Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Islam a "genetic" problem?

Announcements Posted on
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Klare)
    All those links are of people who have given their opinion on the subject. There is no concrete data to prove that a mother that stays at home will raise better children. Many kids benefit greatly from daycare and can become more sociable and independent as a result. A working mother can also contribute financially to the upbringing of her children, work so she can afford a better house and nicer things for them. How can a mother not take any financial responsibility for her children? What if the husband is on minimum wage and not qualified to do a better job? Why do they need to struggle, when the woman could just work?
    God! Have I really got to explain this to you again?

    (1) If the mother wants to go out to work, then she can provided it's acceptable under Islamic principles.

    (2) If she does do that, then she is under obligation to leave her kids with a RESPONSIBLE adult (daycare, wet nurse, sevant etc) of which the financial obligations would have to be met by the husband.

    (3) The husband HAS to maintain the household. If what you say about minimum wage, then the wife can CHOOSE to contribute towards household costs but she is under no obligation. This is to ensure that men actually go out and work instead of sitting on their arses all day.

    Again, either these people have not read the quran or they simply do not care what it says, because illiteracy and poor education for women is rife in many muslim countries.
    Living in a patriarchal society accompanied by tribal/cultural mentality means that female education is not a priority.

    Everything provided for you? In most cases their husband will be making a small amount of money from an average job and they will struggle to make ends meet. You make it sound as if all muslim men are incredibly wealthy and ready to provide their wife with everything she wants!!!
    It works on compromise. If the wife knows that the husband cannot afford the latest Gucci handbag, will she still pester for them?

    It is a RIGHT for females to be provided for whatever she wants on the condition that it is financially viable, as highlighted in the scenario above.

    What would a man do if he lost his job? In case you haven't noticed, men are capable of struggling to find work as well. This is why this huge responsibility shouldn't be left to one person only. If 2 people are working, even if one loses their job, the other can support them. This is also why in our society we provide benefits for people who are unemployed so that they are not forced into marriage or prostitution due to financial difficulties.
    The reason for the above is because there has been an INCREASE of women working, in case you haven't been around for the last 100 years. Imagine if half of them had the desire to stay at home and look after their families as opposed to going out to work, would men be able to find jobs easily?

    As for benefits, do you ever wonder why the UK is in a ****hole of debt when it chooses to pay unemployment benefit to any Tom, Dick and Harry?

    I'm sorry but I have never heard of anyone wanting to get married to a person that they are not going to be intimate with, but that person will be having sex regularly with other people, while you spend your life in celibacy! To me this kind of arrangement is simply financial. You want someone to take care of you. You don't want to work and you are willing to turn a blind eye to your husband having sex with other women in your house. Exclusivity means that you and your husband are committed to each other and no one else. Being intimate with other people is the complete opposite of exclusive. Just imagine living in this kind of arrangement and see how it feels.
    Hello? If the wife doesn't want sex, she doesn't need to have it even if you are married.

    I'll put a question to you: Why is that adultery accounts for more than half of all divorces in the UK? Surely, if marriage meant exclusivity, then why are people still taking up extra marital affairs? If I was a woman, I would rather have my husband have sex with a person he is ENTITLED to have sex with so that not only do I know, but I can "regulate" it so to speak.

    "Back in the late 1940s/early 1950s the Kinsey reports on human sexual behavior estimated that approximately 50% of all married males had some extramarital experience at some time during their married lives and 26% of married females had extramarital sex by their forties."

    Two people may not be married but they can still be committed to each other, not cheat and have a loving and honest relationship. It's a great way to find out more about a person before you make an even bigger commitment to each other. They can be exclusive, in the sense that you are agreeing not to see other people while going out with this one person (which is more than I can say for your definition of marriage). A muslim man does cheat on his wife, by taking other wives and being intimate with all of them. Sleeping with more than 1 person at a time is cheating. It doesn't matter if you call all these women your wives, in my opinion you are cheating on all of them.
    He does not "cheat" on his wife - There is no way you could justify this. He is MARRIED to that woman for God's sake, so how can he cheat? The first wife KNOWS about the second marriage, so how can he cheat?


    On a tangent, a Muslim man is not allowed to sleep with more than one woman at a time, meaning no threesomes or foursomes or orgies even if he is married to all of the participants.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    You claimed "it is nothing to do with personal experiences". This is completely untrue.

    Sociologists base their findings and present a model based on how an ideal society should be which is a result of asking people how they view society.

    For example, if a sociologist in 1965 came up with a model society which stated that society views abortion as abhorrent and immoral, would that model still be applicable today?
    Applying your own thought process here -if an ex-sheprherd turned sociologist made assumptions and judgment on arab desert society in 600AD, would that still be applicable to the UK today?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Applying your own thought process here -if an ex-sheprherd turned sociologist made assumptions and judgment on arab desert society in 600AD, would that still be applicable to the UK today?
    Yes, if his followers adhered to the law.

    Everything that existed in 600AD exists today but only in an evolved version. Truth is, every problem can be traced to it's original roots like how they were in 600AD.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Yes, if his followers adhered to the law.

    Everything that existed in 600AD exists today but only in an evolved version. Truth is, every problem can be traced to it's original roots like how they were in 600AD.
    Again wrong -lots of things didnt exist in 600ad - like cigarrettes for example, hence why they are not mentioned in the quran, and hence why muslims smoke like chimneys (in my experience) a despite nicotine being a drug and stimulant. To take your cues of modern lfe and morality from a 1400 year old point of view is about as stupid an idea i can think of.

    i have nothing in common with arab scoiety from the 7th century in which slavery was common place as was trying to kill people that didnt belleive in the same thing as you, subjigating women, keeping multiple mistresses and the belief you couldnt eat meat unless you had bled an animal to death from the throat first. To me these are primitive practices that belong in the 7th century, not the 21st.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Again wrong -lots of things didnt exist in 600ad - like cigarrettes for example, hence why they are not mentioned in the quran, and hence why muslims smoke like chimneys (in my experience) a despite nicotine being a drug and stimulant. To take your cues of modern lfe and morality from a 1400 year old point of view is about as stupid an idea i can think of.
    Negated by anything that harms the body but ultimately, that person is responsible to God.

    i have nothing in common with arab scoiety from the 7th century in which slavery was common place as was trying to kill people that didnt belleive in the same thing as you, subjigating women, keeping multiple mistresses and the belief you couldnt eat meat unless you had bled an animal to death from the throat first. To me these are primitive practices that belong in the 7th century, not the 21st.
    Slavery was a means of life where a person ONLY became a slave if he had waged war against the victorious side.

    Modern day slavery is Eastern Europeans taking sex slaves.
    Subjugating women is portraying them as sex objects and things to sell.
    Multiple mistresses DID NOT exist under Islam.
    The ritual slaughter is the most humane way to drain the blood from congealment in the brain. It causes less suffering and the meat is more fresh.


    Anything else you want me to correct you on?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I've not smelt a whiff of retardation like this for a long while
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chloe xxx)
    I agree, its because most muslim women are uneducated and stay at home cleaning, having 10s of kids and obeying their husbands. Its a male serving religion that shows little respect to anyone except muslim men. I think most muslim women are born into it and have to live their life Islamic or be killed or disowned from the family. Most of them look bloody miserable, coincidently the pakistani girls I see at college and that look the happiest are the westernised ones who dress like us and speak english. The ones who cover themselves head to foot look like they wish they could commit suicide.

    You'd have to have a low IQ to be a Muslim, otherwise you'd have the brain capacity to realise what a shockingly awful inhumane religion it is.
    wow may I ask were U get your Islam related knowledge from?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Negated by anything that harms the body but ultimately, that person is responsible to God.



    Slavery was a means of life where a person ONLY became a slave if he had waged war against the victorious side.

    Modern day slavery is Eastern Europeans taking sex slaves.
    Subjugating women is portraying them as sex objects and things to sell.
    Multiple mistresses DID NOT exist under Islam.
    The ritual slaughter is the most humane way to drain the blood from congealment in the brain. It causes less suffering and the meat is more fresh.


    Anything else you want me to correct you on?
    Try making correct statements of your own before even attempting to correct others -

    Muslims were allowed to take slave men and women from countires they had invaded. They were allowed to take women slaves for sexual purposes.
    They also bought and sold slaves as is mentioned in hadiths regardless of war - Mecca was a major slave trade point where most african/middle eastern captured slaves were taken during islamic rule.

    There are various methods of 'subjigation' treating them as objects, differentiating their rights from men, implying they need to cover themselves up in public for the benefit of mens temptation etc- all 1400 y/o arab practice.

    7th century arab men were given the option of have 4 wives to acocmadate the fact they enjoyed the principle of having multiple sex partners and mistresses. It is every muslims mans right to take 4 wives in islam, obviously that right is not afforded to women.

    meat is fresh when it is cooked soon after slaughter, nothing to do with blood being drained :facepalm:. In fact it is blood in the meat that can make it more tender, acroding to some chefs who prefer to cook meat , such as steak, rare. Perhaps the most important factor is reduction of stress at slaughter - which is amplified in islamic halal slaughter where the animal struggles and thrashes around still alive for a couples of mintues as its blood is slowly drained away. Humane slaughter takes barely a second or two of cognicience in the animal to minimise stress, opposite of halal slaughter. Again this primitive practice was only adopted by mohammed becuase of habits he picked up as a shepherd.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Try making correct statements of your own before even attempting to correct others -

    Muslims were allowed to take slave men and women from countires they had invaded. They were allowed to take women slaves for sexual purposes.
    They also bought and sold slaves as is mentioned in hadiths regardless of war - Mecca was a major slave trade point where most african/middle eastern captured slaves were taken during islamic rule.
    Evidence that "Muslims were allowed to take slave men/women from countries they had invaded". Remember, I'm not looking for examples, but the JUSTIFICATION which can only be found in either the Hadith or the Quran.

    There are various methods of 'subjigation' treating them as objects, differentiating their rights from men, implying they need to cover themselves up in public for the benefit of mens temptation etc- all 1400 y/o arab practice.
    Would a half naked women or a fully covered women tempt men?

    7th century arab men were given the option of have 4 wives to acocmadate the fact they enjoyed the principle of having multiple sex partners and mistresses. It is every muslims mans right to take 4 wives in islam, obviously that right is not afforded to women.
    Not every man takes those rights. Indeed, the Quran places restrictions which is intended to deny men their second/third/fourth wives. It indicates that in society, men may not be faithful to one women and ensures that the institution of marriage is there to satisfy both the pleasures and companionship of both men and women.

    meat is fresh when it is cooked soon after slaughter, nothing to do with blood being drained :facepalm:. In fact it is blood in the meat that can make it more tender, acroding to some chefs who prefer to cook meat , such as steak, rare. Perhaps the most important factor is reduction of stress at slaughter - which is amplified in islamic halal slaughter where the animal struggles and thrashes around still alive for a couples of mintues as its blood is slowly drained away. Humane slaughter takes barely a second or two of cognicience in the animal to minimise stress, opposite of halal slaughter. Again this primitive practice was only adopted by mohammed becuase of habits he picked up as a shepherd.
    "The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible."

    Compare that to stunning which passes electric currents through the body so that the person falls unconscious. How is that different to torture of humans?
    If we find being tasered painful, imagine what the animals go through.

    "There is evidence from human beings that electrical stimulation is painful. Electrical current is widely used to torture people in South America/ the Middle East and China; cattle prods or electric batons are used. Victims of torture attest that the larger the voltage or current, the more painful it is; they do not go unconscious immediately. "



    This is how we slaughter our animals in Britain (the HUMANE way) -

    "Large numbers of animals are slaughtered rapidly in an assembly line. Chickens are lifted by their legs when they are fully conscious. Their heads are immersed in water to make electrical contact, but some flutter and are not stunned. Chickens and pigs are subjected to scalding water to remove their feathers and hair. When stunning is not done properly or exsanguination has not progressed enough, a significant proportion of animals is burnt before going unconscious."

    Link.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Evidence that "Muslims were allowed to take slave men/women from countries they had invaded". Remember, I'm not looking for examples, but the JUSTIFICATION which can only be found in either the Hadith or the Quran.
    .


    Im curious to hear your 'justification' of islam encouraging slavery, of any sort.

    Then you can perhaps move on to explainign the islamic justification for the arab slave trade, for which there is vast historical record

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Would a half naked women or a fully covered women tempt men?

    .


    :confused: I dont know , what does she look like? A half naked susan boyle wouldnt tempt me. what does that have to do with islam?

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Not every man takes those rights. Indeed, the Quran places restrictions which is intended to deny men their second/third/fourth wives. It indicates that in society, men may not be faithful to one women and ensures that the institution of marriage is there to satisfy both the pleasures and companionship of both men and women.
    .


    Various islamic countires rights of having more than one wife is enshrined in islamic law - it was also practiced in the 7thcentury where you claimed to obtain all your values from, did you not.


    (Original post by Bishy786)
    "The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible."
    .


    If someone tried that method on you, you would then be in a position to determine whether it was 'painless and stress free'. But i doubt it would turn out that way.



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    This is how we slaughter our animals in Britain (the HUMANE way) -

    "Large numbers of animals are slaughtered rapidly in an assembly line. Chickens are lifted by their legs when they are fully conscious. Their heads are immersed in water to make electrical contact, but some flutter and are not stunned. Chickens and pigs are subjected to scalding water to remove their feathers and hair. When stunning is not done properly or exsanguination has not progressed enough, a significant proportion of animals is burnt before going unconscious."

    Link.


    Im fairly sure that isnt the way 'we' slaughter chickens in britain, certainly in non halal farms anyway.
    Humane slaughter to mean simply as it has always been done without any interference from backward indoctrination ie cutting the head off in one strike, the animal is no longer sufferring or stressed. simple.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    You claimed "it is nothing to do with personal experiences". This is completely untrue.
    It's completely true. What on earth are you talking about?

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Sociologists base their findings and present a model based on how an ideal society should be which is a result of asking people how they view society.
    No. Sociologists observe societies, trends, etc. Presenting a model of how an ideal society should be would be more philosophical, political or philosophy of politics.

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    For example, if a sociologist in 1965 came up with a model society which stated that society views abortion as abhorrent and immoral, would that model still be applicable today?
    Depends on what society you're in. But that has nothing to do with 'personal experiences'. That's an observable fact :confused:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    God! Have I really got to explain this to you again?

    (1) If the mother wants to go out to work, then she can provided it's acceptable under Islamic principles.

    (2) If she does do that, then she is under obligation to leave her kids with a RESPONSIBLE adult (daycare, wet nurse, sevant etc) of which the financial obligations would have to be met by the husband.

    (3) The husband HAS to maintain the household. If what you say about minimum wage, then the wife can CHOOSE to contribute towards household costs but she is under no obligation. This is to ensure that men actually go out and work instead of sitting on their arses all day.
    I do understand the rules but that's not what we were talking about. We were discussing whether there is any benefit to women staying at home. You seemed to think that these women are able to raise better and more caring children than working mothers. Do you actually have any evidence for this?

    I also don't see why women have the option of sitting on their arses but men don't? Many men now stay at home and do the housework and look after the children? What is wrong with that? They might be married to women who are more intelligent and capable in their careers, so it makes sense for them to work.


    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Living in a patriarchal society accompanied by tribal/cultural mentality means that female education is not a priority.
    Don't you think the only way for a society not to be patriarchal anymore, is for men and women to have equal roles in society? If women have jobs in government, law, business etc, then they can help shape said society. This can't be done by staying at home.



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    It works on compromise. If the wife knows that the husband cannot afford the latest Gucci handbag, will she still pester for them?

    It is a RIGHT for females to be provided for whatever she wants on the condition that it is financially viable, as highlighted in the scenario above.
    Never-mind the latest Gucci bag, the muslim communities in this country are some of the poorest, yet the women still don't work. A woman should feel responsible for the financial state of her house and her children. She is a flipping adult. What is this "oh, I don't feel like working, you have to provide for me" attitude?!! What are they? Children?



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    The reason for the above is because there has been an INCREASE of women working, in case you haven't been around for the last 100 years. Imagine if half of them had the desire to stay at home and look after their families as opposed to going out to work, would men be able to find jobs easily?
    Unemployment exists because it is impossible to match everyone with a job which they are skilled to do all the time. There is plenty of unemployment in countries where women don't work as well. Also, there are lots of jobs in this country, why do you think we recruit people from abroad?

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    As for benefits, do you ever wonder why the UK is in a ****hole of debt when it chooses to pay unemployment benefit to any Tom, Dick and Harry?
    The UK spends a tiny percentage of its GDP on benefits, this is by no means the reason why the country is in debt. Every country has debt anyway. The UK its one of the wealthiest countries in the world and it is absolutely right for us to provide for our people when they are in need. What do you suggest we do? Tell them to go get married to someone who can provide for them?!



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Hello? If the wife doesn't want sex, she doesn't need to have it even if you are married.
    I find it very strange that someone would want to marry a person who they NEVER want to have sex with.

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    I'll put a question to you: Why is that adultery accounts for more than half of all divorces in the UK? Surely, if marriage meant exclusivity, then why are people still taking up extra marital affairs? If I was a woman, I would rather have my husband have sex with a person he is ENTITLED to have sex with so that not only do I know, but I can "regulate" it so to speak.
    Adultery leads to divorce because people cannot stand the idea of their partner being intimate with another person. Marriage is about exclusivity, therefore when a person breaks those vows than the marriage has to end. Knowing that your husband is sleeping with another person is unimaginably painful and gross. It doesn't matter if he calls that other woman his wife as well. This person is not yours, you are sharing him with other women. There is no way to regulate that. That fact that this is happening in your own house just adds further to the humiliation.

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    "Back in the late 1940s/early 1950s the Kinsey reports on human sexual behavior estimated that approximately 50% of all married males had some extramarital experience at some time during their married lives and 26% of married females had extramarital sex by their forties."
    Just because a lot of people cheat, it doesn't make it ok. Plenty of other people don't. Your religion has tried to legalize cheating, by putting the label of marriage on it, but make no mistake it is still unbelievably gross.



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    He does not "cheat" on his wife - There is no way you could justify this. He is MARRIED to that woman for God's sake, so how can he cheat? The first wife KNOWS about the second marriage, so how can he cheat?
    To me a relationship is between 2 people. If you are having relations with more than 1 person at a time than you are a cheater. It's actually worse than cheating, because you actually have live with the other woman and look at the children that she and your husband have had together. It's just too horrifying to even think about. Making marriage to more than 1 person illegal is one of the best things about the modern world.


    (Original post by Bishy786)
    On a tangent, a Muslim man is not allowed to sleep with more than one woman at a time, meaning no threesomes or foursomes or orgies even if he is married to all of the participants.
    Ah, but he can sleep with them 1 at a time, much better :rolleyes:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Im curious to hear your 'justification' of islam encouraging slavery, of any sort.

    Then you can perhaps move on to explainign the islamic justification for the arab slave trade, for which there is vast historical record
    You claimed "Muslims were allowed to take slaves of the country that they had invaded" and I asked for evidence or sources to back up YOUR point that it was allowed.

    Either provide that evidence or don't make **** up.

    :confused: I dont know , what does she look like? A half naked susan boyle wouldnt tempt me. what does that have to do with islam?
    THIS ONE:




    Or THIS ONE:



    Various islamic countires rights of having more than one wife is enshrined in islamic law - it was also practiced in the 7thcentury where you claimed to obtain all your values from, did you not.
    That was the THEORETICAL PART, no we are moving onto the PRACTICALITIES. Capische?

    If someone tried that method on you, you would then be in a position to determine whether it was 'painless and stress free'. But i doubt it would turn out that way.
    Why don't we let you go first? After all, then you can tell us how painful it was.

    Im fairly sure that isnt the way 'we' slaughter chickens in britain, certainly in non halal farms anyway.
    Humane slaughter to mean simply as it has always been done without any interference from backward indoctrination ie cutting the head off in one strike, the animal is no longer sufferring or stressed. simple.
    So you are telling me that the CHICKENS ARE NOT DROWNED IN WATER WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY SENDS AN ELECTRIC CURRENT?

    Are you telling me thatChickens and pigs are NOT subjected to scalding water to remove their feathers and hair.


    IF YOU THINK THE ABOVE IS WRONG, PLEASE BRING YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOU TO SHOW THAT THE "HUMANE TREATMENT" is ACTUALLY HUMANE. Don't make generalizations.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Watching Bishy clutch at straws is both hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    You claimed "Muslims were allowed to take slaves of the country that they had invaded" and I asked for evidence or sources to back up YOUR point that it was allowed.

    Either provide that evidence or don't make **** up.
    You said that, didn't you? Justifying the Quran's condoning of slavery by contextualizing it as being slaves that had previously fought against Muslims.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrigidSymphony)
    You said that, didn't you? Justifying the Quran's condoning of slavery by contextualizing it as being slaves that had previously fought against Muslims.
    I thought you weren't going to reply to me?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    You claimed "Muslims were allowed to take slaves of the country that they had invaded" and I asked for evidence or sources to back up YOUR point that it was allowed.

    Either provide that evidence or don't make **** up. .



    Are you trying to claim muslims never took scores of slaves from countries they invaded? Or that the arab slave trade wasnt one of the biggest enslavment of african peoples spanning a full millenia? Please provide your evidence to prove that view or don't make **** up



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    THIS ONE:




    Or THIS ONE:




    .


    Clearly the first picture looks ridiculous. the second is simply a mildly attractive girl, but i dont have uncontrollable urges toward her that would threaten any laws. Are you saying muslims are unique to normal human beings in that theyre genetically pre-disposed to abusing someone that isnt covered up?
    And what would be the purpose of covering every female up - surely muslim men arent allowed to look at any half naked women under islamic rules and yet you clearly regularly do so on the internet as the above evidence shows- does this mean you are now no longer a muslim?



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Why don't we let you go first? After all, then you can tell us how painful it was.

    .


    I already know it would be terribly painful and stressful - you are the one laughably trying to pretend it would be a serene experience, so clearly we should all hope you get to experince such


    (Original post by Bishy786)
    So you are telling me that the CHICKENS ARE NOT DROWNED IN WATER WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY SENDS AN ELECTRIC CURRENT?

    Are you telling me thatChickens and pigs are NOT subjected to scalding water to remove their feathers and hair.


    IF YOU THINK THE ABOVE IS WRONG, PLEASE BRING YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOU TO SHOW THAT THE "HUMANE TREATMENT" is ACTUALLY HUMANE. Don't make generalizations.


    Please provide conclusive proof this is the widespread practice, or otherwise stop making generalisations
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The oly thing the map showed, is that Countries that are poorer = Lower IQ. Indeed, one of the richest countries in the world is Sweden, and it has one of the bluest colour. As well as Germany.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
    Are you trying to claim muslims never took scores of slaves from countries they invaded? Or that the arab slave trade wasnt one of the biggest enslavment of african peoples spanning a full millenia? Please provide your evidence to prove that view or don't make **** up
    I'm not denying that. All I'm asking from you is the evidence that if Muslims invade another country, they are allowed to take slaves.

    This is probably going to be turning into another one of your fallacies. The last one being "Uthmaan and his leadership ambitions" which really proved your case. :rolleyes:

    Clearly the first picture looks ridiculous. the second is simply a mildly attractive girl, but i dont have uncontrollable urges toward her that would threaten any laws. Are you saying muslims are unique to normal human beings in that they genetically pre-disposed to abusing someone that isnt covered up?
    And what would be the purpose of covering every female up - surely muslim men arent allowed to look at any half naked women under islamic rules and yet you clearly regularly do so on the internet as the above evidence shows- does this mean you are now no longer a muslim?
    I'm saying that certain dress codes are more tempting to men. Take this picture for example:



    I already know it would be terribly painful and stressful - you are the one laughably trying to pretend it would be a serene experience, so clearly we should all hope you get to experince such
    From personal experience? Wow!

    Please provide conclusive proof this is the widespread practice, or otherwise stop making generalisations
    The proof was in the link that I had provided earlier. Just goes to show that you don't read what I give you and just keep on with your rhetoric.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    I'm not denying that. All I'm asking from you is the evidence that if Muslims invade another country, they are allowed to take slaves.

    This is probably going to be turning into another one of your fallacies. The last one being "Uthmaan and his leadership ambitions" which really proved your case. :rolleyes: .




    So the very fact that muslims actually DID take piles of slaves from invaded countries is not evidence to you? lol


    (Original post by Bishy786)

    I'm saying that certain dress codes are more tempting to men. Take this picture for example:




    .


    Are we going to get your full private dirty picture collections posted on this thread now - you still ignored my question from ealier - islam calls for women to be covered up but its ok for you to ignore islam by looking at girly pics on the internet?
    I enjoy a nice chocolate cake from time to time too, but that doesnt mean i whenever i see one on display in a Gregs shop window i charge in and rabidly wolf it down like some crazed animal. Sounds like the problem is more in your head than reality.



    (Original post by Bishy786)
    The proof was in the link that I had provided earlier. Just goes to show that you don't read what I give you and just keep on with your rhetoric.
    Your earlier link wasnt proof of anything. I asked for conclusive evidence
Updated: May 16, 2013
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.