TeeJay

Just arrived in the post

If it's good enough for Orlando, it's good enough for me

TeeJay.....can I ask you a few questions...?

Of course.

TeeJay@

You are a minority when it comes to have you think about Islam,sad but true.

99% of all the muslims i now was happy when 9/11 happend that says alot..In schools in Norway many where happy after 9/11 it did even reach the news paper that kids where joy full after hearing about it..

I can only say i whish for muslims to be more like you Teejay..

Cheers

Indeed, the branch of Islam I follow is a minority branch, but, that is because it focusses solely on the Holy Qur'an, and not the hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. As I mentioned in a post above, there is a difference between 'the organization of religion' (whatever it may be) and the original scriptures of the religion itself. As illustrated, there is a considerable difference between the message Jesus taught, and what modern 'Christians' claim to be 'Christianity'. Islam is precicely the same in this, as the modern'concepts' of the religion, are additional and augmentations of the Holy Qur'an, and the Holy Qur'an is specific in saying not to add 'gods' to Allah, and is specific in the passage where the prophet, peace be upon him, was told not to guide people. 'Qur'an only'Islam mightbe considered 'minority', or 'going against the establishment', but it is the only branch of Islam which focusses solely on the Will of Allah, by not incorporating the hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is fair to say that it is 'Pure Islam', as it does not incorporate other ideas, and is the religion as specified in the Holy Qur'an. As a convert to Islam, I felt this was the branch which I should be following for those very reasons. I had not been 'raised' a Muslim, so was not simply following family traditions and practices (which could be inconsistent with the Holy Qur'an), but submitting to the will of Allah, in the manner Allah had commanded in the Holy Qur'an.

With regards 9-11, while I would never justify or agree with what happened, I would point out, that what happened, regardless of the claimed religion of those responsible, happened because of political and social reasons, going back many years to Operation Cyclone. I would point out that even the majority of the Muslims you know, are a tiny minority compared to the actual number of Muslims world-wide, and, while not all Muslims world-wide follow the same branch of Islam I do, the majority would certainly share the same basic views about the Holy Qur'an, the Human Rights it promotes, and it's commandments to treat othersand the less fortunate with kindness, and to show tollerance to people of other beliefs. It is not the place of Mankind to judge each other for any reason, that judgement is made by Allah and no other.

He hasn't answered my questions....!

If you ask, I shall try and answer.

Let's bring this all to a close with this good news from the MSN homepage:

A British teacher has been granted a full pardon after a meeting between Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and two UK Muslim peers.

Gillian Gibbons is being freed following talks between Tory peer Baroness Warsi and Labour peer Lord Ahmed and the Sudanese leader.

Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi had lobbied for the early release of Mrs Gibbons who was jailed on Thursday for 15 days after allowing her class of seven-year-olds to name a teddy bear Mohammed.

Mrs Gibbons has been held at a secret location in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, amid fears for her safety after protests on Friday in Khartoum's central Martyrs Square demanding a harsher sentence.

Hundreds of people burned pictures of the 54-year-old, from Aigburth, Liverpool, chanting: "Shame, shame on the UK," and "No tolerance: Execution," and "kill her, kill her by firing squad".

On hearing the news, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that "common sense" had prevailed. In a statement he said: "I was delighted and relieved to hear the news that Gillian Gibbons is to be freed.

"Common sense has prevailed. She will be released into the care of our embassy in Khartoum after what must have been a difficult ordeal.

"Through the course of Ms Gibbons' detention I was glad to see Muslim groups across the UK express strong support for her case.

"I applaud the particular efforts of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi in securing her freedom. I am also grateful to our officials for all their work behind the scenes."

Oh, I'm totally grasping what you're saying about culture differences. Perhaps you're not grasping the fact that I'm just not buying it. I'm counting 49 majority-Muslim countries. And I'm sure it's fair to say that a huge percentage of them have laws derived from the Koran. But if people don't want to live that way, where is the mass outrage? I would expect to see revolts from time to time if the majority of the people didn't want to live under a repressive regime. In any given country, it could take decades to topple an unpopular government, but with ~50 countries to choose from, odds are that we would see some action somewhere every few years. So, really, we haven't established that the silent majority who want an anti-protest even exist. You just expect us to take your word that they do. Not good enough. Further, what 'dictatorial regime' is responsible for the Muslims in Canada and the UK who want to establish sharia law in their adopted countries? Now, I can believe there is a minority of Muslims who want the lady released without harm. After all, there is always some diversity of opinion in a large group. And the Muslims in the West are also aware that their public reactions are being watched, so it is important to realize that they may or may not be expressing heartfelt beliefs.

Enough time has been wasted, indeed... Amen.

Sorry, but if you are grasping what I am saying about cultural differences, but refusing to accept that those conditions are keeping people 'under the thumb', then this has become a cyclical argument, no longer a debate, and not something I am prepared to give any more time to. You mention the Muslims in Canada and the US who want sharia law established, but are suggesting that this is somehow wrong. As I have tried to make very clear, there is a distinct difference between the 'sharia law' specified in the Holy Qur'an, and the brutality of countries like Sudan and Iraq, where a distorted version of Islam is being used as a basis for their 'sharia law'. The name might be the same, but the basic principles (as I illustrated showing the Human Rights in Islam which are repressed by these so-called Islamic countries) are radically different.

As said before, if you want to properly understand Islam in it's pure form, then read a copy of the Holy Qur'an cover to cover. You will find it much more explanatory.

As above, it's time to put an end to this debate as it's now just going in circles.

Best regards.

I can only define 'Islam' as the way it is practiced in this day and age. 1000 years ago I would be saying a lot of the same about Christianity. But, the scriptures haven't changed. Christians evolved. On the other hand, what goes on in the name of Islam today is incompatible with the civilized world. What they really need, in my opinion, is a reformist movement.

Yes, religions can change over time.

This is a much more accomodating post, but, something which needs clarifying, is that Muslims accept two basic things: That there is One god, Allah, supreme and unique; and that the revelation given through the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the genuine, final and complete revelation from this god, and supersedes all revelations that came before it.

That means that the scriptures cannot change, and indeed, have not changed since the time of the prophet, peace be upon him. What has changed though, is the importance given to the hadiths attributed to the prophet, peace be upon him, and the cultural values of the regions under discussion. People's perceptions of religions can certainly change over time, as can the religion's involvement with governmental power, but on a personal level, they remain the same.

I disagree. If we were merely talking about a single country, I might believe you. But this is a pattern.

Yes. One of social and cultural problems. One where tin-pot dictators use perversions of religion to keep the masses uneducated and compliant. As mentioned before, this was the same problem with Christianity, when the scriptures were delivered solely in Latin, when Latin was not the common language of the people. Before the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, began to give the recitations (which is what 'qur'an' actually means - the recitation ) Arab women were treated extremely poorly and as little more than cattle or property, but the emergence of Islam changed that treatment. The Holy Qur'an has a specific sura devoted to detailing how women should be treated, be it as wives, mothers, divorced wives, etc etc.

As I tried to point out before, many of the problems facing Muslim women in Islamic countries are not because of Qur'anic teaching, but because of cultural issues within that country/region.

And, as I've said, scriptures can be interpreted many different ways. How do you draw any conclusions from that? Do you believe the peaceful parts of the Koran, or the violent parts?

One must believe all parts of the Holy Qur'an, both positive and negative, because they are all the will of Allah, and as a Muslim (one who submits to the will of Allah) The choice is to obey, or not. If one obeys and submits to the will of Allah, as laid out in the Holy Qur'an, then they are a Muslim. If they do not, then they are not.

So, the true principles of Islam must be indicated by how Muslims behave.

False assumption. The 'true principles' of Islam exist in the Holy Qur'an.

Currently, the "news" is covering thousands of Muslims marching in the street, demanding the beheading of a nice white lady who meant no harm.

Yes, thousands of Muslims living under an extremist regime, where, as in Iraq under Saddam's rule, dissent was not tollerated. As previously discussed, those thousands are a miniscule percentage of the 1.1-1.8 billion Muslims world-wide who do not agree with such extremist ways. I'm no mathmagician, but what percentage would, say 5000 be of 1.8 billion? Would it even be 1%?

Am I supposed to believe there is a silent majority who wants her to be released? Where are they? You say they exist, but don't make exciting news. Hmm, OK. Well why aren't they protesting? When the defeatist liberals in America hold an anti-war protest, red-blooded patriots come out in droves to hold an anti-anti-war protest. Why doesn't that happen in Muslim countries? Clearly, as you've indicated, it's not for lack of rights. And yet, the only viewpoint ever espoused is pro-violence. Go figure.

I don't think you are quite grasping the differences in cultures between America and these countries which live under extremist rule. Under these regimes, which have departed from the true principles of Islam, for the previously discussed reasons of maintaining power, the 'citizens' do not have the right to protest and free-speech. That kind of behaviour would get them killed. Not just killed as in a clean bullet to the back of the head, but stoned or flogged to death. That is the problem. That is why these other people are silent and not having an anti-protest. Not because they don't want to, but because the conditions they live under simply do not allow them to, and, those conditions, as previously explained, are not down to Islam, Christianity or any religion, but down to dictatorial regimes using a corruption of a religion to maintain power.

As for where are the people who want her released, I already linked two articles about British Muslim peers who have travelled to Sudan to try and negotiate a swift release.

@ Jon Fort - Again, if you have something specific you disagree with about my posts, please say so. If you are not going to actively participate in this debate, please have the courtesy not to rate the posts I make in it. I am all for difference of opinion, but simply slapping a 'disagree' rating without putting your reasons and own opinions for discussion is not debate, and, I hate to say, rather cowardly.

Is it really that unfair to judge a religion based on the actions of its clerics and followers?

Absolutely so. As DemonSlayer pointed out, you should judge a religion by it's scriptures and nothing else.

Besides, with thousands of conflicting statements in every religion's holy books, how do you discern the 'true message'?

I have found nothing conflicting in the Holy Qur'an at all.

There's all sorts of nasty stuff in the Koran, and the old testament of the Bible is a little questionable too. If Christians and Jews took all the violent parts literally like the Muslims do, do you think they would not be condemned for it?

Correction, like some Extremist Muslims do. Please stop confusing the vast majority of Muslims with these fanatics who do not follow the true principles of Islam. Also, please define 'nasty'. If you mean 'more strict than the lifestyle people in the West are currently accustomed to,' sorry, but that is not 'nasty'.

I will, however, concede that there are small factions of so-called 'moderate' Muslims, most likely concentrated in civilized nations, who disagree with the extremist approach.

I'm sure also that probably more than a few Muslim women in uncivilized nations envy the western lifestyle and wish they had the same rights where they live.

I now have to repeat the same point I made when I listed the Human Rights granted by Islam, which is rather sad. Are these people (men or women) having restricted rights because of Islam, or because of the 'government' (regime might be a better term) of the country they live in? Given the list I previously listed, I suggest you think carefully about that answer.

Well, I see a pattern here. Sudanese law says she should have gotten 6 months + lashings for this teddy bear stunt. And this kind of garbage seems to be enshrined into law in (almost?) every single majority muslim country. The only possible exception I was able to find was Turkey, but they've got their issues too. So are you telling me that all these laws are written by an 'extremist fringe' minority? Everywhere??? It just doesn't add up.

Not necessarily 'extremist', 'mis-guided' might be the politest term for several reasons. Firstly, as I previously said, and DemonSlayer pointed out, there is a difference between the 'religious message', and the way the country and it's citizens live, and that is something not restricted to Muslim countries, but 'Christian' countries as well. Secondly, the majority of these Islamic countries are composed of Shi'ite a or Sunni Muslims. Both these branches of Islam follow, not only the messages laid out in the Holy Qur'an, but also follow the hadiths - the thoughts/habits/opinions of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him - and this, as I pointed out in my first post to Victoria, is something the prophet, peace be upon him, was specifically told not to do. Equally, the Holy Qur'an states that there is no god but Allah, and one should not add (gods) to Allah, but to worship Allah alone. Thirdly, as Seadweller pointed out in his post, that many of these countries, like Europe in the middle ages, is nothing more than people using a perversion of religion to keep themselves in power. That is not a true reflection of the religion itself, so ultimately, while these governments might not be 'extremist fringe', they are still not following the true principles of Islam

And the reality is that in countries with a large islamic population, infidels are often second-class citizens under the law.

A minority group finding itself treated as second-class citizens... Nothing like that happens in the UK or US any more. Does it...

Proselytizing is often forbidden. Polygamy is legal. Human rights are poor...

Islam permits many human rights:

The right to life.

The right to equality.

The right to freedom.

The right to freedom of opinion.

The right to emigration and refuge, to remove oneself from oppression.

The right to work and provide for oneself and one's family.

The right to justice.

The right to equality before the law.

The right to protect one's honor.

The right to social welfare and the basic necessities of life.

The right to marriage.

The right to privacy, and security of private life.

The right to dignity, and not to be abused or ridiculed.

The right to education.

The right to protest against tyranny.

The right to freedom of expression.

The right to freedom of conscience and conviction.

The right to protect religious sentiments.

The right to participate in affairs of state.

The right to rise above the level of animal life.

Those points I boldened. Are they because of Islam, or because of their governments trying to 'keep the peasants down', as previously pointed out?

So a more plausible explanation says that most of the muslims in these countries agree that using the false prophet's name in vain should be punished harshly.

You are (deliberately or otherwise) confusing the issue. The Holy Qur'an shows that the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not to guide people with his own personal opinions/thoughts/habits. That does not make him a false prophet. For you to suggest that he was is quite possibly the most disrespectfull comment I have ever read.

As mentioned before, people who are 'raised' Muslims, and simply following the habits of their forefathers, without reading the Holy Qur'an for themselves, and without experiencing ihsan (realization) themselves, are Muslims in name only, and there is a considerable difference, as has been illustrated several times by comparison to Jesus and present day Christianity.

When large populations of muslims gather in one place, they tend to want to live under something that resembles sharia law. In fact the muslims up in Toronto were trying to get the government to set up sharia courts for them. So where exactly is this moderation you speak of?

What is not moderate about wanting to live under the guidelines laid down in the Holy Qur'an by Allah? There are already Sharia courts in the UK, although they are not 'legally binding', but rely on voluntary acceptance of decisions. Muslims in Australia have recently criticised Muslims in some other countries for not fully integrating into their new home countries. Moderate enough for you?

Victoria and Ken, thank you

as-Salamu alaikum

You accuse me of not reading your holy book, yet you can't even see the difference between a scientific theory (everything is a theory in science) and literary heresay? Do some research: Evolution is accepted as the most likely version of events and just because scientists are disagreeing over the finer points doesn't mean it should be discounted as complete fiction.

Personally, I can see the difference. The point I was making, is that evolution has not been 100% absolutely proven, but is still accepted thus. Likewise. Do some research: Get a copy of the Holy Qur'an and read it.

Until all religious leaders can sit down and decide which of them is right, they should all be discounted equally and never, ever given power or arms.

And who says that these people should even be religious leaders? Why does there have to be an 'organization' to religion? People have their scriptures, that is all they need.

Islamists seem to gravitate towards the Sharia Law based, as you say, on "Do not write down anything of me except the Qur'an. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" and that is obviously a disaster waiting to happen, but basing law on the Qur'an is equally as dangerous as it can't take into account, for instance, software piracy. Software piracy doesn't break any religious laws as theft was always seen as depriving someone of something they own.

As I have said several times, a lot of these 'Islamists' are people who have been raised in the faith, so are following organized doctrine, rather than following pure scripture. Sharia rules on theft are specific, and it is potentially quite possible for software piracy to be considered theft under those conditions, if those conditions are met.

Society evolves (unless you want it to stay in the stone ages and you discount both cultural and biological evolution) and a law based on immutable text is possibly the stupidest thing I can imagine, especially when the text is so ambiguous.

Have you read the Holy Qur'an? If not, who are you to say that the text is ambiguous? It is written in a clear manner, the only confusion one might experience, is dealing with terms or formalities no longer used in contemporary language.

Islam only survives because of the financial power in the middle east. It lives and dies by oil, I'm afraid. When the oil runs out, the radicals take more power and we're all screwed.

Only about 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries. Again, there is a confusion between Muslims, extremist radicals, actual religious guidelines, and region-specific social guidelines. Yes, if radicals take more power, we're screwed, so hopefully more rational minds will prevail, and these people will cease to be a threat.

As I said before, I am not prepared to continue discussing this issue with you, because you have a very fixed opinion about Islam which is not accurate, appears to be based more on hearesay than actual religious study, and for the simple reason that Ry pointed out. I have nothing to justify to your or anyone else. As I said before:

Unbelievers

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!

[109.2] I worship not that which ye worship,

[109.3] And ye do not worship that which I worship;

[109.4] I shall never worship that which ye worship,

[109.5] Neither will ye worship that which I worship;

[109.6] To you be your religion; To me my religion.

If you cannot respect that, then that is an issue for you to resolve with yourself.

This isn't some extremists at work, this is Saudi-[censored]!ng-Arabia. A country interpreting Sharia Law

a premise you agree with,

Not when it is based on hadith. A point I made very clear.

Religion is the Crack of the masses. It'll denigrate you and rob you blind, and you'll be grateful for it.

In your opinion.

ps. I don't hate Islam. I'm merely a rationalist that thinks thousand-plus year-old made-up stories of wise men should have no place in modern government. I respect peoples' faiths, but have no time for those who control the religions. Yes, your faith is based on made-up stories, but if it makes you happy and a better person, I'm all for it.

Who are you to say those stories are made up? Where is your proof of that?

Indeed, you do not hate Islam, but you clearly do not understand it, and that is fine, but do not expect me to accept your opinions, just because you feel it is 'made up'. Here's something else which is 'made up', but people still believe in: Evolution. It is a theory, it has yet to be actually proven as 100% correct.

Quotation? Transliteration, more like. It's a translation of a transcription.

I am not prepared to debate the semantics of my copy of the Holy Qur'an with you. Either accept the message in the spirit it is intended, or do not. But if you are looking for a continuation of the debate, or to furtherget off topic, I'm afraid you will have to find someone else to indulge you.

as-Salamu alaikum

Clearly. It's going through the same growing pains that Christianity did in their Medieval period, and we know how enlightened they were then.

And the key problem, (In both instances) is as highlighted in SeaDweller's above post, nothing whatsoever to do with the religion itself, but the little tin-pot dictators using a corrupted version of teachings to keep themselves in power. Christianity (in any form) has virtually nothing to do with the message that Jesus gave. Jesus was a prophet. He did not want people to worship him, he wanted them to follow the message he had to pass on, as was the case with Moses. People do not worship Moses, nor (and they are not supposed to) the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

The problem is not 'the message', it is 'the organization' within which it is being presented (and influenced by cultural and social attitudes of the regions).

I think I've said just about all I need, or am prepared to on this issue, so will leave things with this quotation from the Holy Qur'an:

Unbelievers

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!

[109.2] I worship not that which ye worship,

[109.3] And ye do not worship that which I worship;

[109.4] I shall never worship that which ye worship,

[109.5] Neither will ye worship that which I worship;

[109.6] To you be your religion; To me my religion.

Who are all those friendly people on Dani's post (page 1) waving plastic swords and asking for this 56 year old (not 2056 year old) woman to be freed, Here's me thinking they were going to watch a Mohamhad Ali boxing match, not looking for some cuddly bear.

Why the references of 2000? Islam is not 2000 years old. Previous posts by both myself and others (which I have pointed out to you) explain the behaviour of those in Sudan, as well as hopefully enlighten about Islam. You clearly have no interest in discussing this topic reasonably, therefore, I have nothing further to say to you. Please stop trolling the forum.

If you want to get really deep into the figures, you should check which terrorist organisations were funded by the US directly or by US citizens.

For example, Operation Cyclone.

That 1% ( minority you say ) of extremists you talk about must all be in Sudan then.

You really have no clue what you are talking about, or grasp of the concept of 'extremist minority', have you. Try reading this post, you might find it informative.

I really do not think we should simplify that complex topic this way.

To understand and solve the issue between the west and the middle east will be the main task of foreign affairs during the next century in my opinion.

And it won't be answered by dropping a bomb, that for sure. The arrabic world was the leading culture 800-1100 years ago, they build hospitals and knew how to take out an apendix while in europe the only way known to heal people was to venesect until the patient was cured to death. Opening a human body was blasphemy in the christian world. They also had the leading educational system, in fact, there was no system in europe at all. That was when the popes and the european gentry decided to invade them and called out the crusades.

Today the sides have significantly changed, it is popular for the arabic elite to send their kids in the west for a better education. The Saudis for example have a healthcare system which sends them to Germany or the USA for health care.

They drive foreign cars and hire western engineers. Remember we are regarding their upper class. In the last centuries, islamic south african countrys have always been the loser. They are often the ressource-richest but the poorest at the same time. A large company in the west has usually a better national product than one of these countries. They see our wealth and sense their lack for something they can be proud of.

If we regard now on how these countries get their income, we'll see that it is parted in export of goods such as oil, coffee, comestible goods, tobacco and foreign aid. The foreign aid is usually taken by warlords or government. The export goods that reach the EU or the States are put under very high taxes to protect our own agriculture.

In most countries, the main part of the population suffers from starving, they're not able to read or write. They are informed by their Imams during devine service. These guys are pretty much in charge usually, sometimes they're just warlords with a small militia... They pretend to be wise and strictly religious, but in fact they are only telling their way of view to keep the status quo. They make sure that everyone in their community gets to know that we in the western world might have the wealth, but they have the only true religion. Polemic at its best. Lets call them whitebeards.

It is a very old way to stay in charge by installing an enemy the people can focus on. By the way, it is the same "we against them" feeling that appears here, too. Just think of "coalition of the willing", "axis of evil" and other populistic frases. This sort of foreign politic adds fuel to the fire.

This mixture of poverty, bad (if none) education and the contrast to the wealthy west creates a very effective breeding ground for fanatics. In my opinion it is no wonder we can see the mob raving around everytime someone "hurts" their religious feelings - because they are told to feel hurt.

It seems ironically only at first sight , that of all things a teacher who tried to educate these people gets in the line of their fire. But it is in the interest of those white beards in charge to keep the population uneducated. The Taliban were top-notch in that, really.

But this all has nothing to do with the Islam as a religion at all, but with the hurt feeling of inferiority combined with an attitude of "me and my rifle will defend this culture" insinuated by whitebearded old men!

I gotta admit, my post became just as simplyfied, but you could write books on this topic without even scratching the surface of this complexity of problems.

@Jon Fort - What part of my comment (there was rather a lot of it) did you disagree with? I'd be willing to discuss any aspects of it you might have disagreed with

But in fairness TJ

'N's' (for their name cannot be uttered) & Jews have not to date declared war on the nations of most of the members

Have they?

.

Neither have the majority of the 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide...

I do not agree with your premise that the board is largely comprised of islamophobes. refer to my other teddy post.

Edd, that was not my premise. I said:

Given the level of tollerated Islamophobia running rampant here, is it any wonder that there aren't??

There have been several posts, both recently and not so recently, where certain members (not naming names) have made extremely ignorant and bigoted posts against Islam and Muslims, and, they have not been corrected for it by Admin or his moderators, therefore, this behavious appears to be tollerated. One such spam post was removed following a complaint, but I would not like to say that it would have been had there not been a complaint made.

If someone was to title a post "All n****s are murdering crack-head rapists" or "All Jews are hook-nosed shylock c*nts", then the member responsible would likely be disciplined for it. The fact that it has not happened to people making Islamophobic comments, makes it appear to be tollerated, and that could be why there are not more Muslim members.

I was expecting a tale of social riddicule, but never mind, a lesson in pronunciation is just as good

'Pah-nair-eye' rolls off the tongue so nicely with an Italian accent

What's up, Tee-Jay? You already know where I stand on this issue; it appears most everyone here has a slice of right. We probably do overestimate the number of reps vs. gens on the market, but that should serve only to highlight the expertise in our community at telling good from bad reps and buying accordingly. WE as a community are NOT making that big a dent in gen sales, and certainly not rep sales either. We probably DO represent a decent number of sales or the reps would not improve in quality or delivery to us, we do mean SOMETHING. The gen companies have more than a few reasons to not actively pursue the rep industry at this time; and if and when they DO, it will be the 2nd coming of the RIAA. It has to do with the closedness of this hobby in my opinion. Do you remember how hard it was for most of us to even FIND these sites and decent info? And WE were actively seeking it.! There aren't enough folks even aware of the quality that exists and is improving in the rep world for the economics to begin to affect the gen world. Also, as long as there are mechanical and material differences between gens and reps (especially on the quality side), not many people outside of our community would trade the pride and prestige often associated with gen ownership. Those are the gen buyers, with disposable income AND mindset for the genuine atricle. As long as the gen companies continue to reap profit from here, we are no threat to their market share. As rep quality improves (cosmetically AND mechanically) perhaps this may change. If you could consistently get 1:1 cosmetically, and mechanically, then that would be more of an issue for the gen makers. There are also the politics: you are not going to get the world's number 1 copy cat nation to just stop by politely asking. China is too important to the world economy for the watch industry to really call shots with them, yet. A lot of planets would have to shift and it would have to become important to the REST of the world to change how the Chinese are operating in the new global economy. Stop copying and repping? Stop repping what? Computers, electronics, clothes, watches, toys, medicines, where to start? This industry is so much of a machine for the total Chinese economy I don't see them pulling the plug unless REAL pressure were brought to bear. That being said, it is an improbability, NOT an IMPOSSIBILITY. Just as these Chinese made changes to join the global economy, there are countries and companies trying to bring pressures and laws against their behavior, one day they may gain some sway. So, the economy and marketplace itself may cause course correction we have no control over. This is the famous "get your reps NOW theory" before or if things were to change.

Last point. I do believe the growth of the rep industry has helped the prices of gens to stay as they have been for several years, all time highs, but not wild growth. This has as much to do with currency evaluation as anything else. Everything costs more, it's called inflation. As long as the numbers of reps increase, the gen is devalued. Not in such a manner that your 10K watch is worth $500.00 suddenly, but it ain't worth 12.5K either, the reps have something to do with that, if only to provide a counterpoint to gen pricing. When it affects the gen bottom line enough- they will react. Right now they do everything from bolster the rep prices, to ignoring the phenomonon, let them stay that way until we've collected all we can. I still have songs from my old Napster.

All's well, thanks Fantastic post, it covers pretty much everything

In your next prayers, can you ask him to be a little less ambiguous next time?

I could, but I think they'd have more impact coming from you personally

So you do agree with Sharia law then?

Of course. [Edit to clarify] and by that I mean I agree with Sharia law as specified in the Holy Qur'an, not Sharia law as influenced by the hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. I would not be a Muslim if I did not agree to submit to all aspects of Allah's will. I never said that I did not agree with Sharia law. I said that I do not agree with the way this person has been treated, because the complaints against her were motivated by spite and personal malice, not legitimate complaint. As I said before, any government which acts in such away has moved away from the principles of Islam. True Sharia Law gives the accused the right to defend themselves and be fairly judged. It is not simply a harsh system of pre-determined punishments where the accused is automatically considered guilty.

No, it's just bad weather.

Keep telling yourself that

TeeJay i dont need to be so enlighted to the Islam way as i had more or less only muslims friends until i was 12-13 and i still have many i consider friends but they dont cear to much of the religion they eat pig and such

Dani, obviously you do need to be educated about Islam, as you clearly do not understand the guidelines on what is halal.

I don't care how many Muslim friends you had as a child, have you ever personally fully read the Holy Qur'an?

If, as you say, they 'don't care too much' for the religion, and eat pork, then they should not call themselves Muslims.

If there was an "allah", he would still be creaming his pants over the WTC. I wonder if god intentionally acts in ways that give him plausible deniability.... Intelligent design, weather manipulation...

This has nothing to do with 9-11, it is an entirely different issue. With regards 9-11, that, and other acts like it, are NOT in anyway sanctioned or condoned by the Holy Qur'an, infact, they are utterly condemned as 'exceeding the bounds' (as Allah does not love those who exceed the bounds) The Holy Qur'an also forbidsonefrom 'throwing onesself into destruction'. It specifically forbids suicide. The beliefs held by such extremists are perversions of Islam, incomplete pieces of scripture taken entirely out of context, and which, when put in context, do not suggest the violent actions extremists believe that they do.

I'm sure more than a few of the family members in the UK knew. Would these guys go blow themselves up without having some sort of plan for the well-being of their household?

This is the whole point of extremists: The do not think in such terms. There are passages in the Holy Qur'an which say that a person should not follow the 'beliefs of their fathers' if they (their beliefs) were inconsistent with Islam. These are impressionable people who have been maniplulated into following a corruption of Islam, which is why they would indeed have no problem with blowing themselves, and others up, despite specific instruction not to do so, because they are choosing to ignore those pieces of text.

Or is violence just integral to Islam? It's a valid question

Indeed it is a valid question. One piece the Holy Qur'an states:

Fighting is enjoined on you, and is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

A clear example that people sometimes have to do things they do not like.

However, this passage is preceded (so must be balanced by, and considered with)

And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the bounds, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the bounds.

As mentioned previously, to fight against people who do not fight with you, is exceeding the bounds, as is doing so in a way which is forbidden.

This is the point I was trying to make about fragments of scripture being taken out of context, and then used to manipulate impressionable people into a course of action which is criticized and forbidden by the rest of the Holy Qur'an.

and when the Pope raised it, Muslims proved him wrong by..... threatening to cut off his head. Message: Don't call us intolerant or we'll kill you.

Correction: EXTREMIST Muslims threatened to cut off his head.

So thousands marching in the streets is 'fringe extremism'?

Compared to between 1.1 billion and 1.8 billion followers worldwide, yes.

When I think of 'fringe extremism' I picture the klan rallies where 5-10 people show up from their side. Actions speak louder than words.

Whatever visualizations make it easier Same point as above though. 5-10 Klan members do not represent the majority opinion of the Aryan race. A few thousand extremist Muslims (living in a country which has moved away from the true principles of Islam (as can be confirmed by actually reading the Holy Qur'an)) do not represent the majority opinion of all Muslims world-wide.

Yes, actions speak louder than words, but don't make the mistake of judging a group by the actions of a minority.

This could be Al-Qaeda today word for word:

Except for one crucial factor:

under no circumstances did they commit suicide, preferring to be killed by their captors."

A small distinction, but, it makes a whole lot of difference.

There's something terribly sad about trying to justify one's beliefs, particularly when they touch on such a private sphere as faith, revelation and/or mystical experience. I consider myself a "Buddhist" because somewhere along the line I decided that it was a philosophy - rather than a religion - that I felt the most comfortable with: it made sense, and part of that sense was the Buddhist belief that "the way is the way" - that any - or no - religion, philosophy or even any particular effort is needed to achieve Salvation. The particular kicker is that for Buddhists of the brighter variety, we're already saved, but basically just too stupid to realize it.

At its very purest level, any religion is a marvellous and shining thing. For that matter, so is a flower or Ford Edsel, but unlike religion, they just won't go the distance. Those touched by this understanding are forever transformed - in the best possible way - even if the remainder of their lives may be as ordinary as anyone else's.

Illumination is not like winning at one of the million-dollar Vegas slots: it's all about getting back to work and doing the best you can for yourself and others (the same, really) in this shitty/perfect sphere of reality that we inhabit - while trying not to totally forget that ultimate moment of enlightenment that briefly flashed through your besotted neurons.

TeeJay should have nothing to justify: from what he's said - despite being drawn into impossible discussions of the semantics and logic of his choices - he's on the right road: the one he's chosen. For reasons that no one will ever know - and which should never have to be explained - it happens to be called Islam.

Again, and from what he's said, I have no doubt that his experience was life-changing, life-affirming, powerful and authentic. Experiences such as that - if I may be presumptuous enough to assume that that was what he was trying to convey - are autonomous and sufficent unto themselves. They make life worth living, and are the diametrical opposite of the death-cults that any religious or political system can be turned into.

Every cycle of history brings its high tide of fanatics, psychopaths and assorted true believers whose ideas of faith and belief are ultimately destructive: by its fruits shall ye know the tree.

Personally, and judging from what he's said and what he's attempting to accomplish, I'd rather have Teejay in my corner in my hour of need - and probably during much less dramatic moments as well - than many of the people who are trying to question his faith in himself and the path he's chosen.

Thanks, I truly appreciate that

95% of acts of terrorism, the greatest number of murders, human suffering, degradation, torture, and execution of women are done in the name of Islam. Fu*k those insane, deluded co*ksu*kers and may they burn in hell. Twice. The majority of the suffering in the world today falls directly into the arms of islamic fundamentalists who could give a spit about the rights and beliefs of anyone else. These horrible excuses for human beings are bringing down our world to the level of the dark ages .What is good and decent in the world is constantly under attack by these sick and deluded whack jobs and it is the responsibility of other members of Islam to root them out, ostrasize and punish them rather than be silent, and pretend that their religion is under attack, and lash out at those who are rightfully outraged by the actions of these fly face mutants. No one in their right mind would even think of demanding a middle age teacher be exectuted if she named a teddy bear 'God' or 'Jesus Christ'.

Another comment proving once more why people should not judge a group by the actions of a minority within the group.

95% of acts of terrorism, the greatest number of murders, human suffering, degradation, torture, and execution of women are done in the name of Islam. Fu*k those insane, deluded co*ksu*kers and may they burn in hell. Twice.

Absolutely so. Of course, 95% of the Muslims in the world, are not extremists. With between 1.5 and 1.8billionMuslims worldwide, the few who do commit heinous acts probably does not even equate to 1%...

Is this the 2500 year old TeeJay again, still got your head buried in the sand letting it all happen, turning a blind eye, maybe they should have silenced the bear.

Contribute something worthwhile to the debate, and you'll get a worthwhile answer.

So, you're a better Muslim than the Islamic state of Sudan?

It is not a case of being 'better', but a case of one thing being correct, the other not. As I pointed out previously, the US and UK would claim to be 'Christian', but with very little thought actually given to the message Jesus delivered, rather the dogma created by Constantine and the Catholic Church.

The problem is that, unless Allah comes down and tells you which one of you is correct, both you and them will think that one of you is a true Muslim and the other is false.

As I said above to Victoria, when I quoted from the Holy Qur'an, that is what Allah did do, when He reminded the prophet, peace be upon him, that it was not his place to guide others (by his own opinions/habits, but to pass on the message he had been given)

If you see that basing law on religion is stupid then you see laws and rights as higher importance than religion. At this point, why bother with religion if it's less important?

If the law is based on the religion, then the religion has to be more important, for the law to be taken from it...

To take it back to the case in Sudan, the courts there believe that it is important that they act upon the strict rules about blasphemy.

Should they be looked down upon by Muslims?

That's not really the issue. The point is that to be a Muslim means to submit to the will of Allah. The will of Allah is the messages contained within the Holy Qur'an, as told to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, not the laws which are taken from the hadiths, which, as previously mentioned, Allah reminded the prophet, peace be upon him, not to do, and, which the prophet, peace be upon him, himself instructed others not to record. (Again, this is like the difference between Jesus' message, and Catholic Dogma, but the modern confusion between the two)

The laws which Allah expects Muslims to follow, are laid out in the Holy Qur'an.

Are they not just following Allah's will?

That would depend on which set of laws they are following.

Wouldn't Allah stop them if they were wrong?

Not an Islamic expression, but, 'The Lord moves in mysterious ways'. Allah 'stopping them' might not be an obvious thing.

Where are the Gods these days if they allow us to commit such flagrant stupidity in their names?

God is an absent father. He obviously doesn't care about us any more. Is that our fault or his? Did we take his name in vain one time too many?

People in the Church of England have suggested that the recent floods might be 'God's Punishment' for sinfull ways. The weather (world wide) has not been good in recent years... Tsunami, earthquakes, floods, typhoons, hurricanes etc... Maybe those are Allah's punishments to Mankind...

Also from MSN's Homepage;

Hopes were rising for the early release of British teacher Gillian Gibbons following the intervention of two Muslim peers.

Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer and Baroness Warsi, a Conservative peer, held talks with the Sudanese foreign minister and other officials as part of a private attempt to secure her freedom.

The peers also met Mrs Gibbons, 54, at a secret location in Sudan's capital Khartoum. Mrs Gibbons' chief defence lawyer Kamal al-Gizouli said he expects her to be pardoned following the peers' visit.

Mrs Gibbons is being held in secret amid fears for her own safety after thousands of protesters gathered to demand she should face a harsher sentence.

Mrs Gibbons was jailed for 15 days by a Sudanese court on Thursday for insulting Islam after allowing her class of seven-year-olds to name a teddy bear Mohammed.

In a statement released by her legal team, Mrs Gibbons said she was "fine and well". The short statement, which was handed to Channel 4 News, said the teacher wanted people to know she had been well treated.

It said: "I'm fine, I'm well, I'm very grateful to all the people working on my behalf. I know so many people out there have done so much. I want people to know I've been well treated, and especially that I'm well fed.

"The guards are constantly asking if I have everything I need."

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has rung Mrs Gibbon's son, John, 27, to personally reassure the family that he is doing "everything he can" to secure her release.

Speaking outside his Liverpool home, Mr Gibbons, 27, said he had spoken to his mother and told her the family missed her and loved her.

This is something muslims and some parts of the jewish religion tend to do,staying in the past we have 10times more effectiv slaughter metods this days.

Yes, a bolt to the head. Which counts as 'a blow'. Something forbidden by the Holy Qur'an.

But becasue of what some dude said long time ago muslims and jews will not change for the better and slaughter an animal as it shoud by 2007 standar not 1007..

No. Not because of 'what some dude' said, but because of what was commanded by Allah. There really is a huge difference there, which I pointed out in my above post. It seems you are not reading anything I am saying which would educate you on the subject.

No pigs in any europen country i now about get slaughter like that,you woud get jail time if you did that in Norway so i doubt any other country slaugher animals like that maybe the Chines do.

I admit, the video I saw was 15 years ago, but, it was in a UK slaughter house.

The calf vid can be found on peta i think.

Ah PETA... A group who's tactics have left them reviled by people on both sides of the debate on animal rights. PETA are as much extremists as terrorists who kill 'in the name' of Islam...

Earlier, I had written then promptly deleted, "in our replies, please let's be aware that we have at least one prominent Muslim in the group", but I realised that sounded both out of place and preachy.

Just to let you know, this is why I am using the word zealots constantly, because I know YOU would never condone such an action, TeeJay. But then, you're a convert...

This is true, I am a convert, but, the distinctions which need clarifying because of that are:

1) I am a 'Qur'an-only' Muslim. I do not follow the hadiths from the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, because there is a section of the Holy Qur'an which specifically states:

Their guidance is not thine affair, O Muhammad; but Allah guideth whom he pleaseth.

That is, without question, specifically telling the prophet, peace be upon him, not to guide people (by his own opinions/habits/thoughts) and that is precicely what the hadiths are, his opinions/habits/thoughts. In fairness, in the recordings of the hadiths, the prophet, peace be upon him, did instruct his followers to record nothing from him but the Holy Qur'an, and if they had recorded anything else, to erase it, so he himself was trying to clarify that the only guidance a Muslim needs, is the Holy Qur'an itself.

2) The vast majority of 'raised Muslims' do infact live by the hadiths, and consider them equal in stature to the Holy Qur'an, which was never the intention of the prophet, peace be upon him, but something they have been raised to do by their parents. That is not to say that people who live by the examples and opinions of the prophet, peace be upon him, are wrong, but it is fair to say that strictly speaking, it is not 'true' Islam, because 'true' Islam is submission to the will of Allah, and the instructions from that are nowhere but in the Holy Qur'an.

[Edit toadd]

Essentially, this would be analagous to following the teachings of Jesus, and not the Catholic Church's version of 'Christianity', which are two rather different things.

3)Being a Muslim is essentially a very personal experiance. It cannot be done 'second hand'. It involves a moment, known as ihsan (realization) of being 'born anew', and every Muslim has to experience this before they can indeed truly submit to the will of Allah.

Just a few points, since on paper, you said some things I agree with otherwise.

Generally these nominally "Christian" people don't use religion as their crutch, though. These people do.

Quite so, in madrassas the world over.

Any so-called Islamic government that has become tyranical has moved away from the principles of Islam, no matter how self-righteous it may claim to be.

So where are the converts in this situation, petitioning, and calling for calm amongst their Umma? Surely they have some pull in the matter? Surely they must know that every time this happens, it makes the rest of them look bad?

Such reports are easy enough to find. Here's one from the MSN homepage:

British Muslims protested outside the Sudanese Embassy over the treatment of jailed teacher Gillian Gibbons.

The small but noisy group demanded the immediate release of Mrs Gibbons, who is currently serving a 15-day prison sentence in Sudan after her class of seven-year-olds named a teddy bear Mohammed.

Chanting "free, free Gillian" and "let her go, let her go", demonstrators attempted to hand over a "goodwill teddy" to the embassy, but a staff member refused to accept the gift.

Some 20 British Muslims, including MP for Tooting Sadiq Khan and chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission Massoud Shadjareh, gathered outside the Sudanese embassy in Piccadilly.

Leaders of the protest said they wanted to show that British Muslims supported Mrs Gibbons. Some arrived with their own teddy bears.

The protest followed angry scenes in Khartoum on Friday in which knife-wielding fundamentalists called for the execution of Mrs Gibbons.

At the London demonstration, Catherine Heseltine, a 28-year teacher and member of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, condemned the action of hard-line Islamists.

She said: "They are dragging the name of Islam through the mud. The overwhelming feeling in the Muslim community in the UK is that it is really sad the way Gillian Gibbons has been treated. I haven't met a single British Muslim who has taken the naming of the teddy to be an insult."

Mr Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "I find it offensive that Islam is being used in this way by the Sudanese government and the media.

"It is totally unacceptable by the Sudanese government and the press are trying to make this into another cartoon or a Salmon Rushdie issue."

Every one speaks of moderate Muslims, but moderate Muslims do not speak. This is the problem in this region.

Theproblems in the region, as in Iraq, under Saddam's rule, are social and political, not religious. It is a government usurping and perverting Islam for it's own ends, so these 'moderate Muslims' donot speak, under fear of reprisals and punishment from the authorities.

Every one speaks of moderate Muslims, but moderate Muslims do not speak. This is the problem in this region.

Exactly my point Vic.

Just what is it the moderate Muslims are afraid of? They would gain so much respect if the waged a 'war' against the extremists.

Let's hear their voices on TV, in the press, etc.

As in my above reply to Victoria, moderate Muslims do (and are) speaking out in this issue. One reason why moderate Muslims are perceived to be silent is because, the press marginalizes their comments, because it allows for demonization of Islam to sell copy, and another, is because Muslims are taught not to involve themselves in the affairs of others, and to be respectfull of other's privacy. This is, sadly, why many of the UK's 'homegrown' terrorists were not discovered by members of their communities or families. It is a different mindset, much like the 'inscrutable orientals'.

Emmzy, they would be hunted down and killed. Not because ALL Muslims would be in favour of this. On the contrary. But it's enough that there are a few active zealots who the rest are scared of, to shut the moderates up. Obviously, I'm not speaking of the Sudanese in these crowd shots. They are numerous enough.

One thing is to be perceived as an unbeliever. It's quite another thing to be an apostate.

Absolutely so.

Gandi said a society will be judged by the way they treat the animals.I dont agree fully whit Mr.Gandi as i belive we are predators and meat eaters by nature but we shoud go forward not backwards when it comes to humanly slaughter animals.

So to avoid human nature as meat eater is not the way to go,but to expect people to have empati and humanly kill the animals is..

Jews and muslims have a way of slauther animals that is beyond crulety and that is just facts not fiction..

I can only speak about countrys i now but in Norway and Sweden animals get stunned to death is thakes maybe and at worst case senario 10sec to die,by having your throat cut it thakes much longer in a Kosher slaughter house in the US they filmed a calf suffer for over 5min and it even stand up on it legs

I have seen both humans and animals get their throat cut the way halal and kosher is done and its horribel to see even if its only on a pc screen..

But i dont see have my rant here will change this desert religions.

D

Islam teaches Muslims to be kind to animals and it is said that the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was also a man who was kind to animals.

As I said in my previous post, and you appear to have totally ignored, the method of slaughter used by the Jews and Muslims (cutting the juggular vein) was the most humane method of slaughter available to them at the time, and, as I mentioned, the Holy Qur'an forbids eating anything which was killed by a fall, by a blow, by strangulation or by being gored. That is specifically forbidding eating (or killing) an animal killed in an inhumane manner. I would be most interested to see the footage from the kosher slaughter house, because cutting (properly) the juggular vein should result in near instant unconsciousness and death. I would suggest, that the animal in the footage, did not have it's juggular properly severed, which may explain the length of time taken to bleed to death. Also, as I mentioned previously, pigs are slaughtered by being hung from their back trotters, and having a 12 inch blade put in the chest. There is absolutely no humane treatment in that method of execution at all, and, I believe it is also customary now, for animals killed in the halal fashion to be electronically stunned so there is not even the sensation of being cut.

Everyone here keeps saying that 'she' (the teacher) was the one who named the teddybear.

I have read elsewhere - on a news forum - that she asked the class to name it.

Meaning the idea came from the kids themselves.

If this was true, how the hell was she to know what she was setting herself up for?

Indeed, it was the children who chose to name the teddy Muhammad, more specifically, one boy chose the name, because it was his own name.

Something which the tabloids have tried to keep quiet, is that the teacher was reported for malicious reasons, not because of actual objections to what happened. And, as I mentioned before with the 'when in Rome' comment, she should have been more mindfull, and possibly better informed, about the codes of conduct in a country operating under sharia law before taking the teaching post. They say ignorance is no defence, but in all honesty, that is her only 'crime' here, certainly not malice or disrespect to Islam. Infact, a newspaper interview with her son, had quotes where she had said that she did not want this to cause a huge upset, and did not want people to use it as an excuse to vilify Muslims.

In both muslims and jews religion their is a law you cant eat meat if the animal has not suffer by having their throat cut and bleed to death just that ONE singel fact about both their religion makes me sick and not whanting to "understand" their religion or co excist whit them.

In the UK, pigs are slaughtered by being suspended by their back trotters, having a 12 inch blade rammed into their chest, and then bleeding to death. Neither Jews nor Muslims eat pork. Christians do though...

It is my understanding, that in the UK, animals killed in accordance with Islamic practice, are electronically stunned before being killed.

If someone does not like the method an animal is killed by, then they should avoid animal-based products all together. That is not religious issue, but one of personal morals. I am not someone who would tollerate any kind of animal cruelty, but I do accept that food beasts are raised and killed precicely for the purposes of supplying food, and are (or certainly should be) killed in as humane manner as possible. Having one's jugular vein slit, and instantly becoming unconscious and dying, is much less traumatic than being suspended by the back legs and having a 12 inch blade rammed into one's chest and then flopping about while bleeding to death.

[Edited to add]

I forgot to say, that the Holy Qur'an specifies, not only which animals are forbidden, but also prohibits eating animals which died in suffering, such as in a fall, or strangled or gored. Back in the time of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, slitting the juggular vein of an animal (and markedly different from simply "cutting it's throat") was the most humane method of dispatching a food beast.

What did Gandi say about this

I don't know, what did Ghandi say about it?

I see the high end and low end rep markets driven by two different types of buyers; high end reps-purchased by more knowledgable people like RWG members (who not only can afford to buy gens but own several) and gen connoisseurs, then the low end reps whick I think attract an entirely different sucker for the most part. Very few people even know high end reps exist in comparison to the watch buying public at large.

I think that's very true. I think it's also amusing when people try and demonize reps by comparing them to gens, but only do so with the cheapest POS Canal St junk they can lay their hands on. I'd like them to try stopping a guy in the street, showing him a UPO and gen 2901.50.91 and being told which one was the replica. Infact, in a totally unbiassed test, with no input from the questioner, I doubt the everyday Joe Public even would guess which was which.

If any rep is going to have an effect on the value of gens it will be the high end ; my vote is this isn't even close to happening-the high end buying market is too small.

Again, I'd agree with that.

Then, what do I know, the only rep I own is a UPO in the mail somewhere between China and Texas! I'm a Texan wearing a gen Bvulgari. A freak in his own land, a watch unappreciated. Recently I was with a friend who got a compliment on his hideous POS fossil- I was wearing a vintage Sub and received no such appreciation (and I am way sexier too). Go figure, there's your low end rep buyer-they don't compete with Gen buyers.

Again, absolutely so, the everyday public aren't going to notice a watch like that, when compared to something like a Fossil, which is almost designed for maximum eyecatching effect. That said, it is nice to be able to wear a watch and not get asked "Is that real?", simply because the watch itself is largely unknown in the public eye