Woman In Islam

mrac

irishconvert wrote: »

Please don't come on this forum and quote out of context to attempt to back up your bigoted view of Islam. These quotes all refer to self defence. It is not unreasonable to kill someone in order to prevent them from killing you. what action would you take to stop someone killing your family? if what you say was true then Muslims reading the third quote would be out killing Jews and Christians left, right and centre.

bigots are not welcome in this forum. please don't cut and paste anymore selective quotes from anti Muslim websites here.

Please enlighten me then. How does "Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam" in any way refer to self defence?

irishconvert

mrac wrote: »

irishconvert wrote: »

Please don't come on this forum and quote out of context to attempt to back up your bigoted view of Islam. These quotes all refer to self defence. It is not unreasonable to kill someone in order to prevent them from killing you. what action would you take to stop someone killing your family? if what you say was true then Muslims reading the third quote would be out killing Jews and Christians left, right and centre.

bigots are not welcome in this forum. please don't cut and paste anymore selective quotes from anti Muslim websites here.

Please enlighten me then. How does "Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam" in any way refer to self defence?

I will explain when you quote from an accurate translation. Where did you get this quote from?

mrac

Fair enough I took the qoute form a source without first checking the site itself, I apologise. A translation from a islamic site http://www.dar-us-salam.com translates that verse as:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

It suggets that muslims should fight against those who hold opposing views to them. Not a view that is very compatible with a secular society.

From the same site, the translation of (9:5) is

Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.

Which clearly states to kill the "mushrikun" (polytheists). My point stands that portraying the quran as a non violent text is just wrong.

I am aware that this is getting very off topic. Perhaps a new thread would be prudent if this idea is to be followed on.

irishconvert

mrac wrote: »

Fair enough I took the qoute form a source without first checking the site itself, I apologise. A translation from a islamic site http://www.dar-us-salam.com translates that verse as:

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

It suggets that muslims should fight against those who hold opposing views to them. Not a view that is very compatible with a secular society.

From the same site, the translation of (9:5) is

Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.

Which clearly states to kill the "mushrikun" (polytheists). My point stands that portraying the quran as a non violent text is just wrong.

I am aware that this is getting very off topic. Perhaps a new thread would be prudent if this idea is to be followed on.

Look you are cherry picking very selective quotes, taking them out of context. For example, 9:5 should not be read on it's own, it should be read with all the verses before and after it, and the historical context needs to be understood. try reading from 9:1, paying particular attention to 9:4 in this link http://al-quraan.org/read-alquran-online-sid-98.html . You also need to read about the historical significance around the time of this revelation.

The quran is not a simple book and what you are doing by trying to misrepresent it with your selective quoting is insulting and unfair.

If your point was correct, i.e. the quran teaches muslims to slaughter Jews and Christians wherever they find then, don't you think there would be just a little more killing by muslims, given we follow the quran, and there are over 30,000 of us in Ireland and 2 million in UK. Even common sense tells us your pints are bigoted nonsense.

By the way, you are right on one point, Islam is not compatible with secularism. They ate two completely opposing ways of life. Don't know why you state this as if it is some kind of revelation. Pretty obvious I thought.

Mintoz

doctoremma wrote: »

Physical differences aside, can you outline any specific traits that you ascribe to men and to women that aren't simply gender conditioning?

You can't leave physical differences aside, because they characterize and determine the internal differences in actual day to day living. The brain is a physical organ, the fact that they're not the same size points to obvious differences.

http://www.marriagemissions.com/understanding-the-differences-between-men-and-women/

Anyway, you're the 'free thinker', the enlightened one? so why can't you look up the differences yourself? There are plenty of resources if you want to find them.

But I'm not confident anything you read will satisfy anyway, I've a feeling if you don't like it, you'll just say it's not true because of no empirical evidence, the athiest's last resort to evade an uncomfortable conclusion. :rolleyes:

Stheno

Mintoz wrote: »

The brain is a physical organ, the fact that they're no the same side points to obvious differences.

What do you mean by this?

christmas2012

like any patriarchial controlling relgion they want to dominate women,men and children,women are usually the first casualty in this, and some religions are borderline cults the way they seek to impose law and destroy your life

mrac

Are you suggesting that the female brain is somehow lesser than a male one? Im sure you have something to back that up

Mintoz

mrac wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the female brain is somehow lesser than a male one? Im sure you have something to back that up

No, did I even say that? That's coming from you,

Brain size differences indicates there are psychological differences, My original point was men and women are not to be compared as if they're the same. It's the differences which make them fit so well. They are not to be competing, but complimenting each other.

What part of :
"Men are better then women at being men, and Women are better than men at being women"
Don't you understand?

This is the beauty of marriage, damn Romantic I am. This is why the river dance was so great..

Of course, the real reason why this egalitarianism is being pushed is because people don't want to make their gay friends feel bad. By denying the differences between men and women any sort of marriage is fine. Thus, rendering the beautiful, and complimentary tradition of marriage mediocre. What's so special about a marriage between a man and a woman if they're merely the same? ..

As a result we have a passionless, unromantic culture, where anything goes.

It's the intellectual dishonesty behind this, I find abhorrent.

Monty Burnz

Mintoz wrote: »

This is the beauty of marriage, damn Romantic I am. This is why the river dance was so great..

Romance is not fact. Romance is not science. It's romance. Anyone - man or woman - who mistakes romance for the real world is in big trouble.

Mintoz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Romance is not fact. Romance is not science. It's romance. Anyone - man or woman - who mistakes romance for the real world is in big trouble.

There is nothing realistic about denying the difference between the sexes to suit what, a 10% minority? Destroying romance, and watering down marriage? It's not worth it.

You're in denial, and Illusory. Men are different than women, gay marriage is strange. Full stop.

Monty Burnz

Mintoz wrote: »

There is nothing realistic about denying the difference between the sexes to suit what, a 10% minority? Destroying romance, and watering down marriage? It's not worth it.

Pretending the world is some way that it is not is childish. Better to recognise reality and deal with it.

Mintoz wrote: »

You're in denial, and Illusory. Men are different than women, gay marriage is strange. Full stop.

I'm not denying anything. I recognise that men and women are different. The difference between you and me is that I also recognise that they have equal rights. That's because I live in the 21st century, not the 7th century or wherever your mind is.

Mintoz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Pretending the world is some way that it is not is childish. Better to recognise reality and deal with it.

You're the one who is pretending men and women are equal, even though they are different, therefore not equal. Apples have more 'greeness' than oranges, sorry. And they're not equal for good reasons, so they can compliment each other; the vital ingredient for building a family, a society - a civilization.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not denying anything. I recognise that men and women are different. The difference between you and me is that I also recognise that they have equal rights. That's because I live in the 21st century, not the 7th century or wherever your mind is.

Look, women should be treated with respect, as women; and men should be treated with respect, as men. Giving them equal rights is nonsense: they're not the same.

The only ones who are being childish here are the liberals, and yourself. Denying truths and harvesting intellectual dishonesty for the sake of artificial peace, for a rather loud minority; whilst real marriages go down the toilet, ridiculous.

Having a passion for the truth is hard these days, but I don't mind losing people who have no care for the truth or who are dishonest, anyway.

Monty Burnz

Mintoz wrote: »

You're the one who is pretending men and women are equal, even though they are different, therefore not equal. Apples have more 'greeness' than oranges, sorry. And they're not equal for good reasons, so they can compliment each other; the vital ingredient for building a family, a society - a civilization.

You are confusing sameness with equality. Black people and white people are different - so they are not equal? A man aged 25 and a man aged 30 are different - are they not equal?

Let us try an experiment with your own words:

Look, women whites should be treated with respect, as women whites; and men blacks should be treated with respect, as men blacks. Giving them equal rights is nonsense: they're not the same.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

No, I live in London which is financially doing very well. Impossible to have one stay at home parent unless you want to raise your children in a hell hole.

Unfortunately, you have chosen one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in. This choice means you have had to sacrifice in other areas i.e. your wife has to work when she might prefer to stay at home. I can't really take this as serious example of having your rights to stay at home parenting removed from you.

doctoremma

Mintoz wrote: »

You're the one who is pretending men and women are equal, even though they are different, therefore not equal. Apples have more 'greeness' than oranges, sorry.

I think you've missed my point so let me expand...and let's ignore the bit where you claim that men and women are not equal.

I am a girl but my personality traits (good, bad, clichéd) don't adhere to a stereotypical female gender role. I am a good listener, I am a little gossipy and I have excellent taste in soft furnishings ("female"). However, I am also a problem-solver, a risk-taker and I can explain how a Wankel rotary engine works ("male").

My husband, conversely, has many traits (again, good, bad and clichéd) that don't necessarily align with his gender. Sure, he's flawlessly logical, a little self-centred and has an excellent grasp of the offside rule ("male"). He is also sensitive, moody and great at washing up ("female").

So, what we are, and I'm sure it's the same as what you find in your relationships, are two people who rub along delightfully. We go together well, not because we're man and woman, but because we both bring a complementary set of skills to our relationship table. Families don't thrive and survive because there's a man and a woman at its head - they survive and thrive because the people in charge of the family can work together. I see no reason to suppose that biological gender is the only way (or even the "right" way) that such a match can be achieved.

Of course, the reason we have gender stereotypes is because, on average, women are more empathic, men are more objective, and so on. But these can be constructed by society - is a woman more empathic because she's biologically predispositioned to be so or because her parents bought her dolls to play with?

Mintoz wrote: »

Look, women should be treated with respect, as women; and men should be treated with respect, as men. Giving them equal rights is nonsense: they're not the same.

I'm hoping that this is simply semantic error and that you don't really think men and women should not have equal rights.

whydoc

"Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like "

Does the Quran demean women?
You need to understand the background of many Islamophobes when it comes to the issue of women. They come across as defending women’s rights, when in fact they are defending their rights to women.

The way Western society has evolved affords men to have sex with women they are not committed to by way of legal marriage. This is a dream come true for many men. They have been pursuing this dream for centuries. They finally succeeded when they convinced women that sex without marriage is not a sin if it is by mutual consent between grownups. A majority of Western women, unfortunately, fell for it.

The result is what you see everyday of children born out of wedlock, single mothers, abortions, abandoned children, cheating husbands, one-night stands, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, women treated as sex or display objects, etc. It is a truly sad state of affairs for women who may actually be duped into thinking that they are “liberated.” It is also a sad state of affairs for men who may be feeling in full control, yet their souls are in pain for violating God’s commandments.

It had to happen, because of human nature. That is why we all need God’s guidance to set us straight. The Quran is that guidance. Men who do not want women to listen to the Quran and mend their ways, will undoubtedly attack and try to demean the Quran. Did you know that more than half of new converts to Islam are women? That is what the men are afraid of! Muslim women will not date them.

Why do so many women accept Islam? Didn’t they read the Quran and see that top ten list? Why did the Quran not repulse these women, and on the contrary, attracted them? It’s because the Quran spoke the truth to them. God wants to honor women but most men’s natural impulses eventually will lead to disgracing them. As God clearly said in the holy Quran,

“God wants to accept your repentance, but those who follow lusts want you to swing a great swinging.” (4:27)

Isn’t it profound that God uses the same word that came to identify the “sexual revolution”: swinging?!

With that background well understood, you can now see through the men who claim to “defend women”.

Now, let me address their method. First, they quote a translation, which they pick from many available, because it can be easily assailed. Everybody knows that meanings often suffer through translation. They will not offer other translations that elucidate the meaning better, because they don’t want you to know the original meaning.

The other aspect of translation is that it is highly influenced by the translator’s culture and knowledge of Arabic, and it is also susceptible to the reader’s culture and knowledge of English!

That is why I always advise folks who ask me, to consult several translations before making a conclusion about a verse.

The other point to highlight about their attack method is that they take verses out of context. That’s a well-known pseudo reasoning technique, because it changes the premise. This is known in logic as a red herring.

Other techniques that apply to that blog are scare tactics, appeal to spite and indignation, and quoting common practice as valid reasoning.

That was a necessary foreword. Now, let me reply to the point quoted. Verse 2:223 does NOT say that women are fields to plow. The verse uses tilth as a metaphor for pregnancy. That metaphor has been used by all cultures throughout the ages.

To this day, medical clinics that help women get pregnant are called fertility clinics. So, that islamophobes should start their attack by protesting in front of a fertility clinic demanding they change their name !

Mintoz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You are confusing sameness with equality. Black people and white people are different - so they are not equal? A man aged 25 and a man aged 30 are different - are they not equal?

Let us try an experiment with your own words:

No, we are talking about gender differences not skin color, nice try though. Well, I thought I'd have a shot, but you just don't get it.

Mintoz

doctoremma wrote: »

I think you've missed my point so let me expand...and let's ignore the bit where you claim that men and women are not equal.

I am a girl but my personality traits (good, bad, clichéd) don't adhere to a stereotypical female gender role. I am a good listener, I am a little gossipy and I have excellent taste in soft furnishings ("female"). However, I am also a problem-solver, a risk-taker and I can explain how a Wankel rotary engine works ("male").

My husband, conversely, has many traits (again, good, bad and clichéd) that don't necessarily align with his gender. Sure, he's flawlessly logical, a little self-centred and has an excellent grasp of the offside rule ("male"). He is also sensitive, moody and great at washing up ("female").

So, what we are, and I'm sure it's the same as what you find in your relationships, are two people who rub along delightfully. We go together well, not because we're man and woman, but because we both bring a complementary set of skills to our relationship table. Families don't thrive and survive because there's a man and a woman at its head - they survive and thrive because the people in charge of the family can work together. I see no reason to suppose that biological gender is the only way (or even the "right" way) that such a match can be achieved.

Of course, the reason we have gender stereotypes is because, on average, women are more empathic, men are more objective, and so on. But these can be constructed by society - is a woman more empathic because she's biologically predispositioned to be so or because her parents bought her dolls to play with?


I'm hoping that this is simply semantic error and that you don't really think men and women should not have equal rights.

I maintain my claim that men and women are not equal; yes, because they are not the same. And you, like every other egalitarianist is in denial. Men are designed to compliment women, and women are designed to compliment men. Like Monty Burns up there, it seems you cannot grasp such a basic concept, that has been with us for thousands of years. It's only since men and women started competing for money and careers, that society has been forced into viewing them as equal, so it will seem fair, and not "Sexist".

As a result of competing with men, women are denied true femininity, motherhood. They are now forced to leave their home and work, like some sort of jew in a labor camp, yet the work women often do is housewife work anyway, cooking, nursing, teaching, etc. Might as well be in the home with their kids, the best place to be, and it turns out where most working women want to be.

This society has gone down the drain, thanks to all the propoganda from the liberal camp. Imagine that, we've come to the point where women and men are the same, It's nuts.

Monty Burnz

Mintoz wrote: »

No, we are talking about gender differences not skin color, nice try though. Well, I thought I'd have a shot, but you just don't get it.

Your claim is that things that are not the same cannot be equal. Are you withdrawing that claim?

vard

Mintoz wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You are confusing sameness with equality. Black people and white people are different - so they are not equal? A man aged 25 and a man aged 30 are different - are they not equal?

Let us try an experiment with your own words:

No, we are talking about gender differences not skin color, nice try though. Well, I thought I'd have a shot, but you just don't get it.

You think differences with regard to race end with skin colour? There are physical traits, hereditary vulnerabilities - a whole load of other differences I can't begin to tap out on a mobile phone that make us varied and ultimately unique, yet black / white people are still (rightly) considered equal.

In much the same way that you are a delusional, uneducated and bigoted fool, I consider you to be an equal.

doctoremma

Mintoz wrote: »

I maintain my claim that men and women are not equal; yes, because they are not the same.

Two people do not have to be the same in order for them to be treated equally or to be given equal consideration. Nobody is saying that men are the same as women, we are saying that they deserve equal opportunities and equal rights.

Mintoz wrote: »

As a result of competing with men, women are denied true femininity, motherhood. They are now forced to leave their home and work, like some sort of jew in a labor camp, yet the work women often do is housewife work anyway, cooking, nursing, teaching, etc. Might as well be in the home with their kids, the best place to be, and it turns out where most working women want to be.

This is just hateful, outdated, sexist nonsense. Thankfully, not all men (or even the majority of men) think like this. Otherwise, woman would still be an oppressed people.

I am not like "a jew in a labour camp". I chose to forge a career. I chose not to become a mother. I am very happy to be part of a society that allowed me the freedom to make those choices. You would deny them to me?

I know I shouldn't rise to the troll, but what a load of complete sh!te
I can only hope you don't actually believe these things

whydoc

Wiggles88

whydoc wrote: »

Yeah he's right, if I even see a bit of ankle I have to rape someone. If rape is the first thing that comes to his mind when he sees a woman he needs some serious help.

Edit: As a man I find this highly offensive, this guy is trying to put forward the idea that I'm in no way in control of my base emotions and the only way to stop me from raping is by in essence putting me in sensory deprivation.

doctoremma

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Yeah he's right, if I even see a bit of ankle I have to rape someone. If rape is the first thing that comes to his mind when he sees a woman he needs some serious help.

I have always found this the most hilarious argument for women covering up in modesty. Do the male advocates realise how sick it makes them sound?

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

Unfortunately, you have chosen one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in. This choice means you have had to sacrifice in other areas i.e. your wife has to work when she might prefer to stay at home. I can't really take this as serious example of having your rights to stay at home parenting removed from you.

Not at all, it is on par with Dublin during the Celtic Tiger era. In fact, I would say Dublin is a more expensive city to live in.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

In fact, I would say Dublin is a more expensive city to live in.

London is the 25th most expensive city, in terms of cost of living. Dublin doesn't make the top 50 (it is now 72, down 14 places since the last year).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/12/city-cost-of-living-2012-tokyo

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/06/tokyo-is-back-on-top-as-worlds-most-expensive-city/

Anyway, that's beside the point. You live in the London bubble. I live in Manchester. On lower wages than you (I suspect), we could afford to have one of us stay at home. We know this would be impossible in London.

You make the choice, you live with the consequences.

irishconvert

doctoremma wrote: »

London is the 25th most expensive city, in terms of cost of living. Dublin doesn't make the top 50 (it is now 72, down 14 places since the last year).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/12/city-cost-of-living-2012-tokyo

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/06/tokyo-is-back-on-top-as-worlds-most-expensive-city/

Anyway, that's beside the point. You live in the London bubble. I live in Manchester. On lower wages than you (I suspect), we could afford to have one of us stay at home. We know this would be impossible in London.

You make the choice, you live with the consequences.

Anyway, I am living in London, one of the capitals of western society, a city many others emulate and aspire to be. Capital of Finance in Europe. A city that is family unfriendly. I think my point still stands that western society is not family friendly.

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

Anyway, I am living in London, one of the capitals of western society, a city many others emulate and aspire to be. Capital of Finance in Europe.

It's a wonderful place. You clearly think the pros outweigh the cons!

irishconvert wrote: »

A city that is family unfriendly. I think my point still stands that western society is not family friendly.

What do you mean by "family unfriendly"? Simply that you cannot afford to have a parent stay at home with the children?

getz

irishconvert wrote: »

Anyway, I am living in London, one of the capitals of western society, a city many others emulate and aspire to be. Capital of Finance in Europe. A city that is family unfriendly. I think my point still stands that western society is not family friendly.

i think you should be thankfull that you are not a christian/jew or budist, living in a islamic city,london is a very multy religious city, people have a right to practice their religion and live their lives anyway they wish as long as they do not impose them on other citizens,99% of muslims in the UK live happly alongside people of other faiths,the UK will always defend your religious rights,if this is a problem for any jew,hindo or muslim they also have a right to leave,i have lived and worked alongside muslims most of my life and personally think they are a lovely kind and generous people,i have even been to my friends islamic wedding,if you think london is not family friendly that is your own take on it,most who live in london do so by choice,

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Anyway, I am living in London, one of the capitals of western society, a city many others emulate and aspire to be. Capital of Finance in Europe. A city that is family unfriendly. I think my point still stands that western society is not family friendly.

I'll think you'll find that its your lifestyle that is not family friendly. Your wife could stay at home while you work if you move to a cheaper part of London, or a cheaper part of the UK.

You say that its too expensive for your wife to stay at home as you currently live in London. Do you really think it would be any different for you in muslim countries? Sure, they maybe cheaper to live in, but you would also get paid on a similarly lower scale. Could you support your current financial quality of life (the size of your house, the quality of schools for you kids etc.) living just on the wage you would earn in a muslim country?

Also, why do you think you can judge the entire West based purely on life in London? It's inherent part of freedom that not every choice you can make is going to suit your actual desires. If you really want a more family friendly city, there are plenty of other cities around the UK or Europe that may suit you more, while still giving you the western advantages that prevent you from moving to a muslim country. Compromise will have to be made, but that's the way with every choice.

iCosmopolis

So vanguard resurrects thread & posts about women in islam, blatantly saying women are inferior with his links...and ends in people giving a hard working honest man a hard time because he says he'd like it if things could be a bit better?? I'd love it too if I could stay at home to mind the baby, but my oh is going to..and he's a muslim,but i've better earning potential, but it's all about what you can do for the best for your family?

iCosmopolis

The sentiments in that video link are vile btw..disgusting attitude that would imply men are not responsible for their own reaction to public media.

Mr Kane

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Yeah he's right, if I even see a bit of ankle I have to rape someone. If rape is the first thing that comes to his mind when he sees a woman he needs some serious help.

Edit: As a man I find this highly offensive, this guy is trying to put forward the idea that I'm in no way in control of my base emotions and the only way to stop me from raping is by in essence putting me in sensory deprivation.

Yes, You are dead right. why rape comes in mind where the women are already public property in forms of girlfriends and mistresses, where the harasser is of higher position than the victim.

If rape is the first thing that comes to his mind when he sees a woman he needs some serious help.

Read this link why women's body need piracy.
http://givingbydesign.blogspot.com/2008/03/womens-bodies-are-not-public-property.html

Wiggles88

Mr Kane wrote: »

Yes, You are dead right. why rape comes in mind where the women are already public property in forms of girlfriends and mistresses, where the harasser is of higher position than the victim.

What are you on about?

Mr Kane wrote: »

Read this link why women's body need piracy.
http://givingbydesign.blogspot.com/2008/03/womens-bodies-are-not-public-property.html

I agree that was a stupid decision by the courts but are you trying to say this justifies forcing women to hide away, punishing them for something that is in no way their fault? Do you think segregating the population and forcing one sex to hide behind a veil will lead to healthier relationships between men and women?

MrPudding

I was thinking about getting one of these...

Image removed

MrP

MOD EDIT: knock off the silly posts please

oceanclub

Men get raped too. So, er, how should we dress? I'm currently wearing shorts; will this incite lust in someone? (Obviously it would be entirely my own fault if raped by wearing these). Experts, please advise.

P>

Wiggles88

oceanclub wrote: »

Men get raped too. So, er, how should we dress? I'm currently wearing shorts; will this incite lust in someone? (Obviously it would be entirely my own fault if raped by wearing these). Experts, please advise.

P>

Clearly you're just asking for it, you cant blame those poor innocent rapists for your incitement of lust. :rolleyes:

getz

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Clearly you're just asking for it, you cant blame those poor innocent rapists for your incitement of lust. :rolleyes:

the islamic dress code is supposed to be the same for both men and woman,

irishconvert

getz wrote: »

the islamic dress code is supposed to be the same for both men and woman,

really?! So I have to wear hijab now?!!

getz

irishconvert wrote: »

really?! So I have to wear hijab now?!!

well there is a race of male muslims arabs who cover their face

doctoremma

irishconvert wrote: »

really?! So I have to wear hijab now?!!

From Wiki (shoot down is appropriate):
Hijab is not only a headscarf, it is a behaviour of modesty practised by both Muslim men and women around the globe.

So, um, yes?

irishconvert

Forget it guys, I ain't wearing no headscarf!

whydoc

getz wrote: »

well there is a race of male muslims arabs who cover their face

Those people are in North Africa

Among the Tuarag, women are not traditionally veiled, while men are. An indigo, blue-covered veil called Alasho covers the face, excluding the eyes. Covering the face is associated with the rite of passage to manhood and men are allowed to wear a veil when they reach maturity.
The veil is thought to originate that covering the face and mouth will ward off evil spirits, however, it also acts as a protection against harsh desert winds and sand. The Tuareg are sometimes called the "Blue People" because the indigo pigment in the cloth of their traditional robes and turbans caused the skin to be stained a dark blue. The traditional indigo turban is still worn for celebrations, although Tuaregs wear brightly coloured turbans and clothing of all kinds.

irishconvert

whydoc wrote: »

Those people are in North Africa

Those men are opressed! The Government there should immediately ban the wearing of such face coverings as the men are obviously being forced to wear it by female family members against their wishes!

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Those men are opressed! The Government there should immediately ban the wearing of such face coverings as the men are obviously being forced to wear it by female family members against their wishes!

Do you have evidence of a female-only religious police who enforce this law?

P.

getz

irishconvert wrote: »

Those men are opressed! The Government there should immediately ban the wearing of such face coverings as the men are obviously being forced to wear it by female family members against their wishes!

and if it cannot get any worse,they live with dogs,www.champdogs.co.uk/guide/azawakh

irishconvert

oceanclub wrote: »

Do you have evidence of a female-only religious police who enforce this law?

P.

Huh?

oceanclub

irishconvert wrote: »

Huh?

I'm pointing out you are not really comparing like with like.

P.