Good talk, well worth a listen.

http://muslimgirl.com/43571/quran-really-say-muslim-womans-hijab/

I say it is a tent, and should only be worn by women with a boy scout under her skirt.

I watch the Asian women around my area on hot days and they use umbrellas. Apparently in many parts of  Asia being brown means you work in the sun (farmer etc) and are of low social status. Also it's about not looking African. The whiter the better. Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese etc have that way of thinking.

I was wondering if that same idea is why many middle eastern women cover it. Arabs look down on African's and to look like one is a disgrace. I wonder if body coverings have various functions?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 1:20pm:

Good talk, well worth a listen. http://muslimgirl.com/43571/quran-really-say-muslim-womans-hijab/

Some of us don't want to fritter away 17 minutes of our life listening to this.

Is she saying the bearded nutjobs who rule islam are wrong about the hijab?

Are the Saudis, Iranians, Boko haram,Al Shaabab and the Taliban also wrong in making hijab mandatory?

Isn't that a hydraulic arm on the back of a truck?

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

I was wondering if that same idea is why many middle eastern women cover it. Arabs look down on African's and to look like one is a disgrace. I wonder if body coverings have various functions?

It just so happens that very point is discussed. Veils and head coverings are impractical for manual workers and slaves - and therefore women of this class tended not to wear them. Veiling in order to distinguish oneself from the lowest sections of society was definitely a think in early Islamic society - as well as before. Much the same idea behind foot binding.


Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 1:42pm:

Is she saying the bearded nutjobs who rule islam are wrong about the hijab?

Most definitely. But I highly reccommend you watch the presentation for yourself. I guarantee you it won't be a waste of your time.

Isn't that a hydraulic arm on the back of a truck?


Anyone could have made that mistake.

I thought it was about oral sex

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 2:01pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 1:42pm: Is she saying the bearded nutjobs who rule islam are wrong about the hijab? Most definitely. But I highly reccommend you watch the presentation for yourself. I guarantee you it won't be a waste of your time.

When she started bullshitting about believers wearing hijab and slaves did not I stopped listening.

This verse says Umar was perving on Muhammad's wives when they would answer the call of nature at night, this was before the sky fairy called Allah made hijabs mandatory.

Umar became a Caliph so this verse proves muslims were the perverts perving on women as they went to the toilet did this lady in your link say this or spin some other bullshit?


Quote:

Narrated `Aisha: The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqi` at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. `Umar used to say to the Prophet (ﷺ) "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam`a the wife of the Prophet (ﷺ) went out at `Isha' time and she was a tall lady. `Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes). https://sunnah.com/bukhari/4/12

Are you and this woman saying Bukhari is wrong as well?  ;D

Another verse showing Umar was a pervert who would perve on the prophets wives when they went to the toilet.

Umar went on to become a Caliph  the result of his perving on the prophets wives while they went to the toilet was every muslim woman was forced to wear a hijab because of this pervert.




Quote:

(10) Chapter: The Divine Verse of Al-Hijab Narrated `Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) `Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.' Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam`a went out and she was a tall woman. `Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He (`Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). https://sunnah.com/bukhari/79/14

O.K. she says certain dress codes signified whether you could molest the woman or not.

Well sheik hilayly (spelling) told us the exact same thing, remember white girls in western dress are cats meat.

Oh well the leftards tell us it's all a religion of peace.

moses wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 3:00pm:

O.K. she says certain dress codes signified whether you could molest the woman or not. Well sheik hilayly (spelling) told us the exact same thing, remember white girls in western dress are cats meat. Oh well the leftards tell us it's all a religion of peace.

Oh, that's terrible, Moses. Did Sheik Hilayly really say that Muslims are free to take such meat?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 3:08pm:

moses wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 3:00pm: O.K. she says certain dress codes signified whether you could molest the woman or not. Well sheik hilayly (spelling) told us the exact same thing, remember white girls in western dress are cats meat. Oh well the leftards tell us it's all a religion of peace. Oh, that's terrible, Moses. Did Sheik Hilayly really say that Muslims are free to take such meat?

No. He made excuses for rapists  because they are tempted by bare flesh dear.

Some extracts from:

Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks

Quote:

Richard Kerbaj TheAustralian 12:00AM October 26, 2006 THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? "The uncovered meat is the problem." The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

Oh well it's all in the interpretation, not all muslims do it, islam is really a religion of peace.

https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit was all the band could play https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif

https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit they played it night and day https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif

https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit is all the muzzies say https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif

https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit bullshit bullshit https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif

https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifyou can hear it a thousand miles away https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif

moses wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 3:27pm:

Some extracts from: Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks Quote: Richard Kerbaj TheAustralian 12:00AM October 26, 2006 THE nation's most senior Muslim cleric has blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear Islamic headdress for being preyed on by men and likened them to abandoned "meat" that attracts voracious animals Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? "The uncovered meat is the problem." The sheik then said: "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." Oh well it's all in the interpretation, not all muslims do it, islam is really a religion of peace. https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit was all the band could play https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit they played it night and day https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit is all the muzzies say https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifbullshit bullshit bullshit https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gifyou can hear it a thousand miles away https://i.imgur.com/g02wgsU.gif

I see. So is Sheik Hilayly saying our women should stay at home and cover up?

Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear?

Women should not be forced to wear a black tent in 40 degree heat. It should be up to them whether they get pack raped while collecting drinking water.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 4:52pm:

Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear?

Did he?

I'll let you do the honours, dear.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 4:53pm:

Women should not be forced to wear a black tent in 40 degree heat. It should be up to them whether they get pack raped while collecting drinking water.

Men too, FD.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:23pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear.

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
— Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26]
He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27]

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:31pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27]

Thanks, Homo. What's the time line?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:31pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Thanks, Homo. What's the time line?

It's all the same speech as I'm aware. Check it out on WikiLeaks. October 2006 sermon

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:37pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:31pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Thanks, Homo. What's the time line? It's all the same speech as I'm aware. Check it out on WikiLeaks. October 2006 sermon

6 years after the rapes?

Are you sure of that?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:40pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:37pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:31pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Thanks, Homo. What's the time line? It's all the same speech as I'm aware. Check it out on WikiLeaks. October 2006 sermon 6 years after the rapes? Are you sure of that?

His case was still going through the courts in 2006 babe.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:44pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:40pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:37pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:31pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Thanks, Homo. What's the time line? It's all the same speech as I'm aware. Check it out on WikiLeaks. October 2006 sermon 6 years after the rapes? Are you sure of that? His case was still going through the courts in 2006 babe.

Are you sure of that?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:50pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:44pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:40pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:37pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:31pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Thanks, Homo. What's the time line? It's all the same speech as I'm aware. Check it out on WikiLeaks. October 2006 sermon 6 years after the rapes? Are you sure of that? His case was still going through the courts in 2006 babe. Are you sure of that?

Yes. Look it up. He got done in late 2000, after several appeals he got his sentenced reduced to 28 years in 2005 and was before the courts again in 2006 on (I think) a high court appeal. I don't know why dumbass Hilali said 65 years when in 2006 he was getting 46 years.  Hilali's comments obviously were in reference to Skaf's hefty sentence which is absolutely disgusting.

Wiki-

Gang rapes[edit]
Main article: Sydney gang rapes
Skaf was engaged at the time of his arrest and although his fiancée stood by him during his trial,[7] she ended their engagement soon after his conviction. Skaf's response was to sketch cartoons depicting his former fiancée being raped and murdered.[1] Since he was first charged in November 2000, Skaf has remained unrepentant. During his trial he claimed he was involved only in cases of consensual sex, laughed when his verdict was read and swore at the judge when he received his sentence.[citation needed]
On 16 September 2005, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal reduced Skaf's 55-year sentence to a maximum of 28 years, with parole available after 22 years.[8] NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus decided that the government would seek leave for an appeal to the High Court of Australia against the sentence reduction. An earlier appeal had already reduced his sentence to 46 years, after a successful appeal against one of his convictions.[9]
On 3 February 2006 the High Court refused leave to appeal, arguing that the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal had been left with no choice because of the many errors by the trial judge in sentencing Skaf to 46 years.[2] That meant Skaf could be freed at the age of 42 in 2023.[10] A further appeal led to a 31-year sentence being imposed.[3] Skaf will now be eligible for release on 11 February 2033.[11]

And when did Sheik Hilayly give his sermon, Homo?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:04pm:

And when did Sheik Hilayly give his sermon, Homo?

2006.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 5:53pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:44pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:40pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:37pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:31pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Thanks, Homo. What's the time line? It's all the same speech as I'm aware. Check it out on WikiLeaks. October 2006 sermon 6 years after the rapes? Are you sure of that? His case was still going through the courts in 2006 babe. Are you sure of that? Yes. Look it up. He got done in late 2000, after several appeals he got his sentenced reduced to 28 years in 2005 and was before the courts again in 2006 on (I think) a high court appeal. I don't know why dumbass Hilali said 65 years when in 2006 he was getting 46 years.  Hilali's comments obviously were in reference to Skaf's hefty sentence which is absolutely disgusting.

Hang on a second.  Are you suggesting that the sentence handed down to Skaf was "absolutely disgusting" when it was 65 years?   For what he did?  Really?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:53pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:44pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:40pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:37pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:31pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 5:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Did he? I'll let you do the honours, dear. If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf,the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Thanks, Homo. What's the time line? It's all the same speech as I'm aware. Check it out on WikiLeaks. October 2006 sermon 6 years after the rapes? Are you sure of that? His case was still going through the courts in 2006 babe. Are you sure of that? Yes. Look it up. He got done in late 2000, after several appeals he got his sentenced reduced to 28 years in 2005 and was before the courts again in 2006 on (I think) a high court appeal. I don't know why dumbass Hilali said 65 years when in 2006 he was getting 46 years.  Hilali's comments obviously were in reference to Skaf's hefty sentence which is absolutely disgusting. Hang on a second.  Are you suggesting that the sentence handed down to Skaf was "absolutely disgusting" when it was 65 years?   For what he did?  Really?   ::)

No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::)

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:08pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:04pm: And when did Sheik Hilayly give his sermon, Homo? 2006.

Which month?

You should know this one, Homo - it was during Ramadan.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:10pm:

No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::)

Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::)

October 2006 sermon[edit]
Comments concerning dress and rape[edit]
In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was:
If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
— Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26]
He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27]

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:17pm:

October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27]

Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:10pm: No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::) Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::)

I don't like Fred Nile either. I doubt Fred Nile ever blamed a group of girls for being gang raped. Plus Hilali was the Sunni Muslim leader for Australia and NZ which is rather alarming for a leader to be saying that. Fred Nile is the leader of nobody but some inner city church..

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:10pm: No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::) Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::)

I think he was referring to bikinis on men, Brian, but point noted.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:21pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed?

9 months after final sentencing.

On 3 February 2006 the High Court refused leave to appeal, arguing that the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal had been left with no choice because of the many errors by the trial judge in sentencing Skaf to 46 years.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:10pm: No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::) Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::) I don't like Fred Nile either. I doubt Fred Nile ever blamed a group of girls for being gang raped. Plus Hilali was the Sunni Muslim leader for Australia and NZ which is rather alarming for a leader to be saying that. Fred Nile is the leader of nobody but some inner city church..

Then you have not listened to his comments about women wearing revealing clothing, such as Bikinis.  I see little difference between conservative church leaders from any denomination.   They all hold conservative views on most issues.  Nile, Hilaly, etc.   However, they are all entitled to voice those views even if they are distasteful to the majority of Australians under our implied Right to Freedom of Speech.   Be they Christian or Muslim, they are allowed to speak them.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:45pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:10pm: No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::) Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::) I don't like Fred Nile either. I doubt Fred Nile ever blamed a group of girls for being gang raped. Plus Hilali was the Sunni Muslim leader for Australia and NZ which is rather alarming for a leader to be saying that. Fred Nile is the leader of nobody but some inner city church.. Then you have not listened to his comments about women wearing revealing clothing, such as Bikinis.  I see little difference between conservative church leaders from an denomination.   They all hold conservative views on most issues.  Nile, Hilaly, etc.   However, they are all entitled to voice those views even if they are distasteful to the majority of Australians under our implied Right to Freedom of Speech.   Be they Christian or Muslim, they are allowed to speak them.    ::)

Far enough. Don't whinge when I write my stuff then.

When people believe this sort of crap, you cannot be blamed for holding them in contempt.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:21pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed?

Do you want me to repeat the question?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 9:03pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed? Do you want me to repeat the question?

what are you asking

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 6:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:10pm: No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::) Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::)

Because he is not a spineless apologist with an idiotic fixation on carefully weighing every criticism of Islam with an equal criticism of Christianity.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 9:41pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:03pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed? Do you want me to repeat the question? what are you asking

How many months was it between Skaf's appeal ruling and Hilayly's sermon was it? Can you add this up?

If not, why not?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 9:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:10pm: No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::) Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::) Because he is not a spineless apologist with an idiotic fixation on carefully weighing every criticism of Islam with an equal criticism of Christianity.

Which comments did Fred Nile make on bikinis, FD?

Would you care to answer that?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 9:59pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:41pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:03pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed? Do you want me to repeat the question? what are you asking How many months was it between Skaf's appeal ruling and Hilayly's sermon was it? Can you add this up? If not, why not?

Skaf had time put on to his sentence during feb 2006 and Hilaly did his sermon in oct 2006. you do the math.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 10:02pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:59pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:41pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:03pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed? Do you want me to repeat the question? what are you asking How many months was it between Skaf's appeal ruling and Hilayly's sermon was it? Can you add this up? If not, why not? Skaf had time put on to his sentence during feb 2006 and Hilaly did his sermon in oct 2006. you do the math.

You can count it on ten fingers, Homo. You've had all night, dear. What's your final answer?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:50pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:10pm: No Brian. At Hilali's response to the sentencing. All that cat meat stuff and 65 years business. ::) Ah.  OK, so why not comment about Fred Nile's similar comments about Bikinis?   ::) Because he is not a spineless apologist with an idiotic fixation on carefully weighing every criticism of Islam with an equal criticism of Christianity. Which comments did Fred Nile make on bikinis, FD? Would you care to answer that?

Obviously not.

I'll ask a question with less fingers next time, FD.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 10:38pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 10:02pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:59pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:41pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 9:03pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 6:17pm: October 2006 sermon[edit] Comments concerning dress and rape[edit] In October 2006, Hilaly delivered a Ramadan sermon in Arabic in which he made statements concerning female clothing which proved highly controversial. The key part of these was: If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." — Taj El-Din Hilaly[25][26] He also said, "in the state of zina, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa)."[27] Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that "if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame...but a man should be able to control himself." He also contended that his references to the prison sentence of Bilal Skaf, the leader of a group of Lebanese Australians who committed gang rapes in Sydney in 2000, in which he said that women would "sway suggestively" before men "and then you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years", were aimed at illustrating the need for harsh sanctions for rape.[27] Do you mean ten months after Skaf's appeal was dismissed? Do you want me to repeat the question? what are you asking How many months was it between Skaf's appeal ruling and Hilayly's sermon was it? Can you add this up? If not, why not? Skaf had time put on to his sentence during feb 2006 and Hilaly did his sermon in oct 2006. you do the math. You can count it on ten fingers, Homo. You've had all night, dear. What's your final answer?

What are you trying to prove dear? That Hilaly didn't have Skaf in mind when he made those claims?  ::)

I'm not trying to prove anything, dear. You're trying not to prove this:


Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 4:52pm:

Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear?

Now why won't you say?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 10:57pm:

I'm not trying to prove anything, dear. You're trying not to prove this: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Now why won't you say?

So Hilaly didn't throw those comments out when Skaf and his mates got those big sentences? Explain yourself dear?

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 11:00pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 10:57pm: I'm not trying to prove anything, dear. You're trying not to prove this: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 5th, 2018 at 4:52pm: Didn't Hilali  throw those comments out when Bilal Skaf  and he's mates got lengthy prison sentences for gang rape dear? Now why won't you say? So Hilaly didn't throw those comments out when Skaf and his mates got those big sentences? Explain yourself dear?

Why won't you still say? Are you waiting for me to finish you off?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 1:20pm:

Good talk, well worth a listen. http://muslimgirl.com/43571/quran-really-say-muslim-womans-hijab/

Sounds like Muslem woman are five to six hundred years behind Christian woman.

Maybe its through their women folk we can get rid of these old ridiculous fatwa's.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Another verse showing Umar was a pervert who would perve on the prophets wives when they went to the toilet. Umar went on to become a Caliph  the result of his perving on the prophets wives while they went to the toilet was every muslim woman was forced to wear a hijab because of this pervert. Quote: (10) Chapter: The Divine Verse of Al-Hijab Narrated `Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) `Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.' Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam`a went out and she was a tall woman. `Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He (`Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). https://sunnah.com/bukhari/79/14

Cool meme Baron, unfortunately your assumptions are a little flawed.

The "toilets" were on the outskirts of the town. That means the women had to walk some distance to get there. Now of course its possible that a group of perverts had set up "a gathering" at the toilets in order to perve on ladies - but there is no evidence this was the scenario. Common sense from an objective reader whose mind is not in the gutter and who doesn't have an agenda against Islam - would agree that its at least as plausible, and probably more likely that the gathering was simply in the middle of town (you know where "gatherings" tend to happen) - somewhere between Sauda's house and the outskirts where the toilets were. And Sauda just happened to pass by them on her way.

He was anxious for Muhammad to get a 'divine revelation' that women had to wear black tents in 40 degree heat? Was there a waiting list or something?

over to you Baron.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 1:20pm:

Good talk, well worth a listen. http://muslimgirl.com/43571/quran-really-say-muslim-womans-hijab/

So why are they still veiling themselves in the West? They have been to school, we are not in the Arab middle ages or their backward countries with different social norms  - so why be atavistic so fanatically?

Because it IS the uniform and signifier of of that fanatical atavisim.

You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2018 at 2:33pm:

You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you.

Now now, G, no one has the right to not be offended.

Except Frank. How very dare they?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2018 at 2:33pm:

You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you.

They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies.

That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street.

Frank wrote on Jan 8^th, 2018 at 7:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street.

I must remember to tell all the Italian and Spanish women not to wear their Mantillas any more, Soren...   ::) ::)

Frank wrote on Jan 8^th, 2018 at 7:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street.

Which is so terribly offensive to you, dear boy, we understand.

After all those years of straightening bins and fitting in.

How very dare they?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 8^th, 2018 at 9:47pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 7:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street. I must remember to tell all the Italian and Spanish women not to wear their Mantillas any more, Soren...   ::) ::)

Someone told them decades ago already, Bwian. I have never seen one on the streets of Leichhardt or around Liverpool Street.

They must be all on your street next to all the Muslims. Your street mjst be a demographic oddity.

Frank wrote on Jan 8^th, 2018 at 7:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street.

I just love it how Frank gets to be the supreme arbiter of what constitutes a "legitimate function" of clothing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 1:20pm:

Good talk, well worth a listen. http://muslimgirl.com/43571/quran-really-say-muslim-womans-hijab/

So, let me guess: the Hijab is cultural; or it makes women closer to God???

In many countries around the world, the Hijab is a sign of oppression against women; in fact, Hijab comes from the word 'separation' in Arabic. It is true that many Muslim women in the West choose to wear the Hijab, but many women in other countries don't have that choice. So, many of these Western-born Muslim women see themselves as a symbol for feminism, but what happens when a young girl in a country (where she's forced to wear it) sees a Western Muslim choosing to wear the Hijab and promoting choice, then questions the local Imam or male relative as to her wearing it (citing the Western Muslim who 'chooses' to wear it). The local Imam and male relative would then reply: "well, you see, that Muslim woman in the West chooses to wear the Hijab, why aren't you choosing to wear it? Is it because you're not a good Muslim?"

So, question: don't you think that Western Muslim women are being used a propaganda piece for misogynistic Imams and males in other countries???

augy, rather than jump to baseless conclusions about the talk, why not watch the talk first hmmm?


Auggie wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 12:51pm:

So, question: don't you think that Western Muslim women are being used a propaganda piece for misogynistic Imams and males in other countries???

Without a doubt. Women tend to be targets of propaganda from all sides - mostly men of course. My advise as a man - to other men - is to stop second guessing women and their motivations - don't assume a hijabi is being oppressed when she says she's not, and equally don't assume a non-hijabi is being pressured to not veil when she says she's not.

Clearly we agree that some women are forced to veil, but I rather fear that you are in the camp that says every muslim woman who does veil must be coerced into it - which I strongly reject.

In any case, thats not really anything to do with the video - which I reccommend watching.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 1:08pm:

Without a doubt. Women tend to be targets of propaganda from all sides - mostly men of course. My advise as a man - to other men - is to stop second guessing women and their motivations - don't assume a hijabi is being oppressed when she says she's not, and equally don't assume a non-hijabi is being pressured to not veil when she says she's not. Clearly we agree that some women are forced to veil, but I rather fear that you are in the camp that says every muslim woman who does veil must be coerced into it - which I strongly reject.

I am not in that camp. I believe that many women in the West choose actively to wear it. Of this I have no doubt. This does not mean, however, that the Hijab is a feminist symbol, in my opinion.

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 7:29am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 9:47pm: Frank wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 7:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street. I must remember to tell all the Italian and Spanish women not to wear their Mantillas any more, Soren...   ::) ::) Someone told them decades ago already, Bwian. I have never seen one on the streets of Leichhardt or around Liverpool Street. They must be all on your street next to all the Muslims. Your street mjst be a demographic oddity.

Ah, but you're a Lutheran, aren't you, Soren?

Me, I'm an old Catholic lad.  I remember my mother wearing one when I was a child, to Mass on a Sunday.  I remember being taught about them, at school, when I was a child.   Go to heavily Spanish or Italian suburbs and you might be in for a very big surprise, Soren.   Nor should we forget the wearing of a veil by a Christian Bride, should we?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 7:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street. I just love it how Frank gets to be the supreme arbiter of what constitutes a "legitimate function" of clothing.

Well, tell us then and show what legitimate functions I have missed - other than it being a uniform of cultural apartness and opposition.  Until you can say what else it does your quoting me in your signature is apt and correct and stands uncontested.

Sniggering and hinting is not an argument, gandalf, not from you, not from your Paki bro (give him 10 rupee from me, will ya?), not from Bwian or the rest. State your counter-argument plainly or remain an evasive taqqiya merchant, opportunistic with evasion and innuendo.

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 6:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:43pm: Frank wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 7:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street. I just love it how Frank gets to be the supreme arbiter of what constitutes a "legitimate function" of clothing. Well, tell us then and show what legitimate functions I have missed - other than it being a uniform of cultural apartness and opposition.  Until you can say what else it does your quoting me in your signature is apt and correct and stands uncontested. Sniggering and hinting is not an argument, gandalf, not from you, not from your Paki bro (give him 10 rupee from me, will ya?), not from Bwian or the rest. State your counter-argument plainly or remain an evasive taqqiya merchant, opportunistic with evasion and innuendo.

I think he's saying you're just a silly, intolerant old fool.

But that's just me.

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 6:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2018 at 12:43pm: Frank wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 7:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8th, 2018 at 2:33pm: You are of course right Frank - they veil purely to be sinister and to offend you. They have no other need to veil but to flag their fanatical atavism.  There is simply no other reason for it in Western societies. That is why it is a uniform and signal of hostility and apartness with no other legitimate function for it in Western societies.  All it says is 'Look at me, I am a Muslims. I don't belong here and I do not WANT to belong here.'  It says absolutely nothing else on Pitt Street. I just love it how Frank gets to be the supreme arbiter of what constitutes a "legitimate function" of clothing. Well, tell us then and show what legitimate functions I have missed - other than it being a uniform of cultural apartness and opposition.  Until you can say what else it does your quoting me in your signature is apt and correct and stands uncontested. Sniggering and hinting is not an argument, gandalf, not from you, not from your Paki bro (give him 10 rupee from me, will ya?), not from Bwian or the rest. State your counter-argument plainly or remain an evasive taqqiya merchant, opportunistic with evasion and innuendo.

Are you the Keysar Trad to gandalfs  Sheik 'cat got your tongue' al Hilali?

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2018 at 6:34pm:

Well, tell us then and show what legitimate functions I have missed - other than it being a uniform of cultural apartness and opposition.  Until you can say what else it does your quoting me in your signature is apt and correct and stands uncontested.

Sorry old boy, you have it the wrong way around. I'm not the one trying to second guess an individual's personal choice of clothing and assuming (baselessly) sinister intentions. I therefore am not the one who needs to prove anything.

allah certainly knew how to pick a really nice dress code for women to stop them getting raped:

---

Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

moses wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 5:07pm:

allah certainly knew how to pick a really nice dress code for women to stop them getting raped:

"Critics" of Islam knew how to pick a photoshopped image in order to compare Muslim women to bags of rubbish, no?

The retarded men squat to pee and play with their dicks afterwards. The inbred women like to dress like awful black trash.

Maybe this is what Setanta means by criticism of Islam, ja?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:

Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Why on earth would you dress like that in the UK or Australia or in any Western country?  Seeing the face is an important thing in Western culture. Why do they deliberately refuse to respect local culture's and traditions?

They have no compunction about receiving benefits from kuffar cultures or rorting the Western legal and welfare systems.

Frank wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Why on earth would you dress like that in the UK or Australia or in any Western country?  Seeing the face is an important thing in Western culture. Why do they deliberately refuse to respect local culture's and traditions? They have no compunction about receiving benefits from kuffar cultures or rorting the Western legal and welfare systems.

Benefits, eh? You mean garbage collection?

Seeing the face is important in every culture, dear boy.

Personally though, one prefers to do you from behind.

You understand.

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/iamges/sub10/burq.jpg

http://wp.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/files/2011/04/burka_muell_igfm-1024x723.jpg

https://files.gab.ai/image/5964ebf70a497.jpeg

Danish?

Frank wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Why on earth would you dress like that in the UK or Australia or in any Western country?  Seeing the face is an important thing in Western culture. Why do they deliberately refuse to respect local culture's and traditions?

How do you know if they respect "local culture's and traditions", Soren?   You haven't asked them, you've just made an assumption.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::)


Quote:

They have no compunction about receiving benefits from kuffar cultures or rorting the Western legal and welfare systems.

Citizens have rights, Soren.   Muslims are quite often citizens of Western countries.  They have the same entitlement to those benefits as does every other citizen.    ::)

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:56pm:

Danish?

I find it interesting that they couldn't find a picture of a woman wearing Spanish national dress...

Makes me wonder why they also used a picture of a Guardsman for Britain.

Suggests that they are bullshitting.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:59pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:56pm: Danish? I find it interesting that they couldn't find a picture of a woman wearing Spanish national dress... Makes me wonder why they also used a picture of a Guardsman for Britain. Suggests that they are bullshitting.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Also, all the Muslim ones are wearing black tents.

And of course *ALL* women in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan etc wear nothing but black tents. Just like all British men go round in royal guard uniform.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:56pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Why on earth would you dress like that in the UK or Australia or in any Western country?  Seeing the face is an important thing in Western culture. Why do they deliberately refuse to respect local culture's and traditions? How do you know if they respect "local culture's and traditions", Soren?   You haven't asked them, you've just made an assumption.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Quote: They have no compunction about receiving benefits from kuffar cultures or rorting the Western legal and welfare systems. Citizens have rights, Soren.   Muslims are quite often citizens of Western countries.  They have the same entitlement to those benefits as does every other citizen.    ::)

Er....they are not entitled to polygamy and not entitled to claim social security for their polygamous wives and their children, citizens or not.

yet they do.

But because they are not white Welsh polygamists, we pretend we don't notice, lest there is another Muslim riot.





Bigamy
Entering into a marriage when either partner is still legally married to another. Bigamy is illegal in Australia and the accused can face a five year sentence.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:24am:

And of course *ALL* women in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan etc wear nothing but black tents. Just like all British men go round in royal guard uniform.

Not many royal guard uniforms getting around these days, the black tent uniforms are increasing exponentially though.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:50pm:

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/iamges/sub10/burq.jpg

A bloody classic.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:54pm:

https://files.gab.ai/image/5964ebf70a497.jpeg

And another classic, pictures say a million words.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:24am:

And of course *ALL* women in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan etc wear nothing but black tents. Just like all British men go round in royal guard uniform.

You see, this is why you Muslims are regarded as untrustworthy.  You just cannot be honest, every moment of life is haggling in the kasbah over carpet, nuts, blonde slaves, whatever.





If you compared the black sack to suits, or slacks and shirt, you would have made a valid comparison. But that just would have showed the vapidity and idiocy of the niqab in the West.  So instead you compare the niqab to a ceremonial dress at a tourist attraction.  But Lakemba and Auburn are not tourist attractions yet they are FULL of niqabis.

Dishonesty is something you imbibe from Islam's attitude to the world.  And your coprophiliac Keysar Trady spokesthingy, the Paki shitee-eater, jumps in with talk of ''porkies' and miam miams.

I would like to see Muslims speak HONESTLY and CANDIDLY. But it hasn't happened in 1400 years so you are not going to start here and now.  Your fellow Muslims would lynch you for it.  You are not ALLOWED to be critical of Muslims so your intellectual horizons and your balls are in a vice from thee start.








Islamic emojis:

https://i.redd.it/e3pivphd5gny.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:

Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Would you put on a niqab, Bwian, and live your life like that in Australia?

Frank wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:24am: And of course *ALL* women in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan etc wear nothing but black tents. Just like all British men go round in royal guard uniform. You see, this is why you Muslims are regarded as untrustworthy.  You just cannot be honest, every moment of life is haggling in the kasbah over carpet, nuts, blonde slaves, whatever. If you compared the black sack to suits, or slacks and shirt, you would have made a valid comparison. But that just would have showed the vapidity and idiocy of the niqab in the West.  So instead you compare the niqab to a ceremonial dress at a tourist attraction.  But Lakemba and Auburn are not tourist attractions yet they are FULL of niqabis. Dishonesty is something you imbibe from Islam's attitude to the world.  And your coprophiliac Keysar Trady spokesthingy, the Paki shitee-eater, jumps in with talk of ''porkies' and miam miams. I would like to see Muslims speak HONESTLY and CANDIDLY. But it hasn't happened in 1400 years so you are not going to start here and now.  Your fellow Muslims would lynch you for it.  You are not ALLOWED to be critical of Muslims so your intellectual horizons and your balls are in a vice from thee start. Islamic emojis: https://i.redd.it/e3pivphd5gny.jpg

How come all those emojis look the same...

Johnnie wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:40pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:24am: And of course *ALL* women in Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan etc wear nothing but black tents. Just like all British men go round in royal guard uniform. You see, this is why you Muslims are regarded as untrustworthy.  You just cannot be honest, every moment of life is haggling in the kasbah over carpet, nuts, blonde slaves, whatever. If you compared the black sack to suits, or slacks and shirt, you would have made a valid comparison. But that just would have showed the vapidity and idiocy of the niqab in the West.  So instead you compare the niqab to a ceremonial dress at a tourist attraction.  But Lakemba and Auburn are not tourist attractions yet they are FULL of niqabis. Dishonesty is something you imbibe from Islam's attitude to the world.  And your coprophiliac Keysar Trady spokesthingy, the Paki shitee-eater, jumps in with talk of ''porkies' and miam miams. I would like to see Muslims speak HONESTLY and CANDIDLY. But it hasn't happened in 1400 years so you are not going to start here and now.  Your fellow Muslims would lynch you for it.  You are not ALLOWED to be critical of Muslims so your intellectual horizons and your balls are in a vice from thee start. Islamic emojis: https://i.redd.it/e3pivphd5gny.jpg How come all those emojis look the same...

Islamophobe!!!!

Muslims are supposed to treat their wives equally, why did $$Profit Mo have a favourite wife were the others not young enough compared to his child bride Aisha?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f9A_r5lmviU/VRVMs55B47I/AAAAAAAABGI/Nt-Ka4_K3hY/s1600/women-treated-equally-under-islamic-law.jpg


Quote:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. https://quran.com/4/34

Muslims and their apologists say the hijab is a choice for women, do women have a choice when hijab is mandatory in Saudi Arabia and Iran along with all the Islamic shitholes ruled by Taliban,Boko Haram and Al Shaabab etc ?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:

Muslims are supposed to treat their wives equally, why did $$Profit Mo have a favourite wife were the others not young enough compared to his child bride Aisha? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f9A_r5lmviU/VRVMs55B47I/AAAAAAAABGI/Nt-Ka4_K3hY/s1600/women-treated-equally-under-islamic-law.jpg Quote: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. https://quran.com/4/34 Muslims and their apologists say the hijab is a choice for women, do women have a choice when hijab is mandatory in Saudi Arabia and Iran along with all the Islamic shitholes ruled by Taliban,Boko Haram and Al Shaabab etc ?

According to Abu, they also get the same treatment as the sex slaves.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 9:14pm:

[then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.

The vain, narcissitic priapist's view of sexual relations.




Allah's eternal world, innit:

Lyrics
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up
Smack my bitch up
Eaaaheeyheeaheyyyee
Aaahaaahaaaaaaaaaaahha
Eaaaheeyheeaheyyyee
Aaahhaaaaa
Aaahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Smack my bitch up
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up


Lyrics by Mohammed.

Frank wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Would you put on a niqab, Bwian, and live your life like that in Australia?

I was taught by Nuns, Soren.  Why don't you ask them?   They seemed to manage to do it and they weren't even Muslim, either.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 11:59pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:48pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Would you put on a niqab, Bwian, and live your life like that in Australia? I was taught by Nuns, Soren.  Why don't you ask them?   They seemed to manage to do it and they weren't even Muslim, either.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Would YOU put on a niqab or a similar garb, completely covering you, here in Australia and live your life like that?

Frank wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 2:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 11:59pm: Frank wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:48pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Would you put on a niqab, Bwian, and live your life like that in Australia? I was taught by Nuns, Soren.  Why don't you ask them?   They seemed to manage to do it and they weren't even Muslim, either.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) Would YOU put on a niqab or a similar garb, completely covering you, here in Australia and live your life like that?

I was taught by Nuns, Soren.  Why don't you ask them?   They seemed to manage to do it and they weren't even Muslim, either.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Perhaps the nuns can explain explain why Brian is not allowed to have an opinion on Islam.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 3:56pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2018 at 2:15pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 11:59pm: Frank wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:48pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Poorly photoshopped picture set in the UK, not Australia, Moses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Would you put on a niqab, Bwian, and live your life like that in Australia? I was taught by Nuns, Soren.  Why don't you ask them?   They seemed to manage to do it and they weren't even Muslim, either.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) Would YOU put on a niqab or a similar garb, completely covering you, here in Australia and live your life like that? I was taught by Nuns, Soren.  Why don't you ask them?   They seemed to manage to do it and they weren't even Muslim, either.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

We're you nun, too? You have done everything, haven't  you, Bwian? Nun, doctor of divinity, tinker, sailor, solder.

Yes, Brian, but I think the difference is the nuns aren't trying to kill off Whitey.

If they were, FD and the old boy would be trying to ban the habit too.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

Yes, Brian, but I think the difference is the nuns aren't trying to kill off Whitey. If they were, FD and the old boy would be trying to ban the habit too.

Can't really compare nuns vs islamic potato sack.
Nuns are members of the religious order and there is no suggestion that all female members dress as such.

Conservative Islam wants all women to dress like Ned Kelly.

Gordon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 11:42am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 11:38am: Yes, Brian, but I think the difference is the nuns aren't trying to kill off Whitey. If they were, FD and the old boy would be trying to ban the habit too. Can't really compare nuns vs islamic potato sack. Nuns are members of the religious order and there is no suggestion that all female members dress as such. Conservative Islam wants all women to dress like Ned Kelly.

So do conservative Jews, Gordon.   So do conservative Christians.   Ever watched the "Handmaid's Tale"?  The dystopia favoured by hard-line Christians.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Gordon wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 11:42am: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 11:38am: Yes, Brian, but I think the difference is the nuns aren't trying to kill off Whitey. If they were, FD and the old boy would be trying to ban the habit too. Can't really compare nuns vs islamic potato sack. Nuns are members of the religious order and there is no suggestion that all female members dress as such. Conservative Islam wants all women to dress like Ned Kelly. So do conservative Jews, Gordon.   So do conservative Christians.   Ever watched the "Handmaid's Tale"?  The dystopia favoured by hard-line Christians.   Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Is that all you have, a fictional TV series?

Western society is becoming increasingly secular. The number of Jews in the world is tiny.

Muslim countries are increasingly moving towards fundamentalism.

Gordon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 12:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 12:44pm: Gordon wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 11:42am: Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 11:38am: Yes, Brian, but I think the difference is the nuns aren't trying to kill off Whitey. If they were, FD and the old boy would be trying to ban the habit too. Can't really compare nuns vs islamic potato sack. Nuns are members of the religious order and there is no suggestion that all female members dress as such. Conservative Islam wants all women to dress like Ned Kelly. So do conservative Jews, Gordon.   So do conservative Christians.   Ever watched the "Handmaid's Tale"?  The dystopia favoured by hard-line Christians.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) Is that all you have, a fictional TV series? Western society is becoming increasingly secular. The number of Jews in the world is tiny. Muslim countries are increasingly moving towards fundamentalism.

The numbers of Muslim women who wear Burqa or Niqab are tiny.   The number of Muslims who are Terrorists are tiny.   Yet all we hear from your fellow Islamophobes is "Muslims are all evil."   Tsk, tsk.   I have provided you with your examples and an illustration.  You appear to dislike that.   Ultra-Orthodox Jews are just as bad as ultra-Orthodox Muslims in many regards.    Ultra-Orthodox Christans ditto.    They exist.  You have to deal with them.   Otherwise, all your arguments against Muslims are pointless and just represent persecution.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 1:39pm:

The numbers of Muslim women who wear Burqa or Niqab are tiny.   The number of Muslims who are Terrorists are tiny.

Please quantify the term 'tiny'? 1%, 2%???

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 1:39pm:

Ultra-Orthodox Jews are just as bad as ultra-Orthodox Muslims in many regards.

When was the last attack perpetrated by Ultra-Orthodox Jews??


Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 1:39pm:

Ultra-Orthodox Christans ditto.

Like the LRA?? Which is confined to a small area in Africa??? You're going to have to better than that.

Auggie wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 1:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 1:39pm: The numbers of Muslim women who wear Burqa or Niqab are tiny.   The number of Muslims who are Terrorists are tiny. Please quantify the term 'tiny'? 1%, 2%???

In a Australia less than 1% of the total Muslim population.   A statistically insignificant quantity basically.  In my life I have only encountered two women who wore such a dress.    ::)

Auggie wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 1:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 1:39pm: Ultra-Orthodox Jews are just as bad as ultra-Orthodox Muslims in many regards. When was the last attack perpetrated by Ultra-Orthodox Jews??

In Israel it was in early 2017.  Downunder?  Much, much rarer.  However, they do occur.  The Ultra-Orthodox dislike women who dress briefly and travel on buses alone.


Quote:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 1:39pm: Ultra-Orthodox Christans ditto.  Like the LRA?? Which is confined to a small area in Africa??? You're going to have to better than that.

Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm


Quote:

Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you.

Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood

Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization?

Who are they, what are their objectives?

When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity?

Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities?

Are you simply being dishonest again?

Brian would have us look at anything other than Islam on the Islam board.

moses wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 3:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again?

You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof.

Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::)

We have plenty of them in jail on terrorism charges Brian. Does that count?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

moses wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::)

All muslim terrorists are motivated by Islam.

Causation, not mere coincidence.


The NUB.

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 5:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 4:48pm: moses wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::) All muslim terrorists are motivated by Islam. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB.

All Christian terrorists are motivated by The Bible.

Causation, not mere coincidence.

The NUB.

::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 6:46pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 4:48pm: moses wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::) All muslim terrorists are motivated by Islam. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. All Christian terrorists are motivated by The Bible. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. ::)

There is no Christian terrorism, knob.

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 9:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 6:46pm: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 4:48pm: moses wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::) All muslim terrorists are motivated by Islam. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. All Christian terrorists are motivated by The Bible. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. ::) There is no Christian terrorism, knob.

Sure of that, Soren?   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 9:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 6:46pm: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 4:48pm: moses wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::) All muslim terrorists are motivated by Islam. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. All Christian terrorists are motivated by The Bible. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. ::) There is no Christian terrorism, knob. Sure of that, Soren?   ::) ::)

You sad sack of disappointment.

1605??

Really? That's your idea of a valid counterargument?

You are stupider than I thought - and I thought you were the stupidest person I  have ever come across.

You are peerless, Bwian.  You are a caricature of stupid. You are a joke of stupid.

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 9:23pm: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 9:03pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 6:46pm: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 4:48pm: moses wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::) All muslim terrorists are motivated by Islam. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. All Christian terrorists are motivated by The Bible. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. ::) There is no Christian terrorism, knob. Sure of that, Soren?   ::) ::) You sad sack of disappointment. 1605?? Really? That's your idea of a valid counterargument? You are stupider than I thought - and I thought you were the stupidest person I  have ever come across. You are peerless, Bwian.  You are a caricature of stupid. You are a joke of stupid.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Poor, poor, Soren.  Unable to look at the "Contemporary" section in a Wikipedia entry.  Do I need to teach you how to navigate the Internet now, Soren?  Really?   Tsk, tsk, and you claim to be a University Graduate.   Obviously didn't learn very much at the University of Balogny, did you?   ::)

Quote:

moses wrote [quote]Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again?

Brian Ross replied

Quote:

You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.

[/quote]

So it seems that our board liar was caught out yet again.

Absolutely nothing to offer about Christian Brotherhood. Just another smokescreen and excuses for islamic terrorism.

Oh well that's the way it goes with the leftard apologists, who lie slither and sneak, as they endlessly seek to hide the fact islam is the cause and motivation of worldwide islamic terrorism.

Poor Brian, just one more example of his total dishonesty and groveling cowardice, a liar who prefers the global death and destruction caused by muslim terrorists over having muslims thoroughly examine the depravity in their doctrine which causes and motivates islamic terrorism.

How sick are the apologists who knowingly tell lies to excuse islamic terrorism?

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 9:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 6:46pm: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 5:57pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 4:48pm: moses wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 3:43pm: Brian Ross wrote:Reply #109 - Today at 2:29pm Quote: Look at the Christian Brotherhood, Augie.  Not up to me to do your research for you. Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.    ::) All muslim terrorists are motivated by Islam. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. All Christian terrorists are motivated by The Bible. Causation, not mere coincidence. The NUB. ::) There is no Christian terrorism, knob.

;D

moses wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

Quote: moses wrote [quote]Tell us about this Christian Brotherhood Are you inferring that this Christian Brotherhood is some sort of terrorist organization? Who are they, what are their objectives? When have they committed some sort of terrorist activity? Is this more of your smokescreens to hide worldwide islamic atrocities? Are you simply being dishonest again? Brian Ross replied [quote] You claim all Australian Muslims are Terrorists, Moses.  Yet you present no proof.  You claim that all Australian Muslims are all barbaric, yet you present no proof. Get back to us with some proof, Moses.   Some real proof that pertains to Australian Muslims, not just your childish prejudices.

[/quote]

So it seems that our board liar was caught out yet again.

Absolutely nothing to offer about Christian Brotherhood. Just another smokescreen and excuses for islamic terrorism.

Oh well that's the way it goes with the leftard apologists, who lie slither and sneak, as they endlessly seek to hide the fact islam is the cause and motivation of worldwide islamic terrorism.

Poor Brian, just one more example of his total dishonesty and groveling cowardice, a liar who prefers the global death and destruction caused by muslim terrorists over having muslims thoroughly examine the depravity in their doctrine which causes and motivates islamic terrorism.

How sick are the apologists who knowingly tell lies to excuse islamic terrorism?[/quote]

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  Moses, I don't know why you bother, I really don't.  Failing to answer your query does not amount to a "lie".  It means I have been distracted by other, far more important things.  Grow up, you're not the centre of the world, nor are your two favourite religions.    ::) ::)

Frank wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

You are not ALLOWED to be critical of Muslims so your intellectual horizons and your balls are in a vice from thee start.

hmmm lets give it a try eh...

Muslims who go around screaming that those who insult the prophet must be killed, or demanding hudud laws be implemented, or that muslim men have a right to abuse their women, or that muslims have a duty to conduct relentless war with non-muslims - are, in my humble opinion, not only wrong about Islam, but are pretty much the scum of the earth, the worst of the worst, who should be universally condemned by muslims and non-muslims alike.

However you see gandi, this make you a hypocrite and corrupter in they eyes of the true blue muslims who follow the qur'an to the letter.

The qur'an is very explicit in what should be done with the likes of you.


Quote:

[quote] qur'an 5.32: Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors. qur'an 5.33: Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

muslims and their apologists try to tell us that 5.32 is proof that islam is a religion of peace, when in fact it is part and parcel of two verses which clearly teach that it is perfectly acceptable to torture and murder those you consider are causing corruption.

So the next logical question is:

Who causes corruption and is worthy of torture and murder?


Quote:

qur'an 2.8: And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allah and the Last Day," but they are not believers. qur'an 2.10: In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie. qur'an 2.11: And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers." qur'an 2.12: Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.

People who say they are believers, but do not want to follow the doctrine, they are corrupters. islam preaches that muslims are to torture and murder hypocrites / corrupters.

more direct qur'an references to who / what is a hypocrite or corrupter.


Quote:

qur'an 3.167: And that He might make evident those who are hypocrites. For it was said to them, "Come, fight in the way of Allah or [at least] defend." They said, "If we had known [there would be] fighting, we would have followed you." They were nearer to disbelief that day than to faith, saying with their mouths what was not in their hearts. And Allah is most Knowing of what they conceal

muslims who don't go and fight are hypocrites / corrupters, muslims may torture and kill them


Quote:

qur'an 4.88: What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance].

allah has sent hypocrites astray, muslims may torture and kill them

continued next post

continued on from last post


Quote:

qur'an 4.89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Hypocrites / disbelievers will lead muslims astray, don't take them as allies, torture and kill them instead


Quote:

qur'an 4.138: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment - qur'an 4.145: Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire - and never will you find for them a helper qur'an 9.68: Allah has promised the hypocrite men and hypocrite women and the disbelievers the fire of Hell, wherein they will abide eternally. It is sufficient for them. And Allah has cursed them, and for them is an enduring punishment. qur'an 9.73: O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

all hypocrites corrupters will go to hell. muhammad was commanded to fight and kill people because they were disbelievers / corrupters.


Quote:

qur'an 9.101: And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment. qur'an 33.73: [It was] so that Allah may punish the hypocrite men and hypocrite women and the men and women who associate others with Him and that Allah may accept repentance from the believing men and believing women. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. qur'an 48.6: And [that] He may punish the hypocrite men and hypocrite women, and the polytheist men and polytheist women - those who assume about Allah an assumption of evil nature. Upon them is a misfortune of evil nature; and Allah has become angry with them and has cursed them and prepared for them Hell, and evil it is as a destination,

All of the above preach hatred an death to the hypocrite / corrupter.



Quote:

qur'an 66.9: O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

Once again muhammad was commanded to fight and kill people because they were disbelievers / corrupters.[/quote]

It's ironic, the gandis of the world bend over backwards trying to cite islam as a peaceful spiritual religion.

The truth is that islam is very clear, backsliding muslims like gandi are going to burn  in hell and muslims are to torture and kill them.

The joke is: backsliders make all the pathetic excuses (misinterpreted, misunderstood etc. etc.), they sit down to pee, try and dress like muhammad, eat like him, sleep like him, while the truth is muhammad hated muslims like them.

If it wasn't so serious we could all sit down and have a good laugh at their stupidity, however islam is a world wide terrorist threat, and the backsliders are no help at all, as they refuse to condemn the evil in islamic doctrine which causes and motivates all the islamic atrocities. 

moses wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 4:23pm:

However you see gandi, this make you a hypocrite and corrupter in they eyes of the true blue muslims who follow the qur'an to the letter.

Sure moses, whatever floats your boat.

The point is though, Frank assured me I can't say it. And yet here I am...

You can say it because non-Muslims are defending your right to say it.

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2018 at 5:43pm:

You can say it because non-Muslims are defending your right to say it.

I think Frank was referring to some sort of self-censorship.

You only have to chop off a few heads for people to get the message Gandalf. That's how Islam spreads.

Kill the chicken and let the monkeys watch is how the Chinese put it.

Shooting up Charlie He do was such an event. Everyone self-censors in the media.
Thank God for online chat sites like this.
https://goo.gl/images/YzewKp

https://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Mohammed+cartoons+from+mohammed+cartoons+twitter+surprised+they+havent+been_318b87_5848915.jpg

https://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Mohammed_d3d367_5848915.jpg

https://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Mohammed_b1adbd_5848915.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 2:22pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 1:58pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 1:39pm: The numbers of Muslim women who wear Burqa or Niqab are tiny.   The number of Muslims who are Terrorists are tiny. Please quantify the term 'tiny'? 1%, 2%??? In a Australia less than 1% of the total Muslim population.   A statistically insignificant quantity basically.  In my life I have only encountered two women who wore such a dress.    ::) Really? I see headscarves everywhere all the time, not that I think it's a problem, but I find it hard to believe that you've only encountered 'two women'.

burqa/niqab =/= headscarf

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:

burqa/niqab =/= headscarf

So, the burqa is different from the headscarf???

Please elaborate.

Burqa:

http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg

Headscarf:

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg

carca

---

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 2:32pm:

Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg

Isn't she a beautiful woman!

On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab....

Auggie wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 4:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab....

No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::)

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant!

Auggie wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 4:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:41pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::) Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant!

You'd have to convert...  ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 5:00pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:41pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::) Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant! You'd have to convert...  ;)

And I'd be willing to do so.

Would you?

Auggie wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 5:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:41pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::) Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant! You'd have to convert...  ;) And I'd be willing to do so. Would you?

More than likely not.   I am Agnostic/Atheistic in my views about religion.   I do not believe in God.  Others can do the believing for me.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 5:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:41pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::) Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant! You'd have to convert...  ;) And I'd be willing to do so. Would you? More than likely not.   I am Agnostic/Atheistic in my views about religion.   I do not believe in God.  Others can do the believing for me.

Well, you know that makes you Islamophobic, don't you?

Auggie wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 5:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:17pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:41pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::) Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant! You'd have to convert...  ;) And I'd be willing to do so. Would you? More than likely not.   I am Agnostic/Atheistic in my views about religion.   I do not believe in God.  Others can do the believing for me.    Well, you know that makes you Islamophobic, don't you?

No, it doesn't, Augie.  What that makes me is a searcher, a potential convert.   However, I am not a willing one, who succumbs to the desires of the flesh...  ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:17pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:41pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::) Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant! You'd have to convert...  ;) And I'd be willing to do so. Would you? More than likely not.   I am Agnostic/Atheistic in my views about religion.   I do not believe in God.  Others can do the believing for me.    Well, you know that makes you Islamophobic, don't you? No, it doesn't, Augie.  What that makes me is a searcher, a potential convert.   However, I am not a willing one, who succumbs to the desires of the flesh...  ;)

Ah, so now I'm a rapist?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::)

Come to Sydney, mong, and fill ya boots with bints in medieval Muslim garb. They are everywhere.

Go to London and you'll think you are in somewhere in Muslim frikken Africa.

Perth - middle of nowhere.

Auggie wrote on Jan 16^th, 2018 at 7:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:17pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 5:00pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:41pm: Auggie wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 4:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2018 at 2:32pm: Burqa: http://www.dw.com/image/18298787_303.jpg Headscarf: https://i.pinimg.com/474x/dc/5f/2e/dc5f2e6a46b31909f91b85e1fb8a9de8--overalls-outfit-face-shapes.jpg Isn't she a beautiful woman! On point though, BR said that he had encountered only 2 women who had worn the Burqa AND/OR Hijab.... No, I said I had only encountered two women who had worn the Burqa or Niqab, Augie.  There is a difference.  Hijabs are common as muck, the other two are quite rare downunder.   ::) Ah, thank you for the clarification. See, Brian. I'd marry that woman in an instant! You'd have to convert...  ;) And I'd be willing to do so. Would you? More than likely not.   I am Agnostic/Atheistic in my views about religion.   I do not believe in God.  Others can do the believing for me.    Well, you know that makes you Islamophobic, don't you? No, it doesn't, Augie.  What that makes me is a searcher, a potential convert.   However, I am not a willing one, who succumbs to the desires of the flesh...  ;) Ah, so now I'm a rapist?

Don't knock it, Augie. Some of our best friends are rappists.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2018 at 2:22pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 1:58pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14th, 2018 at 1:39pm: The numbers of Muslim women who wear Burqa or Niqab are tiny.   The number of Muslims who are Terrorists are tiny. Please quantify the term 'tiny'? 1%, 2%??? In a Australia less than 1% of the total Muslim population.   A statistically insignificant quantity basically.  In my life I have only encountered two women who wore such a dress.    ::)

Liar.


According to the 2016 Australian Census, the combined number of people who self-identified as Muslim in Australia, from all forms of Islam, constituted 604,200 people, or 2.6% of the total Australian population, an increase of over 15% of its previous population share of 2.2% reported in the previous census 5 years

15 % increase in 5 years. Which other demographic is growing that fast, you lying, dishonest propagandist?

Lakemba on a Saturday morning....  celebrating Islamic monoculturalism.
http://www.amust.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/7K2A3517-1000x640.jpg

Some of our best friends like Danish.