ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE][quote=Ya'qub wrote:

If these are haraam too why weren't these videos taken down?

It seems really odd and/or hypocritical..

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

Either way, it's the actual act that is wrong and what must be questioned. Why are young Muslims, doing such disgusting things?

definitely have to agree there, that's what i meant by the bigger picture. i wasn't arguing the point of whether the video should be there or not. i was just trying to make sure that people don't fall off topic that's all.

whats done is done and cannot be undone.

Ocean wrote:

The video didn't promote any bad/unislamic actions and the point merely was to discuss and derive a sound judgement, the idea was not to cause offence and it didn't. People have said what I wish to say and I'm sure you don't want to read through another lengthy post.

There is nothing TO discuss re the video. The video was both unislamic and filthy.

The video was asking a question.

Either way, the video is now gone so the only thing left to discuss is the question.

PS I also don't think it is a sort of fascism removing the video and I dont think that means all interesting discussions will be killed off (saying which, I am not always a fan of confrontation, and THAT may kill off discussions.)

Ocean wrote:

In future, I doubt this forum would produce anything original if this is how it (the material and forum members) are being battered with authority.

:roll:

i dont see how you came to this conclusion.

I really thought this topic was suppose to be a joke-y kinda thing, and well..as i said, i only watched the first hmm.. 12 seconds and went *_*.

let's just drop it, create another more interesting (and worth the discussion) topic. As people are now more willing (And there are more people) to have discussion, let's have discussion. about something WORTH discussing.

i like the word discuss.

They took it off, why??
I kinda liked it, bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, bang, bang, bang...

Ya'qub wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

Ya'qub wrote:

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

Salaam
Video has been removed due to it being UnIslamic and because I have received several complaints.
In future think about what you post on her and if it fits Islamic morals etc
Wasalaam

What was in the video?
And why do Muslims always want to ban everything??

if its something that is against islamic teachings/morals then why would you wanna see it/look at it?

I thought u wrote an editorial called 'no taboo in islam' & published articles about haram things, to discuss maturely..

Has revival changed it's mandate?

Have u got funding from the MCB?

now that is out of order!

So you DIDN'T write that editorial?

I don't know what was on the video so cant really discuss it, but I've seen people posting videos/documentaries of the effects of war crimes, forced marriages, honour killings etc.

If these are haraam too why weren't these videos taken down?

It seems really odd and/or hypocritical..

So that's why I asked if the Revival has changed in the last year or so...

And now asking questions is 'out of order' (!)

So that answers the question that the Revival has, indeed, changed.

Why did you want to change it? Is it to get funding or something?

If so, then that's ok, its you should really be open about who has influence.

Or not censure something without explanation

NO taboo means there is nothing you cant talk/discuss in Islam...if video content is UnIslamic then how can that be seen in the sae way!
Its so obvious.
For the rest of your comment about accusing me of being hypocritical/revival funding- very dissapointing to hear that from you.
Ask any question but get your facts right before you ask. Revival gets no funding from anyone; its based on adverts.End of.

You wrote:

The video was asking a question.

Either way, the video is now gone so the only thing left to discuss is the question.

PS I also don't think it is a sort of fascism removing the video and I dont think that means all interesting discussions will be killed off (saying which, I am not always a fan of confrontation, and THAT may kill off discussions.)

without the video how does anyone know whats being discussed?

only thing ppl sed so far is that a girl was being 'disgusting', but that doesnt mean anything.

if someone whose seen the video can give a blow by blow account of it (no pun intended if that is indeed a pun), by giving exact information without being too graphic, then please do. unless the editor will remove that comment too.

If you really want to see it, Rawrs has reposted the link yano, in a comment up there ^ (i think)

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:

If you really want to see it, Rawrs has reposted the link yano, in a comment up there ^ (i think)

that's what i was about to say, Rawr reposted the link, so watch it, i think it's round page 1 or 2. she posted it right after you asked for it the first time.

Ya'qub wrote:

You wrote:

The video was asking a question.

Either way, the video is now gone so the only thing left to discuss is the question.

PS I also don't think it is a sort of fascism removing the video and I dont think that means all interesting discussions will be killed off (saying which, I am not always a fan of confrontation, and THAT may kill off discussions.)

without the video how does anyone know whats being discussed?

only thing ppl sed so far is that a girl was being 'disgusting', but that doesnt mean anything.

if someone whose seen the video can give a blow by blow account of it (no pun intended if that is indeed a pun), by giving exact information without being too graphic, then please do. unless the editor will remove that comment too.

The first ten seconds seem pornographic to me.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

YouShutup wrote:

It seems you have a lot of time on your hands. Do you have any other jobs?

lol. You're being a dick. I have said what I think, and typing doesn't take me very long. I have two projects on my hands at the moment and a couple of things in the pipeline although sometimes that's where those things stay. None of it is political or involves me being on The Revival, or Mushroom Observer, or Conquer Club, or LGF, or Scott Adams' blog, or iPlayer, or any of the other websites I visit. Your comments and Yaq'ub's are very low accusations. I don't know who will buy it, but I'm upfront.

I'm sure there are a few people with projects on here. I don’t know anyone who has the time you do, to do the relevant reading and input of careful insinuations you do. It just seems that you maybe a part of this Israeli online propaganda machine. Now I’m being upfront…

Either way, anyone who challenges you is just a dick?! Now take your time and respond.

Sure, thanks for the instructions or I might have been all, like, confused. I need instructions whether it be from a lobby group or a government entity or even some dick.

When you think about it, it is a dickish thing to insinuate given it is not correct. So far I have typed for less than 30 seconds so by all means calculate how long I spend on these replies. I gave you an honest reply, I am not part of any official effort. I don't knock Israel's hasbarah effort, it is far more transparent than propaganda a la malik or 7cgen, but I personally would be pretty disdainful of taking orders, and I speak for myself.

Not everyone who challenges me is a dick, some people give well-considered arguments on the subject at hand, others leap to the ad hominem. I don't mind doing both.

There is no way to prove I do not work for some shady outfit. If it pleases you to believe that I am dishonest so be it.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Sure, thanks for the instructions or I might have been all, like, confused. I need instructions whether it be from a lobby group or a government entity or even some dick.

When you think about it, it is a dickish thing to insinuate given it is not correct. So far I have typed for less than 30 seconds so by all means calculate how long I spend on these replies. I gave you an honest reply, I am not part of any official effort. I don't knock Israel's hasbarah effort, it is far more transparent than propaganda a la malik or 7cgen, but I personally would be pretty disdainful of taking orders, and I speak for myself.

Not everyone who challenges me is a dick, some people give well-considered arguments on the subject at hand, others leap to the ad hominem. I don't mind doing both.

There is no way to prove I do not work for some shady outfit. If it pleases you to believe that I am dishonest so be it.

There’s a Dr Pepper advert in there. Don’t knock it- until you try it.

Sometimes it seems that you have a bullish attitude and some people have grown to fear you on this forum. I’d say mainly the people who don’t understand what you say. ‘I’ feel that you tend to absolutely annihilate certain people when they propose a view that you can easily refute and insert/assert certain agendas.

I have no idea who 7cgen is, not spent enough time to read his/her posts, but to mention Malik is questionable- to compare to anyhow. His agenda, although highly flawed, is public and I respect his openness even though I don’t hold any value for the content.

In the anonymity the web weaves, all will remain shrouded.

OK.

YouShutup wrote:

Sometimes it seems that you have a bullish attitude and some people have grown to fear you on this forum.

Sometimes I do. I stay out of a lot of things. Fear?

Quote:

I’d say mainly the people who don’t understand what you say. ‘I’ feel that you tend to absolutely annihilate certain people when they propose a view that you can easily refute and insert/assert certain agendas.

I don't like to argue weakly so if I have a strong argument that people can't shoot down that's fine and if there is a strong argument that shoots mine down that is also fine. You are telling me this to justify your suspicion that I am a plant. Why?

Quote:

I have no idea who 7cgen is, not spent enough time to read his/her posts, but to mention Malik is questionable- to compare to anyhow. His agenda, although highly flawed, is public and I respect his openness even though I don’t hold any value for the content.

Well, whatever, but my point really is that many agendas do not rely on an honest discussion of easily verifiable facts. If you catch me being dishonest point it out. Accusing me of being a plant is a diversion. Nothing that you said backed it up. The appropriate response when you can't back yourself up isn't fear, or anger, or smears.

Quote:

In the anonymity the web weaves, all will remain shrouded.

Yeah yeah whatever.

A friend recently pulled me up on talking too fast and the various consequences. Thanks for reminding me not to get lofty either. It is in the writing, not my intonations, and it is a tip worth remembering.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

How about this is what happens when jihadis take your tribal lands and Islam is the only alternative to letting your family be killed?

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Civil war in Somalia is in its 3rd decade, and jihadi rebels control large portions of the country where they impose Shariah law. It is considered that they have committed a huge genocide. Clearly the girls in this picture are complying with the dress code but what they do when the jihadis are not looking is totally inconsistent. I think before judging how Islamic they are you might consider their situation.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

What they happen to be doing 5 mins before the religious police show up is a lot harder for mujahideen to control than what they are wearing. Is mujahideen a better word? It is likely I will use a specific Arabic word unless Yaq'ub prefers some particular neologism like Islamist. Generally it seems they don't like being called terrorists and call themselves mujahideen. So what the hell?

All you have peddled in this discussion is that they are oppressed.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Well, whatever, but my point really is that many agendas do not rely on an honest discussion of easily verifiable facts.

Nope, they don’t. Is this why you take advantage and incessantly spew such thoughts as above?

Joie de Vivre wrote:

If you catch me being dishonest point it out. Accusing me of being a plant is a diversion. Nothing that you said backed it up. The appropriate response when you can't back yourself up isn't fear, or anger, or smears.

Not a matter of honesty but it is of chivalry. You can say what you think and that would be honest….

The conversation was on how Muslims should not do this (I think?) but you made it into how certain people are oppressed maybe even with a hint of generalisation (my thought) and that is utterly disgusting (my thought). Maybe more consideration should be given by you on what you say and hopefully you wont send such signals out?!

My thought (again) is that from your manner, pro Israeli attitude (bordering on a fundamentalist attitude), the time and devotion to check up facts and intelligence- I assume you are part of this propaganda monstrosity. (Again my thoughts)

How about we meet to discuss this? I assume you’re based in London? I’ll buy the coffee?

Ocean wrote:

I just wanted to say that you weren't discussing the original points but rather looking for points and reasons to disagree with Joie.

Thank you, I agree.

YouShutup wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

How about this is what happens when jihadis take your tribal lands and Islam is the only alternative to letting your family be killed?

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Civil war in Somalia is in its 3rd decade, and jihadi rebels control large portions of the country where they impose Shariah law. It is considered that they have committed a huge genocide. Clearly the girls in this picture are complying with the dress code but what they do when the jihadis are not looking is totally inconsistent. I think before judging how Islamic they are you might consider their situation.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

What they happen to be doing 5 mins before the religious police show up is a lot harder for mujahideen to control than what they are wearing. Is mujahideen a better word? It is likely I will use a specific Arabic word unless Yaq'ub prefers some particular neologism like Islamist. Generally it seems they don't like being called terrorists and call themselves mujahideen. So what the hell?

All you have peddled in this discussion is that they are oppressed.

No, it seemed mistaken to be criticising apparently Muslim women in Somalia for bumping and grinding. I added comment when Yaq'ub took issue with what I wrote.

YouShutup wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Well, whatever, but my point really is that many agendas do not rely on an honest discussion of easily verifiable facts.

Nope, they don’t. Is this why you take advantage and incessantly spew such thoughts as above?

Do I incessantly spew that or is it a very occasional theme?

YouShutup wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

If you catch me being dishonest point it out. Accusing me of being a plant is a diversion. Nothing that you said backed it up. The appropriate response when you can't back yourself up isn't fear, or anger, or smears.

Not a matter of honesty but it is of chivalry. You can say what you think and that would be honest….

I'm not saying what you think, that's for sure. I say what I think. Very much so. Any other theory is extremely misguided. If you don't take issue with what I suggest you are taking umbrage, and it is you who isn't explaining anything. You just keep on with that accusation.

Quote:

The conversation was on how Muslims should not do this (I think?) but you made it into how certain people are oppressed maybe even with a hint of generalisation (my thought) and that is utterly disgusting (my thought). Maybe more consideration should be given by you on what you say and hopefully you wont send such signals out?!

Maybe if you didn't assume and project quite so much and since what I wrote was a genuine opinion you should consider why you ever launched into me.

Quote:

My thought (again) is that from your manner, pro Israeli attitude (bordering on a fundamentalist attitude), the time and devotion to check up facts and intelligence- I assume you are part of this propaganda monstrosity. (Again my thoughts)

That is way off but you are entitled to think it. I believe (again) you are being a dick.

Quote:

How about we meet to discuss this? I assume you’re based in London? I’ll buy the coffee?

I'll be in London next week but I don't want to meet you. I think you have wasted enough of my time on the subject.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

You just keep on with that accusation.

Do I keep on or is it occasional or even just this topic?

Joie de Vivre wrote:

I'll be in London next week but I don't want to meet you. I think you have wasted enough of my time on the subject.

Time is what you have in abundance?
I thought as much on the reply.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Maybe if you didn't assume and project quite so much and since what I wrote was a genuine opinion you should consider why you ever launched into me.

Yes. Indeed, true words spoken. Maybe if you didn’t assume the ‘jihadi’ fundamentalists threatened to kill them if they dress incorrectly I’d think differently of you. Point:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Clearly the girls in this picture are complying with the dress code but what they do when the jihadis are not looking is totally inconsistent

The statement above is malicious.
They want to bump and grind so they do it when the ‘jihadis’ are not looking…. But they are still in Islamic dress? If in a private venue where they feel free to do something like that I would think they’d take those clothes off and wear something different or as a minimum the scarf…

Anyway, I’ll end the discussion on this point as I think I’ve made my point and continuing would be pointless!

YouShutup wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

You just keep on with that accusation.

Do I keep on or is it occasional or even just this topic?

This topic. What's the wink for?

YouShutup wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

I'll be in London next week but I don't want to meet you. I think you have wasted enough of my time on the subject.

Time is what you have in abundance?
I thought as much on the reply.

I sort of do have time in abundance, at least when I am procrastinating online. In London I will be spending a lot of time in several places where it would be convenient enough to meet, and I could probably spare time for other meetings however I wish. Meeting someone who has been single-mindedly mischaracterising me throughout this thread as an agent with fundamentalist views, whereas I am friendly and progressive and speak entirely for myself, mightn't prove anything, and you've sold it terribly.

YouShutup wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Maybe if you didn't assume and project quite so much and since what I wrote was a genuine opinion you should consider why you ever launched into me.

Yes. Indeed, true words spoken. Maybe if you didn’t assume the ‘jihadi’ fundamentalists threatened to kill them if they dress incorrectly I’d think differently of you. Point:

I believe it is commonly the case in Somalia, if you like I will seek to make a case for the casual contention but if I was mistaken please explain the situation in Somalia.

YouShutup wrote:

Joie de Vivre wrote:

Clearly the girls in this picture are complying with the dress code but what they do when the jihadis are not looking is totally inconsistent

The statement above is malicious.
They want to bump and grind so they do it when the ‘jihadis’ are not looking…. But they are still in Islamic dress? If in a private venue where they feel free to do something like that I would think they’d take those clothes off and wear something different or as a minimum the scarf…

They are not bothered that they are in Islamic dress, see? Why is the statement you quoted malicious even if you want to argue that I am mistaken? It was a sympathetic statement that I still think is the likeliest explanation.

YouShutup wrote:

Anyway, I’ll end the discussion on this point as I think I’ve made my point and continuing would be pointless!

That's what I was saying.