Burqa's in Walking Street

[nidnoyham 30]

Then they should fuck off to Hyde park where there is a place specifically for that purpose.

And not get in the way of tourists who have perhaps travelled thousands of miles and have this one opportunity to see St Pauls.

Where are they getting their electricity from?

 

What electricity ???

You are turning into joek, making assumptions from afar.

Hyde Park is not near the city. Out of sight , out of mind ?

 

If you were here, you would see most tourists fully support the occupation. As the buses go past, more cameras are pointed at the tents, than the cathedral. Even the family of the couple getting married yesterday, were in support of them. A wedding day they won't forget.

 

As one American remarked; We can always go to Westminster Abbey. London has loads of things to see. Access to the church is not impeded at all. It is the dreaded H&S issues that has closed it. When I took Si there, three years ago, there was scaffolding covering the inside of the dome- limited access, with workmen on the inside, but they still let people in and charged the same amount. If this recession goes on with all the airline taxes, only rich buggers will be able to come here anyway.

 

There is a second camp started near Mooregate Station. Finsbury SQ. Some people from St Paul's will move there. It is near the H.Q of a large Bank.

 

The City police are glad to see some leave their Manor and the Met' who's area the new camp is in are not going to interfere, as long as it is peaceful.

 

I think we have thread fucked a bit.

Edited October 23, 2011 by nidnoyham

[Obsession 571]

I don't see much of a similarity in religious dress codes between muslims and non muslims. Just more nonsense from the BMs trying to say black is white.

Moving on.

 

Do other churches / religions make women enter by a non descript door while the men enter by huge ornate entrances and make members of the same family spit to enter their doors?

 

What about driving? Do other religions ban women from driving?

 

Going out alone?

 

Does a widow fall under the control of her deceased spouses male family members as muslims do in the UK?

 

imho, muslims have by far, the most ancient and barbaric , anti female beliefs and practices of any religion I have heard about. I don't understand how anyone can defend those practices unless they of course, went through the brainwashing and live like that themselves. To any normal person it is obviously utterly wrong to treat other human beings so badly.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

 

Do other churches / religions make women enter by a non descript door while the men enter by huge ornate entrances and make members of the same family spit to enter their doors?

 

What about driving? Do other religions ban women from driving?

 

Going out alone?

 

Does a widow fall under the control of her deceased spouses male family members as muslims do in the UK?

 

 

I think the women in question were spotted in Thailand. Does that lot ^^^ apply to Muslims in LOS? If not, why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

There are Christian and Jewish sects which place restrictions on women's dress and behavior, but that is a matter of personal piety, not civic obligation. Anyone who chooses to is free to leave those sects. Muslim women who live under Sharia law are OBLIGED to cover and follow all the other rules; otherwise, they are punished. It's not uncommon for men and women to be executed in some Muslim countries for crimes against morality.

 

I don't see much difference in a Muslim woman wearing the burqa or the clothing worn by some Catholic sisters and Amish women. It's not the clothing itself, but the degree of compulsion behind Muslim dress codes that is offensive. If Muslim women were free to choose whether or not to cover (and there are some in the U.S, U.K., etc who do just that), then there would be no objection. I see covered Muslim women every day in NYC. Nobody gives a damn, except when full facial veiling becomes a security risk. The same goes for other "inferior status" questions under Sharia law. If a woman agrees to it within the walls of her home, that's her business. But when secondary status is forced on her through the law and she's not allowed to "opt out,", then it's wrong.

 

Evil

[joekicker 53]

If you were here, you would see most tourists fully support the occupation. As the buses go past, more cameras are pointed at the tents, than the cathedral. Even the family of the couple getting married yesterday, were in support of them. A wedding day they won't forget.

 

In Nidworld, zoo visitors support the monkeys.

 

.

[joekicker 53]

I don't see much of a similarity in religious dress codes between muslims and non muslims.

 

A confusing way to say you've never been to Egypt. Or Indonesia. Or Iraq. Or Thailand. Or many, MANY countries. Did you have an actual point beyond lack of travel experience and observational skills?

 

What about driving? Do other religions ban women from driving?

 

No religion bans women from driving. Or going out alone. Or all the other ... er, "stuff" you asked questions about because you really, truly do not know the answers even though you have seen the answers here several dozen times on this forum alone.

 

imho, muslims have by far, the most ancient and barbaric , anti female beliefs and practices of any religion I have heard about.

 

You opinion has the same or less weight than all other opinions, not more. You are most certainly welcome to it, too. Yuck-o!

 

I don't see much difference in a Muslim woman wearing the burqa or the clothing worn by some Catholic sisters and Amish women. It's not the clothing itself, but the degree of compulsion behind Muslim dress codes that is offensive.

 

And yet another moment of swoosh. There is NO Islamic compulsion in your "dress code". It is strictly written, interpreted and enforced at gunpoint by MEN (literally) who have no religious reference except in their own minds. Countries that have what you imagine in your fevered obsession to have a "Muslim dress code" have no such thing.

 

In fact, your alleged non-existent "Muslim dress code" is EXACTLY the same as dress codes everywhere in the world including in whatever country you are reading this. Every country has them, every police force enforces them at gunpoint and will KILL anyone who violates them and justify the killing with quotations from the dress code. And those enforcers are all doing Good Work but they are all -- all -- unbacked by the writings or commands in any book of any religious authority.

 

Do you really, seriously, actually think that the do-gooder Culture Ministry of Thailand does NOT order enforcement of dress codes at gunpoint with appeals to the Buddha and Buddhist scripture? And do you actually think they can actually quote one of those strictures from the scrolls of the Tipitaka? Of course they can't, any more than the idiots of the Qud can quote anything from the Koran about it or the Baptists of Bumphuock County, Georgia can quote the Bible. But all of them CITE their books, eh?

 

Nevertheless, the dress codes WILL be enforced. And everyone will somehow put up with it, sometimes because "it's not as bad as those Muslims".

 

.

Edited October 23, 2011 by joekicker

[joekicker 53]

.

Edited October 23, 2011 by joekicker

[Obsession 571]

I think the women in question were spotted in Thailand. Does that lot ^^^ apply to Muslims in LOS? If not, why not?

 

 

 

I guess you have chosen to ignore that the topic has moved away from the woman in WS. But if you want to nitpick................That photo wasn't taken on WS! I don't see the point in nitpicking.

 

Does any other religion make it's women enter it's places of worship by an inferior entrance?

Not let them drive? Even in the UK.

Go out without a male relative?

I genuinely don't know.

No nitpicking please.

[Hami123456 7]

Worst than that was said about Jews before the holocaust, it seems we will see another one with the right wing in Europe getting popular.

[jacko 8,813]

What electricity ???

You are turning into joek, making assumptions from afar.

Hyde Park is not near the city. Out of sight , out of mind ?

 

If you were here, you would see most tourists fully support the occupation. As the buses go past, more cameras are pointed at the tents, than the cathedral. Even the family of the couple getting married yesterday, were in support of them. A wedding day they won't forget.

 

As one American remarked; We can always go to Westminster Abbey. London has loads of things to see. Access to the church is not impeded at all. It is the dreaded H&S issues that has closed it. When I took Si there, three years ago, there was scaffolding covering the inside of the dome- limited access, with workmen on the inside, but they still let people in and charged the same amount. If this recession goes on with all the airline taxes, only rich buggers will be able to come here anyway.

 

There is a second camp started near Mooregate Station. Finsbury SQ. Some people from St Paul's will move there. It is near the H.Q of a large Bank.

 

The City police are glad to see some leave their Manor and the Met' who's area the new camp is in are not going to interfere, as long as it is peaceful.

 

I think we have thread fucked a bit.

So they have microphones and speakers that work off something else?

Hyde park lies between Knightsbridge and Mayfair, quite central and a lot more space.

How many tourists have been interviewed then? Seeing as how they are being turned away from St Pauls I doubt they think much of that mob.

That one single American obviously has not tried to get into Westminster Abbey, and it isn't just £10 like St Pauls.

(I did last month). Access to the Church (cathedral) is impeded, it is CLOSED!

 

I am sure the City police are glad to see some protestors move on, will teh protestors be paying the policing costs out of their student grants and benefits?

[atlas2 4,329]

A

 

 

No religion bans women from driving. Or going out alone. Or all the other ... er, "stuff" you asked questions about because you really, truly do not know the answers even though you have seen the answers here several dozen times on this forum alone.

 

 

 

You opinion has the same or less weight than all other opinions, not more. You are most certainly welcome to it, too. Yuck-o!

 

 

 

And yet another moment of swoosh. There is NO Islamic compulsion in your "dress code". It is strictly written, interpreted and enforced at gunpoint by MEN (literally) who have no religious reference except in their own minds. Countries that have what you imagine in your fevered obsession to have a "Muslim dress code" have no such thing.

 

In fact, your alleged non-existent "Muslim dress code" is EXACTLY the same as dress codes everywhere in the world including in whatever country you are reading this. Every country has them, every police force enforces them at gunpoint and will KILL anyone who violates them and justify the killing with quotations from the dress code. And those enforcers are all doing Good Work but they are all -- all -- unbacked by the writings or commands in any book of any religious authority.

 

Do you really, seriously, actually think that the do-gooder Culture Ministry of Thailand does NOT order enforcement of dress codes at gunpoint with appeals to the Buddha and Buddhist scripture? And do you actually think they can actually quote one of those strictures from the scrolls of the Tipitaka? Of course they can't, any more than the idiots of the Qud can quote anything from the Koran about it or the Baptists of Bumphuock County, Georgia can quote the Bible. But all of them CITE their books, eh?

 

Nevertheless, the dress codes WILL be enforced. And everyone will somehow put up with it, sometimes because "it's not as bad as those Muslims".

 

.

 

As you know Joe 'Quaranists'.............."The Quar'an, the whole Quar'an and nothing but the Quar'an" are a rare breed. The rest draw upon religious if not sacred texts consisting of, 'what they say he said God said'...........But these texts have established historical authority. It's a very brave Muslim that would raise 2 fingers against them., or not give a "Fiqh"

 

From the point of view of the forcefully 'en buq'ad'...............If it walks like a penguin and 'quacks' like a penguin.............It's a penguin. Their 'religion' says it must be worn....What can they do?

 

I think a lot of BMs have sympathy.

PS. For the benefit of Obssession, 'Yuck-o' is apparently a well known clown. When he called me that in a post he thought it was hilarious that I'd never come across this gentleman, (not being an American) and that consequently I was pathetically un-aware I was being insulted............

Edited October 24, 2011 by atlas2

[Obsession 571]

 

PS. For the benefit of Obssession, 'Yuck-o' is apparently a well known clown. When he called me that in a post he thought it was hilarious that I'd never come across this gentleman, (not being an American) and that consequently I was pathetically un-aware I was being insulted............

 

I take it that was a post that Joe had aimed at me, lol. He is in denial, big time. I think he still denies there are muslim honour killings, despite us reading about muslim parents killing their daughters UK. There was a thing in the papers this week about child abuse in UK madrasses. 250,000 kids get taught hatred and intolerance in the UK. It just can't be good for harmony and integration. But hey ho. A photo of a happy muslim driving, will make up for every oppressed muslim female, or some of Joe's " two wrongs make a right" posts.

[joekicker 53]

As you know Joe 'Quaranists'.............."The Quar'an, the whole Quar'an and nothing but the Quar'an" are a rare breed. The rest draw upon religious if not sacred texts consisting of, 'what they say he said God said'...........But these texts have established historical authority. It's a very brave Muslim that would raise 2 fingers against them., or not give a "Fiqh"

 

I have no idea of what you're saying. If you're saying the mean old men who push and arrest women in some countries claim to be enforcing the Koran, then yes, that indeed is what they say. If you claim they ARE enforcing the Koran then, no, they are not, since there is no Koranic instruction about it. If you are claiming the Koran is "the word of God directly" to Muslims, yes, that's correct. If you think it takes guts to go up against those mean old men, no, not at all, and I'd further suggest you are either unaware of millions of such incidents or fully aware of them but willfully ignore them like Obsession does.

 

Obsession and some of his ilk claim Muslims MUST do this or that with dress. Yet Obsession (claims to) personally KNOW Muslims in Pattaya who do no such thing and nothing happens. Muslims MUST dress differently, he says - which of course is why Obsession is totally although un-blissfully unaware of the fact he rubs shoulders, quite literally, with Muslims. He is unaware of the physical fact of this, but is entirely aware of its happening, because he even talked about it himself, him and a real, live, actual Muslim, yet he goes on about this fixation of this obsession of his. Sometimes I think he's just a winder-upper but most of the time I think he's serious if foam-mouthed.

 

.

[atlas2 4,329]

I have no idea of what you're saying. If you're saying the mean old men who push and arrest women in some countries claim to be enforcing the Koran, then yes, that indeed is what they say. If you claim they ARE enforcing the Koran then, no, they are not, since there is no Koranic instruction about it. If you are claiming the Koran is "the word of God directly" to Muslims, yes, that's correct. If you think it takes guts to go up against those mean old men, no, not at all, and I'd further suggest you are either unaware of millions of such incidents or fully aware of them but willfully ignore them like Obsession does.

 

Obsession and some of his ilk claim Muslims MUST do this or that with dress. Yet Obsession (claims to) personally KNOW Muslims in Pattaya who do no such thing and nothing happens. Muslims MUST dress differently, he says - which of course is why Obsession is totally although un-blissfully unaware of the fact he rubs shoulders, quite literally, with Muslims. He is unaware of the physical fact of this, but is entirely aware of its happening, because he even talked about it himself, him and a real, live, actual Muslim, yet he goes on about this fixation of this obsession of his. Sometimes I think he's just a winder-upper but most of the time I think he's serious if foam-mouthed.

 

.

 

Well OK....I haven't time to check this out with Wiki just now but you can........ From memory the Qua 'ranists are Muslims who 'only' take the Qua'ran for their guidance. 'The Qua'ran the whole Qua'ran and nothing but the Qua'ran.' The qua'ran isn't specific about dress.......Just says, 'dress like he did and his wives would've' . Some decency, hide the body shape....'Hijab' means curtain. men were supposed to talk with women separated by a curtain. The qua'ran, as you say is quiet on the subject of dress code....... And other areas, for instance 'it' says nothing about menstruating women not touching the Qua'ran so the Qua'ranists women are allowed too.

 

Where the Qua'ran is silent.......Over 100s of years Muslim Scholars have filled in the blanks and come up with an authority for Muslim Jurisprudence. 'Fiqh' is one such element. It applies the laws on behaviour. And it rules!! The leader of the tolerant and comparatitively moderate Qua'ranists whose other main achievement was to translate the Qua'ran into English was as you would guess assassinated in Pakistan in 1991.

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

If you claim they ARE enforcing the Koran then, no, they are not, since there is no Koranic instruction about it.

.

 

You are quibbling over words, Joe. The Quran decrees modesty in dress for men and women, but there are many interpretations of what that means. All religion is a matter of interpretation. What matters is who is doing the interpreting and how much authority, moral and otherwise, they have to enforce their interpretation. At one time the Christian Bible was interpreted to allow the burning of heretics and the enslavement of human beings. That has changed with time. Think what would happen if the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury or the Rev. Billy Graham put out a hit on an author whose book they didn't like. In many Muslim countries, the men doing the interpreting still have considerable power to inflict their views on the real lives of the citizens of those countries - and even on non-citizens beyond the borders of their countries.

 

Here what a U.S. based imam writes about Islamic rules on clothing (my highlights) :

 

 

http://www.almasjid....amic_dress_code

 

"The Islamic Dress Code promotes modesty and seeks to minimize vice and immorality in society. One of the ways it does so is by requiring modest dress. Islam sets the standards of decency for both men and women.

 

....

 

Islam prescribes a more conservative minimum dress code for both men and women. In Islam, both men and women are expected to dress simply, modestly, and with dignity. A man must always be covered in loose and unrevealing clothing from his navel to his knee. This is the absolute minimum covering required. He must never, for example, go out in public wearing a short bathing suit. When leaving the home, a Muslim woman must at least cover her hair and body in loose and unrevealing clothing, obscuring the details of her body from the public; some also choose to cover their face and hands. The wisdom behind this dress code is to minimize sexual enticement and degradation in society as much as possible for both men and women. Obeying this dress code is a form of obedience to God. "

 

And here's what the police chief of Teheran had to say a few years back:

 

 

http://www.worldpres...ideast/2334.cfm

 

Islamic Dress Code to be Strictly Enforced

 

 

"According to authorities, the crackdown's objective is to put pressure on the women and girls who "pay no attention to the Islamic social values by the way they dress." Offenders are mainly young women and girls who wear shorter, tight-fitting coats, capri pants, smaller scarves, and light-colored dresses. Such items burst onto the clothing scene during former president Mohammad Khatami's reformist administration, when women had other choices beside the traditional long, dark-colored, loose-fitting gowns which had been previously compulsory.

On Tuesday, April 18, Tehran's chief of police, Morteza Talaee, officially announced that officers would deal harshly with offenders of "the Islamic dressing values." He warned that the "non-compliants" who wore short or tight-fitting coats, loose or small scarves that failed to cover the hair properly, capri pants, or those who refused to wear socks in public, would be "confronted." Talaee also said that even taxi drivers who transported "improperly clad" women would be punished. Under the new plan, 50 new police squads — including female police officers — will help to enforce the Islamic dress code."

Clearly, there is in the minds of many Muslims an Islamic dress code and it is enforced by moral suasion or physical force in some countries. If you are arguing this isn't

the "real" Islam on some universal plain, yes, that argument can be made, just as it can made about any religion. Catholicism or evangelical Christianity isn't the "real" Christianity, etc., etc., etc.

 

But according to many Muslims would follow Sharia (which isn't only a legal code but also governs everyday behavior), a dress code is a crucial part of the Muslim way of life). Again, many Muslims may choose to ignore the stricter interpretations, just as many Catholics ignore prohibitions on abortion, but that is in countries where secular law guarantees them the freedom to do so.

 

Evil

 

 

Edited October 24, 2011 by Evil Penevil

[Obsession 571]

I saw your post in Atlases Joe.

It's the same old from you or GE. Trying to say that we are saying ALL muslims. None of us has ever said that. We are well aware that there are muslims who drive , drink, eat bacon sarnies etc. They are exempt from our comments. It's not that hard to comprehend Joe. Feck knows why I have had to explain it to you so many times!!!!Unless you see us say " all muslims" , then we don't mean all muslims. In fact , we will never say "all muslims" , as that would be silly. Silliness is your dept.

We are talking about the ones that are oppressed or brainwashed. Women in burkhas remind me of the worst of that religion. Trailing along UK streets ( or WS ) behind their men. Not allowed to speak to people, including dental receptionists , shop assistants etc , go out alone , drive. Even if only a few % were oppressed in the UK , or less than the 250k getting taught hatred in UK madrasses , it would still be my duty to speak out. However, we are obviously not talking a few % of muslims when most of their kids get anti kaffir teachings in UK madrasses. You have my utter disdain in trying to sweep the negative stuff about muslims under the carpet. No sorting integration or saving women if people like you want to curtail freedom of speech.

Bye Joe. You are staying on ignore. Think of it like I have closed the slit in my burkha and can't read your posts. You should understand it, put like that.

[joekicker 53]

You are quibbling over words, Joe. The Quran decrees modesty in dress for men and women,

 

If that is quibbling, then why do you merely repeat exactly what I wrote?

 

Here what a U.S. based imam writes about Islamic rules on clothing (my highlights) :

 

If it is all a matter of interpretation, then why do I (and you) care about this person in any spoecial way?

 

Islam prescribes a more conservative minimum dress code for both men and women.

 

But I'm the one quibbling, right? Jeez. "More conservative" than whom, precisely? What the HELL does that mean, "more conservative"?

 

And here's what the police chief of Teheran had to say a few years back:

 

I wrote about this quite a while ago in this thread. Why just repeat stuff already well established, that everyone agrees with?

 

Clearly, there is in the minds of many Muslims an Islamic dress code and it is enforced by moral suasion or physical force in some countries.

 

Clearly, you have no authority or background to discuss it. What I said, and what you repeat and repeat and repeat is that the Koran has NO instruction about this, and countries including Muslim countries enforce dress codes at gunpoint, without any of the religious authority that some of them claim to have. I don't understand your incessant use of specific examples to prove what we already agree is generally true.

 

But according to many Muslims would follow Sharia (which isn't only a legal code but also governs everyday behavior), a dress code is a crucial part of the Muslim way of life). Again, many Muslims

 

Did someone elect you to speak for "many Muslims" without even identifying who these "many Muslims" might be, where they reside, what their authority is (and yours) and so on? No, of course they didn't. You are giving YOUR opinion and trying to channel it through "many Muslims" as though you have some special knowledge and credibililty. You don't.

 

Why do you say it is "crucial" when rather clearly it is decidedly UN-crucial -- just taking Tom's photo above as the same sort of statement that your alleged and ridiculous authority figures?

 

may choose to ignore the stricter interpretations, just as many Catholics ignore prohibitions on abortion, but that is in countries where secular law guarantees them the freedom to do so.

 

Are you now claiming that countries under "secular law" with "freedom" do NOT have dress codes enforced at gunpoint? You're not actually making THAT stupid a claim, are you? But if you aren't, I can't figure out what claim you are making.

 

.

[Obsession 571]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356361/Shame-Britains-Muslim-schools-Secret-filming-shows-pupils-beaten.html

 

Muslim children are being taught religious apartheid and social segregation.

 

‘disbelievers’ are ‘the worst creatures’ and that Muslims who adopt supposedly non-Muslim ways, such as shaving, dancing, listening to music and – in the case of women – removing their headscarves, would be tortured with a forked iron rod in the afterlife.

 

I can't see how that sort of stuff can't be bad for the UK and the world in general and I feel sympathy for the kids that are being brainwashed and particularly muslim women who are, imho, treated abominably. The numbers that are being taught hatred and segregation are quite astounding. GEs denial that muslims don't integrate was obviously wrong. Only a small % integrate in any way.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

http://www.dailymail...ils-beaten.html

 

Muslim children are being taught religious apartheid and social segregation.

 

 

Are you from Glasgow, or thereabouts?

 

 

 

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

If that is quibbling, then why do you merely repeat exactly what I wrote?

 

Because those weren't the words by which you were quibbling.

 

 

If it is all a matter of interpretation, then why do I (and you) care about this person in any spoecial way?

 

He is an imam and it's reasonable to expect he speaks with some authority on Islamic matters.

 

 

But I'm the one quibbling, right? Jeez. "More conservative" than whom, precisely? What the HELL does that mean, "more conservative"?

 

Those were the imam's words, not mine. He means "more conservative" than the standards of dress that are generally applicable in the West.

 

 

I wrote about this quite a while ago in this thread. Why just repeat stuff already well established, that everyone agrees with?

 

Because it is an example of an Islamic dress code that is enforced by police. I am well aware that if someone runs naked down the high street in many cities, they will be arrested or at least detained. But it is quite a different thing for a woman to be "confronted" for wearing capri pants or a tight sweater or for a taxi driver to be arrested for transporting a woman whose dress violates the code.

 

Clearly, you have no authority or background to discuss it. What I said, and what you repeat and repeat and repeat is that the Koran has NO instruction about this, and countries including Muslim countries enforce dress codes at gunpoint, without any of the religious authority that some of them claim to have. I don't understand your incessant use of specific examples to prove what we already agree is generally true.

 

Here is where you are quibbling. The Quran DOES give guidance on dress, so do other texts regarded by Muslims as canonical.

 

From the Quran:

 

Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. God is fully Cognizant of everything they do.

And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to God, O you believers, that you may succeed.* (24:30-31)

O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful. (33:59)

"They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code ..." Doesn't that amount to guidance on dress? How about "... tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments ..."?

 

 

Did someone elect you to speak for "many Muslims" without even identifying who these "many Muslims" might be, where they reside, what their authority is (and yours) and so on? No, of course they didn't. You are giving YOUR opinion and trying to channel it through "many Muslims" as though you have some special knowledge and credibililty. You don't.

 

I'm not speaking on behalf of any Muslims, be they many or few. I am relating what I have observed and learned from written accounts. Millions of Muslims around the world (and I consider that many) accept restrictions on dress as part of their faith. Do you dispute that?

 

 

Why do you say it is "crucial" when rather clearly it is decidedly UN-crucial -- just taking Tom's photo above as the same sort of statement that your alleged and ridiculous authority figures?

 

 

No one has ever said ALL Muslim women are forced to wear the burqa. There are women from Muslim backgrounds who are porn stars and hundreds of thousands of Muslim women in the U.S., U.K. and other Western countries don't bother with any form of covering, ditto some Muslim women in Thailand. But they live in countries where secular law guarantees them that choice. Whether a Muslim woman is punished for violating Islamic dress standards or caned for drinking a beer depends on whether she does it in a jurisdiction under Sharia law.

 

Are you now claiming that countries under "secular law" with "freedom" do NOT have dress codes enforced at gunpoint? You're not actually making THAT stupid a claim, are you? But if you aren't, I can't figure out what claim you are making.

 

 

This is a "straw man" argument. Some countries have laws on what is considered "indecent exposure," others don't. There is no uniformity. A court in Canada has upheld a woman's right to walk down the street topless (http://www.canlii.or...canlii1119.html). Many countries in Europe and South America allow topless sunbathing at beaches and in parks. For the most part, the standard used in the jurisdictions which have laws on indecent exposure require male genitals and the genitals and nipples of women be covered. The "Naked Cowboy" performs in Time Square in NYC to large crowds wearing only very skimpy briefs. What would happen to him in Teheran?

 

 

In most Western countries, an individual's dress won't cause comment unless it threatens public order, whether it involves nudity or not. If you walk into a bank wearing a mask, you will indeed be arrested at gun point even if you have no plans to pull a stick-up. But that is a far cry from a dress code based on a religious text. The basis of the Islamic dress code is offense to Allah and his revealed word; in the West, dress-related offenses have to do with public order. You are saying it is all the same when it's not. The basis, justification and enforcement of dress standards is totally different in Muslim-dominated and non-Muslim-dominated societies. You should check out this report from Human Rights' Watch: http://www.hrw.org/node/97049

 

The argument I'm making is that the politicized form of Islam which imposes Sharia law is inherently a violation of human rights. Nothing wrong with Islam as a matter of personal conscience and an individual's path to Paradise, but the basis and practice of Sharia can be in direct opposition to human rights and freedom of choice as understood in Western society.

 

Evil

 

 

 

 

 

[nidnoyham 30]

In Nidworld, zoo visitors support the monkeys.

 

.

 

 

As I said joe. IF you were here.......

 

You were not in Phitchet, when I called these floods the worst in a lifetime, after somebody there told me they were. It didn't stop you telling me they weren't, from hundreds of miles away in Bangkok. Without seeing them for yourself, you made that statement. If you were in Phitchit I am wrong.

 

As you said in a previous post " I haven't got crystal balls......"

[joekicker 53]

From the Quran:

 

Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. God is fully Cognizant of everything they do.[/i]

 

Yes.

 

Would you claim there is a religion's book or books that does NOT have such injunctions to be modest? You wouldn't claim that, would you? Here, tell me which book this is from:

 

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with decency and propriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;...

Let the woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

Just about every poster's grandmother dressed like most Muslim women. On purpose. Because the Bible says so AND of course because that is what society expected and continues to expect.

 

You keep repeating that nasty old men (mostly old, always men) try to enforce THEIR rules on women and I keep saying yes, indeed, they do. So why is that an indictment of the religion, at least any MORE of an indictment than any such act such as requiring full-body bathing suits for your grams, or killing doctors who do abortions or praying a bribe to Buddha for a lucky number? Ever pushed aside a guard at the Emerald Buddha who bitxched that you weren't dressed properly?

 

 

 

.

Edited October 24, 2011 by joekicker

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

Yes.

 

Would you claim there is a religion's book or books that does NOT have such injunctions to be modest? You wouldn't claim that, would you?

 

No, I wouldn't. But that is beside the point. As I keep saying, it is how religious admonitions are applied that is important. If questions of dress are only matters of personal piety, I have no problem with that. Many religious groups have strict standards of dress. But the "Islamic dress code" for women (and men) as it exists in some modern Muslim societies (those that practice Sharia law) forces those standards on all adherents under its jurisdiction. It is the transformation of the revealed word into secular law that is wrong. If people were punished by authorities solely for violating Jewish Halakha law or Amish standards of behavior or Catholic doctrines, I would consider that equally wrong.

 

 

You keep repeating that nasty old men (mostly old, always men) try to enforce THEIR rules on women and I keep saying yes, indeed, they do. So why is that an indictment of the religion, at least any MORE of an indictment than any such act such as requiring full-body bathing suits for your grams, or killing doctors who do abortions or praying a bribe to Buddha for a lucky number? Ever pushed aside a guard at the Emerald Buddha who bitxched that you weren't dressed properly?

.

 

This goes back to the issue of what is "true" religion. Is "true" Christianity the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists, the Church of England or the Quakers, among countless denominations and sects? Same same with Islam - Is true Islam the gentle doctrine of the Sufis or the ferocious version practiced by the Salafis and Wahabis, not to mention the mad mullahs of Iran or the Sharia courts of Somalia and Nigeria? I'd say those are questions for believers to answer. But when their answers have an impact outside the walls of a place of worship, all of us have to be aware.

 

As I've said before, very few people indict Islam on purely theological grounds. It is the real-world manifestations of Islam that cause grief. What needs to happen is for every Muslim to reject Sharia as anything but a guide to personal salvation and affirm the superiority of man-made law in dealing with secular matters.

 

Once again, to use an example I've already given: At one point in time, the Christian Bible was used to justify the burning of heretics. The last execution for blasphemy in the U.K. took place in 1697. But that changed a long time ago. Today among the deepest Christian fundamentalists who accept the literal truth of the Bible, there are no advocates for stoning adulterers to death. But virtually all influential Muslim leaders still maintain the supremacy of Sharia law over secular law.

 

It is both the theory and practice of Sharia that is wrong with Islam, not its "purely intellectual" component. That depends on revelation and it's pointless to argue against revelation in any religion.

 

Evil

 

 

 

 

 

[TheFiend 1,181]

Once again, to use an example I've already given: At one point in time, the Christian Bible was used to justify the burning of heretics. The last execution for blasphemy in the U.K. took place in 1697. But that changed a long time ago. Today among the deepest Christian fundamentalists who accept the literal truth of the Bible, there are no advocates for stoning adulterers to death.

.

 

Last week a new episode of "Banged up abroad" was broadcast in the UK..... it was about a Brit who fell for a Philippino woman who had separated from her husband and kids. She got pregnant and the pair of them were arrested and were facing jail for "adultery" but luckily managed to flee back to the UK before it went to court. The PI aren't muslim.... it's catholic....

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

.

 

Last week a new episode of "Banged up abroad" was broadcast in the UK..... it was about a Brit who fell for a Philippino woman who had separated from her husband and kids. She got pregnant and the pair of them were arrested and were facing jail for "adultery" but luckily managed to flee back to the UK before it went to court. The PI aren't muslim.... it's catholic....

 

But the punishment isn't stoning to death.

 

 

Adultery is still a crime in several countries and regions, including a few states in the U.S. However, prosecutions are very rare in the U.S. and the status of such laws is in doubt because of Supreme Court rulings.

 

Evil