Australian Politics Forum - Gandalf, what the hell?

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #15 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:11pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:10pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 10:51am:

Well, if one converts to Islam because they feel inspired by it and have read the scriptures, I don't understand how you could feel spiritually-fulfilled by Islam.

And did you reach this conclusion because you have read and closely studied all the Islamic scriptures and concluded definitively that they are comprehensibly spritually unfulfilling?

Yes.

In the extremely unlikely event you are not lying - is it not conceivable for you that someone else might find spiritual meaning in it? Who are you to decide what is and what isn't spiritual meaning anyway?

I don't consider killing to be spiritual.

You?

Further, I have read the scriptures of other religions, like the Guru Granth Sahib of Sikism and the Kitab i Aqdas of the Bahai faith. Whilst not perfect (no religion is), their scriptures have very few contradictions and are more in line with modern tastes. I'd say Bahai was the perfect religion if not for the fact that they confine membership to the Universal House of Justice to men, which was a mistake, and seriously tarnishes their theology.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #16 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:21pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:07pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:05pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2018 at 10:51am:

Well, if one converts to Islam because they feel inspired by it and have read the scriptures, I don't understand how you could feel spiritually-fulfilled by Islam.

And did you reach this conclusion because you have read and closely studied all the Islamic scriptures and concluded definitively that they are comprehensibly spritually unfulfilling?

Question: were you aware of the wife-beating verse before or after you converted?

There is no wife-beating verse, I have covered this many times.

Now, that is clearly misguided, Gandalf. You're using the translation of some post-modernist Islamic woman (Laila Bakhtiar) who has written ONE Quran with that translation.

There is no consensus for her translation - nearly every single Quran printed in the world translate daraba as 'hit' or strike.

Refusing this is fundamentally dishonest.

There are many scholars who reject the physical beating interpretation - claiming there isn't just reinforces my view that you are talking through your behind when you claim you decided Islam was comprehensively spiritually unfulfilling as a result of a rigorous study of all Islamic text (and by necessity all its interpretations).

To me the best argument against the physical beating interpretation is the fact that the root word d-r-b is, in several different verses, used in ways that is impossible to be interpreted as any sort of physical hitting. Which of course you would know from your comprehensive study of all Islamic text.

That the physical beating interpretation isn't nearly as universal as you make out can easily be gleaned from a simple search for a wikipedia article:

Quote:

the term iḍribūhunna (usually translated, 'beat them') in 4:34 comes from the root ḍaraba (Arabic: ضرب).[39] The word has been used many times in the Quran to mean: to hit, to travel the earth, to set up, to condemn and to give examples. Thus scholars interpret iḍribūhunna in different ways. Whereas many interpret it to mean "to strike", others hold that the term means "to separate".[38] Such an action is to be administered only if neither the husband nor the wife are willing to divorce.[40] In the context of this verse, iḍribūhunna has also been interpreted to mean "go to bed with them",[41] the Arabic root word "daraba" being taken from the prosaic example "the stud-camel covered the she-camel".[42]
the term daraba is translated by Yusuf Ali as "beat," but the Arabic word is used elsewhere in the Qur'an to convey different meanings. The phrase, "Daraba Allah mathalan" translates to, "Allah gives or sets an example." [43] The use of this word might be compared to the way "to strike" is used in English, which can mean, "to strike a pose," or "to strike a bargain," not just referring to the physical act of hitting something.[44] The use of daraba is also intentional, because a different Arabic word exists, "darraba" which is translated to, "to strike repeatedly or intensely." [43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34#Other_translation_of_the_Verse_4:34

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #17 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:25pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:21pm:

There are many scholars who reject the physical beating interpretation - claiming there isn't just reinforces my view that you are talking through your behind when you claim you decided Islam was comprehensively spiritually unfulfilling as a result of a rigorous study of all Islamic text (and by necessity all its interpretations).

Can you name me the other scholars? Can you also name a Quran that translate that verse in a different way (other than the Sublime Quran by Laila Bakhtiar)???

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:21pm:

That the physical beating interpretation isn't nearly as universal as you make out can easily be gleaned from a simple search for a wikipedia article:

So, the majority of scholars have got it wrong for over 1400 years? That's a tall order.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #18 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:46pm

54.17: And we have indeed made the qur'an easy to understand and remember, then is there any that will remember (or receive admonition)?

Someone is telling us a lie, the qur'an is written in a literary style which motivates islamic human rights atrocities against disbelievers and (your version of) hypocritical muslims, plus global religious terrorism.

We have the (hypocritical?) muslims telling us the fundamentalist believers who follow the literal words of muhammad & allah have misinterpreted these words.

So who is lying, allah and his it's easy to understand, or the gandis who tell us you have to be a scholar to understand it.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #19 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:51pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:25pm:

Can you name me the other scholars?

You really could have saved us both some trouble and actually read the wiki article I linked.

eg:

Quote:

Translation by Muhsin Khan

Men are guardians of women, because Allah has made one superior to the other, and (also) because men spend their wealth (on them). So the pious wives are obedient. They guard (their chastity) in the absence of their husbands with the protection of Allah. But those women whom you fear will disobey and defy, admonish them; and (if they do not amend) separate them (from yourselves) in beds; and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting. Then if they become cooperative with you, do not seek any way against them. Surely, Allah is Most High, Most Great.[21]

and...

Quote:

The Islamic scholar Tahir-ul-Qadri has given the same translation in his translation of the Quran "Irfan-ul-Quran" ("(...)and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting.(...)").[21]

and on the general point of violence against women, its surprising how united scholars are...

Quote:

Jonathan A.C. Brown gives the wider scholarly tendency when it comes to the verse:

The vast majority of the ulama across the Sunni schools of law inherited the Prophet's unease over domestic violence and placed further restrictions on the evident meaning of the 'Wife Beating Verse'. A leading Meccan scholar from the second generation of Muslims, Ata' bin Abi Rabah, counseled a husband not to beat his wife even if she ignored him but rather to express his anger in some other way. Darimi, a teacher of both Tirmidhi and Muslim bin Hajjaj as well as a leading early scholar in Iran, collected all the Hadiths showing Muhammad's disapproval of beating in a chapter entitled 'The Prohibition on Striking Women'. A thirteenth-century scholar from Granada, Ibn Faras, notes that one camp of ulama had staked out a stance forbidding striking a wife altogether, declaring it contrary to the Prophet's example and denying the authenticity of any Hadiths that seemed to permit beating. Even Ibn Hajar, the pillar of late medieval Sunni Hadith scholarship, concludes that, contrary to what seems to be an explicit command in the Qur'an, the Hadiths of the Prophet leave no doubt that striking one's wife to discipline her actually falls under the Shariah ruling of 'strongly disliked' or 'disliked verging on prohibited'.[16]

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #20 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:03pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:25pm:

So, the majority of scholars have got it wrong for over 1400 years? That's a tall order.

Absolutely. And no, its not a tall order by any stretch. Consider that before Galileo "the majority of scholars" believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Or if you want an analogy closer to religion (although the geocentric model was highly influenced by religion) - its only been in recent years that christians have started rejecting the misogynistic drivel espoused by St Paul as the opinions of a mere mortal - as opposed to the divine word of God.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #21 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:51pm:

Muhsin Khan

So, I did research about Muhsin Khan. It turns out that his translation of the Quran, known as the Noble Quran, is the most widely-distributed Quran in the world. The translation has been steeped in Wahhabist ideology. In fact, the Noble Quran is considered by scholars to promote extremism.

So, based on this history, I highly dispute the reliability of that source.

Also, I saw that source was the Irfan ul Quran website, which quoted Muhsin. But wasn't the Irfan ul Quran written by Tahrir al Qadri?

Seems to be a contradiction to me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:51pm:

The Islamic scholar Tahir-ul-Qadri has given the same translation in his translation of the Quran "Irfan-ul-Quran" ("(...)and (if they still do not improve) turn away from them, striking a temporary parting.(...)").[21]

Al Qadri is a known Sufi, and his translation reflects Sufi doctrine; and therefore his translation does not accurately reflect orthodox Sunni doctrine.

Next?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:51pm:

The vast majority of the ulama across the Sunni schools of law inherited the Prophet's unease over domestic violence

So, the majority don't support wife-beating. Great. That doesn't mean it's not in the Quran. They reject the Hadith interpretations, not the Quranic interpretations.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #22 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:09pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:03pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 2:25pm:

So, the majority of scholars have got it wrong for over 1400 years? That's a tall order.

Absolutely. And no, its not a tall order by any stretch. Consider that before Galileo "the majority of scholars" believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Or if you want an analogy closer to religion (although the geocentric model was highly influenced by religion) - its only been in recent years that christians have started rejecting the misogynistic drivel espoused by St Paul as the opinions of a mere mortal - as opposed to the divine word of God.

And that was 500 years ago, Gandalf. The fact that Muslim scholars are still getting wrong in the 21st century indicates either stupidity or just plain delusion.

The fact is that the majority of Sunni jurisprudence schools support the verse 4:34 as wife-beating. Sure, many Muslims may not practise wife-beating and may condemn it, but they acknowledge that the verse is in the Quran.

Stop your theological acrobatics - the Quran allows for wife-beating. Admit it.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #23 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:23pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:09pm:

And that was 500 years ago, Gandalf.

I have very vivid memories of Anglican clerics and scholars invoking the misogynistic rantings of St Paul (which includes commands such as women must shut up in public and can only ask their husbands questions when she is safely shut away in the house) to insist that women must not be ordained. That was a mere 20 years ago or so. Catholics still flatly reject it on that basis.

The point is, scholarly opinions typically move at glacial pace. The vast majority of muslims (and therefore muslim scholars) are from societies that culturally condition them with misogynistic views - which I don't believe is based on a true interpretation of Islamic text. Biblical text is a million times more misogynistic than Islamic text, and for centuries it kept Christians in the dark ages vis the status of women. Yet somehow they managed to (mostly) evolve into the 21st century - at least in the west anyway. If and when Islamic scholarly opinion finally evolves for the better vis women, suddenly your argument (that majority = truth) will be looking pretty weak.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #24 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:09pm:

And that was 500 years ago, Gandalf.

I have very vivid memories of Anglican clerics and scholars invoking the misogynistic rantings of St Paul (which includes commands such as women must shut up in public and can only ask their husbands questions when she is safely shut away in the house) to insist that women must not be ordained. That was a mere 20 years ago or so. Catholics still flatly reject it on that basis.

The point is, scholarly opinions typically move at glacial pace. The vast majority of muslims (and therefore muslim scholars) are from societies that culturally condition them with misogynistic views - which I don't believe is based on a true interpretation of Islamic text. Biblical text is a million times more misogynistic than Islamic text, and for centuries it kept Christians in the dark ages vis the status of women. Yet somehow they managed to (mostly) evolve into the 21st century - at least in the west anyway. If and when Islamic scholarly opinion finally evolves for the better vis women, suddenly your argument (that majority = truth) will be looking pretty weak.

So, I was just watching a video with Maajid Nawaz. He stated that the difference between an Apologist and a Reformer is the following: the latter recognises there is a problem with Scripture; he even quoted the wife-beating verse, which he says is clear. Whereas the Apologist doesn't recognise there is a problem with Scripture at all.

Where I have issue with your point of view is that you're not recognising there is a problem with scripture. I recognise there is a problem with Christian Scripture and challenge that, particularly with St. Paul etc.. That's why I don't follow Christianity or any other religion.

What I want to hear from you and other Reformers is to recognise that there is a problem with the Scripture - the Quran, and that many of the tenets are no longer viable in the 21st century. Saying things like: "Islam has always been feminist, or Islam has always been secular" is being fundamentally dishonest and does no one any good. If you want to reform Islam, you need to acknowledge there is a problem first, and then work out how to solve it.

The larger problem of course with Islam is that the theology states the Quran is perfect, universal and unalterable, which means people such as yourself are going to have difficulty recognizing problem with Scripture because such acknowledge means that the Quran is not perfect. This is where Islam prevents itself from reforming more so than other religions.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #25 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:59pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:09pm:

And that was 500 years ago, Gandalf.

I have very vivid memories of Anglican clerics and scholars invoking the misogynistic rantings of St Paul (which includes commands such as women must shut up in public and can only ask their husbands questions when she is safely shut away in the house) to insist that women must not be ordained. That was a mere 20 years ago or so. Catholics still flatly reject it on that basis.

The point is, scholarly opinions typically move at glacial pace. The vast majority of muslims (and therefore muslim scholars) are from societies that culturally condition them with misogynistic views - which I don't believe is based on a true interpretation of Islamic text. Biblical text is a million times more misogynistic than Islamic text, and for centuries it kept Christians in the dark ages vis the status of women. Yet somehow they managed to (mostly) evolve into the 21st century - at least in the west anyway. If and when Islamic scholarly opinion finally evolves for the better vis women, suddenly your argument (that majority = truth) will be looking pretty weak.

Second, we in West had the enlightenment, which challenged many of the tenets of religion. Whether this was due to the Judeo-Christian tradition or not, I don't know. What I know is that no such enlightenment happened in Islam. The idea of secularism didn't develop in the Muslim world; it developed in the Western world (mainly, but also in the Asian civilization), so the adopting of secularism is a fundamentally non-Islamic idea. If you believe that the Quran is perfect, universal and unalterable, then secularism is wrong because it's not a Quranic/Hadith concept.

And again, as I said in the previous post, to state that Islam is not misogynistic is completely dishonest. All religions are misogynistic, even Christianity, but I can admit that, and recognize it's a problem. The Quran is clearly misogynistic, and the sooner you realize that the better.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #26 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:08pm

Majid Nawaz - you do realise the foundation which he heads is mostly funded by far right think tanks - after government funding dried up?

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:53pm:

Where I have issue with your point of view is that you're not recognising there is a problem with scripture.

And this is where your fundamental misunderstanding of my argument lies. It was exactly the same with alevine.

I absolutely *DO* recognise there is a problem with scripture. But surely you can appreciate that as a devout muslim, I only have so much 'wiggle room'. I simply can't decide that a book that on the one hand I must believe is the divine word of God, is on the other hand flawed in parts. I can therefore only tackle this from one angle - that of the interpretation. Which is why I spend so much time producing arguments and evidence to support the interpretation that I follow, and prosecuting the case for why the problematic interpretations are wrong. Be reasonable here, what would you expect of me - as a muslim? To turn around and declare that yes, the Quran is wrong in certain instances, muslims shouldn't abide by it? How realistic do you really think that is? Sure, its probably a good approach for clayton muslims, who don't really care what their religious texts actually say. But I'm sorry, insisting to a genuine muslim that he must choose to cut and paste bits and pieces of his text and concede that some of it is flawed and wrong - isn't a very productive approach. Surely you can understand this, no?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44732

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #27 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:11pm

Augie, you do know that most Muslims cannot even read the Q'ran? This is because it is written in archiac Arabic, with out the modern intonations that modern Arabic script use. Without the intonations, the meaning of the words change, often subtly, sometimes outrageously.

You are also aware that a lot of what many Muslims quote and believe in isn't even in the Q'ran but in the Hadiths? Hadiths which are known to be unreliable by scholars are often accepted as fact by believers. Many of the Hadiths were apparently created well after the death of Mohammed. There is currently a project in Turkey to examine all the Sunni Hadiths and determine their authenticity.

Islam is made up primarily of hearsay about what Mohammed said - exactly as Christianity is. The Bible consists of testimonies written between 75 and 150 years after the supposed death of Christ. The early Church edited the Bible heavily, removing testaments and redefining the relationships of various characters and rooting out what were described as "heresies". All religions are easily shown to be questionable, once the sources are examined properly. Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using posting to the general forum now. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #28 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:15pm

Gandalf wrote; Reply #23 - Today at 3:23pm
Quote:

If and when Islamic scholarly opinion finally evolves for the better vis women

You've got it against you all the way gandi.

Why?

Well the difference is:

Christ on the treatment of women
Quote:

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone at her

Christ represents forgiveness and compassion.

Then we have what muhammad said:
qur'an: Quote:

qur'an 4.34: Men are the maintainers of women because allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely allah is high, great.

qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

Qur’an 24:1 “(This is) a surah which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful. For the woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah. And let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

qur’an 24:33 “Force not your slave-girls to whoredom (prostitution) if they desire chastity, that you may seek enjoyment of this life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Muslim:B1N142 “‘O womenfolk, you should ask for forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell.’ A wise lady said: Why is it, Allah’s Apostle, that women comprise the bulk of the inhabitants of Hell? The Prophet observed: ‘You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.’ Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense? The Prophet replied, ‘Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.’”

Ishaq:593 “From the captives of Hunayn, Allah’s Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another.”

muhammad had no problems with thieving, lying, torture, murder, slavery, pedophilia, rape, belting women, abusing women as being stupid lacking common sense, the majority of women are in hell hanging by their breasts over a fire etc.

He practiced all of the above himself, he's supposed to be the best example for muslims of today, so you are still in the 7th century figuratively speaking, twisting and turning trying to put a 21st century spin on the evil in islam.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf, what the hell?
Reply #29 - Jan 31^st, 2018 at 4:21pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 31^st, 2018 at 3:59pm:

And again, as I said in the previous post, to state that Islam is not misogynistic is completely dishonest. All religions are misogynistic, even Christianity, but I can admit that, and recognize it's a problem. The Quran is clearly misogynistic, and the sooner you realize that the better.

I don't believe the Quran is misogynistic, the sooner you realise that the better.

The bible is undeniably misogynistic - but Christians get around that by dismissing the worst bits as the outdated opinions of mere men, and not representing the divine message. Moses did exactly that when not even he could back poor FD during his cringe-worthy defense (aka spineless apology) of St Paul's letters about women being beneath men, and ordering them to shut up and cover up in public.

But surely the point is, even christians can rationalise their horribly misogynistic text and move into the 21st century vis women's rights. Why are you so dead certain muslims can't do the same - and even worse, castigate the ones (like me) who do?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged