Like to Borrow My Spouse for One Night? Sure

[Castro]

^ Understood. I'd say prostitution is one thing that is worse than spouse-swapping. But self expression, you say? That's tough to swallow ninyahow. I suppose as long as I don't have to see them, hear them or be around them, they could include their pets in that orgy for all I care. It is still repulsive behavior though.

[N.O.R.F]

Ahh the joys of Liberalism

 

Callypso, I noticed you failed to address the ‘grooming’ thing? Was I wrong? Would these actions (wife swapping/homosexuality) have been accepted say 30 years ago? Does secularism allow what was previously unacceptable to become acceptable?

 

If you are accepting despicable actions by despicable people under the terms you have mentioned above, then yes I will class you as being selfish! By simply accepting that this is a norm and should not be frowned upon, you are looking after yours and societies ‘best’ interests in accordance with secularism, thus eliminating any moral or religious values in the process. To me (and others) who do not accept libralism/secularism as a form of governance designed for the good of the people, then that is ‘selfishness’ (looking after one’s own interests). Now you can paint over this with glossy emulsion paint but that the bottom line regarding liberalism/secularism and it’s supporters.

 

Callypso says:

 

But it's one thing to argue that something is abhorrent to one self, and another to deny another's right to self-expression.

The secular societies you are advocating has some major double standards in this ‘it is not harming anyone’ nonsense you are supporting. You only need to look at France/Holland and Belgium where the Hijaab has become a contentious issue but hey ‘it is not harming anyone’ so ban it? How do measure where the Hijaab is harming people? Does this make you a hypocrite (for supporting liberalism)? Where do you draw the line?

[Cara.]

Hello Northerner,

 

Originally posted by Northerner:

Ahh the joys of Liberalism

 

Callypso, I noticed you failed to address the ‘grooming’ thing? Was I wrong? Would these actions (wife swapping/homosexuality) have been accepted say 30 years ago? Does secularism allow what was previously unacceptable to become acceptable?

Absolutely. Such as blacks and whites eating in the same restuarant in the US. It was illegal in parts of the southern United States as recently as the 1960s. I'm sure the reason people decided that racial segregation was immoral wasn't because of the struggles of the Civil Rights-era activists. I'm sure it's because Hollywood is run by secularistic Blacks, who made movies and shows that portrayed sympathetic and funny black characters (Sidney Poitier, anyone?). This then 'groomed' ignorant whites so that they mistakenly think blacks should have 'human rights'and then they were duped into being 'selfish' and letting blacks sit on the bus seat right next to them. What next? Blacks as mayors of major cities? Blacks in the US Supreme Court?

 

Why do things that were unacceptable become acceptable? Could it be that people were bigots before, and they've become enlightened?

 

If you are accepting despicable actions by despicable people under the terms you have mentioned above, then yes I will class you as being selfish!

Sxb, they are not despicable actions. Despicable actions cause harm to others. Sexual peccadilloes are not despicable unless the object of one's passions is a minor. So long as two (or more) adults consent to do whatever they do behind closed doors, it's none of my concern. I will not lynch them, persecute them, or think about them much. In so far as that is better for my mental health, then I guess it is a selfish choice.

 

By simply accepting that this is a norm and should not be frowned upon, you are looking after yours and societies ‘best’ interests in accordance with secularism, thus eliminating any moral or religious values in the process.

Honestly. You've contorted the meaning of the word selfish into something pretty interesting there, haven't you? Now looking after my and society's best interests is selfish and immoral? Are you actually reading what you type?

 

I have moral values, sxb. I don't cheat. I don't steal, or murder, or otherwise deliberately hurt others. As such, I expect society to stay the hell out of my personal choices when they affect no one else. I suspect you also want society to allow you to make the choices that are right for you. Your problem is that you also want society to allow you to make the choices that you think are right for everyone else. That's where we part company.

 

To me (and others) who do not accept libralism/secularism as a form of governance designed for the good of the people, then that is ‘selfishness’ (looking after one’s own interests).

My friend, if you have a system that is better than secular democracy as a form of governance, share with us. I would certainly like to know.

 

Now you can paint over this with glossy emulsion paint but that the bottom line regarding liberalism/secularism and it’s supporters.

So I gather. The thing is, you are probably a big supporter of liberalism so long as it suits YOUR best interests. Were America to go all theocratic, Bible-thumping, kill-the-infidel-Mohammedan-invaders a la Pat Robertson on you, I suspect you'd run right to the ACLU and demand your rights be protected. It's only when liberalism defends the rights of all those other unsavoury people who would be so much better off doing things your way, that you get a little hot under the collar. There's a word for that attitude, but it's been abused a few too many times here. You know, I'm not sure it's up to the task of actually being used correctly for once.

 

The secular societies you are advocating has some major double standards in this ‘it is not harming anyone’ nonsense you are supporting. You only need to look at France/Holland and Belgium where the Hijaab has become a contentious issue but hey ‘it is not harming anyone’ so ban it? How do measure where the Hijaab is harming people? Does this make you a hypocrite (for supporting liberalism)? Where do you draw the line?

Wait, because France banned the hijab in public schools, I'm a hypocrite? Does that mean you are a terrorist because some Muslims fly passenger planes into buildings? Does illogic know no bounds?

 

The hijab is hurting no one, and France is wrong to ban it. But that's my opinion. France's government thinks that the hijab is somehow harmful to French society, and so they banned it. The argument can then revolve around whether France is right or wrong about the hijab's deleterious effects.

 

But since you think that some things should be banned even if they have no harmful effect on anyone, I'm a little confused about why you are not cheering France on. Oh, I remember now. It's not in your best interests in this case.

[Castro]

^ You're a baaaaad man.

 

Originally posted by Northerner:

Does this make you a hypocrite (for supporting liberalism)? Where do you draw the line?

A better example of hypocrisy is the appeal made to liberal societies to accept immigrants with all their luggage (literally) and then turning around and judging these same societies with our own ideologies. On the other hand, France is just plain wrong about the hijab. Call it bigotry, if you will, that allowed this to happen.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Callypso:

Absolutely. Such as blacks and whites eating in the same restuarant in the US. It was illegal in parts of the southern United States as recently as the 1960s. I'm sure the reason people decided that racial segregation was immoral wasn't because of the struggles of the Civil Rights-era activists. I'm sure it's because Hollywood is run by secularistic Blacks, who made movies and shows that portrayed sympathetic and funny black characters (Sidney Poitier, anyone?). This then 'groomed' ignorant whites so that they mistakenly think blacks should have 'human rights'and then they were duped into being 'selfish' and letting blacks sit on the bus seat right next to them. What next? Blacks as mayors of major cities? Blacks in the US Supreme Court?

 

Why do things that were unacceptable become acceptable? Could it be that people were bigots before, and they've become enlightened?

 

Callypso,

 

Taking a PART of something and making it the

WHOLE thing-i see.

 

Segregation in the states is still a REALITY saxib, just go to any thriving Metropolis-NYC, Chicago, Detriot, D.C. and you will see it.

 

The laws were made to give the allusion of 'RACIAL INCLUSION' b/c of POPULAR SENTIMENT. It would have made them look BAD in the eyes of the world and it made Economic Sense to do so.

 

So its a matter of Convienance to Governmental Agenda i.e. Economics

Why else would Ab Lincoln 'Abolish Slavery', if it didn't make more SENSE not to Feed and House Black folks but have them HOmeless and begging to work for you-diff. is now they have to Pay RENT and FOOD, and still get paid CRUMBS-min. wage!

 

So its got nothing to do with becoming ENLIGHTENED, becoming more CONSCIOUS or becoming more EDUCATED. These are just cliches that serve the Purpose-Rallying People's Sentiments!

 

Callypso said:

So long as two (or more) adults consent to do whatever they do behind closed doors, it's none of my concern.

The difference is that it is not just BEHIND CLOSED DOORS but in the MEDIA-T.V., INTERNET, NEWSPAPERS etc... The whole society breathes it and is DESCENTISIZED to it, so much so that it becomes ACCEPTABLE and even ENCOURAGEBLE. BEHAVIOR!

 

Callypso said:

The thing is, you are probably a big supporter of liberalism so long as it suits YOUR best interests.

Why can't the Religion oriented people utilize it, while everyone else can and does?

 

Callypso, I sense STRONG BIASES! :rolleyes:

 

ACLU and demand your rights be protected. It's only when liberalism defends the rights of all those other unsavoury people who would be so much better off doing things your way, that you get a little hot under the collar.

Callyspo,

 

When Liberalism says that it protect the rights of Everyone but there are DIFFERENT standards for the MUSLIM or anyone that is PRO-RELIGION, then there is a problem and when Religious rights are being truncated and trumped by every other right-then there is a problem!

 

When a Muslim or a Catholic is being told that you have to ACCEPT what your RELIGION is against, then there is a problem.

 

When a Muslim's thoughts are being LEGISLATED, then there is problem and liberalism at the end of the day is SELF-SERVING.

 

 

Callypso said:

Wait, because France banned the hijab in public schools, I'm a hypocrite? Does that mean you are a terrorist because some Muslims fly passenger planes into buildings?

But ofcourse! Muslims are labelled as Terrorist due to the action of a few...

 

....and yeah, we don't see you typing pgs worth of response if an issue such as Banning Hijab in France came up. The proof is in the writing saxib.

[Faarax-Brawn]

. Sexual peccadilloes are not despicable unless the object of one's passions is a minor. So long as two (or more) adults consent to do whatever they do behind closed doors, it's none of my concern. I will not lynch them, persecute them, or think about them much. In so far as that is better for my mental health, then I guess it is a selfish choice

Actually, it should be your business(to Hate it that is).If you are a muslim,you are supposed to HATE these kind of activities that are clearly HATED by Allah s.w. Thereby making it by default of coz "Some of Your Business".

 

If you ever have the chance to talk about it to someone participating in such activities,you should probably voice your concern as it is your duty as a muslim to speak against what allah has forbiden. And yes that includes posting it on boards such as this or any other medium of communication.

 

My good deed of the day :cool:

[RendezVous]

Swinging...Wife Swapping...It makes me PRAY 5TIMES A DAY AND READING THE WHOLE HOLY QURAAN IN TWO DAYS

 

Originally posted by Bishaaro:

Swinging? um ok Acudubillahi mina shaydhani rajeem, I have never heard of this! If they want to sleep around with other people then why get married? :confused:

Growing up in a non-Muslim society is a challenging task. It gives us an opportunity to prove that we can live as Islaam Here we come across many things which are against the beliefs and teachings of Islaam. A Muslim is also a lot different from a non-Muslim in many respects.Muslims and non-Muslims are all human beings. So as humans we have a lot in common. But our way of life is entirely different from theirs.

This is serious..

 

Another thing is that in a non-Muslim society, we young people meet many young non-Muslims who can learn about Islaam by our own examples. So a non-Muslim society gives a chance to act as the ambassadors of Islaam for the non-Muslims. We would never have got this opportunity in a purely Muslim country. I hope, the Muslim youth will keep this in mind.

[Castro]

Aw-Faarax, atheer, you're preaching to the choir. The issue is not loving or hating it, not even accepting it, but one of understanding that "freedoms" afforded to us by the societies we live in, such as religion, the right to assemble, speech and so forth, also afford these nut-cases the same right to do the choo-choo train in bed. Make sense?

[Faarax-Brawn]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ Aw-Faarax, atheer, you're preaching to the choir. The issue is not loving or hating it, not even accepting it, but one of understanding that "freedoms" afforded to us by the societies we live in, such as religion, the right to assemble, speech and so forth, also afford these nut-cases the same right to do the choo-choo train in bed. Make sense?

Of course it does. But does everything make sense? Was it really over when the Germans bombed pearl habour?

 

After all the freedom in many western states is not even comparable to many islamic countries.

But at the same token,one(Muslim) must at least first and foremost speak against it(denounce it,hate it and of coz preach if given the chance) then if it falls on deaf ears,then one(muslim) must then mind his business. Clearly that was not evident in this argument. Make sense atheer?

[Castro]

^ Callypso is not coming from the same angle you and I are looking at it from. His is strictly a secular analysis of the situation. And yes, makes sense atheer. When have you not made any sense?

[Chocolate and Honey]

looooool, Walahi ya make me lough? call me "narrow minded" but as a person of faith(It is not about Islam) I just can't understand why we are still arguing about "wife swapping"? It is foolxumo fooqul foolxumo, no other explanation. Some people just love to hear themselves talk :mad: . Maybe I missed something but there was no compaign for banning this practice,no? wixiina waa cultural relativism and the theory is flawed in soo many ways, my friends.

SB. Are they harming anyone? No.

Really? Are you saying "gay bathouses" and "swinger's clubs" have no social and health impact?

Westerners have values and morals because of their openness.Closed societies have no values or morals.

Wow! what values and morals? I thought you were objective debater but I guess they convinced you with their fancy media and "freedom" crap! I wont make it easy for you by just urguing that I have better values. Lets be objective and let me say in far waaweyn: Every society has their own set of values and morals. Its just plain stup!d to beleive that there are one set of morals that all humans should be observing.[/b. You are free to defend the "swingers" "freedom" but plz dont dismiss other cultures' values. The what about you guys? argument is so yesterday :rolleyes: .

---------------------------------------------

Get Up!Up Even the best fall down sometimes

[N.O.R.F]

Absolutely. Such as blacks and whites eating in the same restuarant in the US. It was illegal in parts of the southern United States as recently as the 1960s. I'm sure the reason people decided that racial segregation was immoral wasn't because of the struggles of the Civil Rights-era activists. I'm sure it's because Hollywood is run by secularistic Blacks, who made movies and shows that portrayed sympathetic and funny black characters (Sidney Poitier, anyone?). This then 'groomed' ignorant whites so that they mistakenly think blacks should have 'human rights'and then they were duped into being 'selfish' and letting blacks sit on the bus seat right next to them. What next? Blacks as mayors of major cities? Blacks in the US Supreme Court?

Ahh, mocking is a good form of defence when all else is lost. What are you? Johnny Cockran? Utilise the race card when all else fails? So your alighning racial ahtred in the 60s to that of wife swapping???? I will not even bother with that but I still believe you are a groom

 

Honestly. You've contorted the meaning of the word selfish into something pretty interesting there, haven't you? Now looking after my and society's best interests is selfish and immoral? Are you actually reading what you type?

Like I said before, by eliminating any moral or religious values in your thought process (due to a secular way of thinking) makes you selfish and without morals. Like I said in my first post, what you think is unharmful to society may be different to my views.

 

I have moral values, sxb. I don't cheat. I don't steal, or murder, or otherwise deliberately hurt others.

I have gathered that. Yet you don’t have any qualms with wife swapping. Indeed you a person of high morals.

 

The hijab is hurting no one, and France is wrong to ban it. But that's my opinion. France's government thinks that the hijab is somehow harmful to French society, and so they banned it. The argument can then revolve around whether France is right or wrong about the hijab's deleterious effects.

What happened to your freedom of expression? Oh I forgot, it doesn’t suit the secular society and religious identity is frowned upon, but I’m the extreme one and indeed you are ‘free’.

 

Callypso, Castro iyo Socod Ha-kabadin, please define the term ‘freedom’ in the context of secularism and lets make this debate more interesting. The wife swapping thing is getting boring now.

 

All that effort and your argument has as many holes in it as wall in down town xamar, go and get some plaster before your next post please, I’m becoming bored.

[Castro]

^ Waryaa Northener, ninka iska dhici ninyahow anigaa meesha haysoo dhex galin.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ Callypso is not coming from the same angle you and I are looking at it from. His is strictly a secular analysis of the situation. And yes, makes sense atheer. When have you not made any sense?

WARYAA,stop flirting with me for lords sake.

 

But I hear you saxibow,this is one of the many conflicts we have to endure as muslims living in western countries. Do you tolerate it and just brush it off or do you speak against it?

If I tolerate it,I probably chose my freedom over my duty as a muslim,if I speak against it,then I have to be ready for the consequences and the repercussions.Belonging to a 'foreign religion' and all,I will probably jeaopadise the freedom to pray,perform and participate in my religious duties freely.

 

It’s a dilema dude,a tough one indeed. Then again is it any different from the religious freedom expressed by anti abortion groups,anti gay activist and all these conservative nut cases?

 

But hey,I don’t think we need to interfere in their business,but I think the least I can do as a muslim is hate,despise it and of coz speak against it. I wont however ,speak for it[at least for its freedom,as it appears to tolerate that has been forbiden and hated by Allah]

[N.O.R.F]

^^faaraxa degeesta!

 

^ Waryaa Northener, ninka iska dhici ninyahow anigaa meesha haysoo dhex galin

Cool saxib