English.rtf
A woman wearing a burka near Paris
Reuters/Regis Duvignau
Paris police have arrested 58 people trying to take part in a banned demonstration against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government’s new law banning the burka and other all-covering clothing.
Police swooped on the protesters near the capital’s Place de la Nation and took them in for identity checks.
Explainer – the background to France’s burka debate
Eighteen women were among those arrested, officials say.
Two people have been ordered to leave French territory following identity checks – one to then United Kingdom, the other to Belgium. One of them was arrested on the motorway between Amiens and Paris.
An application for permission to hold the demonstration was turned down on Friday. Police said that the ban was because they feared violent clashes with counter-demonstrators.
I always baulk at images of burka-clad women (presumably they’re women) manipulating cell phones. Instantly I find them amusing; oftentimes they make me chuckle. But when I ponder the incongruous association of burka and cell phone I feel perturbed. The burka – black and enclosing – to me symbolizes subjugation and the tiny, dark void of closed-mindedness enforced through Islamic indoctrination; the cell phone – compact and technologically cutting-edge – in contrast symbolizes the unbounded white light of human ingenuity made possible only through unfettered, independent rational thought. In the mind-oppressive milieu of Islamic totalitarianism, in the absence of free-thinking dhimmis and closet apostates, the cell phone could never have been invented. And yet the burka-clad woman, her restricted rational thinking safely compartmentalized, will probably take its existence for granted. But were someone to urge her to consider how it came to be, I would expect her to shrug her shoulders in fatalistic manner and say, mantra-like, “if Allah wills it”.
George, you talk about Islam being close-minded, my word, take a good look at yourself, pot calling the kettle black or what. You obviously know nothing about Islam only that you see in the tabloids, and the usual Islamophobic rantings of The Mirror and The Sun. Try reading something a little more enlightening, learn about the subject you sit here and slag off, because right now you look like a pathetic ignorant waste of space!!!!
The funniest thing about these bunch of idiots getting arrested is the fact they ‘covered’ themselves, wearing scarves and masks to hide their faces, HA HA HA, when protesting against the burqa…oh dear, the EDL really are the uneducated gutter trash of this country.
The Moslems are not going to give in easily, they are going to fight as long as they can to force there culture and religion down our throats, and Dhimmis are going to help them along because they are so arrogant they think they can control the Moslems.
The notification button, I forgot it again.
The Muslims or ‘Moslems’ as you like to call them are not forcing their culture and religion down anyone throats. Gee you people are so blind. What exactly is it you guys are scared of? And why is it Muslims are getting such a bad wrap, we all know its governments who start wars, its governments who fund war and terror!!!! When are you going to wake up!!!
By the way I am not Muslim, but I sure know fascism when I see it. ‘Islamophobia’ yeah the latest bandwagon to jump on, but we daren’t say a word against Israel.
Shame on you for falling for such propaganda!!!
I think you are muslim Deb, either that or you have a good case of islamophilia, in which case please convert to islam and be happy to wear what these people wear. Why sit on the fence. You love islam, you love muslims, you hate the gutter trash EDL, why not just convert and be done with it. Islamophilia is a wonderful thing. Everyone knows that. Islamophobia bad, Islamophilia good. You can then vist the land of Saudi and do the Haj. How cool is that. You owe to your islamophilia to convert. There is the lslamic legalised peadophilia issue as well and you can applaud the marriage of nine year old girls to old men in Saudi. Wonderful stuff. It is th Sunna. Legalised peadophilia is all part of the wonderful world of Islamophilia. Say the Shahada three times in Arabic in front of a witness in mosque and say it in Arabic and say it with feeling and you are home and dry with the people you love. No more fence sitting. Loving the Muslims on one side and hating the Kuffar on the ofther side. You can happily be one of them and go to as many Death to America marches as your Allah loving heart allows you to go to. Please convert as you are giving us the Noble Kuffar a bad name. We do not want you in our midst cursing us. Curse us from the other side and then curse us with all the feeling your Allah loving heart gives you. Knock yourself out with the intoxication of Islamophilia. Say a few AllahuAkbars while y0u are at it as well. I love to see that in Death to America Demonstrations. I am reall connoisseur of death to America marches. I have seen so many. A lot of Allahuabars are a must. As is the flagburning and the eyes bulging out of the frenzied Allah loving crowds.
AllahuAkbars are a must. Typo
On the issue of such women. I must say it never really bothered me. They actually elict my sympathy and it often the poorest and least educated women who are involved the most in this. Where I live in the heart of the ghetto there are a lot of these women. They are mainly from the second poorest people in Britain the bangladeshies. The Somalis are now number one. I know quite a lot of Bangladeshies and they are great people. So there is in this specific case a note of caution from a sociological perspective. They are sincerely following what they believe to be right and know no other way except when they get back to Bangladesh where they do not bother! It is strange. Back in Bangladesh they prefer the colourful saris as in India. Being bottom of the pile so to speak and I mean it with absolutely no malice in the UK and having no good education is the sociological perspective that gives us an insight into this specific ethnic group who are muslims and are the UK’s number one Burka fans.
Muslims are literally forcing islam down the throat of the noble kuffar. Most meat in the UK is now halal. Check out a video which shows just how much meat in the UK is halal. It is called halal horror on youtube. Your buddies the muslims are literally forcing islam down our throats. Now I will only eat pork and fish to be on the safe side as I do not want to finance halal throat cutters who will use their profits from halal to slit my throat for allah.
The meat is not labelled halal and so it is stealth halal. Most supermarkets and butchers are doing it. Forcing islam down people’s throat without them knowing it in order to finance the jihad to cut the throats of people who have unknowingly eaten meat offerred to Allah. Tell your buddies to stop shoving islam down our throats Deb.
Halal meat, so what, animals humanely killed, not stunned then cut up like our western ways. Unless you have another idea of what you think halal meat means.
Stick to eating your pork, because you eat shit, you talk shit. The reason people don’t eat pork and its not only Muslims that dont eat it, many Christians dont eat pork, why? Well think about it, chickens, sheep and cows are all vegetarian, they eat grass, what do pigs eat? Anything, they will even eat their own, they eat anything and everything, that goes into the meat and is now in your system. Yuk!!!
Also the biological make up of a pig is so close to that of a human, its unbelievable.
What makes me laugh so much is half these idiots ranting about Islam, get drunk on the weekend, then go for a ‘halal’ kebab’ its just laughable. When they are ill, they go to see Dr Patel, when they want beer they go to the late night off licence, usullly run my Muslims. So much hypocrisy!!
It still makes me laugh how the EDL protest against the burqa, in a different country (Facsict France in this case) wearing scarves , masks and hiding their faces burqa-style!!! EDL = Extremely Dim League.
And I don’t need to be Muslim to see pure racism and fascism for what it is. The world isn’t divided into Muslims and EDL supporters, are you really that stupid. There are many many folk, non-Muslim who are absoloutely disgusted by this protest.
The thing is, there are less than 2000 women in France who wear the full burqa. Has Sarkozy really got nothing better to be dealing with than showing himself up for the facsist pig that he is?
Deb:
1. How is Islam a race? If a person for example, was to hate Muslims, but a Muslim could renounce Islam and become anything else and find acceptance, how is hatred of the ideology of Islam more racism than for example, your likely hatred of Conservatives or George Bush supporters or of communists or Nazis?
2. How are ‘we’ fascists in any way that doesn’t apply much much better to every Islamic nation and organization in the world such as the OIC who would see criticism of the tenets of Islam criminalized?
Lets face it, this protest is an attack on human rights. Why is any concern to anyone if a woman ‘chooses’ to wear the burqa, I highlight ‘chooses’ because the common misconception is that women are ‘forced’ to wear it. Some are forced, but this is a culture thing not an Islamic one. People tend to confuse culture with religion. What happens in some rural village in Pakistan is not the same as what happens in a village in Malaysia, or Indonesia, or Saudi for that matter.
What goes on in Saudi, is not what Islam stands for. And I really think people need to look at the history of our own country, there was a time when women couldn’t vote, couldn’t work, couldn’t fight. Now compare that to Islamic history and then tell me they are oppressed. Now in our modern britain, women are made to feel the more flesh they have on show the more appealing to men they are, women are forced to work, and made to feel bad if they are a stay at home mum. Role models for girls these days are not classy women, but disgusting trash like Katie Price, Paris Hilton. Even Playboy is being aimed at young girls now, what are women in this society but sex objects? Is that what the problem is, is the fuss over women being covered because it means you have nothing to perv at? LOL
Deb, allow me to clarify your mind on two important assumptions that you appear to make:
Firstly, I do not support a ban on the wearing of burkas – or, for that matter, clown outfits, Mickey Mouse outfits, bear suits, or, indeed, whatever else people may choose to wear in their own private spaces or (within non-rights-violating limits) in public spaces. I think it is the objective moral right of individuals in these circumstances to wear whatever they choose to wear and I would defend that right absolutely. I think everyone should be free to do whatever they choose to do – providing in the process they do not violate the objectively moral right of all others to do likewise. However, I think there are legitimate circumstances, e.g., the maintenance of security and provision of identification, where the bearing of the face is necessary, but in these circumstances there is no violation of rights. People must take personal responsibility for all of the choices they make in life. But only those choices that lead to actions and goals that serve to maintain or enhance one’s life in the long term are objectively moral and therefore good and right; all actions and goals that serve to diminish one’s quality of life in the long term are objectively immoral and therefore bad and wrong. All people should be free to make immoral, bad and wrong choices and to act upon them, providing the actions impelled by those choices do not violate the liberty rights of anyone else. It is my considered opinion that the wearing of the burka as a way of life by choice (a choice invariably rooted in baseless “facts” and unsound reasoning), although violating no-one’s liberty rights, significantly diminishes the wearer’s long-term quality of life and is therefore objectively and profoundly immoral.
Secondly, I am not a member of the English Defence League (EDL) and have attended none of their demonstrations; nor am I associated with the EDL in any way whatsoever. However, I do uphold absolutely what the EDL essentially stands for: the defence and support of Western civilization and its basis in Enlightenment values against the totalitarian political ideology of Islam and its enforcement through the liberty rights-violating and life-negating agency of Sharia.
Is my knowledge of Islam full? Well, over the past several years I have perused critically innumerable books, essays and articles on Islam, including the Qur’an and a fair chunk of the Sunna of Mohammed, and so regard my knowledge of Islam to be more than adequate to grasp the true nature of its core principles and the deadly effects upon humanity of the enforcement of those principles.
Deb, I should be interested to know your views, and your reasons for holding them, on the following actions mandated by Sharia: the killing of blasphemers against Islam; the killing of apostates from Islam; the subjugation or killing of non-Muslims; the killing of homosexuals; the killing of adulterers and alleged adulterers; the amputation of limbs for theft; the subjugation of women. And what are your views on the sanctioning by Sharia of the marriage of prepubescent girls?
Deb, I think you owe it to yourself to apprise yourself of the Islamic principles of taqiyya, kitman, hudna and dhimma, and in particular the principle of abrogation as applied to the Qur’an. If you can spare the expense, you might consider buying and reading the books on offer here: http://www.cspipublishing.com/ And you might consider reading this highly informative free article: http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/pdf/Statistical_Islam.pdf
Deb, if you have a mind for in-depth logical analysis, you might consider reading this essay: http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Metaphysical_Primacy.htm And, if you have the time and the inclination, you might consider perusing all the other essays on the website. In essence, this essay explains in clear and hierarchical logic why the concept of Allah – and, indeed, all concepts of a supernatural creative entity – is invalid. It deals with the principle of metaphysical primacy and explicates the validity of the principle of the primacy of existence and the invalidity of the principle of the primacy of consciousness. Deb, as you will know, the whole corpus of Islamic religious and political ideology is ultimately predicated on the concept of Allah as the supreme being and creator of the universe. However, this concept, as you will grasp when you understand the principle of metaphysical primacy, is invalid and is what is known technically as a floating abstraction – in other words, it is a concept with no logical basis in the facts of reality. Because the basis of Islam – the concept of Allah – is fallacious, so too are the “precepts” of Islam derived from it – that is, all of them. To assert, for example, that apostasy from Islam mandates the killing of the apostate because Allah once decreed it to be so, is invalid – it is invalid because Allah has no logical basis in the facts of reality. The whole concept of Islam as both a religion and a totalitarian political ideology – and, indeed, all religions and all liberty rights-violating political systems – ultimately has its basis in the invalid principle of the primacy of consciousness. Islam, therefore, in all its manifestations, is irrational and immoral and has no place in the lives of rational thinking, rights-respecting, life-loving people. Its only rightful place is deep within the trashcan marked “Deadly Ideas”.
Answer the questions. How is it racist to hate an ideology. If I hate islam and I do that does not make me a racist. My best friend is a muslim. I know many muslims and I live in the heart of the ghetto area in my town. I love them all and I mean it sincerely. I just hate their desert peadophile force halal down your throat ideology and I am right to do so. Second question what actually is a facist. How do you define it in order to call us facists and not the Saudis, Iranians and your buddies. If they are your buddies that is; you want to pass yourself off like you are some sort humanitarian when in fact you talk like a muslim with the usual muzzie style of talking . We know what muslims sound like when they get mad, Admit it you are a muslim.
Halal is torture. Let us see what happens to a cow under halal. The cow trys to moo but its larynx is cut. It sees itself dying and this can take five minutes. Its spinal cord is intact as that has not been cut and it feels the pain of this death and thus it retains the instinct to moo and this causes it more pain as it cannot do so in its helplessness. Hardly a quick painless death but five minutes of the most excruicating torture. The video to see is on youtube. It is called This is halal. Once seen never forgotton it was this video that showed me just how horrible halal meat is. Halal meat is not quick and humane as in fact it is a long drawn out torture. Those five minutes must feel like forever. You will not pass yourself as a humanitarian muslim loving leftie if you support the torture of halal, but we already know that you are in fact a deceitful muslim using taqiyya. Also your logic with regards to pigs is faulty if they are not clean because they are not vegetarian then you must be filthy because you are like them and eat meat. At least they do not eat halal and do not suicide bomb mosques and dresss their females up in tents. A pig is highly intelligent when you think about it. I know saw a programme about a guy who used to own a pig and it was the cleanest pig ever. It had a nice shower button it could press with its trotter and it was forever having showers. It just loved showering. It was one happy, clean and well looked after pig. It was fed only the nicest of food as well. Such is the love of the Noble Kuffar for God’s creation. Besides say nice things about pigs as they are moslems too. All animals are muslim and on the judement day they will be judged just like you. You will be standing naked before allah and next to you might be pig, maybe my friend’s pig, and next to that might be a monkey and next, to him might be Osama etc etc. You get the picture.
Veteran, Your best friends is a Muslim? You love all Muslims? then you too must be Muslim, because thats what you are saying me. Tripping up over your own words now. If your ‘best’ friend is Muslim, then speak to him. Surely as your best friend he will teach you what you need to know and put right your twisted vision of something you clearly know little about. Do you go on to him about his ‘desert peadophile force halal down your throat ideology’. I dare say you don’t. Does this Muslim freind of yours actually exist or are ‘you’ trying to come across as some kind of humanitarian, tripping over your own feet again here. You are totally contradicting yourself and making yourself look as daft as these lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuNuqIev8M
And no, I am not a Muslim, you don’t have to be to see the idiocy of it all.
If Britain is losing it’s Britishness then look at why, British companies all sold to other countries, just to name a few Dr Martens are no longer British, Cadburys is no longer British. Our own culture is dying out because the British haven’t kept it up. Just one example and as daft as it sounds, Morris Dancing, a typically old British custom, its still done by older men, but is a dying art, because young men and boys won’t carry on the tradition. This happens and traditions die out. What is British culture these days? What is typically British apart from football and pub culture, not much to be proud and shout about is it.
I live in a low income area. I know lots of Bangladeshi people. No I am too polite to talk about islam to my friend. Like all muslims he knows nothing and I mean nothing and so gets very defensive and start blaming Jews. Typical Ignorance. I know that about him and so I do not out of love discuss Islam as I value his friendship. He is fine person and that fact has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with his fine qualities as a human being. If I see these qualities in anyone I respect that person a great deal. On the second point you talk about British culture just like a muslim would do. What do you mean British culture is football and the pub. What about the internet invented by a Brit. What about Shakespeare. What about the biggest empire in the world at one time. What about the works of the visionary William Blake. How about John Lennnon. I could go on page after page. The British culture is rich beyond belief. Only a uneducated muslim would only see pubs and football. This is your blind arrogance. The West is infinitely superior to your desert peadophile prophet and his black rock that you savages go around around.
How about answering the questions that Eeyore asked you.
What does Deb think of the thousands of murders a year committed in the name of Islam? The thousands of terrorist attacks since 9-11?
Would she welcome Sharia law in Britain? Why or why not?
One day, the only thing that will stand between her and a Muslim rape squad will be people such as the EDL
“Deb, I should be interested to know your views, and your reasons for holding them, on the following actions mandated by Sharia: the killing of blasphemers against Islam; the killing of apostates from Islam; the subjugation or killing of non-Muslims; the killing of homosexuals; the killing of adulterers and alleged adulterers; the amputation of limbs for theft; the subjugation of women. And what are your views on the sanctioning by Sharia of the marriage of prepubescent girls?”
Show me where in the Quran it states all this please, then I’ll answer. 🙂
Ha ha ha Kursk. Yeah because only Muslims are rapists aren’t they! And as for paedophilia, take a look at the members of the EDL and BNP, half of them havebeen done for kiddy fiddling, heres just one example and look at him, vile!!!
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1793/BNP-paedophile-locked-up
Also since 9/11 there have actually been more Muslims killed by non-Muslim forces then Muslims killing non-Muslims. 🙂
Still waiting………
Here you go, Deb:
Islam on Apostasy: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm
Islam on the subjugation of women: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/010-women-worth-less.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/005-triple-talaq.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/006-divorce-woman-remarry.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/022-man-in-charge-of-woman.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/017-polygamy.htmhttp://www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_top_ten.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Women/in-hell.html
Islam on adultery: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/001-
adultery_punishment.htmhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm
Islam on homosexuality: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran
/026-homosexuality.htm
Islam on blasphemy: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/016-insulters-islam.htm
Islam on the subjugation of non-Muslims: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/004-jizya.htm
Islam on the killing of and violence to non-Muslims: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
Islam on slavery: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/015-slavery.htm
Islam on democracy: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/021-democracy.htm
Islam on veils: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/007-veils.htm
Islam on child brides: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
Did you read the essay on the principle of metaphysical primacy, Deb? Watertight, isn’t it? The irrefutable power of logic, hey!
Over to you, Deb.
Oh how surprising that you have copied and pasted your answers from an Anti-Islamic website.
I’m intersted in hearing what you have read. I take it you have read the Qu’ran as you seem to state you know so much, yet your links show you know so little. 🙂
Well, Deb, all the reams and reams of relevant references from the Qur’an and hadiths are there for you to check – carefully. It matters not where they are posted; they don’t morph in transit, as well you know.
So, Deb, we know that Islam mandates the killing of apostates from Islam, the killing of blasphemers against Islam, the subjugation and killing of non-Muslims, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of adulterers and alleged adulterers, the subjugation of women, child marriage, etc., etc., etc., but what are your views on these mandates? Do you think they are morally justified? A simple yes or no answer will suffice; no qualification is required.
The clock’s ticking, Deb.
By the way, Deb, have you read the Qur’an? Oops! Of course you haven’t – you can’t even spell it correctly, can you?
Well, Deb, while your cogitating on the Islamic mandates question above, perhaps you’ll vouchsafe me your view on metaphysical primacy. What’s that, Deb – you haven’t read the essay yet? Go on, Deb, give it a perusal – you know you want to. Get those neurons and synapses firing and try rational thinking. It’s not painful – honest; and you might even get to like it. Let the white light of logic into your mind, Deb. Discover the truth about Allah – the truth that he is nothing more than a floating abstraction.
Thanks guys for this interesting conversation. Deb you say you are not a muslim. Then what is it in your makeup that is stopping you from converting. Whatever islamophobia is inside you which is hidden needs to be revealed. We are all knowledgable on islam unlike you as you have not even read the kuffar killing koran or the kkk as I like to call it.So please stop being islamophobic and convert to islam. You cannot be islamoneutral as you have strongs view on islamophobia and that means you have enough islamophilia to do that. But something is stopping you from converting. l suggest you tell us what it is and we can deal with that. Then with a fully grown beard and islamic dress you can join your pals in the death to America marches and burn flags and complain and whine about islamophobia. Until then your complaints about islamophobia ring hollow as you yourself are islamophibic and refuse to convert to the excellent religion of peace, Islam.
You accuse George of copying and pasting and then you do it yourself. Is it because along with you islamophobia you have logicphobia. Let us see some consistency in your position.Stop jumping about from topic to topic and deal with what you are given otherwise we are going to accuse you of concentrationphobia. Please quit jumping!
With regard to the link you copied and pasted about the BNP, we are not saying such evil does not happen in the community of the noble Kuffar but that we are so noble we hate and despise such scum and lock them up with extreme prejudice, unlike muslims where it is sharia law to marry a nine year old girl in Saudi and Iran. Let us see some condemnation of legalised peadophilia. We are completely happy to deal with the peadophile scumbags in our midst and do so with extreme severity.In fact such people have to be kept away from other prisoners that might harm them. They are considered the lowest of the low by everyone even jailbirds who are happy to attack them. Muslims howerver revere their prophet who was a peadophile who married a six year old girl. How that makes the noble kuffar feel is it makes him feel sick. Give us you prophet and we would treat him no differently then the peadophile scum in our own midst.
Veteran Negrologist:
One of the standard tactics of leftists and Muslims and anyone who has an unsubstantiated position and who’s sole strategy lies on the hammer of sanctimony, is jumping from topic to topic never really dealing with any one properly and even if dealt with, they will lead you in a circle back to that one as if it was never discussed.
Leftism and Islam both are intellectual slight of hand. For example as you point out in the post above, both are incapable of differentiating between crime, and policy. If group A makes a policy of a retrograde and abhorrent act and group B makes that same act a horrible crime group B is no better than group A because both contain the same act.
They use this fallacy hoping we wont notice either the failure to distinguish crime Vs. policy as they do not, as well as hoping we do not notice that by making the comparison they have admitted that whatever act is in question is a bad one, but that somehow the fact that it takes place in civilized society at all somehow mitigates the policy of this act in Islamic ones.
I agree Eeyore, an ill thought out hipity hop unfocused sanctimonious thought spray is their way of dealing with ideas they do not like or in the case of the questions you asked Debs just ignores them as he has no answer. However, Debs may surpise us and get round to answering those tough question. Who knows or maybe it will be more of the same, he will just keep on ignoring them. In any case the way the left and the islamics deal with questions is similiar. The left have the doctrine of critical theory,the purpose of which is to criticise in order to bring down the west, which they hate with a passion. They add a touch of sanctimonious words and off they go. Islam as you know hates the noble kuffar and all his ways. Being critical is normal to them. It is in their blood and they have lots and lots of sanctimonious words to go along with their views. No wonder since they have such similar ways of dealing with questions and have a totalitarian system they wish to impose on the free and noble kuffar they get along so wonderfully, untill they hit each other in order to control the society in which case Islam easily wins. The left are the world’s number one failures and they will be get a beating from islam as has happened in Iran. However, the noble kuffar will give them both an excellent beating. I have deliberately added a touch of sanctimony in my use of the words noble and free in order to play the same game. What works for them will work for us too. Superior sanctimony and superior logic and morality. This is a noble and completely free kuffar saying over to you Debs, you peadophile prophet loving muslim.
@Deb
There are a number of points you clearly miss understand about Islam and I notice most that defend Islam attempt to argue this point, “People tend to confuse culture with religion.”
Islam is a Iqamat-ud-Deen. Islam is not just a religion it is a way of life or a complete system of life You are instructed how to get up out of bed how to act toward others and your mannerisms the way you eat and the food you eat. Every aspect of your life is dictated to you by this Iqamat-ud-Deen. Under Islamic beliefs everyone including non-Muslims must follow Sharia laws. In other words Islam incorporates the culture of the time into their beliefs and locks it into time as with the teachings of Al-Ghazali which is first rule is ‘accepting only information you know to be true’
BTW – I am one of the few on this site that actually believes the ban is a good thing and have argued my point before. Islam requires allegiance. This allegiance must be enforced and these Burka’s are the best way to enforce Sharia. Sharia based Gang Rapist uses the principles of Sharia to carry out their enforcements, now all women are fair game not just non-Muslims. If it only had to do with Masks I would be against it.
It’s funny how all your knowlegde of Islam is what you hear from extremist groups such as Islam 4 UK, who incidently are not what Islam is about and are not even recognised as Muslims by Muslims, they are a deviant sect.
You use sources such as the Religion of Peace website, totally Anti-Islamic website, why not seek your answers from an ‘Islamic’ source, not an extremist.
“By the way, Deb, have you read the Qur’an? Oops! Of course you haven’t – you can’t even spell it correctly, can you?” Errr yes George, its spelt how both you and I have spelt you fool.
I love how you all assume someone called Deb is a man, oh how funny, how many men do know called Deb? I have been trying to grow a beard for ages but for some reason it just won’t grow, must be my hormones. 🙂
Just to get on track here, whilst this thread is actually about the oppresion of women, I would be interested to hear your views on lapdancers, strippers, pole dancers and prostitutes. Are they not slaves, are they not oppressed?
Answers please. 🙂
@ veteran
Why, just because I don’t agree with you, and because I don’t agree with this ban, which is an infringement of human rights, why does that mean I must become Muslim. If the case was that Hindu women were banned from wearing saris in France or any other country for that matter, or banning Jews from wearing their hats and ringlets, my views would be the same, does that mean I would have to become a Hindu or a Jew because I am against these bans? You come out with some waffle.
And why really, does it bother YOU so much what a women chooses to wear?
Why does it affect you so much that a women you will probably never even meet, chooses to wear the burqa?
Why?
Very interseting report here. French police DO NOT support the ban!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8442622/French-burka-ban-police-arrest-two-veiled-women.html
🙂
Look Deb is your name Debbie?I think that it must be so.Why does it bother me so because it is against the way of life of the noblest of all people the noble race that guides humanity. That race is the race that follows reason. Wearing such an outfit is against humanity. Why should someone be denied the sun. Once there was a man called the elephant man. I stumbled upon him in a dream inside a house. He was a squatter. Suddenly a number of such unfortunates came out of the door leading to another room. There was four in total.They said “We are not all elephant men one of us is woman called Deb. She is a blogger who is dressing like us to make a point.”
“What point is she making?” I asked the leader of the elephant men. She replied herself, “The point I am making is that my hair is bottle blonde and I want it to remain covered forever. I am to be wed to these three men and they will be like me. We shall live and work together until the end of our days and none save these three shall see my bottle blonde hair.” At this point I awoke from the dream and went and looked at my own bottle blonde hair. How happy I was. For me it was a dream and yet for so many the way they look is a nightmare not of their own choosing. Destiny chose clothing and lifestyles and looks for them and brave people fight against the prison of such destiny and yet there are others who tell such prisoners please keep doing what you are doing and thus imprison them further. They give them every reason to remain as they are and yet the prisoners want to be free. But locked in the prison unable to speak the prison guards make theories and schemes for them to remain in their mobile prisons.
Definately not Debbie, and definately not blonde. Keep dreaming Veteran 🙂
So what is it short for. In any case the dream was about making a point which was that there are some folks who free people and some people that imprison them further. Now if I came to your house with my beautiful aryan locks and brought some fine aryan gentlemen and ladies all wearing our clean and pressed kkk costumes but we also brough some muslims burka ladies on harleys along for a nice party at your house would you turn us fine aryans away and accept the burka babes or do you believe in genuine equality and let us all into your house for the party dressed in our kkk costumes and not just allow your favourite people the burka babes into the house ( that is a given really and goes without saying). Or more simply what If I an aryan man came to your house dresed in my kkk costume and brought my wife a devout muslim in a burka along , would you turn me the husband away.
Addressing the question of why it bothers me so much what these ladies wear. I for one due to my friendship and knowledge of the local Bangladeshi community would not be happy to have any of the ladies wearing such costumes told to take them off and wear their saris. This is because they suffer enough already from low economic and education status as attested by the figures from the good old uk government. To attack them on this front would in my front be quite terrible. So in the case of the UK bangladeshis I certainly would be on the side of softly softly and sensitivity to a struggling population. However, the people in France are Arabs. This is an Arab white man’s idea. The white man, the prophet , Mohammad, who loved to die his hair red to match his white red face, it is this imperialist arab white prophet who sought to protect his arab wives/jewish wife/coptic wife/concubines from the gaze of other men and so had them wear this clothing. On that front I would challenge it as arab white supremacism, crushing the culture of other people and their native costumes. In the case of the bangladeshis this actually has not happened. Most people in Bangladesh do not give a hoot about the burka and wear their colourful saries. Here in the UK due to sociological factors and the brainwashing of the local population the white arab supremacist ideology is imposed on them, but they have my sympathy as I can see their distressed profile sociologically speaking. In France, however, you see the arab imperialists in action and the white arab imperialism against the local costumes of France is something that needs to be crushed. No more white arab imperialism crushing the lcoal culture and costumes of indigineous people. Due to this ghastly costume the original costumes of some countries has all but been wiped out. What did the arabs, iranians, and afghans wear before the white arab imperialism told them they must enmasse wear something else.Once we start down the road of accomadating white arab imperialism it ends in a totalitarian system with one black burka constume and no others allowed. So to nip it in the bud before it overwhelms them is the imperative patriotic positon that France needs to take in order to protect itself from fascist white arab racism and imperialism. The situation in the uk is that of the victims of arab white racism and so I take a different line here due to the already great distress such people endure.
“‘By the way, Deb, have you read the Qur’an? Oops! Of course you haven’t – you can’t even spell it correctly, can you?’ Errr yes George, its spelt how both you and I have spelt you fool.”
Deb, I acknowledge that I committed a crude ad hominem fallacy when I implied that by misspelling the Qur’an you couldn’t possibly have read it. However, you do the same when you call me a “fool”. Incidentally, the point of my criticism was the misplacement of the apostrophe in “Qu’ran” – a trivial point, for sure.
“You use sources such as the Religion of Peace website, totally Anti-Islamic website, why not seek your answers from an ‘Islamic’ source, not an extremist.”
Deb, you commit the same ad hominem fallacy here, only this time you use it against not only myself but also the authors of the websites I used, when you really ought to be focusing on that which is relevant here – the validity of the references to the Qur’an and ahadith cited.
“It’s funny how all your knowlegde of Islam is what you hear from extremist groups such as Islam 4 UK, who incidently are not what Islam is about and are not even recognised as Muslims by Muslims, they are a deviant sect.”
I’m sorry, Deb, but all that you say here is nothing more than a series of logical fallacies.
Deb, I suggest that we limit our interaction to the rational discussion of ideas and reject all use of the ad hominem fallacy and, indeed, all other logical fallacies.
“Just to get on track here, whilst this thread is actually about the oppresion of women, I would be interested to hear your views on lapdancers, strippers, pole dancers and prostitutes. Are they not slaves, are they not oppressed?”
Deb, I shall post my views on these issues later.
What exactly is the point of islam. The point is to go to heaven. The aim of heaven is to provide sex : The native women of heaven are the hurs or revirginating sex slaves of heaven. There are also pearl like boys- gilmaans- in heaven who serve food and drink.
Since men and women live in the Heavenly Gardens’ open space, all of their sexual activities take place before, and in the presence of, most of their inhabitants. Those among them, who feel shy in performing sex in the open, retire to one of the many mansions Allah has built in the Gardens and they indulge in their wild fantasies to their hearts’ content, without being seen or disturbed by their other compatriots.
Men with protracted erections and engaging themselves in sex present a scene worth watching: most of them, if not all, remain locked, like the dogs, with the Hurs and the young boys for a protracted period of time. Lying on the top of the Hurs (this position changes, on the basis of the men’s fancy), and riding the boys from their back, they create a scene that no human has seen before in his lifetime. In a sentence, it is a mass mass mass orgy
Allah loves an orgy, but it does not cause arousal to His own sexual desires, as He is impotent. He, however, visits His honored guests from time to time to make sure they have been doing fine in the Gardens. He helps them with guidance as to what they need it in order to make their stay in them most pleasurable. After all, this is what He had promised them all along.
So you covered up on earth and completely naked in heaven watching their husbands have sex all the time (when there husband’s are not eating and drinking) is the life of that Allah wants for his taliban (taliban means student) men. Dutiful wives of muslims go their too but Allah does not say what exactly they do their while this mass orgy is going on in which their husband is involved in. Needless to say the burka would be most unwelcome in Allah’s heavenly paradise and is banned. No need for burkas at a mass orgy! So Allah himself is in two minds on the burka question. Yes on earth, No in heaven. Since heaven lasts forever, Allah is more against it then he is for it. The mass brothel in the sky is the entire point of islam.
“Just to get on track here, whilst this thread is actually about the oppresion of women, I would be interested to hear your views on lapdancers, strippers, pole dancers and prostitutes. Are they not slaves, are they not oppressed?
Answers please.”
Deb, I will gladly give you my views on lap-dancers, strippers, pole-dancers and prostitutes, but before I do this I think it is necessary for you to understand clearly the structure and substance of the only fully rational philosophical system in existence, the philosophical system known as Objectivism, a comprehensive and lucid overview of which opens the premier issue (Spring 2006) of The Objective Standard (a journal of culture and politics) and can be read here: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/introducing-the-objective-standard.asp I would urge you to read this overview carefully at least once (it contains no esoteric philosophical terms) and hope that you will choose to do so. Once you have read this, and understood it, then please read what follows here below, which is essentially my attempt at a distillation of the parts of the OS overview relevant to our discussion. After this I shall address the points you raised above.
Deb, it is my objective view, based upon the metaphysics and epistemology of Objectivism (which I explicate below), that each person is an independent individual with free-will, and that each person’s highest value is his or her own life.
Each person, as an individual, has a fundamental choice to make: the choice to live, or not to live. If, for example, a woman makes the fundamental choice to live, then she will need a code of values to guide her on how best to live her life – to guide her in making all of the choices that she will need to make in her life, no matter how significant or trivial those choices might be. Such a code of values constitutes a morality (or ethics). But what form that morality will take will be determined by the woman’s views on the nature of reality (her metaphysics) and the means to acquiring conceptual knowledge, i.e., knowledge above the perceptual level, (her epistemology).
If the woman takes the view, for example, that reality (all that exists) has been created by a vengeful supernatural consciousness called Allah who decrees that women are inferior to men and must act inferior to men, then her morality – her code of values on how to live her life – will guide her to make all those choices in life that subordinate her life to the lives of men, even if this entails a life of personal unfulfilment and unhappiness.
In this instance the woman’s views on the nature of reality and the means to conceptual knowledge are based not on objective factual evidence but on faith (faith being belief in the absence of objective evidence). However, the only objective means to acquiring conceptual knowledge is rational thinking. Rational thinking begins as the application of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) to one’s perceptions by one’s faculty of reason. The result of the process is the formation of valid primary concepts. The logical abstraction and integration of those valid primary concepts will give rise to further valid concepts of a more complex and higher-order, and so on. Ultimately, all conceptual knowledge is derived from perceptions (perceptual knowledge), i.e., all of the material that is provided by the senses and which relates directly to that which exists “out there” in the real world and universe around us.
(Before proceeding, I need to say a few words about metaphysical primacy and the validity of the primacy of existence. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that there is a material world of existence “out there” where things (existents) exist. It is also axiomatic that each existent has identity, i.e., it is what it is, and it isn’t what it isn’t (in other words A is A). And each existent obeys the law of non-contradiction (A is A; A is not B). It is also axiomatic that consciousness exists. Existence, identity and consciousness – these are the three axioms at the very base of metaphysics, and they occur in the order given. Things cannot have identity before they exist, and consciousness cannot exist before existence and identity exist. For a consciousness to exist, that consciousness must be conscious of something. A situation where there is nothing in existence but a consciousness is a logical impossibility, for there would be nothing for that consciousness to be conscious of; it could not possibly have any knowledge whatsoever, not even of itself, because all knowledge is knowledge of existencce, i.e., that which is “out there”. All of the knowledge that you possess, whether at the perceptual level or the conceptual, is knowledge of the material world (existence) “out there”, and without existence your consciousness would have nothing to be conscious of (nothing to identify) and therefore could not exist. This is the principle of the primacy of existence. It means that the existence of a supernatural existence-creating consciousness – an Allah, if you will – is impossible. And just in case you determine to set about trying to invalidate this principle, in an attempt to validate the primacy of consciousness, you must in making your attempt implicitly accept the validity of the primacy of existence.)
To continue. Thus, if the woman’s views on reality and the means to conceptual knowledge are fully rational, she must reject absolutely all possibility of a supernatural creative consciousness, benevolent or malevolent, and must consequently reject any morality that takes this (non-existent) consciousness into account. In these circumstances she will require a morality that takes into full account the true nature of reality (including her own nature as a human being) and the true nature of the means to conceptual knowledge. In other words, she will require a rational morality for living her one and only life – her life on earth.
This rational morality will need to take into account the woman’s nature as a fully independent and rational individual with free-will and certain material and spiritual requirements, for example, food, clothing, shelter, friendship, a good education, hobbies, romantic love, her own family – in other words all of those things that will sustain and enrich her life and make it as happy and fulfilled as it can possibly be for her.
Certain in the knowledge of her own worth and independence and certain that her own life is her highest value (without which no other values are open to her) and that rational thinking as her only means to knowledge is her highest virtue, she will strive to use her own rational judgement to make all of those choices in life that will make her life, in the long term, the best life for her that it can possibly be.
But in order to act upon her judgement, to achieve all the goals that she sets herself, in accordance with the requirements of her life as set by her human nature, she will need to be free from all those coercive forces that could prevent her from acting. And the only forces that could prevent her from acting are those initiated by other people. She will therefore need other people to recognize that, in accordance with the requirements of her life as set by her nature, she has the right to her own life, the right to do whatever she needs to do to sustain and enrich her life, the right to earn, use and dispose of her own property, and the right to pursue all those goals that she judges to be necessary to make her life as happy as it can be – these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. But she must also recognize that all other people have these same liberty rights, and therefore, in pursuit of all her life goals, just as no-one must violate her liberty rights, so she must she never violate anyone else’s.
Now I’ll address the points you raised, Deb.
Because each person is an independent individual with free will and natural rights (in accordance with his/her nature as a human being) each person is free to make whatever choices he/she wishes to make in life. If the individual is a rational-thinking individual he/she will endeavor to make objectively moral choices. If, however, the individual is not a rational thinker, or compartmentalizes his/her rational thinking, then that individual is likely to make objectively immoral choices, at least in those areas of his life where he/she does not apply rational thinking (for example, those areas influenced by religious belief or mysticism). But whether or not the choices an individual makes are objectively moral or objectively immoral, that individual is free to make them and to pursue the goals set by them. However, just as that individual takes full responsibility for making his/her choices, so must he/she take full responsibility for all their consequences, both positive and negative. So, yes, if a woman chooses to be a stripper, etc., then she has the right to become a stripper, etc., providing that in doing so she does not violate anyone’s liberty rights (which would be highly unlikely). Whether the choice to be a stripper, etc., is an objectively moral one, however, will depend on the woman’s own personal circumstances. For the vast majority of fully rational-thinking women it would be an immoral choice, but there may be circumstances, dependent upon the nature of the woman’s long-term goals (the goals which she personally values), in which the choice would be moral.
If a woman chooses not to be a stripper, etc., but is forced by others against her will to become a stripper, etc., then clearly this would be a violation of her liberty rights. It would constitute a form of enslavement and it would be necessary for government agencies (the police force and the judiciary) to apply retaliatory force against the perpetrators (arrest and imprisonment, etc.)
Deb, at this point I will restate the opinions I made in an earlier post in regard to the objective morality of the wearing of the burka and ask you whether you agree or disagree with my opinions:
” All people should be free to make immoral, bad and wrong choices and to act upon them, providing the actions impelled by those choices do not violate the liberty rights of anyone else. It is my considered opinion that the wearing of the burka as a way of life by choice (a choice invariably based on unsound reasoning), although violating no-one’s liberty rights, significantly diminishes the wearer’s long-term quality of life [compared to what it could have been had she been a fully rational thinker] and is therefore objectively and profoundly immoral.”
Deb, I will now ask you again to answer a couple of question I put to you in an earlier post:
“…Deb, we know that Islam mandates the killing of apostates from Islam, the killing of blasphemers against Islam, the subjugation and killing of non-Muslims, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of adulterers and alleged adulterers, the subjugation of women, child marriage, etc., etc., etc., but what are your views on these mandates? Do you think they are morally justified?”
@Deb
Actually you are again mistaken that all my knowledge of Islam is from anti Islamic groups here are some of my links you would not expect I use regularly:
saudinf.com
alislam.org
islam.tc
convertingtoislam.com
I have learned pbs.org is the worst source on the net to understand Islam. The very first words are incorrect stating God is Allah which isn’t true and is against the law to even suggest in Sharia based countries.
If I were to ask you to look at one of my links I would ask you to read this one from Pew research:
pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&mode=table
It gives a poll and shows how popular extremism / barbarism is within Islam. You have to understand none of us believe all Muslims are evil but it is important to see what percent are evil.
Pew Research did a poll asking “Confidence in Osama Bin Laden” from many Islamic countries.
The 2003 poll is the only accurate poll done because after that other then Nigeria all other countries give Pew research their list of people they can use.
Of course I don’t expect you to believe me even if I gave you a link to their statements but just look at the figures you self and tell me has extremism gone up in let’s say Turkey or gone down in your own opinion.
(attempted to post this but it hasn’t worked yet)
@George
Most of your post is very well done but this part is very poor logic:
“without existence your consciousness would have nothing to be conscious of (nothing to identify) and therefore could not exist. This is the principle of the primacy of existence. It means that the existence of a supernatural existence-creating consciousness – an (GOD), if you will – is impossible.”
Then your article is grossly mistaken:
“Nature is not evidence for the existence of “super-nature.”
I am not going to use Mohammed’s version of the moon god here thank you very much.
Granted in the reality that we understand so far your statements are true. The article is flat out stupid. If anything nature and it’s existence is a perfect example of something that was created or made by something we do not understand. For example what came before the big bang? “Nothing” is what scientist say but nothing doesn’t create nothing.
There is no science that can explain nothing coming from nothing. There has been idiots recently that have been claiming there is something within nothing but obviously that isn’t nothing by definition.
There are only two answers that i can think of to answer this age old question:
1. time and space is more complex then we can comprehend
2. Some kind of existence we don’t understand
I am agnostic which means I have an open mind
Corrections:
““Nothing” is what scientist say but nothing doesn’t create nothing.
There is no science that can explain nothing coming from nothing. ”
meant to say:
“Nothing” is what scientist say but nothing doesn’t create SOMETHING.
There is no science that can explain SOMETHING coming from nothing.
Sorry about that
“without existence your consciousness would have nothing to be conscious of (nothing to identify) and therefore could not exist. This is the principle of the primacy of existence. It means that the existence of a supernatural existence-creating consciousness – an (GOD), if you will – is impossible.”
Is not conciousness itself a form of existence. A form of existence that is subjective. A form of existence that lets you apprehend the world. Who is to say that conciousness cannot be conscious of itself as pure conciousness. The condition of the pimacy of existence is then met and by a form of existence which is subjective existence or conciousness; which is conscious of all things and in the absense of external things is conscious of itself. Your argument George only works if you put conditons on conciousness. If we put no limits and then we can say that conciousness as a subjective existence can be a big as it the universe itself. To put limits on conciousness based on your own tiny conciousness is not logical. Surely if their are bodies made of matter larger than yours then there there is a possibility of a conciousness larger than yours as that too falls into the catagory of a type of existence. Your existence as a conscious entity within the confines of your body is not the template by which one should put conditons on the rest of the universe when it comest to matter; than why should it be so when it comes to a form of existence which apprehends matter, namely consciousness. With no arbitary restraints your argument must fall and the condition of the primacy of existence can be met by pure consciousness.