[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Thats all well and good, what about the 'slave' girls and 'kafir'? You've also conveniently left out the parts where it states women are like animals, are stupid and have nothing themselves. The way people in general were treated in the past is barbaric, Islam may have moved people on in some ways but the West has moved even further. You cant deny there are lots of anti woman views in Islamic countries, as admitted by someone with a muslim mum on here.

"Islamic Countries" don't exist...........the last known one was abolished when the Ottomans fell and even then they were far off from being a good one.

The anti-women views are clearly cultural views which existed before Islam and just carried on...................heres an Example look at the south asian sub-continent........you have Pakistan and Bangladesh mainly Muslim populated and then you have India which is mainly Hindu populated...... yet there is many anti-women behaviour, nothing to do with faith but the traditions, culture and how the people lived there are like.

[Lust of a Gardener]

(Original post by Notethis)
X

Perhaps when we're able to construct a time machine, we can transport you and your ideas back to the Nineteenth Century...

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Klare)
Do their taxes specifically go to lazy immigrants? Or do they (like everyone else) also pay taxes for public services (and maybe even for some lazy Brits)? If we kick immigrants out, will we not have to pay taxes anymore? Just asking.

Well, for lazy people in general, infact I much further despise lazy brits who multi breed and sponge off the state than immigrants who dont work. My point was, the other poster was saying brits that drink are the epitome of what is wrong with society, and I stated why that isnt true and for someone to be able to afford '£100s' of booze every weekend they must be working and paying taxes, which is contributing and has contributed to many immigrants having a better life. Arnt we friendly?

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
"Islamic Countries" don't exist...........the last known one was abolished when the Ottomans fell and even then they were far off from being a good one.

The anti-women views are clearly cultural views which existed before Islam and just carried on...................heres an Example look at the south asian sub-continent........you have Pakistan and Bangladesh mainly Muslim populated and then you have India which is mainly Hindu populated...... yet there is many anti-women behaviour, nothing to do with faith but the traditions, culture and how the people lived there are like.

So you would agree the mistreatment of women, especially white women is down to pakistani etc culture?

And when I say 'Islamic countries' its fairly obvious I mean the middle east, pakistani, bangladesh etc.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
So you would agree the mistreatment of women, especially white women is down to pakistani etc culture?

And when I say 'Islamic countries' its fairly obvious I mean the middle east, pakistani, bangladesh etc.

It's just not culture, its because the way things work there is different.

No it's not fairly obvious......... for one an Islamic nation would mean, that they would abide by Islamic standards, laws, etc would abide first by Islam, there would a group of scholars who would help a 'Caliphate' to give advice, etc.

Pakistan nor Bangladesh are like this, they are more secular..............nor is the Middle east which is run by 'royals'.

Also reply to my other post

[Raiden10]

(Original post by Notethis)
Jean Philippe Rushton, a Canadian psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, at a conference which was organized for the stated purpose of "addressing the need" to defend "America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity" from immigrants, Muslims, and African Americans, said that Islam was not just a cultural, but also a genetic problem. He thought the religion and issues associated with it were not just a condition of the belief system. His theory is that Muslims have an aggressive personality with relatively closed, simple minds, and were less amenable to reason.

The map of the mean IQ of indigenous populations of nations shows a markedly lower score in Islamic countries than in European countries.
Attachment 134994

Of Rushton's research methods, Harvard biologist E O Wilson had this to say,

I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species-a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example-no one would have batted an eye. (...) when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed.[40]

Mod edit: Keep it civil and constructive here, please

Look, Muslims as a modern group of people have problems with extremism, but 800 years ago they were leading the charge in mathematics, science and medicine. "Algebra" comes from the word "Al-Jabra", for instance. If Muslims were as stupid as this guys claims, how come they were at the forefront of the intellectual world? It's not like they were genetically different back then.

Just more pseudoscientific racism.

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
You can get mashed with a 20, if you know where to go and how to drink. So what, you get a hangover. I feel bad for people who don't drink- they wake up in the morning and that's the best they're going to feel all day. Humour aside, so what? Drinking is fun. Lowers inhibitions, all that jazz. If we have some painful consequences the next day, we cross that bridge when we get there.

They are just stereotyping every person that drinks as one who gets slaughtered, ends up in hospital or on the street in their own sick, and regularly drinks so much they end up with liver disease. And they say we are judgmental against muslims?

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
It's just not culture, its because the way things work there is different.

No it's not fairly obvious......... for one an Islamic nation would mean, that they would abide by Islamic standards, laws, etc would abide first by Islam, there would a group of scholars who would help a 'Caliphate' to give advice, etc.

Pakistan nor Bangladesh are like this, they are more secular..............nor is the Middle east which is run by 'royals'.

Also reply to my other post

For crying out loud many people use islamic states its obvious the places you are referring too look at a muslim population map and you'll see where in the world there are most muslims.

I will when I see it.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
For crying out loud many people use islamic states its obvious the places you are referring too look at a muslim population map and you'll see where in the world there are most muslims.

I will when I see it.

Many people? Who are these many people....... because if they are, then it is being ignorant from what the truth is.

Islamic means something which is related very much to Islam and adheres to it.

So a Islamic state is something adheres to Islam right?
Then again Bangladesh is a secular country, so is Pakistan.........the MIddle East itself is absolute monarchy, there is also wide spread corruption, people being above the law and they don't adhere to all of Islam, so how can they be Islamic when they're picking and choosing.

I suggest you refer them as Muslim states because thats what they are, they are a Muslim majority, mainly Muslim run state.

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Many people? Who are these many people....... because if they are, then it is being ignorant from what the truth is.

Islamic means something which is related very much to Islam and adheres to it.

So a Islamic state is something adheres to Islam right?
Then again Bangladesh is a secular country, so is Pakistan.........the MIddle East itself is absolute monarchy, there is also wide spread corruption, people being above the law and they don't adhere to all of Islam, so how can they be Islamic when they're picking and choosing.

I suggest you refer them as Muslim states because thats what they are, they are a Muslim majority, mainly Muslim run state.

Ok then, a MUSLIM state. You know full well thats what I mean anyway.

[navarre]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
The ones who cover themselves head to foot look like they wish they could commit suicide.

"If I looked in my wardrobe and all I could see was a black burqa and some sandals, I'd blow myself up too"- Bruno

[The_Male_Melons]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Ok then, a MUSLIM state. You know full well thats what I mean anyway.

No one knows what you mean.

Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, Morroco to name a few are Secular countries which have a Muslim majority population.

Rest of the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran) and other nations like Brunei etc... are either monarch run or run by tin pot dictators.

What you find is that none of these nations actually follow Islam.

You shouldn't judge Islam based on how a Muslim majority country acts.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Ok then, a MUSLIM state. You know full well thats what I mean anyway.

Well it should be a Muslim majority state to be honest

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Bishy786)
Tell me, if parents are around to help support their kids, listen to them and be more attentive to them, if they were taught "right" and this went for every single family in that area, would there be gangs, alcohol, drugs etc?

Yes. These things aren't wholly dependent on families. A lot of it comes down to individual characteristics, social environment, etc.

Also, your "right" seems to be entirely subjective, as you haven't given any qualifiers.

And lastly, there are plenty of children who weren't brought up "right", who turned out fine. Which, as I said just above, is due to social environment, individual characteristics and so on an so forth.

[Bishy786]

(Original post by Klare)
So basically, you cannot prove that when women stay at home, they raise better and more caring, loving children. You cannot prove that it is beneficial to children, families or society for women to stay at home. If it was than people from these cultures would end up raising "better" children. No?

A simple google search would've produced these results.

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.or...s_of_crime.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mit-crime.html

Do you need any more?

What is the point of this religion even existing, if the great majority of people aren't even following the basic principles? When you speak of the lives of muslim women, who are you referring to? Do these women only exist theoretically or are they actually real?

So you have softened your perception of Muslim women now?

In regards to your question, for the early immigrants (1980's/1990's), this was a theoretical concept but as more female teenagers are becoming more knowledgeable about their religion, it's turning into a practicality.

Yes, I'm sure if you had to share your wife with 3 other men, you would be laughing non stop. I am also sure that you would feel completely fine, if she just treated you equally to her other men and didn't forget to buy you all equal amounts of presents. Yes, you do need to go on and explain how you can believe, that a prophet that had dozen wives, can teach us what marriage and family should be like. I'm sorry but when it comes to morality, your religion has no leg to stand on at all.

Firstly, the husband has to get permission from his first wife. If she gives it, he is allowed to marry another female. If she doesn't give it, and he still goes ahead and gets married, then those are grounds for divorce. And even if the first wife does allow it, Islam places restrictions, as I mentioned to you before, so that it is almost impossible for Muslim men to be equal when it comes to treating each wife equally.

The only reason that 4 wives were permitted is again linked to the notion that men are maintainers and protectors of the females. If a lot of husbands are killed in wars, who would be around to look after the females. Sure, they can go out and work but by marrying a financially capable man, they don't.

Would you rather a widow sell her body on the streets or be the 2nd wife of a man who is capable of maintaining her?

[Bishy786]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
The PIRA had a just cause, the 7/7 bombers did not.

What was the cause?

The PIRA did not target civilians, the 7/7 bombers did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisi...rthern_Ireland

That should clear things up for you. How can you call an attack on the Margaret Thatcher and her government not an attack on Civilians?
How about those pub bombings specifically designed to target civilians?

Can I go on?

The PIRA were not motivated by religious fervor and dogma, the 7/7 bombers were. I could go on, but you get the gist.

The 7/7 bombers wanted to retaliate for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Was this a religious motivation? In part.

Was it solely to do with the POLITICAL AGENDA of the UK government? Of course.


The 7/7 bombers may have been Muslim, but did they say "just because we're Muslims, we'll blow up some people" or was it to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which we shouldn't of had even had to go to in the first place.

Ask yourself this, would the UK have been attacked if the British had not sought to impose upon Ireland their rule?
Then ask yourself this, would the 7/7 bombers had carried out their attack if the UK had not gone to Afghanistan or Iraq?

[Bishy786]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Not really, it was hardly done for political gain, and the goal was not to create terror.

The American invasion of 2003 - Chief aim was to remove Saddam Hussein's regime by terrorizing the living daylights out of him so much so that he feared for his life and went underground. Are you telling me that this was "not political"?

British Libya - The aim was to remove Colonel Gaddafi and replace it with a "democratic government" by terrorizing the ****s out of him and his army so much so that they ended up crawling out of a sewer pipe. Does this not sound like terrorism?

Want me to go on.....

[Bishy786]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Families with absentee parents who employ nannies to contribute to children's upbringing? Families where the elder sibling raises the children? All kinds. Don't be stupid.

But they are getting attention, regardless of who it is from. Either the nanny or the elder brother has got the interests of the kids at heart. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether there is a RESPONSIBLE person there to care for the upbringing of the children.

Islam allows a women to go out and work and employ someone as a nanny. There are no restrictions on this because Islam recognizes that there has to be someone there to bring up the kids in a correct manner.

Your "false dichotomy" turned out to be true after all. There are two kinds of families, one WITH responsible parenting (be it nanny/sibling) and one WITHOUT responsible parenting.

Well, for example, my parents never taught me the polite way to interact with transgendered people- I had to learn that on my own, by living in society and experiencing such behaviour. Or how to behave in a strip club. Or what to do when someone tosses a penny in your pint.

Did your parents "teach you" to respect all peoples, regardless of what they look like, how they act, what their beliefs are etc?

[de_monies]

(Original post by Caminacambob)
I'm saying Hitler was a genius with a great idea and he was Islamic. How can you then argue that people of this religion are stupid?

He was an Atheist or Catholic, depending on what sources you like to believe. He wasn't Islamic...

[Bishy786]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
My best friend is from a fully functional family, lives with her mum, dad and brother, all are educated and have a good job. My friend and her brother like to let their hair down on their 2 days off on the weekend. They have this right after working hard all week to pay taxes for lazy immigrants.

I'm not saying it's bad to go out and relax, have a pint or two and catch up with old times. I'm trying to make the point that there are many people who take it to the extremes by getting absolutely hammered and then making a fool of themselves either by injuring themselves or picking fights with everybody around them because the alcohol has numbed their senses. This leads to chaos for the emergency services who have to deal with "sick" patients week in week out.

All this ultimately leaves a huge bill for the NHS which taxpayers, like your friend and her brother have to underwrite. This is not fair on those individuals who drink responsibly.

Family has very little to do with people getting plastered on the weekend, stop being so narrow minded.

If people were actually raised up to believe in social etiquette and "normative behavior", they would not find themselves in a drunken state. Again, I stress that it's okay to have a pint or two or even three, but your behavior afterwards should reflect that of a sober person meaning you should not be so drunk as to do something which you normally not of had done had you been sober.