(Original post by ed98)
I don't get your point.
Looking at the history of the two garment proves you incorrect. The bikini was part of the sexual revolution and embodies freedom.
The burqa was used as a form of control and was forced upon women during the Islamic revolution.
If the burqa is a form of oppression, then so are bikinis? Watch
- 09-10-2016 17:38
- 09-10-2016 17:46
(Original post by Robby2312)
- 09-10-2016 17:55
Because they don't make a free choice to wear it.They only wear it because their religous beliefs tell them they must do so.These religous beliefs were invented by men to prevent other men from looking at their 'property' lustfully.If a woman refuses to wear a burqa or a hijab then she is often alienated from the local community and put under pressure to cover up.The burqa is all about men telling women what to do.Just because it is muslim men telling muslim women what to do doesnt make it less wrong.Liberals like to ignore it by saying its just their culture.Just like they ignore gender segregation in schools.They are so terrified of being thought racist that they are now operating a sort of reverse racism.They dont hold brown people to the same standards as white people.They say its just their culture/tradition so it doesnt matter if they are sexist.We don't expect them to adhere to the same rules as white people.Why don't liberals hold them to the same standard as white people?Because of their race and skin colour.Hence racism.
- 09-10-2016 18:01
- 09-10-2016 18:34
(Original post by Abidah Zaman)
- 09-10-2016 18:40
Okay two things I will disagree on with you. 1) I am a Muslim woman and I can openly say that I wear the hijab and burqa because I want to, not because I get told to wear it or because I have to wear it, it my personal choice. and is people actually went and looked for themselves, they would realise that there are millions of Muslim girls who cover up because they want to. 2) The whole " not wearing a hijab and being alienated" is total bull****, again if you actually went out on the street and looked, you'd find that most of the girls you'll see without headscarves and burqas are Muslims and are integrated in society as much as you are.
- 24-02-2017 16:26
(Original post by Josb)
- 24-02-2017 16:49
marrying children isn't valid in this time..women matured much later, at 15-16 years old.
- The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated (= they had sex) with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.
- this is not generally contested; some defend it, or deflect from it, by way of an unevidenced claim that Joseph, husband of Mary, was (they say) 90, or 95, she being about 15. Since the bible states that Mary, mother of Jesus was a virgin throughout her life, the conception being "immaculate", this might not seem to be directly comparable in terms of what the two sets of religious texts are saying. The Aisha story is not contested, yet not well known because of political correctness; Charles Moore did put the story on the front page, left hand column, of the Telegraph in December 2004, as part of his argument against a proposed "religious hate" law being debated vigorously at that time. Moore was criticised and threatened the next day by Muslim organisations, who ominously said he should "remember the Salman Rushdie affair" (some muslims had issued a death threat againsthe author a decade earlier - a "Fatwa" - in response to a book they didn't like; he had to live under 24/7 armed police protection ever since, allegedly for a while dwelling in a cottage donated for free by the Queen on the Sandringham royal estate). Moore responded by saying that people were entitled to ask if the prophet was a paedophile, because of the hadiths recording that Muhammad married Aisha, when she was 6, and he 50, and later slept with her when she was 9, and he 53. Moore said the right to ask or discuss this, would be lost under plans to introduce laws banning incitement to religious hatred.
The Muslim Association of Britain called for Moore's sacking and, in what seemed like quite a nasty veiled threat, said the paper "should have known better, in the light of the Salman Rushdie affair". Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, responded in a more controlled manner, saying it was "shocking to see the name of the prophet appearing in conjunction with the world paedophile".
The Islamic Human Rights Commission simply called for the Telegraph to be boycotted.
Mr Moore, a former editor of the paper but by this time just a writer on it, said the strong reaction showed that a law banning incitement to racial hatred would contribute to the "suppression of free speech", which is exactly what he had been trying to highlight.
He said the MAB's reference to Rushdie's death threats scenario, was itself intended as a "form of threat".
In his original article, Mr Moore had tried to be sensitive and tactful when he said said it seemed to him "anachronistic" to describe the prophet as a child-molester as "the marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own". In advancing his argument, he posed the question "because it seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to".
Moore's original 2004 article concluded that the "push for a religious hatred law here is an attempt to advance the legal privilege that Muslims claim for Islam".
(Original post by BigTraderBoi)
- 25-02-2017 01:29
The hadiths don't just let anyone kill apostates, gays without any proper trial and proof
"There was global condemnation when she was sentenced to hang for apostasy by a Sudanese court earlier this year. Mrs Ibrahim's father is Muslim so according to Sudan's version of Islamic law she is also Muslim and cannot convert. But she was never a believing Muslim at all, having been raised by her Christian mother !!!
- under heavy USA pressure the islamofascist government of Sudan "allowed" her to "escape". Here is another :
"Sayed Mussa risked the death penalty for leaving Islam and embracing Christianity. Perhaps the man has already been smuggled out of the country [Afghanistan]. For months Western diplomatic have sought to secure his release. Another Christian convert is still in prison"...
- in what sort of regime can it even be CONTEMPLATED that someone be KILLED because of their RELIGIOUS BELIEF ??? I am sorry, this is beyond madness, it is evil. And if someone admits at a "trial" that he is gay, is that "proof" that could ever warrant the death penalty ? It is prehistoric madness. No wonder gay men in USA are reported to have voted more for Trump, than Clinton.