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

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


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?

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


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:


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

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


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:


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

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.

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

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

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


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

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.

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


Men too, FD.

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


Thanks, Homo. What's the time line?

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


6 years after the rapes?

Are you sure of that?

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


Are you sure of that?

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]

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

2006.

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

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 6:10pm:


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

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


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

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


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

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


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.   

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

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

what are you asking

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


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?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2018 at 9:59pm:
Skaf had time put on to his sentence during feb 2006 and Hilaly did his sermon in oct 2006. you do the math.

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


Obviously not.

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

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:


Now why won't you say?

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


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

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


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.

over to you Baron.

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:



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:


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?

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


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

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:


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.

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


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.   

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


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:


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.

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

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



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:


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:


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.   

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


Also, all the Muslim ones are wearing black tents.

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



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.

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

A bloody classic.

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


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:

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

How come all those emojis look the same...

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?



Quote:


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:



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

Smack my bitch up
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up
Change my pitch up
Smack my bitch up


Lyrics by Mohammed.

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

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

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

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.

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


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

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



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.