TeeJay

you're adorable

Sorry bro, you're not my type

Once you've had something something similar happen to you, you might see 'the joke' differently

Thanks for the help lol. I'm looking for a average everyday watch that bends in with black,blue or red (fav colours). I been looking at one of the Noobmariners and they seem pretty good, I might try one out lol.

If that's the case, you might like one of the Rolex GMTs, as the red/black or red/blue bezel might make a better match with your colors

Absolutely first class projects, my friend As always, your work is impeccable

yup - go you got it

- you never know, every once and a while they come out with some out of left field super rep brand. - Maybe this one day

Definitely worth keeping an eye out for it, or something very similar, the style of the watch just projects class and masculinity

They did?

I would've thought it was a pretty safe bet. To be honest, other than Casino Royale and Top Gear, I don't recall any other 'mass media' displaying the Planet Ocean. I mean, sure, it's a nice watch and all, but as far as the factories would be concerned, I would have thought that only the most popular watches would be ones which would get 'upgraded' versions, and Casino Royale is the only thing I can think of which would really generate any interest in the 45mm Planet Ocean among the watch-wearing masses worthy of putting it in 'upgrade' class.

Just my own thoughts though, it'd certainly be interesting to find out for sure

Well, it's a classic troll job, that's for sure. But, it proves a valuable lesson: It takes a certain kind of person to look beyond the external, and see the true beauty within. Troll job or not, a couple did pose for those photos, and they don't deserve to have them posted online for people to rip into, and deserve the same respect which people should give to any such photos of a wedding, regardless of what the bride and groom actually look like...

If you're not after a particular brand and are open to suggestions on brand, I'd suggest that you consider your needs from a watch. Does it have to be water-resistant? Will it be something you wear every day? What kind of clothes would you be wearing with it? What kind of image do you want to be projecting?

Hopefully the answers to those questions will help point you in the direction of your ideal watch. Welcome to the forum

That's an absolutely awesome article, thanks for taking the time to write it. It's certainly been an informative read

Wow, I can't believe I missed this thread till now. That is such an elegant but laid back watch. It makes me think of a rich man reading an old, leather-bound book on a porch with a beer and cigar in battered jeans and white shirt. It looks like it should cost a million bucks, but doesn't take itself too seriously

Congrats, bro, thanks for the contributions Here's to the next thousand

Yeah, for sure get a UPO, but keep in mind the AR is the whole watch with the lume a close second. If you get a UPO on rubber make sure it gets a spa treatment with at the very least a trip to The Chief. With that the few flaws like logo feet, hands, etc won't even matter. A PO, gen or rep with dense double AR is just smokin'...

I'd definitely get it on rubber, but I have to admit, I probably wouldn't go with the double AR. I've seen too many examples of how the outer coating looks when it gets scuffed up, and I've heard of several gen owners removing the outer coat to reduce the problem I've got to say, the Planet Ocean is one of my all-time favorite watch designs, and crazy as it might sound, the integrated crownguards is my favorite design aspect

good to get the ball rolling....

laz

Even though I haven't added one to my collection, the Explorer II sure is a gorgeous watch

Classic watch bro, looks weird not seeing a PAM on your wrist now

I'm going with this one today:

I would say it feels weird not to be wearing one, but it honestly doesn't. It's like a switch has been flipped, and my reaction to my PAMs is just : ... No real idea to why... I think I'll hang onto them rather than sell them though, as, I wouldn't make enough cash from the sales to make it worth my while, and to be honest, even though I don't want to wear them right now, I still want them for my collection

That's a classy watch you're going with, bro. I've got an Armani knocking about somewhere, but it hasn't seen wrist time in years

I'll roll with biker TeeJay and fire up the PO as well. Except I'm representing the pajama set while he rocks the leather...

Thanks for the solidarity, bro I've got a 42mm PO knocking about, but I killed the movement tinkering with it and swapped the hands out when I customized an Aqua Terra for my dad's birthday last year, so it's in need of some restoration work I've heard the 42mm POs aren't repped anymore, so I think what I'll do, is order a UPO to replace the one I'm wearing, then transplant the movement and dial from the one I'm wearing into the 42mm

When I first got the 42mm, it was because I was looking to get a 2254.50, but Casino Royale came out, and drew my attention to the Planet Ocean. I got it on SS, but decided to upgrade to the 45mm on rubber as per Casino Royale. Something of an irony that in Quantum of Solace, Bond is now wearing the original Planet Ocean I bought Thus, it's only right that I get my 42 back on it's feet as part of my 'Bond Collection'

Never started one of these before, and I can't see one started thus far, so I thought I'd kick it off with this:

No, I don't normally wear a leather jacket indoors But, it's a new week, a new month, so I figured why not feature the new jacket as well

Even though somebody wrote already that you might not like a quartz in the long run, I have to emphasize that. Even an ETA Swiss quartz movement costs only about $20 for plain date and about $50 for a chrono version. I just cannot see why such a watch should retail for around $2000 - I would go with a rep auto any day.

BTW the best way to tell a gen SMP is to ask if the links are flexible in the middle, all the reps have one piece links.

That should be 'all the low-end reps have one piece links'

This is a rep... 9 piece links...

Thanks TJ. It's a great watch indeed

I hope Pix will be back

Indeed, I do like how Subs/Sea-Dwellers look, it's just the dial size which doesn't really meet my needs. Now, if Rolex were to make a Submariner at the same size as an SMP, I don't think it would leave my wrist

Best lock it up, Ken. A discussion about religious terrorism will include religion.

We're not going to be able to avoid the subject for ever, but I appreciate you're telling us it's best done elsewhere.

Agreed, 100% It's been a civilized discussion thus far, best to end it thus as well

Guys,

Before I post a photo of the watch I'm wearing since this morning (sunday), I would like to welcome back a great reviewer and member in the wrist check.

Oh, YOU did not yet post...but I hope you will as I see you lurking.

Welcome back PIX

Indeed, welcome back, Pix

Stephane, fantastic SD

haven't done this in a good long while...

must be a reason why i took a pic

...and a pam? why a pam? i know it's blurry but look closer

HDR fun.. anyhows, yep.. my "project" Little Hero 111h watch is complete!

little hero dial, double ar sapphire, t-crown, swiss mvmnt

Absolutely awesome watch, bro

No one is going to tell an Imam in Iran or Palistine what he can and can't teach. Where action should be taken is in places like the US and Australia where extreamism is rare. The Isamic Council here has Taken steps to gag a couple of rabble rousers recently. One selling DVD sermons saying stuff like rape victims are responsible "if they display themselvs like meat" in responce to atacks on western girls by a gang of Lebenese youths in Sydney. He was also praising Jihad and "dieing for the glory of Allah." Not the sort of guy I'd want preaching to my kids. Apparntly the council shares my view 'cause he doesn't anymore. Havn't heard a peep from him in months.

Unfortunatly this doesn't seem to happen in some places. London is a good example. There are a cpl of Imams there who realy are a worry. And now it looks like at least seven of the terrorists in India had UK connections. These good people who live by God's law and not the teachings of some twisted indevidual with an agenda should clean house of these extremeists befire they start reading about their sons and daughters blowing themselvs up in Picadilly. It's the young they get. They want to serve God and here is this respected person telling them the best way is to die for Him.

It's a crazy world we live in. Who said Life Of Brian was farce?

Col.

Absolutely so. At the end of the day, it's for local government to keep a better eye on just who is preaching (in all religions). In addition to getting rid of the extremist Imams, it might also help combat pedophiles in the priesthood. Sadly, the UK government is too scared of upsetting any religious group to actually take the kind of steps which are taken in Australia. If England had organization and adherence to the rules more like Australia, it would no doubt be a better place

Islam.

Somalia,Checnya,Albania,Afghanistan,Indonesia,Iran.

Nuff said, primitive and out of date.

Cheers.

The countries, maybe so, but to blame the issues solely on Islam, is to ignore the fact that the true problems lie with the cultural issues of the locals and government, who are not following the true tenets of Islam. As mentioned above, the Qur'an does not state that women should be treated badly, indeed, there is an entire chapter (and many other passages) relating entirely to the fair treatment of women.

The Press?

Under Orders?

Unfortunately, you're under some paranoid conspiracy influence there. Much like you said the press doesn't report what's really happening in Islam, I think you're passing into the realms of fiction as opposed to fact. I find it hard enough to discuss religion (as it is in my view a form of fiction people choose to believe) with you as it is, but if you're going to call on vast worldwide press-control conspiracies, I'm going to have to bow out of this one as you're off into tin-foil hat territory with that one.

No conspiracy, but NUJ guidelines. I admit, hardly the most unbiassed source, but, that's where the wikipedia led me after a review of the BNP on wikipedia...

I find it hard enough to discuss religion (as it is in my view a form of fiction people choose to believe) with you as it is

Your view is not really relevant to the nature of discussing factual issues though. Regardless of your belief about the 'authenticity' of the Qur'an (or any other religious text) the text contained within is factual of itself and can thus be discussed and referenced as to what it (true or not) permits and forbids. Afterall, this is not a debate as to if the Qur'an is real, or if their is a God, but a discussion about how organized religion can 1) be at odds with it's scripture, 2) how organized religion can be used as a form of manipulation for the (uneducated) masses, and 3) how people following in the true spirit of a religion condemn the actions of extremists who hide behind a perversion of their faith as an excuse for their actions.

Teejay .. are not certain Imams and Madrassa interpreting and teaching the Koran in a way that encourages this kind of action in the name of Islam,

Absolutely so. This is what I was trying to clarify when I say that what is publicly recognized as an organized religion, should never be (but often are) confused with the true fundamentals of the (or any) religion itself.

There was a documentary on TV I saw a while back about the history of the Qur'an, and naturally, that included examinations of many contemporary 'Islamic practices' by the 'organized doctrines', and it was astounding just how much of them are actually shirk when viewed against the actual text of the Qur'an. The example I made above about wudu is but a simple one, but it is also a very clear and effective one...

I so do not want to make this seem Islam is the cause of this behavior or to blame for any terrorism ... that is not at all the point of my post . I would just like some edification on the question I ask about violence preaching Imams and Madrasas...if this is something that is happening and this is not the true message of Islam can anything be done? ... or does Islam by its nature prevent the stifling of the teachings of any Imam or Madrassa? Just curious about this and do not know anything about this except what I have seen on CNN.

Indeed, I understand the point you're raising, and I quite agree with it. Yes, there are Imams who preach violence and radicalism, and indeed, there are Imams in Arabic countries who would claim to be utterly devout Muslims, yet their practices are unquestionably shirk. Islam (or rather, the instruction within the Qur'an) certainly does not stifle teachings, indeed, it specifies that there is no obligation in religion, and that people have freedom of choice in the matter. However, the 'recognized organization' could certainly stifle teachings which they considered threatening to their power-base (much as the Catholic church behaved over the translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs, because it would have conflicted with their 'approved dogma')

By way of example in the Catholic Church. John Paul II was devoutly anti-communist and when he became Pope he made it the Church's business to work on destroying communism in the world with his focusing on eastern Europe and specifically through Poland. As an anti-communist Pope he also faced an issue in South America with openly Marxist revolutionary priests espousing violent over throw of fascist regimes in their countries and supporting replacing them with communist governments. Pope John Paul gave these revolutionary priests an ultimatum stop preaching a Marxist revolutionary ideology from the pulpit and stop all support for any Marxist causes and groups or leave the Church and give up their vocation as Catholic priests. If they did not they would be stripped of their priesthood and excommunicated. He accomplished his goal of cleansing the clergy of revolutionarys for good or ill depending on which side of the issue you are on. Is there any mechanism in Islam that could accomplish the same kind of thing if it were deemed desirable by the majority of Muslims? I know this is not a practicle thing but I would like to know is there is any central authority that has the last word. If there is not it helps explain why there has not been widespread condemnation of the acts of terror engaged in by certain Muslims by the Islamic world.

To be honest, I don't feel qualified to truly answer that question, as I am not an expert in what I can only term 'the rankings of the 'Islamic Church'', as it is not something which I have ever encountered. I am a Qur'an Alone Muslim, so my knowledge of the organized aspects of the religion are limited to what is mentioned in the Qur'an (and to be honest, much of what makes up that organization, is based on Hadith, which, as a Qur'an Alone Muslim, I do not follow or study in-depth). I think that such a thing would certainly be possible in theory, but I would not like to say for sure.

Edit: Just before anyone decides to turn this into an anti-Islam rant using my posts as a launch platform, TJ is right on the peace aspect of Islam, whereby they want to be a religion of peace.

However, Islam has a PR issue and it's not helped by Islamic terrorists. Islam needs to disown them and it needs to do so loudly and it needs to do so fast. Unfortunately, Islamic leaders and members have not universally shunned or disowned terrorists before and show no willingness to do so in the future, much like Christian leaders didn't tell the Irish to stop killing each other. As long as terrorists can use the names of religions unchecked, we will continue seeing terrorists as emissaries of their religions. If you're doing it in His name, and no-one on your side is disagreeing, we'll judge your religion, and rightly so.

I hadn't read you edit, so I'll quickly comment here:

Absolutely so, I quite agree, except for this one point:

If you're doing it in His name, and no-one on your side is disagreeing, we'll judge your religion, and rightly so.

Not 'rightly' so, but definitely understandably so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Bzzzt. You fail.

Sorry, but naming a 'debating point/logical fallacy' does nothing to change the fact that many so-called 'Islamic Countries' perpetuate behavior and attitudes which is outright forbidden by the Qur'an, such as I noted with female circumcision in some African countries. This is, as mentioned, an example of how cultural attitudes and practices, are being added to the Qur'an, which, as mentioned before, is shirk, thus utterly forbidden.

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran-4-34.htm

If even suspension of sexual relations fails to work, then it is suggested that men use dharb. This word has almost universally been translated here as "beating". Such a translation is supported by some passages in the Qur'an where the word does mean smiting or striking (2:60, 61, 73, 8:12, 50, 7:160 etc).

Yeah, not at all ambiguous. Hmm.

That page is but the work of a single scholar, who chances are, is also a hadithist. (again, a form of shirk) Regardless of how the word is 'universally translated', the fact does not change that the usage of the word in Classical Arabic is different to how it is translated and (mis)understood in contemporary times. Also, as I mentioned before, there are passages in the Qur'an which, when viewed solely out of context of the remainder, are more easily open to misinterpretation or manipulation (as the BNP love to do) because other passages in the text, provide other guidance or commands, which then clarify that specific phrase. Sure, there are passages which are easily quotable, but to be truly understood, they have to be considered with what the rest of the Qur'an states. As I said before, I think you would find it an interesting read, if for no other reason, that it would show you what I'm trying to explain. Remember the example I gave with regards differences of translation as shown in the movie Stargate... Languages mutate, and the use of words alters. Example. A hundred or so years ago, the sentance "I'm feeling particularly gay today, I hope you are having a gay day as well." would mean that the person was happy. In modern times, it would mean something completely different

Even your finest scholars mumble over some passages and hope no-one notices.

Such as?

I don't deny, scholarly opinions will always differ, that is the result of having the intelligence and free-will to draw one's own conclusions about the text, but, as I've said before, this is an example of where the fault lies with the 'organized religion', rather than 'the pure religion' itself. Much, if not all, of the modern perception of Islam is based upon organized versions of it. Sunni, Shia, Suffi etc etc, and this is a good example of how 'the official religion' can be quite different to the fundamental source. Just a little example such as wudu highlights these discrepancies, and why 'organized religion' is not really something to be considered as the true religion:

Performance of wudu according to Sunni Muslims

Start by making niyyah (intention) to perform wudu and cleanse the self of impurities.

Say bismillah ("In the Name of Allah (God)").

Wash the right hand up to the wrist (and between the fingers) three times, then similarly for the left hand.

Rinse the mouth and spit out the water three times.

Gently put water into the nostrils with the right hand, pinch the top of the nose with the left hand to exhale the water. This is performed three times.

Wash the face (from the hairline on the forehead to where facial hair begins and ear to ear). This is to be performed three times.

Wash the entire right arm, including the hand, up to the elbow three times; then the left arm three times.

Wet hands and starting with your hands flat on the top of your head near the hairline, wipe them to the back of the neck and back again to the front. This is only done once. This act is called masah. One may make masah over a Muslim head cap.

With wet fingers, place thumbs at backs of ears, use index finger on curves of ear and middle finger to wash the ears (front and back). This is only done once. This is called making masah the ears.

Starting with the right foot, wash both feet from the toes up to the ankles.

Recite the shahadah.

Performance of wudu according to Shia Muslims

Wudu must be performed on the skin except in the case of the wiping of the head (unless there is an obstacle that isn't naturally there, such as a combover). If there are bandages stopping one from wiping the skin of the arms, face, etc., then it is permissible to wipe the bandage.

Make the intention to perform wudu in the heart.

Shape the right hand like a cup and take water into it. Afterwards, pour the water on the top of the forehead and wipe down with the right hand. It is obligatory to wash from the area where the hair normally grows to the chin.

Shape the left hand like a cup and take water into it. Afterwards, pour this water onto your right forearm and wash your right forearm (covering the right forearm in water, leaving no spot dry). Wipe from the elbow to the fingers, and not from the fingers to the elbow.

Repeat this process except with the left forearm.

Without taking more water, wipe your hair from the middle down to the forehead, or vice versa, using the index finger of your right hand; it is mustahab to use three fingers. If you are balding, you would wash your hair as if it were growing when you had a full head of hair. It is not permissible to wipe the hair over an obstacle (such as wiping a hat or a turban instead of the hair/skin). It is not obligatory to wipe the actual skin on the head. If, however, the hair isn't growing from the area you are wiping (such as if you have a combover), then you must move the hair to where it belongs and wipe the skin.

Without taking more water, wipe the top of your right foot with your right hand. You only wipe once and with a swiping motion. It is unallowed to wipe the shoe, sock, etc. You MUST wipe the skin of the feet unless there is an extreme reason.

Do the same thing, except using your left hand and wiping your left foot.

Okay, that's the 'official/organized' version. That's what the majority of Muslims world-wide have been raised to believe to be correct to do. But:

Performance of wudu according to Qur'an Alone Muslims

Qur'an Alone Muslims 1. Wash the face 2. Wash the arms to the elbows 3. Wipe the head 4. WIPE the feet to the ankles.

This is based on the 6th Ayat of Surah al-Ma'ida (Qur'an 5:6) which states:

"O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, WIPE your heads and your feet to the ankles..."

So, when the Qur'an specifically and clearly says how to perform wudu, and the order with which it must be done, why have 'the other versions' come about? Again, through hadithism, emulation of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which is, as mentioned before, shirk, thus utterly forbidden.

Organized religions sadly, are too often confused with the actual fundamentals of the religious scripture, and this is why I try and make this distinction between the two so clear. It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of what one is believing...

Anyway, I digress. Islam has a PR disaster with terrorism and appears to be doing nothing about it. That's where I feel the real debate lies.

Again, no disagreement from me there, but, key emphasis must be put to "appears to be doing nothing..." (just because that is how it appears, that is not necessarily the actuality of the situation, and one must also remember media influence, and who it gives the opportunity of accurate coverage to.

Take the BNP for example. The press are under orders never to portray the party in a positive light. Is that giving an equal opportunity for them to espouse their views? Look at the recent situation where the members list made its way into the press, despite there being a court-order forbidding such a thing happening. Of course, the public does not have much sympathy for the BNP, but, the key issue which is being ignored by the press, is that the Data Protection Act, and court orders, make such an occurrence a criminally punishable act. Now, please don't think that I'm actually trying to defend the BNP here, nothing could be further from my mind. All I'm trying to do, is highlight how the media chooses to grant coverage to certain groups rather than others, and will always portray certain groups in a negative way, even when such portrayal is not relevant to the particular situation... Don't forget, the press always need someone to demonize, so once that happens, they are not going to start making exceptions...

Interesting point that. If the Pope and the Arch Biship of Canterbury had stood side by side and demanses, on pain of excoumunication that the violence being commited in God's name stop there would be far fewer young widdows in Belfast and Ulster.

The western world has done so many fu**ed up things in the name of God we are barely in a position to complain. There were the inquisitions, the crusades, the Refermation, witch hunts and of cause every one in every war has "God on our side/Got mit uns".

The stupid thing is in all cases, inquestidor or terrorist are doing stuff that is so far from the teachings of their God I fail to see how they think religion is a reason.

Islam is a peacefull religion. I speak to a lot of Muslims mostly owners and crew from Middle Easten yachts and none even those who have some sympathy for various causes can rationalise the use of terrorism to further the cause of Islam when this kind of behavior is specificly forbiden.

It's allmost painfull at times to see how much these happenings affect the heart of a good Muslim. To see these horrors perptrated in the name of that wich they hold sacred is obviously very hurtfull to them. Most spend a lot of time appoligiseing on behalf of Isalm and trying to assure you this is not the teachings of Islam at work. One Saudi gentleman I know who is rich enough to buy out everyone on this forum (inc you , Robbie) from the contents of the petty cash safe on his yacht was close to tears one day describing to me how he felt about what was being done in the name of God.

He must look down some days and think "WTF?"

Col.

You'll get no argument with me there. In such cases, religion is simply being used as a justification (excuse) for such behavior, because, as you say, the behaviors are so far from the teachings, it is a wonder how they think they are acting "in God's name", when the behaviour is so utterly forbidden. The only answer can be an ignorance of the true message in the Qur'an, and 'being brainwashed', by charismatic speakers who know how to use scripture to manipulate people, rather than enrich them.

Indeed, it is very hurtful, but, it is also a challenge to overcome those misconceptions, and such challenges can only be rewarding.

This is one of the key reasons Islam is referred to as a primitive religion. Some of the rules can be considered out of date, but if you wish to follow islam, you are trapped in a 7th century ruleset which can be demonstrated as being incompatible with a 21st century world.

Why can they be considered 'out of date'? Has Allah said that His rules have been relaxed? Oh I do not deny, that social attitudes have changed, but that does not mean that the rules are 'out of date' or no longer applicable. To be honest, I have read nothing in the Qur'an which is incompatible with the 21st Century Western world. For example, the rulings on fornication and homosexuality:

[4.15] And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

[4.16] And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

For the punishment to be applied, the 'crime' must be proven. For the 'crime' to be proven, then four witnesses must be called. If people are committing fornication, adultery, or committing homosexual acts within the confines of their own homes, how can there be four witnesses? There can't. Therefore, the acts themselves are not punishable (by Mankind) but judged by Allah alone. What these passages are particularly referring to, is a warning not to behave lewdly in public.

So, no incompatibility with today's 'tolerant and open' society there...

Many Islamist countries (like Iran and Nigeria) seem to be trying to revert civilisation to a pre-enlightened state.

Here's where the debate gets truly 'hair-splitting'. Countries such as those, no matter how devout they may claim to be, are not truly 'Islamic Countries', as they are not organized solely by the teachings of the Qur'an, but rather, combining pre-Islamic local cultural attitudes and behaviours with Islamic teaching, and then passing the two off as one and the same. As mentioned above, that is shirk, therefore utterly forbidden, and not something which any true Muslim should agree with.

The way Islam treats its women is positively barbaric[1], for instance.

Really? Granting a woman the rights to divorce and finances is barbaric?

I don't deny for an instant that there is a perception that Islam treats its women in a barbaric manner, but, as I mentioned above, this is truly a case of local cultural attitudes being blended with Islam and passed off as the same thing, in reality, something of a misconception. Female (or male, for that matter) circumcision, for example. Widely practiced in some African countries as 'religious obligation'. Absolutely nothing in the Qur'an about anyone (male or female) having to be circumcised for religious reasons. Equally, there is nothing whatsoever in the Qur'an which says a female must cover her face. Indeed, wearing a veil was quite likely a customary form of dress in Medina during the time of the Prophet, (PBUH) but that was nothing more than local conditions dictating practical clothing to protect from sandstorms, and again, absolutely nothing which is stipulated in the Qur'an.

This still doesn't cover the point about religious leaders I made earlier. Why does a religion (be it the leaders or the members, be it christianity or islam) not condemn these acts of terrorism?

Who is to say they do not? The media only reports the news it wants people to hear.

What do they fear?

Becoming targets themselves, perhaps.

[1] As a reader of the Qur'an, you may be in an informed position to tell us what the rules about wife-beating are.

Actually, this is one of those examples where differences in language can create differences in understanding and interpretation. Here's the passage in question:

[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great

The word which, in Classical Arabic is the same as the modern Arabic word, which is then translated into English as 'beat', during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was used to mean 'make a decision/come to an understanding'. It was not used to mean 'physically chastise', so despite the changes in how the word is currently understood, that does not mean that the message of the Qur'an has actually changed accordingly. To focus precisely on the passage:

"and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

How can a man leave his wife alone (by herself) in her bed, and beat her at the same time? A man cannot be in two places at once...

"then if they obey you"

Obey what though? What would they be obeying?

The intent of the passage, is to mean that during times of marital strife, there should be discussion, then if the discussion fails, then the man should leave the woman to sleep alone, so that, God willing, she may desire his company once more, which therefore, means there has been an understanding between them, so the husband need not 'seek a way against them' (divorce) (which is permitted in Islam, where Catholicism would not allow it, hence Henry VIIIth's creation of the Church of England...) It is not a case of reading the English text and thinking it means a husband has a 'God-given right to beat up his wife', (such as the above picture might suggest) but looking to the linguistic history involved as well... I hope that answers your question on that issue

the whole thing is a vicious cycle....to break the cycle one of the things you need PROPER education imo...in whole world

the terrorists mostly driven by manipulated religion...

religion is powerful...its easy to teach, hard to manipulate.... but if you succeed and use in a bad way it can be very dangerous....on uneducated people..

and thats only one part..we should ask ourselves WHY do terrorists become terrorists....they must have nothing more to lose

it takes much more to KILL someone than you think..what makes them go into such situation...

the worst thing is, terrorists are not country or race, they consist of individuals....

they should find the mastermind whos behind them, whos controlling them...terrorists are just brainwashed pawns of his game..

IMO

Absolutely so, I couldn't agree with you more.

Now you don't really believe that, do you?

I absolutely believe that, but in a way I shall clarify below. I cannot stress enough how utterly forbidden it is to deliberately alter or mis-transcribe the Qur'an, so moving onto the next point:

I'm not an expert on the Qur'an[1], but I can assure you that the bible has undergone a vast amount of edits and changes, mostly of a political nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

That's just scratching the surface.

Indeed, you are absolutely right about that, in that the Bible has undergone numerous revisions for primarily political reasons. Modern-Day Christianity is not the message which Jesus taught... This is why, although Muslims (should) grant respect to the Bible and Christians as 'people of the book', it is not considered unquestionably as 'the word of God', because of the deliberate revisions which have taken place. Obviously, the Qur'an has been translated out of the original Classical Arabic (which is very different from the Arabic spoken today) and the Qur'an was first translated into English from French, although obviously today, there are translations direct from the original Arabic. Languages can be translated or, more accurately, mistranslated with no intention to be incorrect or misleading on the part of the interpreter. For example, have you seen the original movie Stargate? If so, do you remember the scene where Dr Jackson corrects the translation on the blackboard? The fundamental basics of the message were relatively unaltered, and it was essentially only the wording which was altered. Even the apparent differences in intent of the words, can be 'acknowledged but tollerated' as differences in how the two different languages were and are, used. This is how there can be occasional differences in wording between particular 'editions' of the Qur'an, simply because of the different translations, but the fundamental basics of the message itself, are unchanged, rather than the intentional revisions of the Bible, which as you correctly mention, have taken place. Now, if you were to read a Palastinian Qur'an, you would find parenthesis have been added to the text, referring to modern munitions. That is something which gives not only a false translation of the original text, but also a false interpretation of the message of the text, and, as I mentioned above, such conscious and deliberate actions, are utterly forbidden.

If you've ever read the Bible, you might enjoy reading the Qur'an. Before I read the Qur'an properly, I had lived my life as an Atheist, and held 'Muslims' (as I perceived them, or rather, as the Media told me to perceive them) in utter contempt. I'd heard all the Right-Wing rhetoric, heard quotes of particular passages which mentioned fighting and whatnot, but had not read the full text, so it was all too easy to accept those quotes as accurate, particularly when they tied in with what the media was showing about 'Islamic Extremism'. Taking individual passages out of context makes it all too easy to manipulate the message. When I then actually read the Qur'an myself, and the history of the life of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the context provided by all the other text, made all the difference to those individual passages which hate-mongers so frequently bandy about. I'm not saying that it will make you believe, but from an educational point of view, I believe you would find it an interesting read.

[1] As far as I know, the Qur'an is mostly unchanged since the 7th century, yet scholars still find swathes of text to disagree about.

Again, absolutely correct, in that the Qur'an has remained mostly unchanged. As I mentioned above, any changes which have ocurred are (or rather certainly should be) only down to differences in interpretations of translation, not intentional revision. Anyone who does intentionally mis-transcribe the Qur'an is, as mentioned, behaving in an utterly forbidden way, and in a way which no true Muslim would consider doing.

As for your point about the scholars still disagreeing with text, again, you are absolutely right. They do disagree. But, it is an essentially irrelevant point with regards the text itself, in that it does not matter if Scholar A feels a passage means one thing, and Scholar B feels it means something else, as those are simply their personal opinions, and they are entitled to have them. But. Regardless of what either of them believe, it does not change the message of the Qur'an itself.

The actual issue being faced, is how organized religion can be used to manipulate people into behaving in ways utterly forbidden by the Qur'an itself. It is all too easy for a scholar to say "This is the word..." as, if the people have not, or, as is sometimes the case, cannot read the text for themselves, then they will believe what the scholar says as true. It's like when Christianity was brought to the British Isles, and sermons delivered in Latin. That was not the language of the people, nor were the majority educated enough to actually read the text for themselves. It's the same issue with Islam (as an organized religion) There are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world, yet only 20% of them actually live in Arab countries, so it is certainly not a requirement for a Muslim to know Arabic simply to be a Muslim. How does that relate to the Latin problem? Well, in those days, there were no 'English translations' of the Bible, so the people simply had to believe what they were being told. In modern times, there are English (and other language) translations of the Qur'an (which are available to anyone) so the people can actually study the text for themselves, so they do not have to rely solely on the reciter (as the Qur'an is meant to be recited aloud) to be actually reading it correctly. However, even in modern countries, where education is not a universal matter, people can easily be manipulated by incorrect interpretations, simply because they cannot confirm the message themselves. Another situation, is if their opinion is somehow swayed by a particularly charismatic scholar, that is then because they choose to accept that scholar's interpretation, over their own knowledge of the text itself. Again though, if they chose to follow a scholar's interpretation of the Qur'an, rather than the Qur'an itself, then they are no longer following the Qur'an, and, when they then commit behaviors which the Qur'an specifically forbids (such as suicide) then they should no longer be viewed as Muslims, simply because they are no longer submitting themselves to God's Will, but are infact following 'another', which, as previously mentioned, is completely and utterly forbidden, and they are, to use the Arabic term, committing shirk.

The issue is not the (or any) religion itself, but the organization of religion, and how that organization can be used to manipulate people. This is why I always say that people (regardless of how the media 'use' the word) should always study the fundamentals of a religion, (the original source material) rather than simply following the word and 'traditions' of the organization of how the religion currently exists, as those two factors are not always in true harmony

Terrorism makes no sense.

Those who kill in this manner are plain COWARDS.

And as above, I could not agree with you more completely.

[Edit to clarify points]