Aussie wrote on Apr 20
th, 2018 at 12:51pm:
Quote:So Aussie agrees with her and thinks she is 100% on the money. But he also thinks she is wrong. But he rejects my opinion that she is wrong. Does Aussie even know what he is talking about?
Is there a Rule here about misquoting people?
I never said that I think she is 100% on the money. I have said I disagree with her opinion on the Muslim/most feminine statement. Yes, I reject your opinion she is wrong, because she is not. She is entitled to her opinion (which I disagree with) ~ you are entitled to your opinion of her opinion. She is quite right to state her opinion. Nothing 'wrong' with that.
Aussie wrote on Apr 19
th, 2018 at 9:04pm:
Garbage....
what she said was 100% on the money. A better mind than mine has expressed it. I agree with her and Flanagan completely. You, FD or anyone else here do not come close.
In
Relationships. (And that is where I'll duke this out with anyone.)
Link. Aussie, you also said you reject my view that she was wrong about Islam being the most feminine religion. Can you get your story straight? How does being entitled to your opinion change whether you are right or wrong?
Quote:No no, I'm quite willing to discuss Yassmin's points. I've clarified some here in an attempt to do so. No one actually wants to discuss them. The criticism of Yassmin comes down to the fact that she's a Muslim - that's it. Ask Setanta, ask FD.
By discussing it, do you mean endlessley spewing idotic misrepresentations of what others say and expecting them to correct you over and over again?
Quote:Which makes more sense to you - immigrants lobbying to enshrine beheading and stoning in Australian law, or people quietly following their religious practices?
Since when do Muslims make sense?
Abu thought Shariah law was about stoning unfaithful child brides to death.
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 20
th, 2018 at 2:43pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Apr 20
th, 2018 at 2:36pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 20
th, 2018 at 2:33pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 20
th, 2018 at 2:28pm:
Quote:So you believe Lambie was out of line to condemn Sharia.........
From what I recall of that programme, it was abundantly clear that Lambie did not have a clue what Sharia was/is.
She probably doesn't know the full ins and outs of it but anybody can get an outline of it. It's all on the internet. I know the basics of it and it overwhelmingly backs men. It's a fact. Divorce laws, inheritance laws, social laws, family laws etc etc etc. I needs to be condemned and Yassmin didn't have the guts to do it on a platform. Yassmin is purely one sided.
Which aspects of sharia are you talking about, Homo? I'm curious.
Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's.
A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove.
Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters
very feminist indeed. want me to keep going?
Men can also slaughter the infidel for the purpose of capturing female sex slaves to breed the next generation of Islamic militants.
According to Abu, wives are to be treated no different to sex slaves.
Quote:These are examples of past rulings. They are not inherent aspects of sharia law, which is basically a few imams with their Qurans and legal precedents trying to form a judgement.
So past rulings have nothing to do with shariah law, which is based instead on legal precedents? Are you sure you aren't a Muslim Karnal?
Forum
Pages: 
Yassmin Abdel-Magied Slags on ANZACs again (Read 6902 times)
