Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Guest Account Ali

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Guest Account Ali

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,566 profile views
  1. The irony is that it took Saddam to genocide Kurds and The American invasion of Iraq (where soldiers where notoriously racist against Arabs) for Iraqi arabs to realize how disgusting racism is and what it does to a nation and its people. It also provided a humbling experience for Iraqi's as well. As I remember a local Iraqi on Ziyarah telling me how tame Iraqi racism has become, especially post Saddam and post American Invasion and even post ISIS. Because after Iraq was destroyed by non-arab powers, other arab powers did jack to help Iraq at all, and all other arab powers in the ME would have loved to see Iraq burn to the ground. But it was ironically non-arab powers in the ME region (like Iran for instance) who helped them out the most when no other arab power would. To the point where now more than ever Iraqi's are opening up to the idea of interracial marriage (with like Iranians, among other shia ethnicities) with shia men/women of other ethnicity. Many argue that it was passive Iraqi racism/nationalism that led to Saddam staying in power and doing what he did. And if Iraqi's were to reignite their passive racism to what it once was, well then their country would be ruined. Maybe Allah taught Iraqi's a lesson. Maybe other Arab countries need to be taught similar lessons as well, through blood be it deemed necessary. I am not saying non-arabs aren't racist. They are, but arab racism, especially when taken to political levels (Baathism, etc.) turns out to be the most sordid degree of racism, even compared to say Iranian racism, Desi racism, etc.
  2. Salaam, I know I am responding kind of late to this topic, but my opinion would be that it is fine if you have a certain racial preference because you care about compatibility of values and cultural values. But I wanted to ask others that respond to this question as "No I wouldn't marry a non-arab", suppose you did marry an arab and say resided in the west with your husband/wife and had kids. And we all know no matter how hard we try to teach kids growing up in the west to obey parental values, they will develop their own taste's and personalities. So in this case if your kids (even with your encouragement for them to marry of the same culture/race) want to marry a shia (shia, this much I agree, us shia's shouldn't let our children marry non-shias, unless they are sunnis who revere the ahlul bayt) non-arab person. And assuming this person checks out in terms of akhlaq and manners and iman (shia-wise), would you prohibit them to marry outside the race/culture? Again, I am not talking about what you guys want specifically, but of your future (and if current trends of globalization/westernization continue) children. You can control what you prefer, but you can't control what your children prefer (I don't mean you don't enforce shia Islam on them, you should). @Sumerian I am curious to hear your thoughts on this post of mine. And anyone else here who answered "yes" to the OP's question.
  3. Absolutely irrelevant to my point. Really, I could have sworn I said something along the lines of "I treat others the way they treat me". You ain't a victim here, you started off by being rude to me, so I return the favor. Glad to know we both believe in this concept. Just like how a parent will always defend their child, even if the child is a spoilt brat. Not saying the OP is a spoilt brat, but you get what I mean. Denying it only confirms my suspicions.
  4. Ahh, classical. Ahh yes, all it take is the verbosity of Gaius and all of a sudden you can just magically claim you that you totally didn't mean to insult other people and that they all somehow lack the proper IQ to understand the beauty of such verbosity. Are you sure you are not just defending people for the sake of it? Also, I hope you can see the glaring contradictions between your latest response to me and this comment below.
  5. My oh my, such strong emotions. Perhaps the one with issues concerning their feelings might be you, again. Consistency is the key. Insult me all you want, but when you say things like this but then somehow think you can insult me. Me thinks perhaps you need to work on being consistent. You know, making sure that what you type out does not immediately contradict itself in the next sentence.
  6. Essentially you made a big rant about how we shouldn't be judging people, but then you proceed to judge me by calling me a misogynist. And then you make further and further rants about how judging is bad, while further being condescending to me. Man, talk about inconsistency. You know, next time when you decide to rant about something, make sure you actually adhere to the advice you give in your rant. I could care less if you insult me, but what I dislike is when you simultaneously then decry "don't judge people!!!". And of course I am going to respond to people who defend your shenanigans on this topic. And to be honest I am disappointed in both of those people who defended you, I thought it was a given you two were supposed to be more pious than me. But then even both of you managed to somehow roll out the ad-hominems and defend the OP. Bruh, after all the shenanigans you pulled, this advice applies to you the most out of everyone here. Especially since more harsher words could be used to describe the inconsistency in your posts. One minute "don't judge people!!!", next minute "You are a misogynist!" or "You are religiously immature!". lol. My irritation is from inconsistent people like you. Who think they can one minute make some emotional post about why judging people is bad, but then the next minute are either mocking or harshly judging someone. In real life I take part in religious debates. But the difference is none of these people who judge me or insult me claim they are religous, pious, self-righteous. They admit they give zero cares about triggering someone, insulting their feelings, or judging them. So I could care less about their judgements or comments. Heck, at times when they judge me and it turns out they were right about something concerning me, then I heed said judgements. Just be like Monad, a guy who never claims to be religious, pious, or cares about not judging people, yet still mocks people and judges them. Dude has insulted me before on other topics, but the reason I don't care is because he at least in the same breath doesn't say things like "Don't judge people!!!".
  7. Man. Talk about Judgement. Perhaps try addressing my points instead of just screaming "ignorance!" Coming from you and the rude behavior you have shown towards me (not that I care), I guess this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And calling me religiously immature(not that I care), where did all that talk of no judgement go? Call me what you want, but I value consistency. If you make whole rants dedicated to not judging people, the least you could do is follow up on that behavior. Bruh, in what world is "women of higher SES are not modest" not generic? For reference: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/ And really, is it that illogical to assume women who are richer tend to be more self-absorbed (men also)? Most of the women on my mom's side are pretty wealthy, guess what? They aren't that religious. But the women on my Dad's side? They either grew up in poor conditions or are currently either lower income or lower middle class. Guess what? They are pretty religious. I see this all the time with other Desi families I know, and if such a behavior is so common evidently a sociological observation is not taboo. "Additionally, since you are so convinced of this illogical theory, then why doesn't he just take away all the money from these high-class women - problem solved. Let me know if the logic is too hard to follow." Bruh, that is what happened initally. But of course, a lot of them got away via immigrating to western countries. Perhaps maybe the Iranian Diaspora spreading propoganda against Iran and hate Iran just coincidentally happen to be uber rich? "Being religiously immature, you don't get it - no one likes to be reprimanded in public." Ahh, I suppose you can't see the glaring contradiction now can you? On the one hand you mock me by calling me religiously immature, but then you say people ought to not be reprimanded in public. I don't care what new inventive labels you throw at me, but try to be consistent. "Even the quran uses characteristics rather than personalities when admonishing people" Do you have a scholarly tafsir to back that up? This response of yours was in reference to a response I made to this response of yours: I suppose this phrase has absolutely zero undertones meant to mock the recipient? Those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#Mystique (yes I know it is wikipedia but it does cite its sources and are verifiable) So then, good to know that Ayatollah Khomeini was on the haqq when he drafted things like the modesty law, among other laws. Here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= Nothing makes one amass wealth except greed, and the greedy is wretched and dispraised. 19ـ لايجمع المال إلا الحرص ،والحريص شَق مذْموم - https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/36599 Not a wrong reference, American's literally invoke the Constitution and Bill of rights to regulate their morality and their day to day lives. Heck, things like Gay marriage among other things were moral issues that now have become state controllled. I am suprised an American would say such a thing about the US. On paper, this is what the US claims to do, but in reality the government is increasingly getting involved in the personal affairs of people. Islamic governments operate in a different matter. In the sense that they reserve the right to enforce that which if not enforced details a negative influence amongst the greater public. So in regards to prayer, since it is something personel (except for Juma), you not praying will not affect the general public. But, for example if you are caught drinking in public or showing your awrah in public. You can forcibly be made to obey the Islamic law, because you are negatively affecting the greater public. "egalitarian misogynist" So I am apparently in favor of gender equality but I hate women? Try checking back with this phrase of yours. Call me what you want and give as many proofs, I don't care. But perhaps realize the contradictory nature of your statements. On the one hand you mock me by calling me a misogynist, but then you say people ought to not judge each other. I don't care what new inventive labels you throw at me, but try to be consistent. In other words, call me a misogynist all you want, but you better not be claiming that you don't like judging people or that you are against judging people. You aren't. Of course I called you misogynist What else do you call a person who says, " And I wouldn't be too worried about these rebel women. All of them are either upper middle class or just edgy adolescent girls. Western media dare not try to depict your average lower middle class or low class Iranian woman (most women in Iran come from a lower middle class SES) now would they? " Well if their were men who were rebellious about their hijab, then yes I would call both of them rebels. Difference is most men aren't rebellious against Iran regarding the modesty laws, but yet women are. Oh, and the edgy adolescent guys also advocate for haram things as well. And I don't hate just rich women, but rich men as well. Rich men and women both tend to be less religious, but men and women manifest their disobedience to God differently. Men manifest it by being womanizers mostly (see the numerous sunni caliphs and aristocracy throughout history) and women manifest it by indulging in immodesty among other things.
  8. Wow. Just wow. Do you even reflect on what you write? Literally everything you wrote contradicts itself. Consistency. Consistency is the key. In other words, follow your own advice.
  9. Come on now, don't be lazy. Comb through each and every one of my posts in the first page to prove your point. Else... Ahh, but can I also use what is essentially ad-hominems to describe you lot when you happen to fit the Bill? Or will your feelings get offended? Call me what you want, I don't care. But I take issue with those who think they can essentially character assassinate me and not expect to be insulted back. And from my vantage and your post history. You seem to fit the definition of a misandrist, no? Yes, that would make you self-hating. Those who label others as misogynistic are often times themselves misandrists. And heck, some feminists acknowledge this reality and proudly proclaim they are misandrists. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201608/misandry-the-invisible-hatred-men%3famp To use your own language against you. Don't be coy with me, I know you are steaming right now. You can't have been any thing other than above boiling point when you use such language as "camel frothing at the mouth". Gotta be above 100 Celsius right now. As for the OP's claim about socioeconomic status, this may be long but give it a go: https://academic.oup.com/socrel/article/71/1/25/1622317
  10. Ahh, I would anticipate it takes some strong emotional investment to make such colorful depictions of my supposed state of anger. Unless you happen to naturally be as verbose as Shakespeare. And the OP literally called me a mysognist. Another term that is sociological in origin that people constantly misuse and is highly politicised. He literally used that term to dismiss my points. But I guess I haven't gotten on your good side yet. So... And the OP isn't ranting as Well? His whole spiel about how socioeconomic status having zero to do with religiosity. Really now, that wasn't a rant? And him calling me a mysognist, that wasn't him raving?
  11. Seriously, even though he started this whole thing by calling me a misogynist and made multiple childish sarcastic remarks. Really now... And the OP saying his points without insulting me...Really? Are you for real? I challenge you to go back and show me where I insulted him first before he used an ad-hominem against me. In what world is the term mysognist not used as an ad-hominem? And you say a lot but give no evidence. To whom did I throw under the bus? Dude can call me a misogynist but apparently shame on me for doubting his akhlaq and saying he might be an ally for women? Are you for real? The former is a compliment believe it or not according to liberals. The latter is a common insult used by everyone nowadays. I may not have good akhlaq, but I treat people the way they treat me. If you are going to throw ad-hominems at me. Then I will throw them back at you. The OP was clearly hurling ad-hominems at me, so I hurled them back.
  12. Thanks. But I also treasure this advice just as much: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-N0yXGVWS1Y
  13. @Intellectual Resistance Thanks for the advice. But I think a "not so attractive" person such as myself can be masculine as it were. Just gotta find a wife who is at my level of attractiveness (which isn't enough) than me or on my same level and I'm set for the rest of my life. Lol
  14. Correct. But with the current rising trend of women taking on the negative things men do, it's only a matter of time until this issue also becomes an egalitarian one. Give it another 20-25 years. This will be an egalitarian issue as well. The irony of it all.
  • Create New...