Dating Muslima

[BigJohnnyBKK]

probably the only comment on this thread that hits the truth...

the muslem guys i know here definately want muslem only husbands for their sisters; many non muslem women marry muslem males but muslem women married to outsiders is quite rare here, and usually doesnt end up very well, possibly due to the addtional political strain and suroundings here. however, like many interracial/religious marriages, things go ok until kids come along and then all the past history /family expectations hit at once. if the family hasnt made a concious decision to raise the kids in a particular way, the push and tug game starts, with , especially in muslem families, interferance and pressure by grandparents, (grandfathers and uncles usually).

My understanding of the cultural/religious tradition, just as with Buddhist Thais, once you're married you and your wife are a family unit and not subject to outside interference by anyone.

In practice the reality may well be different, and I would suggest in either case moving far away from the rest of her family. Of course you should confirm this will be OK with her before you tie the knot.

If she goes against you for any reason, she will of course most likely seek the shelter of her family at home base. If you have kids together, you should take steps to ensure she can't just up and take them away from you when your back is turned.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Yes, each religion has to make up its own "truth" from scratch, that's really going to improve the odds of any one getting it right, eh? People don't realize that every religion has truth at its core, and to that extent they are all the same. It's just the worldly aspects - cultural specificity, money and power, organizational politics, propoganda for control of the masses - that intrude and screw things up in interpretation.

Whats a "truth" in religion??? OK show me the evidence? Ok so there is none right?

My point is that the organized aspects of religion tend to screw up the valid spiritual realities their founders perceived.

IMO the most important lessons from science are that you create your own reality and to keep an open mind. If you feel that the sum total of humanity, all art and knowledge and love and enlightenment has risen from and solely serves mechanically physical processes, that's your perogative.

Scientist 200 years from now will laugh just as hard at our current state of knowledge as we do now at the 18th century's.

IMO there isn't any conflict between true spirituality and hard science - just areas where our current state of knowledge is incomplete.

If you honestly seek a higher truth with an open mind you may find your own evidence to the contrary. But closing your mind to new information is the antithesis of a truly scientific approach.

[bina]

to clarify: i work with many arabs from nearby villages here and one or two from east jerusalem (a different social economic 'ambiance'): the men are very 'assimilated' in to basic israeli life here in our area, go to pubs, listen to the same music, speak both languages at home and with eachother,HOWEVER, WHEN they are asked about marriage the answer is almost always the same: preferred to choose someone who 'fits in ' with their village expectations, parental expectations, financial possibilites (that is: hi/so marries hi/so , farmer marries farmer). some have dated foreign girls (although not jewish israelis, but russians, american tourists, french,e tc), and there are a number of these women living in the village, mostly all wearing at least a head covering. the women who work with me are mostly traditional, head covering with one or two wearing a long over dress, and only one totally westerized clothes. the only other girl that was very western sufferred (her family sufferred) burned car, slashed tyres, etc, but maybe due to intrafamily differences (hamula problems). the guys all stated that their sisters WOULD NOT marry outside the religioun. in our villages near here, there have been no killings over family honour but certainly girls would be cut off from their families. howver, that happens among orthodox jewish families as well.

once children are born, schooling, religious activities are mostly dictated here by grandparents, and in these villages, by the patriarchal side. two of our workers married their first cousins in pre arranged marriages. one guy has been engaged to his to be wife since she was 14 but will marry when she is 18, a 10 year difference, so that 'he can raise her the way he wants her to be'. one guy married a mixed muslem jewish girl, but children are raised as muslems. several are working their fingers to the bone to have money to build the needed house, car, etc before being elegible to marry. the girls that work here are all married , only work with other women and need husband's consent to go on field trips (hotel staff day trips). in general here most of the muslem girls here wont look in the direction of a non muslem male nor do they have a chance to do so but also its just not worth the hassle. the few that do probably move overseas far far away from family.

thai muslems seem more laid back, mentality a bit different than that of the mid eastern arab muslem, perhaps closer to the russian muslem (kafkaz?) groups. dont forget also that islam is patrialineal (the non muslem father therefore is a problem, since the children would not be born muslem, whereas in judaism it is reversed: matrilineal... both factors explain why the fighting starts when children are born).

all this has nothing to do with beliefs in bibles, gods or anything else, it is also an ethnic/tribal based feeling: even in atheistic well educated intelectual jewish families, to marry 'out of the tribe' is considered not a very good thing. not s horrible as it used to be, but still not wonderful. possibly because frankly, marrying outside of our comfort range of expected behaviors means that there is more fighitng and hassle within the marriage, more room for breakdown, separation, trouble.

bina

[notmyself]

My point is that the organized aspects of religion tend to screw up the valid spiritual realities their founders perceived.

IMO the most important lessons from science are that you create your own reality and to keep an open mind. If you feel that the sum total of humanity, all art and knowledge and love and enlightenment has risen from and solely serves mechanically physical processes, that's your perogative.

Scientist 200 years from now will laugh just as hard at our current state of knowledge as we do now at the 18th century's.

IMO there isn't any conflict between true spirituality and hard science - just areas where our current state of knowledge is incomplete.

If you honestly seek a higher truth with an open mind you may find your own evidence to the contrary. But closing your mind to new information is the antithesis of a truly scientific approach.

A very good example of why the OP should think very carefully before he gets involved with someone who uses lack of logic. It is not Islam or any religion per se, it's how this willingness to believe in something for no reason manifests itself in other areas.

My point is that the organized aspects of religion tend to screw up the valid spiritual realities their founders perceived.

Remove the word valid and I would agree. Two spiritual realities cannot both be true but they can both be wrong.

IMO the most important lessons from science are that you create your own reality and to keep an open mind. If you feel that the sum total of humanity, all art and knowledge and love and enlightenment has risen from and solely serves mechanically physical processes, that's your prerogative.

If your own reality suggests something which can not be shown to be demonstrably true then it has no place in science. If you wish to believe something for no logical reason because it gives you a warm fluffy feeling, that is your prerogative.

IMO there isn't any conflict between true spirituality and hard science - just areas where our current state of knowledge is incomplete.

No true Scotsman argument followed by a god of the gaps.

[edb600]

Muslims believe that everyone is born muslim. So in actual fact, people do not convert to Islam, but revert to Islam.

[007]

I met the girl only once. She didn't like me, because of my slight sun tan. (Her face was full of pimples, at age 24). I asked her online why she had lied to me many times. Since then I'm receiving death threats from a guy in the US. Be warned, be careful with dating someone from those dating websites. The girl is just weird and strange, maybe because she is Muslim. I had a fairly positive opinion of Muslims until now, but not anymore.

[notmyself]

The girl is just weird and strange, maybe because she is Muslim. I had a fairly positive opinion of Muslims until now, but not anymore.

You should not say 'maybe' then include all.

[JemJem]

It all depends how she (and her family) lives her religion.

I am not a Muslim but I am from Turkey and the heavy majority here are Muslims (maybe about 90 per cent) so I know quite a bit about this religion

By the way, I know of many non-Muslim foreigners who have married Muslim girls here and the majority have NOT converted to Islam. But then again, overall, Muslims here are more liberal than Muslims in Thailand.

Jem

[007]

It all depends how she (and her family) lives her religion.

I am not a Muslim but I am from Turkey and the heavy majority here are Muslims (maybe about 90 per cent) so I know quite a bit about this religion

By the way, I know of many non-Muslim foreigners who have married Muslim girls here and the majority have NOT converted to Islam. But then again, overall, Muslims here are more liberal than Muslims in Thailand.

Jem

Yeah, and she is some kind of scammer, too. First she was 23, from Rayong (on chat she said: I'm in Rayong now); now she has a different profile name on the dating site (one of many), is suddenly 24, and from Ranong. And she told the guy in the U.S. that I'm an African, despite the fact that she met a Caucasian!

[Sing_Sling]

So why would you believe she is Muslim . . . and now you don't trust ANY of 'them'

Are you over 16?

[007]

Some pics of her with hijab. But that could be a scam, too. Agreed.

[skyaslimit]

hey guys , Did you ever heard of honour killing? if not then google it.

[ALFREDO]

Yeah, and she is some kind of scammer, too. First she was 23, from Rayong (on chat she said: I'm in Rayong now); now she has a different profile name on the dating site (one of many), is suddenly 24, and from Ranong. And she told the guy in the U.S. that I'm an African, despite the fact that she met a Caucasian!

1 year difference in TH easy possible, as I recognized the SEA countrys, at least TH and Camb. like to count the year of pregnancy also. So, a year is added or left away other day. Nothing to worry about.

Rayong province with Pattaya, Ranong 300 km North of Phuket at the Myanmar border, that province should be more plausible as their are more Muslims. Maybe you misunderstood. Sounds nearly same.

For her, you are an African, because of your sun tan.

You write ==She didn't like me, because of my slight sun tan=

Anyway, did I miss something, I did not think that you know her so loosely.

Edited April 8, 2012 by ALFREDO

[BigJohnnyBKK]

A very good example of why the OP should think very carefully before he gets involved with someone who uses lack of logic. It is not Islam or any religion per se, it's how this willingness to believe in something for no reason manifests itself in other areas.

That would restrict one's involvement to a vanishingly small and IMO very boring set of people, very few of whom would be women.

Remove the word valid and I would agree. Two spiritual realities cannot both be true but they can both be wrong.

.....

If your own reality suggests something which can not be shown to be demonstrably true then it has no place in science. If you wish to believe something for no logical reason because it gives you a warm fluffy feeling, that is your prerogative.

.....

No true Scotsman argument followed by a god of the gaps.

I'm not asserting any specific facts, other than the undeniable one that there are many mysteries that science has yet to understand. Just because a fact has not yet become provable by scientific methods doesn't make it less of a fact.

I happen to believe that our minds are capable of perceiving aspects of objective truth, and while that perception may not be 100% "true" in an objective scientific sense it is nonetheless valuable to me as a guideline for regulating my behavior.

I also believe that there are and have been throughout history people who are much wiser than myself, and when their thinking is largely in agreement with what I consider to be likely, then I think it behooves me to pay attention and analyze what remains of their authentic teachings to see if I can learn more.

Just because an evil power- and money-grubbing bureacracy has grown up around their teachings, doesn't invalidate what truths may well be buried under the accumulated distortions. Obviously those aspects that are specific to man's state of evolution at that time and place may be discarded as inappropriate to my own situtation.

Anyway, everyone to their own "religion", the filter they use to interpret/create their own reality. I'm not trying to convert you to mine.

[notmyself]

A very good example of why the OP should think very carefully before he gets involved with someone who uses lack of logic. It is not Islam or any religion per se, it's how this willingness to believe in something for no reason manifests itself in other areas.

That would restrict one's involvement to a vanishingly small and IMO very boring set of people, very few of whom would be women.

I mean something which people believe to 100% true rather that a personal preferance. There is nothing 'true' if a person prefers a curry over a roast or a sari over jeans and a t-shirt.

I'm not asserting any specific facts, other than the undeniable one that there are many mysteries that science has yet to understand. Just because a fact has not yet become provable by scientific methods doesn't make it less of a fact.

I happen to believe that our minds are capable of perceiving aspects of objective truth, and while that perception may not be 100% "true" in an objective scientific sense it is nonetheless valuable to me as a guideline for regulating my behavior.

I also believe that there are and have been throughout history people who are much wiser than myself, and when their thinking is largely in agreement with what I consider to be likely, then I think it behooves me to pay attention and analyze what remains of their authentic teachings to see if I can learn more.

Just because an evil power- and money-grubbing bureacracy has grown up around their teachings, doesn't invalidate what truths may well be buried under the accumulated distortions. Obviously those aspects that are specific to man's state of evolution at that time and place may be discarded as inappropriate to my own situtation.

Anyway, everyone to their own "religion", the filter they use to interpret/create their own reality. I'm not trying to convert you to mine.

Using this 'pick & mix' method is just going to create your own baggage. In many ways I am with the Creationists because they don't try and wiggle their way out of thier own original dogma though it does mean they have to live with things that make even less sense.

I wonder if you would be kind enough to rewrite the following because I'm not sure it reads as intended.

I also believe that there are and have been throughout history people who are much wiser than myself, and when their thinking is largely in agreement with what I consider to be likely, then I think it behooves me to pay attention and analyze what remains of their authentic teachings to see if I can learn more.

It suggests that you only consider valid or partially valid, points which you deem to be valid in the first place. This does come across as being somewhat solipsistic.

[thaibeachlovers]

I also believe that there are and have been throughout history people who are much wiser than myself, and when their thinking is largely in agreement with what I consider to be likely, then I think it behooves me to pay attention and analyze what remains of their authentic teachings to see if I can learn more.

It suggests that you only consider valid or partially valid, points which you deem to be valid in the first place. This does come across as being somewhat solipsistic.

I disagree. There are parts of many religions that are self evidently "true", but other parts that to me are meaningless.

eg I would support the teaching of Jesus when he says to treat others as you would they treat you, but I reject the idea that to enter heaven it is necessary to wear a certain kind of clothing.

I had to edit this post because the quotes didn't match.

Edited April 12, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[BigJohnnyBKK]

That would restrict one's involvement to a vanishingly small and IMO very boring set of people, very few of whom would be women.

I mean something which people believe to 100% true rather that a personal preferance. There is nothing 'true' if a person prefers a curry over a roast or a sari over jeans and a t-shirt.

And I mean that I've never met an interesting Thai female that didn't, like Alice, believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Being rational and logical is not on my list of pre-requisites I look for a partner.

I did have one farang wife who is very logical and rational, and it was not a pleasant relationship most of the time.

Using this 'pick & mix' method is just going to create your own baggage.

...

It suggests that you only consider valid or partially valid, points which you deem to be valid in the first place. This does come across as being somewhat solipsistic.

I very much disagree. On matters of metaphysical importance, verbal communications can only give an approximation of the truth, particularly words written in and for other times and cultures. It is very much up to each of us to determine Truth for ourselves, and the entity within our mind that acts as our guide on philosophical/spiritual/emotional/psychological matters learns and can be strengthened through practice.

It is possible to make progress by adopting a pre-packaged set of dogma and working within an organized religion, but AFAIK all of them still require vigilance from the individuals conscience against corruption among the leaders or evolved to suit the worldly needs of the organization itself.

In any case I don't claim to have made much progress down such a path, just reminding that

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[MediumPaceBowler]

I very much disagree. On matters of metaphysical importance, verbal communications can only give an approximation of the truth, particularly words written in and for other times and cultures. It is very much up to each of us to determine Truth for ourselves, and the entity within our mind that acts as our guide on philosophical/spiritual/emotional/psychological matters learns and can be strengthened through practice.

True. But I think consideration should be given to the possibility that the OP (or others in his position) might be undergoing a period of subdued or subliminal metaphysical refraction.

[StreetCowboy]

I very much disagree. On matters of metaphysical importance, verbal communications can only give an approximation of the truth, particularly words written in and for other times and cultures. It is very much up to each of us to determine Truth for ourselves, and the entity within our mind that acts as our guide on philosophical/spiritual/emotional/psychological matters learns and can be strengthened through practice.

True. But I think consideration should be given to the possibility that the OP (or others in his position) might be undergoing a period of subdued or subliminal metaphysical refraction.

Come back Zzaa, we miss you !

SC

[notmyself]

I also believe that there are and have been throughout history people who are much wiser than myself, and when their thinking is largely in agreement with what I consider to be likely, then I think it behooves me to pay attention and analyze what remains of their authentic teachings to see if I can learn more.

It suggests that you only consider valid or partially valid, points which you deem to be valid in the first place. This does come across as being somewhat solipsistic.

I disagree. There are parts of many religions that are self evidently "true", but other parts that to me are meaningless.

eg I would support the teaching of Jesus when he says to treat others as you would they treat you, but I reject the idea that to enter heaven it is necessary to wear a certain kind of clothing.

I had to edit this post because the quotes didn't match.

The example you give is a poor one. The 'golden rule' or 'do unto others as you would have done unto yourself' first appeared in the Analects of Confucius ca. 475 BC - 221 BC. It is an observation of human nature rather than a idea to improve human behavior. In any case, do you really think that after escaping slavery in Egypt, the jews managed to roam the desert for 40 years in the belief that rape, murder and theft were Kosha?

[thaibeachlovers]

I also believe that there are and have been throughout history people who are much wiser than myself, and when their thinking is largely in agreement with what I consider to be likely, then I think it behooves me to pay attention and analyze what remains of their authentic teachings to see if I can learn more.

It suggests that you only consider valid or partially valid, points which you deem to be valid in the first place. This does come across as being somewhat solipsistic.

I disagree. There are parts of many religions that are self evidently "true", but other parts that to me are meaningless.

eg I would support the teaching of Jesus when he says to treat others as you would they treat you, but I reject the idea that to enter heaven it is necessary to wear a certain kind of clothing.

I had to edit this post because the quotes didn't match.

The example you give is a poor one. The 'golden rule' or 'do unto others as you would have done unto yourself' first appeared in the Analects of Confucius ca. 475 BC - 221 BC. It is an observation of human nature rather than a idea to improve human behavior. In any case, do you really think that after escaping slavery in Egypt, the jews managed to roam the desert for 40 years in the belief that rape, murder and theft were Kosha?

Hmmmm. It doesn't matter when or who first said it- as a principle on which to live life it is spot on.

However, I don't get the point about the jews roaming the desert for 40 years meaning anything re religious doctrine.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

True. But I think consideration should be given to the possibility that the OP (or others in his position) might be undergoing a period of subdued or subliminal metaphysical refraction.

I take it that's a phenomenon akin to the "reality distortion field" that Steve Jobs mastered through his years exploring eastern occult practices and psychedelic drugs? Perhaps he picked something up from the Thai girls on a side trip? (don't even go there. . . 8-)

It is an observation of human nature rather than a idea to improve human behavior. In any case, do you really think that after escaping slavery in Egypt, the jews managed to roam the desert for 40 years in the belief that rape, murder and theft were Kosha?

I find both the Confucian and Christian formulations to be excellent guides, not simply observations.

And although I also don't see the relevance, in fact the story of the Jews time in and escape from Egypt turns out to be apocryphal anyway.

[notmyself]

Hmmmm. It doesn't matter when or who first said it- as a principle on which to live life it is spot on.

It is not a principle, it's human nature. Why accredit human nature to a person as you did....

eg I would support the teaching of Jesus when he says to treat others as you would they treat you

However, I don't get the point about the jews roaming the desert for 40 years meaning anything re religious doctrine.

I should have been more clear, sorry. The first part of my post shows that Jesus was not the first person to point this out while the second shows that it is innate behaviour. After the wandering (40 years), the jews came to the foot of mt. Sinai where they supposedly received the ten commandments. Are we to believe that 'anything goes' before that?

[notmyself]

I find both the Confucian and Christian formulations to be excellent guides, not simply observations.

Do you like that Christian guide on who you can enslave and how they should be treated?

And although I also don't see the relevance, in fact the story of the Jews time in and escape from Egypt turns out to be apocryphal anyway.

In there any reason to believe any of it? I don't mean just the Exodus but the entire edifice.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I find both the Confucian and Christian formulations to be excellent guides, not simply observations.

Do you like that Christian guide on who you can enslave and how they should be treated?

Eh? Please rephrase, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I meant "guide" as in "guideline", codes to live by, as opposed to your idea that they are simply observations of "human nature" whatever that might be.

I find that very very few people live by either of these codes in practice in their daily lives.

In there any reason to believe any of it? I don't mean just the Exodus but the entire edifice.

No, I never claimed that any such texts are to be taken as literal truth, any more than the ancient myths of Greece and Rome. However they all have valuable teachings and truths to be gleaned if you're willing to put in the work to winnow it out from the cultural- and time-specific chaff.

Just as there may be valuable insights available from studying ancient medical texts, valuable substances to be extracted from once-prized herbs. . .

[notmyself]

Eh? Please rephrase, I have no idea what you're trying to say. I meant "guide" as in "guideline", codes to live by, as opposed to your idea that they are simply observations of "human nature" whatever that might be.

I find that very very few people live by either of these codes in practice in their daily lives.

I think it would be better to explain rather than rephrase. The NT endorses slavery and goes into detail about who and how. I don't consider that to be a good code, guide or guideline. Human nature is how we behave as a species such as living in social groups. To be able to live in a social group humans must behave in a manner which allows that to happen and this must have happened for many hundrends of thousands of years. Therefore, for someone to suggest it would be a good idea to behave in a manner which allows us to exist and pass on our genes is nothing mnore than an observation of how we behave as a species. I don't know of any primate that does not express this behaviour. At the other end of the spectrum is the cheater, see if you can find out what the collective noun is for a group of cheaters.

In there any reason to believe any of it? I don't mean just the Exodus but the entire edifice.

No, I never claimed that any such texts are to be taken as literal truth, any more than the ancient myths of Greece and Rome. However they all have valuable teachings and truths to be gleaned if you're willing to put in the work to winnow it out from the cultural- and time-specific chaff.

Just as there may be valuable insights available from studying ancient medical texts, valuable substances to be extracted from once-prized herbs. . .

I agree but such insights need to be demonstrably true.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I agree but such insights need to be demonstrably true.

And how one "demonstrates" the effectiveness of a moral code will also vary with the individual - I think in your case you'll have to select and test them for yourself, as I am not in a position to be able to do so effectively for you.

[Razzler1973]

I have dated or rather hooked up with several Muslim women living in here in Dubai. From Egypt and Lebannon to Iran, Syria, Jordan and Yemen.

Some have been perfectly ok with sex only two were 'anything but vaginal intercourse/save for husband' thing.

Is there any need to sandbag cause of marriage down the line? Just enjoy it now and see what happens. The religious thing is always your 'get out' if things get serious and you don't fancy it

[notmyself]

I agree but such insights need to be demonstrably true.

And how one "demonstrates" the effectiveness of a moral code will also vary with the individual - I think in your case you'll have to select and test them for yourself, as I am not in a position to be able to do so effectively for you.

If something is unfalsifiable, a truth value is meaningless. An example of which would be stating that I have an invisible pink leprechaun called Colin living in my shed.

You mention....

However they all have valuable teachings and truths to be gleaned if you're willing to put in the work to winnow it out from the cultural- and time-specific chaff.

If something is a 'truth' it has a truth value and can therefore be shown to be demonstrably true.

[thaipak]

Infect a Muslim and Christian can merry without anyone converting. People of the books can have no problem as long as they believe in one god and Muhammad as the last prophet. Teachings are the same for both religion. Anyone who has sinned is forgiven provided one repent on his or her sins.