Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the sheer devout nature of Saudi society does stagger the mind:

Um, yes, Saudi is a screwed-up society. What's the point you're trying to make?

My point, is to refute PP who claims to be well acquainted with "devout Muslims" of Saudi Arabia.

I never said that, don't make things up. I said I am familiar with minutia of Muslim law and behavior. None of that has anything to do with goodness or with devoutness. I never said KSA is a devout society.

First, PP claims to be intimately aquainted with Saudi cultural norms:

[Post New]04/21/2013 13:03
Anonymous wrote:
Only Shia allow temporary marriage and they are a minority among Muslims.
And I'm married to a Saudi, so you don't need to explain the minutia of Muslim law and behavior to me.

Then writes:
[Post New]04/22/2013 10:46
you can certainly rank followers of a religion on a scale of how closely they follow its teachings.

while simultaneously claiming:
[Post New]04/22/2013 10:46

I have nothing but a shoulder shrug reaction to both Sunni and Shia creeds. I don't know how you take my statement that "Shias have temporary marriage and Sunnis don't" and make it into a manifesto of Sunni purity.

No, actually miss or Mr. " I'm married to a Saudi so I know", religion is NOT ABOUT RANKING people according to who is more devout.

Some oragnized groups claiming to be motivated by faith, like southern baptists and Saudi wahabists claim that there is only "one way" and its theirs.

This type of rigidity is always found covering up deep hypocrisy in practice whether that be southern baptist preachers who turn out to be gay, or having affairs with women not their wife

OR

Wahibist who beat, rape and even murder their more brown skinned , foreign but fellow muslim house servants, as Human Rifhts Watch report shows.

One could also point to Wahabits support of suicide bombers in Palestine, their financial support of the Mjuahaddein through their connects with Pakistani secret police and on and on... much of the political instability in the middle east is financed by Saudi Wahabists who fancy themselves " most devout of all"

My second point is that the bombings are not motivated by religion , as in my experience most behavior is based on more primal motivators. which no religion does much to prevent if one is to look at human history , or recent Saudi social history, for example.

The bombings may not be motivated by religion, but the perpetrators use religion as the convenient justification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the sheer devout nature of Saudi society does stagger the mind:

Um, yes, Saudi is a screwed-up society. What's the point you're trying to make?

My point, is to refute PP who claims to be well acquainted with "devout Muslims" of Saudi Arabia.

My second point is that the bombings are not motivated by religion , as in my experience most behavior is based on more primal motivators. which no religion does much to prevent if one is to look at human history , or recent Saudi social history, for example.

Anonymous wrote:From what I have seen of the family members, they all seem ready to blame others for their problems. I guess that is human nature-but they seem particularly rabid.

And the parents come from a region of the world that , since the days of Stalin, has been repeatedly subjected to severe social trauma:
1) mass deportation based on ethnicity
2) staravation based on ethnicity
3) loss of property based on ethnicity
4) full brunt of Russian military attack from mid-1990's onward

In such societies,survival skills are taught at home, both implicityly and by observation. Such societies are full people who, to survive form beneficial alliances when the normal stable social contract breaks down , such as :becoming informants and collaberators, or finding shelter/ and financial means of support in criminal mafia networks, or in joing rebel groups.

This is the "social soup" of the Grozny, Dagestan, former Soviet Socialist republics over teh last 80 years. Don't like the Russian mafia, thank Stalin and the communist movement in general.

These boys are the fruit of that, there actions do not fall far from the tree and I agree on the family, duplicitous individuals all, imho.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the sheer devout nature of Saudi society does stagger the mind:

Um, yes, Saudi is a screwed-up society. What's the point you're trying to make?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's obvious that you feel personally threatened by what I have shared, though I gave no personal details whatsoever.

I am merely stating what I have personally experienced as fact. All men of all religions violate the laws of their religions and they do it all the time. Yes, my experience includes Saudi men . They are no different. They are all men, period.

The point is there is no such thing as a lock solid religious action. It is human beings after all who invented religion, and when it suits them , so called devout or not, they set aside.

Men are imperfect and any religious following made up of men will be imperfect and fail to meet its ideal, not just rarely, but most of the time.

I got no idea why you feel I'd be threatened by what you shared. What do I care? The world is full of Arabs, do as many as you like. My husband have cousins here. They enjoy the local talent with abandon. They aren't devout.

In fact, what you say and what I say is in no way in contradiction, and I don't know why you keep picking at it. Again: devout Muslims do not have girlfriends. If they do, they aren't devout. I don't question that men you slept with put their religion aside to have a piece. All I am saying is that it makes them not devout.

Yes, clearly you resent and are threatened by my point: that no man is always devout when religion stands in the way of their more base motivations , but rather than debate that point you :

Suggest that I am "the local talent" in other words a prostitute for the simple fact that I pointed out that plenty of muslims who pray five times a day, who fast, who go to mecca, who give zikat, will also have sex outside of marriage and , given a choice between no sex , and doing something against their religious teachings, will choose to make an exception for themselves. Not once, not twice, but again and again and again, NOT BECAUSE said woman is " the local talent" , but because, well, they are men and they really , really , really would like to have sex now, please.

No religion can take that out of them, because all religion is, is an aspiration of an ideal.

No religion has a premium on morality, and your suggestion that somehow, while thsoe Shia may make things oh so convenient and easy for themselves, the Sunni belief is "pure" and that there is somewhere a religion for the "pure and devout" is indicative of intolerance, and kinda sickening.

That's the kind of talk that really turns off Americans. Like President Obama says, "its not a competition". In America its considered offensive to say that one religion is "more devout" than another. Its rude. It offends. It should.

Men are just men, and if they set whatever religious beliefs they have aside either to beg a woman to have sex with them, or to plant bombs that kill 8 year old children, its not because they belong to a "less devout faith" , but because in the case of killing, they have a lot of hate and rage inside of them, and they gave into it, because they are human, and sometimes that is pretty ugly.

Dude, you take the cake for, I dunno, bedside theorizing and making things up about people you don't know. I'm not Muslim. I have nothing but a shoulder shrug reaction to both Sunni and Shia creeds. I don't know how you take my statement that "Shias have temporary marriage and Sunnis don't" and make it into a manifesto of Sunni purity. It's just a factual statement. You also overlooked my comment that the Muslim marriage rules for the men are so lax that they make temporary marriage essentially unnecessary since divorcing a woman in Islam is very easy.

Let's review, again. Yes, Islam forbids sex with women outside of marriage. Yes, many Muslims will have sex outside of marriage. Yes, that means they are violating tenets of their religion and are by extension, not devout.

I think you are confusing devoutness with goodness. Complying with all the rules of the religion doesn't make you either pure or dirty. It just makes you, well, in compliance or out of compliance. So if you are hung on the word "devout", let's make it easy for you and drop it. Here - Muslims who have sex outside of marriage are breaking the covenants of their religion and can no longer say that they comply with them all. Better?

No, you can't say that one religion is more devout than the other. But you can certainly rank followers of a religion on a scale of how closely they follow its teachings. So all things being equal, a Muslim who doesn't have sex outside of marriage is following the rules more closely than the one who does. See? We managed to not use "devout." Good job. If you want to debate that no one follows their religion THAT closely, well, whatever - it still doesn't mean that he isn't breaking the rules.

"No religion has a premium on morality, and your suggestion that somehow, while thsoe Shia may make things oh so convenient and easy for themselves, the Sunni belief is "pure" and that there is somewhere a religion for the "pure and devout" is indicative of intolerance, and kinda sickening.

I think the word you're looking for is "monopoly." (or "puts a premium", which will still be wrong as they all do, with their own concept of morality.)

Depression, rage , and the young unemployed, flunking out of school Jihadi:

http://www.autismwebsite.com/crimetimes/98b/w98bp8.htm

From what I have seen of the family members, they all seem ready to blame others for their problems. I guess that is human nature-but they seem particularly rabid.

Muslim Jihadists apparently. That's the beef.