Sunday, October 4, 2009
This is just a quick link to follow -- an "aside." These are links to interesting things that, for one reason or another, I didn't place into a full posting. Click the link to visit the full article. Go to the blog index for a regular listing of posts.
MEMRI: Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid Describes the Virgins of Paradise, Says That In Paradise, A Man Has the Strength of 100 in Eating, Drinking, and Sex - 'Sheikh Al-Munajid is known for his controversial statements and fatwas - including a fatwa stating that Mickey Mouse should be killed. He called the 2008 Beijing Olympics the "bikini Olympics" and referred to them as "satanic," and has stated that women must not exercise in public. He has also discussed how Western "beasts" use public toilets and wear colored underwear "to conceal all that filth." Following the December 2004 Southeast Asia earthquake and tsunami, Al-Munajid called the disaster "punishment" for sex tourism on New Year's Eve and for drunkenness on Christmas...'
by allah i love this man. you are a rare gem in between crystals. if you are loved by god then what does the hate of humens effect you.
although speaking the truth in this age is forbiden because of "realites" you still speak the truth not regarding that people will mock you.
so when the olympics was established an greeks used to run nacked.....when nobody can ask why they are naked or why they wear bekinies....you ask. its not about morality anymore its about olympics and money and advertisment and the statue of hosting the olympics. the pretigeo of the greek godesses
disastours?! its nature only. god doesnt punish by disastours and horricanes. only in the past god did but knowadays its nature only. people became engulfed in nature . we are not humens that god created to use nature nd benifit from it we are just nature! the thing that god gave us "wisdom" disapeared therefore
insulting mick mouse?! how dare you mr munjid. I mean if you insulted a prophet know adays its much easiar. moreover you may be considerd a liberal and elevated in hollywood.
talking about the lifeafter "in details"......what proof have you that there is life after to take about it in details?! wjo believes in the unseen?!
we really are in the days of turbalance
one of the greates posts I read so thank you mr solomon its rare to see a man specking so truthfully and to learn from his simple truths how to view life .
I am sure you are not contarvirsiol in your fatwas but they simply lost the path....and you now that more than me.
wow its like cold water.
:::::::their similitude is that of a man that kindled a fire;when it lighted all around him,allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness.so they could not see.:::::
whats the use of all the world if they lost the real light
Yo, Dexter! Does Arabian's comment qualify as Internet performance art?
The good imam Sheik al-Munajid can't have issued his stream of semi-consciousness fatwas in drunken stupors, so he must have been whacked out of his gourd in hashish dreams.
Someone do the math for me: If a homicide bomber gets 72 virgins for all eternity and his virility is multiplied by 100, how long will it take him to plow through the virgins? Factor in the pointlessness of carnal pleasures in the afterlife, especially after the explosive belt has turned his guts and his manhood into a bloody mess.
you are a real idiot.
so if it were 71 virgins or 3 or 6.....would that convince anybody that is already uncapable of understanding.
and let me do the math for you 72 vigins nowdays are normal. king abdul aziz married over 128 times and there are many figures like him who marries more.
so............ whats your problem now with 72 virgins.?! its the number or what. ok lets say viagra after 6 years invents a pill that makes a man 100 times stronger.........wich i doubt. will that convince you that mr munjid s right.
the problem is not in the numbers dude its in your vulger head.
know here is my two cents.....
if you are mocking mr munjid because of the number .....your issue is easy.
if you are mocking him because of him talking about the afterlife....or because muslims have no right to talk about the afterlife because they hold a false religon. then......your are in deep shit.
::we only give them length of days so that they increase in sins!:::
so go vanish dude I hope you find what its your problem with munjid or islam instead of joining the heard and wearing "anti-terrorist" t-shirt without knowg what the hell your talking about
by the way mr napp I admit I qualify to the performance art .
but how about you grabbing a calculater and and doing the houshold expences of marrying 72 virgins.....maybe you should factor in the blackberry bills and groceries. I hope your calculater has more than seven digits space.
You know, from a female point of view this philosophy is quite upsetting.
Women in general, I think, want to be loved and cherished as individuals, not as beasts in a stable. After all we are not merely "tuns of pleasure" to quote Durrell and nor are we mares in a herd. We are human beings with full consciousness. We have emotional and physical needs and we desire closeness with our mates and we desire respect and most of us are very uncomfortable if we aren't the exclusive mate.
I don't think this is merely cultural either. I've seen films - from India, from Persia, from Israel, in which women (and gay men) were badly damaged by cultural practices that Middle Eastern men might consider normal and desireable. The filmmakers were sensitive enough to see the damaged partners as human beings and reflect their anguish.
What am I missing here? Seriously I am curious.
Maybe this is partly conditioning. Sex = love and commitment - between two people. Is that merely conditioning or is it part of us?
Or, is sensuality merely a surface matter, to be enjoyed and appreciated for the moment? In that case why don't women have multiple mates?
Or, is sensuality part of the animal act of reproduction, in which case we're back to Women As Female Animals only? Where does that leave gay people, asexual people or people who don't want kids?
This equation makes sense ONLY if you see male humans as stallions rather than as people capable of sharing love and commitment with one partner (of either sex I might add), and women as wombs and/or temporary sexusl partners.
I admit I'm puzzled.
The fact is, these descriptions of the afterlife are really reflections of what people desire here and now, aren't they? Or at any rate some kind of optimal version of what already exists in some cultures, ie polygamy, which is a pretty raw deal for individual women.
I suppose being one of many wives is better than starving to death with no home whatsoever but it's less than optimal isn't it?
And - aren't there better ways of caring for "lone" women than marrying them off to a stable of wives?
For example what about educating women and encouraging them (us) to support ourselves in dignity and self-respect and also allowing us to choose our own mates (what if we don't want a mate at all? In that case aren't mass marriages a form of rape?)
Maybe somebody will answer me straight up without defensiveness.