2012
employees, good community members, and good citizens.
You are judging an idea by justifying it by the authority of experience.
Just because all the Muslims you have met (so far) have been what you refer to as "relatively good" (whatever that means) so you are projecting this so-called "goodness" to all Muslims.
Please define what you mean by "good." The word "good" is very subjective and depends upon the point of view of the individual. For example: To a head hunter, cutting off a person's head and shrinking it is a "good" thing; however, it's doubtful that the victim would agree.
Also, how does your definition of "good" apply to jihadis (terrorists)? Are they not "good" Muslims? I am pretty sure that they will all disagree with your assessment of what "good" is - at least the ones that are still alive.
re: Are you saying that anyone (sic) of these people that I know could kill me because I criticized the Quran? Or do you think it would have to be someone I don't know?
Depends on a number of factors - such as, the individual's Islamic devoutness or
personal guilt complexes or the family's need for money or his desire for virgins, or whether an imam or other religious leader has been offended by your statements and decides to issue a death fatwa (ex. Salman Rushdie).
As for your difficulty locating stories about Americans who have received death threats from Muslims:
I don't know why you had a problem finding articles about TV talk show host David Letterman, State Senator Greg Ball, 2010 Tennessee candidate for
Congress Lou Ann Zelenik, artist Molly Norris, movie director Steven Spielberg.
A quick search on my part came up with several web sites with lists of names and links to news articles and op-ed pieces. Two examples:
and http://www.meforum.org/395/the-rushdie-rules
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 20, 2012
I made no such claim or projection. I was providing criticism to your claim that "(all) Muslims are subhuman" showing that its false.
> Please define what you mean by "good." The word "good" is very subjective and depends upon the point of view of the individual. For example: To a head hunter, cutting off a person's head and shrinking it is a "good" thing; however, it's doubtful that the victim would agree. Also, how does your definition of "good" apply to jihadis (terrorists)? Are they not "good" Muslims? I am pretty sure that they will all disagree with your assessment of what "good" is - at least the ones that are still alive.
Good and bad are about morality. Morality is objective. Most of Islamic morality is false. So, what Muslim scholars claim is a good person, is actually a bad person. So, when I said relatively good, I meant that they had moral ideas that were comparable to any other American's moral ideas.
> As for your difficulty locating stories about Americans who have received death threats from Muslims:
I don't know why you had a problem finding articles about TV talk show host David Letterman, State Senator Greg Ball, 2010 Tennessee candidate for Congress Lou Ann Zelenik, artist Molly Norris, movie director Steven Spielberg.
I do realize that famous people get targeted. I meant to only ask about regular Americans getting attacked/threatened by Muslim Americans. Does this happen?
-- Rami
written by Reed Wilson. , September 21, 2012
It is a social science question. May it fall in Psychiatry, Politics, Gorilla warfare etc. If by 'they' you mean Muslims, your question is based on wrong assumption.
My definition of Islam is 'obeying god'. I dont find any such instructions of God to do suicide bombing. Suicide is otherwise also forbidden in Quran.
Kaser. You write "BTW, I'm curious as to what Reed Wilson will answer to your question above - what motivates Suicide Bombers."
A war is going on Kaser. The motives are always mutual destruction. In WWII also we did suicide bombings. Every body sould wish that such things dont happen. It is loss of entire humanity. Quran says:
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ ﴿١١﴾ أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّا يَشْعُرُونَ ﴿
"When they are told not to commit corruption in the land, they reply, "We are only reformers". They are certainly doing corruption but do not realize it". 2:11-12
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 21, 2012
That is false.
See Surat Al-Anfal (Q-6:151): "Say, 'Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. (He commands) that you not associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden (to be killed) ***except by (legal) right***.'" This has He instructed you that you may use reason.' - قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُم مِّنْ إِمْلَاقٍ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ذَٰلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُم بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
Now let's go further and explain why it is that jihadi Muslims believe that its (legally) righteous to commit suicide on Western civilians. I think that their justification has to do with Surat Al-Baqarah (Q-2.193): "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression ***except against the oppressors***." - وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ فَإِنِ انتَهَوْا فَلَا عُدْوَانَ إِلَّا عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ
Now it's important to understand what qualifies an act as an act of oppression, and how jihadi Muslims get this part wrong. They believe that the West is "taking advantage of" Islamic countries and they construe this "taking advantage of" as oppression. What do they cite? Free trade and diplomacy. America buys natural resources from Islamic countries while also paying off some of their dictators thus preventing fundamentalist Muslims from ruling those countries in an effort to prevent fundamentalist Muslims from attacking Israel. And jihadi Muslims view this as oppression.
written by This is Rami Rustom , September 21, 2012