Message Board Archives

This "72 virgins" stuff...well, men get "72 virgins", but what do women get?

I hope this is not blasphemous. It is a very honest question and hopefully I will get some satisfying and edifying responses here.

Dead serious.

In reply to Courtesy

1 small cock.

In reply to Courtesy

She get to be one of those 72 virgins.

Talk about getting fcuked twice.

In reply to Courtesy

shafted?

if all men get are virgins

then it logically follow that

women will get at most 1 man

doesn't it?

In reply to Courtesy




Equal work equates to equal pay therefore She should get 72 men who are virgins.

In reply to TheTrail

You flip the script and she becomes a whore.

In reply to Courtesy

Honestly this is a disrespectful thread.

In reply to nitro

And why is that so, good sir?

In reply to Courtesy

Disrespecting other people belief system.

In reply to nitro

It's a logical question.

In reply to black

I am referring to the comments after the question was posed.

In reply to nitro

I am still hoping to get some edifying responses but I respect the rights of others to express their opinions even if other persons may feel offended.

There is only one caveat, and that is, the comments should not infringe one's civil liberties.

I honestly want to be enlightened on this matter.

In reply to nitro

I guess it's not disrespectful when people like you who support Donald Trump's grabbing female parts.

In reply to TheTrail

It looks like Trump is the only man in this world
of 8 billion people grabbing female parts

In reply to Ridge

OK, since you are complaining of being left out, I am going to include you before you blow a gasket - that makes it two of 7.5 Billion.

BTW, the world population as of 2017 is 7.5 Billion.

In reply to Courtesy

Male driven world that is a carry over from centuries of indoctrination.
Women spend a lifetime being obedient only to see other women taking care of the husbands.

In reply to nick2020

In other words 1 small cock, both here and in space.

In reply to nick2020

Does it mean that women don't receive the benefits and pleasures when they adorn the vests and make the sacrifice?

One chick, seventy dicks.

Sounds like a porno movie.

In reply to black

Nope it's one dick,72 burkas.

In reply to Ridge

Doubtful he is the only one.

I personally do not want highly intoxicated people driving me home.

Some things some people do not want from a President.

Often wondered this myself.

Maybe they get spared being stoned by 72 virgin men up in the Jannah ?

I'm sure Mulla Bin Emir can shed some light on this subject.

In reply to black

In reply to Courtesy

What's wrong with blasphemy and being blasphemous?

It's incumbent upon every rational thinking person to challenge authority at every turn and opportunity.

In reply to SnoopDog

I am taken every precaution so that I do not end up like Salman Rushdie.

In reply to Courtesy

You only have to fear the Emir

In reply to Courtesy

So you are ready to give into the threats of religious death mobs and thugs because you have hurt their feelings?

We should all be like Salman Rushdie.

In reply to SnoopDog

No. It's basically respecting and not offending the tenets of one's religious beliefs.

In reply to Courtesy

Even if those beliefs are outrageously absurd or immoral?

In reply to SnoopDog

And who or what determines this outrage or absurdity?

And even if the assessment is morally reprehensible to the onlooker does this individual have to assume the role of a moral police and apply sanctions, penalties or reprisals?

In reply to Courtesy

Basic rationale and common sense.

In reply to Courtesy

Do you consider female genital mutilation morally reprehensible? Do you consider stoning rape victims morally reprehensible? Do you consider the Pope's view that aids is bad but condoms are worst morally reprehensible? Do you consider the murder of cartoonist, or death warrants placed on novelist in order to censor and silence them morally reprehensible?

Because if you tell certain people that they can't mutilate the genitals of females, that they can't stone rape victims or throw acid in a woman's face because she forgot to cover her hands in public, that using birth control is a sin worst than being afflicted with aids, that they can't murder members of the free press because of cartoons drawn of their prophet, they will tell you that you have offended the tenets of their deeply held religious beliefs.

This idea that religious beliefs are somehow worthy of respect is completely bullshyte. What is worst the cowardly capitulation and self censorship of people who fear reprisals from threats of violence from suicide murderers lest they "offend" their deeply held religious beliefs. These are the same type of people who have now forced their way into the executive branch of the U.S. government and will now legislate that science is fiction, climate change is a hoax, and that school children should be thought the absurdity that the world is six thousand years old and that man and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time.

This is the type of world that we are leaving for our children because we dare not offend.

In reply to SnoopDog

Brother, I have lived my life with a straight and simple rule: Don't infringe on my civilities liberties or you will pay dearly for this in the courts. I also try as much as possible not to tread on other persons peoples' civil liberties. And if I do I should expect to pay a price for this.

Other than that, an individual can do what the fuck he wants to do with his life. I am no moral police.

So for me, if you want to lynch persons because of their beliefs (infringe on his civil liberties) suffer the consequences.

Infringement of the criminal law on the other hand, is for the judicial system.

It's that simple mate...do the fuck you want to do but don't encroach in my space.

In reply to Courtesy

The most important civil liberty is freedom of expression. The people who you seem very careful not to offend would love nothing better than to silence and censor anything they deem offensive. They will kill or threaten to kill anyone if their deeply held religious beliefs are offended.

If we capitulate to these murdering thugs because we fear not to offend them then freedom of expression and the free expression of ideas and argument will be gone.

The question in your opening post is a perfectly good one. It encourages discussion, discourse, and debate which ultimately fosters understanding. You should never feel the need to qualify such a question with the proviso that you hope you are not offending anyone.

In reply to SnoopDog

If someone does something offensive to me I know where to seek redress.



Again, I know where to go to seek redress.



I don't capitulate defending my civil liberties or any criminal infringement against me.



I hold dearly to this: In much the same way I guard jealously my rights. I take every precaution not to offend other persons.

And if I offend them I expect them to react.

In reply to Courtesy

So what if someone says that the question in your opening post offended them? What next? Will you apologize and withdraw the query and thereby ending all hope of a discussion or debate?

Is that the type of society we want? Where anyone can stifle debate and discussion with the "I'm offended" card? I hope not.

In reply to Courtesy

This is how they react when you offend their deeply held religious beliefs.

In reply to SnoopDog

I will apologize and decide based on the reasons whether I want to continue the discussion further.

In reply to Courtesy

The moment you apologize they have made the decision for you.

In reply to SnoopDog

Brother, if someone infringes on my rights he or she pays a price.

My country's constitution and laws grant me these rights.

In reply to Courtesy

If someone tells me they are offended it is him/her that has infringed on my right to freedom of expression. Not the other way around.

Anyways, let's get back to the opening question. All three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) view women in much the same way; as property of men. They are to serve men and make children. I doubt their status in a make believe heaven will be any different.

In reply to SnoopDog

Mate, you are operating on the premise that you have a right to say any and everything. I don't...

That "freedom" you talk about above is always circumscribed.



Thank you sincerely for the above mate.

Btw, someone made this comment in T&T today and it's in the headlines: "...That men think women are their property and hence the reason for the increased domestic violence".

In fairness to the individual, he did say a minority of "women think they own men".

In reply to Courtesy

I'm operating on the constitutionally protected right to freely express my ideas and opinions.

A few years back there was famous case in England where the holocaust denier David Irving sued another author Debroah Lipstad because she had published a book explaining how Irving deliberately misrepresented and distorted evidence to fit his narrative that the holocaust didn't happen.

During the trial Lipstadt testified that indeed Irving had every right to express his opinion and belief that the holocaust was a fabrication. She would never deny him that right. What she disagreed with was his generous use of bunk science and deliberate distortion of historical evidence to support his opinion - hence her rebuttal in her book.

The idiots who murdered the French cartoonists could have easily penned or drawn their own rebuttals in the same vein as Lipstadt. But instead, they were deeply offended and they demanded through murder and terror that no one shall ever offend their deeply held religious beliefs.

It almost seems like it was some wording that was created to get a men to to kill for you......go kill him and you get to fcuk 72 "clean" women....but thats just me

im amazed how ppl try to jump though all sorts of hoops just to keep their archaic beliefs relevant

that kind of thought should be insulated and ridiculed out of the modern world

In reply to SnoopDog

Mate, I repeat: this freedom as guaranteed by the constitutions is always circumscribed.



I will defend all freedom guaranteed by one's constitution. Dat simple.

In reply to conman

Endorsed and co-signed.

In reply to conman

Where have you been conman!? We beat this topic for weeks a lil while ago..it's like dejavu right now..I'm happy you can now take the baton,have had it with proponents of these archaic man made beliefs..I would observe from afar and hop in if necessary,but I think we're in good hands...

In reply to Courtesy

Including the freedom to offend? Because without this freedom, freedom of expression doesn't exist.

In reply to bravos
sorry sorry
coming back to fight the good fight

In reply to SnoopDog

As long as that offense does not abrogate the constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual.

In reply to Courtesy

Well I'm offended by your need to qualify a perfectly reasonable question for fear of offending.

In reply to SnoopDog

In life we will be offended by lots of things.

In reply to Courtesy

HAHAHAHA!!! Touche.

One of the best talk I've ever seen/heard on the topic of freedom of speech and expression.

In reply to SnoopDog

Tks. I will hone in on it later.

In reply to Courtesy

It will be well worth the 20 minutes.

In reply to Courtesy

when you say constitutional rights, what are you referring to? the USA or any and all other countries constitutional rights?

In reply to SnoopDog

I have listened to Hitchens and like me he does not not venture beyond the boundaries of civility and lawfullness.

In reply to conman

You are afforded constitutional protection everywhere in the universe where your right is enshrined.

In reply to Courtesy

Who said anything about venturing beyond the boundaries of civility and lawfullness?

Let's look at the question in your opening post. If you felt that the question was within the boundaries of civility and lawfullness why did you then feel the need to qualify it with the proviso of not wanting to blasphemy? It's a redundant and irrelevant qualification.

In reply to SnoopDog

Who determines what's civil?

If I chose to extend a courtesy to anyone... that's civil.

In reply to Courtesy

Are you saying your question was not civil or lawful?

In reply to SnoopDog

Absolute NOT.

But I am saying, if anyone feels offended, I am willing to apologize and move on or not to move. This is within the realm of being courteous and by extension being civil.

In reply to Courtesy

I think you misunderstand the meaning of civility and lawfullness in the context of this discussion on free speech and free expression. If someone tells me they are offended I tell them "good for you, is that all you've got to offer?". And if that is indeed all they have to offer (which isn't anything at all) then I move on.

People these days think that just by uttering the words "I'm offended" gives them a special right to feel aggrieved and to shut down and stifle debate. Take that stupid word "Islamophobia". The moment someone mentions that word it means they are not interested in anything which challenges their viewpoint or their religious beliefs and more importantly they don't want anyone else to hear it. You are shamed into silence and censored by the religious and PC police. Some of them of course feel so offended and feel so aggrieved that they take matters in their own hands to silence the debate. That is civility and lawfullness for you. The people who feel offended are generally the ones who gives two shytes about civility and lawfullness.

In reply to SnoopDog

No. You escalated the argument to that of "free speech"...it was not about free speech or denial of free speech.

It's simply this. I asked a ginger question or introduced a ginger topic with every likelihood that someone or a cohort might be offended (annoyed).

I was simply confronting that reality that if someone was offended or felt annoyed, as I always do in civil discourse, I respect the persons' views, apologize and move on if I decide to move on.

That simple.

In reply to Courtesy

The moment you qualified your question with the proviso not blasphemy it became about free speech and freedom of expression.

If we can't blasphemy how can we ask questions like the one you posed and invite debate and discourse? It's very simple indeed. Cart before the horse stuff.

In reply to SnoopDog

Now are you saying that persons of a different culture cannot be offended by what in their culture is considered as blasphemous?

If you step on someone's toes (literally) won't you apologize?

This has nothing to do with free speech...it's down to what I consider as being civil.

Dis done for me...it is becoming circuitous.

In reply to Courtesy

explain

In reply to Courtesy

What? Ummm....where did I say any of this. I thought we were talking about religion since the opening question was about the interpretation of a topic from a particular religious text. Are we not?

In reply to Courtesy

Sure, but does it matter if someone is offended?
Or is the problem with those that act out on their offence?

In reply to Courtesy

Listen Bro. It's really very simple. If you want to ask the sort of question you asked then you have to be prepared and to have the courage to blasphemy without fear of reprisals from the "I'm offended" brigade.

If you or any of the rest of us fear the "I'm offended" brigade then that's the end of free speech and free expression. Because literally anything will be offensive to them.

In reply to SnoopDog

Now let me now tell you the purpose of my thread:

It was to highlight the slowly formed, deeply engrained, deeply entrenched, extraordinarily pervasive cultural beliefs, that defines women as childbearing properties and her status in life is to be a companion to a man.

And while exploring the topic I considered the pitfalls and ramifications of such a post bearing in mind, that I may need to conquer such hurdles.

In reply to Courtesy

It was fairly obvious what the purpose of the question and the thread was the moment I read it. What puzzled me however was the qualification about blasphemy. It was a curious contradiction.

I ask again, if we can't blasphemy (and thereby offend) how can we ask questions like the one you posed and invite debate and discourse?

In reply to conman

Yep and only Courtesy can determine this.

In reply to SnoopDog

You said you cannot.

I just did. But I was also prepared to apologize if it offended any person's culture or beliefs.

A person should be able to say or do any damn thing, as long as he/she is not trampling on individual rights or breaking the law.

In reply to black

It is that simple. And you may or may not apologize if someone is offended while you are saying something which is within the parameters of the law.

In reply to conman

The problem with the "I'm offended" religious brigade is that when you ask them "is that it? Do you have anything else to add or are there opposing view points which you wish for us to consider" many of them just simple re-state "I'm offended because you have hurt my feelings about my deeply held religious beliefs" and that's it. The debate generally ends there or they resort to violence or threats or intimidation. And then we are the ones who are expected to be civil and lawfull.

In reply to Courtesy

Get your litany of apologies memorized and ready for use.

In reply to SnoopDog

Back to the topic at hand. No one is offended:

In reply to black

Asking questions is the foundation of learning and the acquisition of wisdom. For someone to tell me it is offensive to ask certain questions because the questions (not even the answers) offends them is frankly ridiculous, not to say profoundly absurd.

In reply to Courtesy

Fixed it for ya Bro.

In reply to SnoopDog

Mate get it right, it is not offensive to ask a question.

Someone can be annoyed (offended) by you asking the question as there may be a variety of personal reasons.

In reply to Courtesy

Um...that's another contradiction.

In reply to Courtesy

I have the right to say it, you have the right to be offended, it's not against the law. An apology is an expression of regret, if that person chooses to do so.

In reply to SnoopDog

What is the contradiction? Please enlighten me.

In reply to black

Absolutely.

In reply to black

It's also a surefire end to the discussion. Tell me how the discussion can continue if one party is now offended and has drawn out an apology from the offending party? Where does the answering of the question go from there?

In reply to SnoopDog

How wide is that goal post and is it in the same position?

In reply to Courtesy

Curious that a perfectly reasonable question about Muslim women, and the afterlife, can't be answered by any one of the number of Muslims on this forum.

Perhaps they are offended?

In reply to Courtesy

The moment one apologies to one of those "I'm offended" morons the game isn't even allowed to start.

In reply to SnoopDog

I will not second-guess Emir. I have already infuriated (offended) him for what he says is "teaming up with the GIOD's" or some other grouping here.

In reply to SnoopDog

I would like to see you tell Granger that and see how he responds!

In reply to googley

Listen Bro, even Soulja Bhai own people ready to stone he rass.

In reply to Courtesy

now if we want to seriously tackle this........they fulfilled their purpose to allah, is there any greater gift?

In reply to conman

Thanks much.

But I can see the men get extra perks even when both are fulfilling their what you refer to as "purpose."

In reply to Courtesy

Hozrot Ali (r.a) narrated that the Apostle of Allah said, "There is in paradise an open market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of men and women. When a man desires a beauty, at once he will have intercourse with them as desired.”

Hadith: Al Hadiths, Vol. 4, Page-172, No.34:


Quran-(52:17-20): "They will recline (with ease) on thrones arranged in ranks. And We shall marry them to Huris (fair females) with wide lovely eyes.” "There they shall pass from hand to hand a (wine) cup, free from any Laghw….”

Quran: (37:40-48 ): …they will sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches.

Quran: (2:25): "And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous good deeds, that for them will be Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise)……… .and they will be given these things in resemblance (i.e., in the same form but different in taste) and they shall have therein Azwajun Muhtahharatun (purified mates and wives) and that they will have abide therein forever”.


Sounds like women will have a whale of time serving men eternally in heaven.

In reply to SnoopDog

Thanks mate. This is enlightening.

In reply to Courtesy

You're welcome Bro.

But I wouldn't describe the continued slavery and subjugation of women in a make belief afterlife enlightening. Informative perhaps.

In reply to SnoopDog

Informative yes.

"Enlightening" wrong choice of word.

Cheers.

In reply to SnoopDog

I always feel that islam is the religion that you can see the con easier.

"There is a free sex market that allows you to have sex with anyone of your choosing." Would sound crazy to anyone who heard it.

"Theres a free sex market that allows you to have sex with anyone of your choosing IF YOU LISTEN TO ALLAH" but this makes more sense

In reply to conman

I agree. All of the world's major religions are a product of the time they were created. In the case of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) bronze aged women were essentially no different from cattle. They were property of men. Sure some had prominent roles in their stories and fables like Moses' mother, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed's first wife etc. But these religions were spawned from male dominated patriarchal societies. A sex market which allows men to choose any women (regardless of protest from the women?) would not sound crazy to a bronze age Israelite or Arab.

It's therefore unsurprising that given their earthly view and treatment of that time, women's existence in a bronze age afterlife wouldn't be any more different.

In reply to SnoopDog

so why has bronze aged thinking survived this long?

In reply to conman

Because it benefits certain people, mostly those in power and authority.

Only in the last century, and entirely due to the suffrage movement, have women obtained equal rights as men under the law in Western societies.