Should the Burkini be banned?

First topic message reminder :

I can't imagine anything more uncomfortable on the beach, and the most ridiculous garment.

Is M & S wrong for selling it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3519932/Bin-burkini-M-S-launches-UK-burkini-Muslim-writer-YASMIN-ALIBHAI-BROWN-says-insidious-Islamification-fashion-terrible-blow-women.html

Raggamuffin wrote:I found the quote from Didge. The comments were made in May 2014, and by December 2015 he said he had changed his mind, and he has been lecturing about the evils of burkas ever since. I don't know if something happened to make him change his mind.

So he wasn't being duplicitous ? He confirmed he had changed his mind?

Actually we have been twinned with Clermont since 1985 and Höxter, so god knows where you got that from.

PS and Fredensborg.

I'm with LF on this. The Burkini? Meh who cares it looks uncomfortable is all. The Burka? No no no no no. It should be outlawed immediately. It is not a religious requirement. I hate to see them they give me the creeps. They are like something from the dark ages. That's before we even begin to contemplate the terrorist implications. Imagine a group of blokes walking down the high street wearing balaclavas!

sassy wrote:Actually we have been twinned with Clermont since 1985 and Höxter, so god knows where you got that from.

PS and Fredensborg.

I'm assuming that's aimed at me?
Look on the bright side Sassy if all else fails you still have your sense of humour 

Miffs2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I found the quote from Didge. The comments were made in May 2014, and by December 2015 he said he had changed his mind, and he has been lecturing about the evils of burkas ever since. I don't know if something happened to make him change his mind.

So he wasn't being duplicitous ? He confirmed he had changed his mind?

Like I said, it's fair enough if he did. I've changed my mind on issues.
On some, I go back and forth!

Miffs2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I found the quote from Didge. The comments were made in May 2014, and by December 2015 he said he had changed his mind, and he has been lecturing about the evils of burkas ever since. I don't know if something happened to make him change his mind.

So he wasn't being duplicitous ? He confirmed he had changed his mind?

That's what he said at the time - ie, in December. I don't know if he was telling the truth.

Miffs2 wrote:

sassy wrote:Actually we have been twinned with Clermont since 1985 and Höxter, so god knows where you got that from.

PS and Fredensborg.

I'm assuming that's aimed at me?
Look on the bright side Sassy if all else fails you still have your sense of humour 

Aimed?   You gave wrong information, I corrected it.  If you only came on to have a go at me, you are wasting your time and effort.

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
So he wasn't being duplicitous ? He confirmed he had changed his mind?

Like I said, it's fair enough if he did. I've changed my mind on issues.
On some, I go back and forth!

Yes, but do you get aggressive about it and fling all kinds of insults at those you formerly agreed with?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
So he wasn't being duplicitous ? He confirmed he had changed his mind?

That's what he said at the time - ie, in December. I don't know if he was telling the truth.

Let's face it, he's always changed his mind if it means he can fight you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
So he wasn't being duplicitous ? He confirmed he had changed his mind?

Like I said, it's fair enough if he did. I've changed my mind on issues.
On some, I go back and forth!

Yes, but do you get aggressive about it and fling all kinds of insults at those you formerly agreed with?

No, I don't

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
So he wasn't being duplicitous ? He confirmed he had changed his mind?

Like I said, it's fair enough if he did. I've changed my mind on issues.
On some, I go back and forth!

Absolutely it's called the ability to learn and grow 

Miffs2 wrote:I'm with LF on this. The Burkini? Meh who cares it looks uncomfortable is all. The Burka? No no no no no. It should be outlawed immediately. It is not a religious requirement. I hate to see them they give me the creeps. They are like something from the dark ages. That's before we even begin to contemplate the terrorist implications. Imagine a group of blokes walking down the high street wearing balaclavas!

Yes, I have the same feeling about burkas. They look hostile and intimidating, and I've said before that they scream "extremist" to me. However, can we really tell women they're not allowed to wear them in public because some people think they're horrible?

I do think that employers should be able to turn someone down for a job if they're wearing a burka without having to pretend it's for another reason. Then again, as I said, do women who wear burkas actually need to work or want to work? It seems to me that given the impracticality of the garment, they probably don't.

sassy wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
I'm assuming that's aimed at me?
Look on the bright side Sassy if all else fails you still have your sense of humour 

Aimed?   You gave wrong information, I corrected it.  If you only came on to have a go at me, you are wasting your time and effort.

O my god it was a joke 
Have a word with yourself 

H

Raggamuffin wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:I'm with LF on this. The Burkini? Meh who cares it looks uncomfortable is all. The Burka? No no no no no. It should be outlawed immediately. It is not a religious requirement. I hate to see them they give me the creeps. They are like something from the dark ages. That's before we even begin to contemplate the terrorist implications. Imagine a group of blokes walking down the high street wearing balaclavas!

Yes, I have the same feeling about burkas. They look hostile and intimidating, and I've said before that they scream "extremist" to me. However, can we really tell women they're not allowed to wear them in public because some people think they're horrible?

I do think that employers should be able to turn someone down for a job if they're wearing a burka without having to pretend it's for another reason. Then again, as I said, do women who wear burkas actually need to work or want to work? It seems to me that given the impracticality of the garment, they probably don't.

Agreed they probably don't, they just proclaim difference and isolation to me.

Miffs2 wrote:I'm with LF on this. The Burkini? Meh who cares it looks uncomfortable is all. The Burka? No no no no no. It should be outlawed immediately. It is not a religious requirement. I hate to see them they give me the creeps. They are like something from the dark ages. That's before we even begin to contemplate the terrorist implications. Imagine a group of blokes walking down the high street wearing balaclavas!

**GIGGLE**  Sorry, but that intense feelings so reminded me of my Canadian In-Laws and their collective feelings about seeing large numbers of black people here in America; didn't matter if they were groups of black children - women - men   
The first time they flew in to visit and we took them to the KC Chiefs football game---nearly had to scrape them off of the parking lot pad to get them to keep moving towards the stadium --- where we had our parking passes were family members of the chiefs team --- mostly black players!
Our tail-gate parties were the best fed & lively entertaining around.

If you lived in the middle east you'd be more accustomed to seeing & interacting with those lovely humans under their burka --- they aren't ZOMBIES, out to eat you.

4EVER2 wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:I'm with LF on this. The Burkini? Meh who cares it looks uncomfortable is all. The Burka? No no no no no. It should be outlawed immediately. It is not a religious requirement. I hate to see them they give me the creeps. They are like something from the dark ages. That's before we even begin to contemplate the terrorist implications. Imagine a group of blokes walking down the high street wearing balaclavas!

**GIGGLE**  Sorry, but that intense feelings so reminded me of my Canadian In-Laws and their collective feelings about seeing large numbers of black people here in America; didn't matter if they were groups of black children - women - men   
The first time they flew in to visit and we took them to the KC Chiefs football game---nearly had to scrape them off of the parking lot pad to get them to keep moving towards the stadium --- where we had our parking passes were family members of the chiefs team --- mostly black players!
Our tail-gate parties were the best fed & lively entertaining around.

If you lived in the middle east you'd be more accustomed to seeing & interacting with those lovely humans under their burka --- they aren't ZOMBIES, out to eat you.

Maybe not, but more than one has been shown to be a terrorist trying to evade detection

I think the terrorist argument is a little bit thin really. A person in a burka would stand out a mile in some places, so a terrorist would just pretend to be a normal person in normal clothes.

In France they didn't have a problem with just telling Muslims that they can't cover their faces, and if they didn't like it, it was just tough. They told one woman she couldn't have citizenship because she wore a burka and was clearly not going to be integrated.

Bank robbers have dressed as nuns, shall we make all nuns rip their habits off?   And I though this thread was about the burkini, which doesn't have a face covering anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think the terrorist argument is a little bit thin really. A person in a burka would stand out a mile in some places, so a terrorist would just pretend to be a normal person in normal clothes.

In France they didn't have a problem with just telling Muslims that they can't cover their faces, and if they didn't like it, it was just tough. They told one woman she couldn't have citizenship because she wore a burka and was clearly not going to be integrated.

Seems that this is /has been the cases for all of the terrorist attacks that we've been fed via the media; local men, wearing 'NORMAL' clothing.
The burka wearing women have been used in Iraq & Afghanistan quite frequently --- who's to say that they are being forced/blackmailed into being a walking bomb over there, either?

Raggamuffin wrote:I think the terrorist argument is a little bit thin really. A person in a burka would stand out a mile in some places, so a terrorist would just pretend to be a normal person in normal clothes.

In France they didn't have a problem with just telling Muslims that they can't cover their faces, and if they didn't like it, it was just tough. They told one woman she couldn't have citizenship because she wore a burka and was clearly not going to be integrated. 

Mmmm I dunno in parts of England the Burka is becoming more common. 

As for your second para the French have always been far more sensible in dealing with what they want in their own country

sassy wrote:Bank robbers have dressed as nuns, shall we make all nuns rip their habits off?   And I though this thread was about the burkini, which doesn't have a face covering anyway.

It is about the burkini, it just expanded a bit.

Nobody has mentioned how anyone could police a ban on burkinis anyway, or said why it would be right to tell women they're illegally wearing too many clothes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:Bank robbers have dressed as nuns, shall we make all nuns rip their habits off?   And I though this thread was about the burkini, which doesn't have a face covering anyway.

It is about the burkini, it just expanded a bit.

Nobody has mentioned how anyone could police a ban on burkinis anyway, or said why it would be right to tell women they're illegally wearing too many clothes.

Yep, don't think women would be happy with police telling them to strip on the beach!

Miffs2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think the terrorist argument is a little bit thin really. A person in a burka would stand out a mile in some places, so a terrorist would just pretend to be a normal person in normal clothes.

In France they didn't have a problem with just telling Muslims that they can't cover their faces, and if they didn't like it, it was just tough. They told one woman she couldn't have citizenship because she wore a burka and was clearly not going to be integrated. 

Mmmm I dunno in parts of England the Burka is becoming more common. 

As for your second para the French have always been far more sensible in dealing with what they want in their own country

It might work in such areas. One could conceal all manner of weapons under a burka - one could conceal a whole tank probably.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is about the burkini, it just expanded a bit.

Nobody has mentioned how anyone could police a ban on burkinis anyway, or said why it would be right to tell women they're illegally wearing too many clothes.

Yep, don't think women would be happy with police telling them to strip on the beach!

I expect the male police would be in favour of such a law.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
Mmmm I dunno in parts of England the Burka is becoming more common. 

As for your second para the French have always been far more sensible in dealing with what they want in their own country

It might work in such areas. One could conceal all manner of weapons under a burka - one could conceal a whole tank probably.

Or a Habit, or a cloak (they are in vogue at the moment).

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is about the burkini, it just expanded a bit.

Nobody has mentioned how anyone could police a ban on burkinis anyway, or said why it would be right to tell women they're illegally wearing too many clothes.

Yep, don't think women would be happy with police telling them to strip on the beach!

ORRRRR, how about the reverse of that  

I've got friends that have a time share close to a 'NUDE' Beach; and clothing is optional --- what if it was mandatory that everyone had to be 'DRESSED' or 'UN-DRESSED' accordingly? 

LOL, don't think I'd be joining in these days, might frighten them lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
Mmmm I dunno in parts of England the Burka is becoming more common. 

As for your second para the French have always been far more sensible in dealing with what they want in their own country

It might work in such areas. One could conceal all manner of weapons under a burka - one could conceal a whole tank probably.

Yipper...gotta watch out for those women in full circle skirts and baby carriages/diaper bags can be the worst for 5 finger discounts {shop lifting} too.
 

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might work in such areas. One could conceal all manner of weapons under a burka - one could conceal a whole tank probably.

Or a Habit, or a cloak (they are in vogue at the moment).

Yes - I've noticed that cloaks are back in fashion. I don't know about Habits - you don't see that many around really. I don't see many burkas either, although they're more common in parts of London.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might work in such areas. One could conceal all manner of weapons under a burka - one could conceal a whole tank probably.

Yipper...gotta watch out for those women in full circle skirts and baby carriages/diaper bags can be the worst for 5 finger discounts {shop lifting} too.
 

Where on earth did that go and how did she keep it under there?

I agree about pushchairs, and they probably get away with it a lot. It's difficult to challenge someone who slipped something underneath - after all, surely a doting mother or father wouldn't nick stuff from a shop.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:You're fucking stuffed if you're deaf and have to lip read.

In that case, I imagine it's fine to ... drumroll please ... remove the face covering. Just like it's fine for people to not fast during Ramadan if it would damage their health; fine for people to never complete the Hajj if they're poor or disabled; fine for women to have abortions after 4 months if their lives are threatened, if they were raped or if the fetus is deformed; fine to miss one of the daily prayers if it can't be managed; etc.

i'm friendly with a Muslim woman up the road from me. She told me that Muslims can pay not to take part in Ramadan. £6 a day or something like that. Health has nothing to do with it. They just pay up if they don't want to do, or they want a break from it. Strictly speaking they are not supposed to, unless they are indisposed, but it goes on.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

In that case, I imagine it's fine to ... drumroll please ... remove the face covering. Just like it's fine for people to not fast during Ramadan if it would damage their health; fine for people to never complete the Hajj if they're poor or disabled; fine for women to have abortions after 4 months if their lives are threatened, if they were raped or if the fetus is deformed; fine to miss one of the daily prayers if it can't be managed; etc.

i'm friendly with a Muslim woman up the road from me.   She told me that Muslims can pay not to take part in Ramadan.   £6 a day or something like that.   Health has nothing to do with it.   They just pay up if they don't want to do, or they want a break from it.   Strictly speaking they are not supposed to, unless they are indisposed, but it goes on.

Do you know what they pay to?   A charity to help other people, a top sportsman in the olympics paid because the olympics was during Ramadan.   And they do not have to pay if they are sick etc.  I've lived in Muslim countries during Ramadan.

sassy wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

i'm friendly with a Muslim woman up the road from me.   She told me that Muslims can pay not to take part in Ramadan.   £6 a day or something like that.   Health has nothing to do with it.   They just pay up if they don't want to do, or they want a break from it.   Strictly speaking they are not supposed to, unless they are indisposed, but it goes on.

Do you know what they pay to?   A charity to help other people, a top sportsman in the olympics paid because the olympics was during Ramadan.   And they do not have to pay if they are sick etc.  I've lived in Muslim countries during Ramadan.

The mosque.

HoratioTarr wrote:

sassy wrote:


Do you know what they pay to?   A charity to help other people, a top sportsman in the olympics paid because the olympics was during Ramadan.   And they do not have to pay if they are sick etc.  I've lived in Muslim countries during Ramadan.

The mosque.

Yes, but the mosque uses it for the charitable fund - it's called Zakat

Lol!

I'm always amazed at the curiosity of people when it comes to Islam.

Anyway, the main idea of Ramadan is to connect with the poor and to understand what they go through on a daily basis.

So if you miss a fast and cannot make it up, then you pay an amount equivalent to feeding one poor person.

The amount varies country to country. It is not Zakat. It's an additional payment to charity. And it doesn't have to be paid via a mosque or charity. You can find your own poor, homeless person and feed them.

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ramadan/fidyah-and-kaffarah/

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol!

I'm always amazed at the curiosity of people when it comes to Islam.

Anyway, the main idea of Ramadan is to connect with the poor and to understand what they go through on a daily basis.

So if you miss a fast and cannot make it up, then you pay an amount equivalent to feeding one poor person.

The amount varies country to country. It is not Zakat. It's an additional payment to charity. And it doesn't have to be paid via a mosque or charity. You can find your own poor, homeless person and feed them.

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ramadan/fidyah-and-kaffarah/

We're all aware what Ramadan is. This was discussed in another thread some time ago. Nobody's knocking it either so far as I can see, so get off your high horse.

sassy wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

The mosque.

Yes, but the mosque uses it for the charitable fund - it's called Zakat

I'm just repeating what I was told. I really don't give a rat's arse where they pay it, or to whom.

I used to know a Muslim who ate in secret during Ramadan - well not in complete secrecy obviously because I knew about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:I used to know a Muslim who ate in secret during Ramadan - well not in complete secrecy obviously because I knew about it.

I know one who eats bacon!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol!

I'm always amazed at the curiosity of people when it comes to Islam.

Anyway, the main idea of Ramadan is to connect with the poor and to understand what they go through on a daily basis.

So if you miss a fast and cannot make it up, then you pay an amount equivalent to feeding one poor person.

The amount varies country to country. It is not Zakat. It's an additional payment to charity. And it doesn't have to be paid via a mosque or charity. You can find your own poor, homeless person and feed them.

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ramadan/fidyah-and-kaffarah/

Not all of us question Islam - the ones who do, don't realise that like most religions, used correctly, it's just about peace and loving your fellow brothers and sisters.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol!

I'm always amazed at the curiosity of people when it comes to Islam.

Anyway, the main idea of Ramadan is to connect with the poor and to understand what they go through on a daily basis.

So if you miss a fast and cannot make it up, then you pay an amount equivalent to feeding one poor person.

The amount varies country to country. It is not Zakat. It's an additional payment to charity. And it doesn't have to be paid via a mosque or charity. You can find your own poor, homeless person and feed them.

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ramadan/fidyah-and-kaffarah/

We're all aware what Ramadan is.  This was discussed in another thread some time ago.   Nobody's knocking it either so far as I can see, so get off your high horse.

I didn't accuse anybody of knocking anything, so stop being so touchy.

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol!

I'm always amazed at the curiosity of people when it comes to Islam.

Anyway, the main idea of Ramadan is to connect with the poor and to understand what they go through on a daily basis.

So if you miss a fast and cannot make it up, then you pay an amount equivalent to feeding one poor person.

The amount varies country to country. It is not Zakat. It's an additional payment to charity. And it doesn't have to be paid via a mosque or charity. You can find your own poor, homeless person and feed them.

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ramadan/fidyah-and-kaffarah/

Not all of us question Islam -  the ones who do, don't realise that like most religions, used correctly, it's just about peace and loving your fellow brothers and sisters.

I love the curiosity. It's why Islam is spreading. So I would never knock the curious.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol!

I'm always amazed at the curiosity of people when it comes to Islam.

Anyway, the main idea of Ramadan is to connect with the poor and to understand what they go through on a daily basis.

So if you miss a fast and cannot make it up, then you pay an amount equivalent to feeding one poor person.

The amount varies country to country. It is not Zakat. It's an additional payment to charity. And it doesn't have to be paid via a mosque or charity. You can find your own poor, homeless person and feed them.

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ramadan/fidyah-and-kaffarah/

My apologies, I thought it was Zakat, see, lived in Muslim countries and still learning.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Not all of us question Islam -  the ones who do, don't realise that like most religions, used correctly, it's just about peace and loving your fellow brothers and sisters.

I love the curiosity. It's why Islam is spreading. So I would never knock the curious.

Islam is spreading?  

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I love the curiosity. It's why Islam is spreading. So I would never knock the curious.

Islam is spreading?  

It is:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/23/why-Muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

sassy wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol!

I'm always amazed at the curiosity of people when it comes to Islam.

Anyway, the main idea of Ramadan is to connect with the poor and to understand what they go through on a daily basis.

So if you miss a fast and cannot make it up, then you pay an amount equivalent to feeding one poor person.

The amount varies country to country. It is not Zakat. It's an additional payment to charity. And it doesn't have to be paid via a mosque or charity. You can find your own poor, homeless person and feed them.

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ramadan/fidyah-and-kaffarah/

My apologies, I thought it was Zakat, see, lived in Muslim countries and still learning.

There's no need to apologise. It's not like I'm at an expert in other religions.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I love the curiosity. It's why Islam is spreading. So I would never knock the curious.

Islam is spreading?  

It seems you are touchy and ignorant.

Irn Bru wrote:Just for the record this was Didge's views on this subject a while back...

Member wrote wrote:What about the women who are forced to wear the Burqa in this country,(I know some wish to wear it and it is their choice but this is not true for all Muslim ladies) It is a sheet,it is a symbol of repression and control and it is impractical.Women in this so called civilised day and age should not be forced to wear sheets on the basis that a man may glance in their direction.

Didge wrote wrote:Really forced to wear? Again nobody should be forced to wear anything the amount of women that wear this is so small it is a something that again Muslims should teach is not part of Islam,  but you are again using a small amount of Muslims to promote a view of a claim to a much bigger problem which does not tally up to your claims. What about those who wish to wear, being as your are all for women's rights, why do you not back those who chose to have the right to wear one? You go off what you call as civilized, but to some women who wear this, it has nothing to do with anything more than showing respect to their faith, their choice, even if I think myself it is not good for communication. You do not though use something so small as to promote a poor argument what you do is teach and show a more approachable to way to help bring about change, as forcing people to change, has the opposite affect

Completely the opposite to what the views he has been holding now and has been demanding answers on.

Oh well.

Thank you Irn as this brings out two major points here.

1) I have the ability to admit that I was once wrong on regressive views I once believed and argued in defence of.
2) That you failed to counter my last point. You are left with only one option when you are continually out of your depth and knowledge on an issue, to instead try to delegitimize me. Instead you have proved in fact I can again admit when I was once previously wrong. 

You see having the ability to understand something I once believed was right, thinking by defending a belief was defending an individual, was in fact not defending them, but backing an oppressive belief that does nothing for the individual concerned. 
Again I defend the rights on an individual to have equality under the law. I will though challenge beliefs that are not only born from the sexist views of men to enslave them, but hope to liberate those, who have been misled through the use of fear.
The fact is if you even look at Islamic early text, both the face veil and headscarf were not parts of Islam, and only were introduced later into Islamic culture. Women had far more rights only within Islam’s infancy, if again we are to believe the early doctrines.
Even the Quran only infers women to dress modestly and for men to lower their gaze when in their presence. A hadith refers to only Muhammad with his wives having the hijab, but no reference is made to other Muslim women being required to so. So here we have some clear indication it has been social customs later incorporated into Islam, which are now prevalent in many Islamic societies. It is then even worse that people are defending not even the earliest teachings, but later interpretations and cultural adaptations that are now seen as part and parcel of the faith itself. So where I wish to help liberate women, many here are defending not even Islamic doctrine, but the later interpretations born from social habits. Which saw more women over confined to the house. In fact you see the biggest freedoms for women in Islam’s infancy, which soon regressed to the many forms of oppression seen today.

Now you have highlighted where I once argued to defend these cultural adaptions to Islam and how I have seen and researched they were not found within early Islamic society. And yet you and others on here have defending not the actual religious belief, but a social cultural adaption belief incorporated into Islam. So you are complicit in defending the regressive enslavement of Muslim women that has formed to become the normalized view within much of Islamic society.

So how in fact are you helping by defending such garments, when they were not even part of early Islamic society?
Well its easy to see, why, because many here fail to even study history and because they wrongly believe they are defending the rights of the individual. The individual grows up wrongly believing that if they do not wear they will be punished in a supposed afterlife. To a literal believer, they are left with little choice, over this later incorporated adaption into Islam and yet people continually defend this. 

So Irn, I am very happy you posted up how once I was fundamentally wrong on this issue and still believe also the modest stance is still born from the sexualisation of humans. This is easily seen, that men are taught to lower their gaze, instead of being able to control and instead admire beauty for what it is. Women within Islamic societies today are led to believe they are at fault for this also, which is completely wrong to feel their beauty is at fault. I mean how many here would make their children believe they are too good looking and make them through fear cover up? Claiming that the more beauty exposed to men, is their fault then if they are harassed, assaulted etc. It’s taking away the responsibility of me, again completely wrong, which is what people are missing here. If this really was a choice then it should be an option for Muslim women to wear. That does not have  a fear of punishment whatever they decide to choose to wear. That would then be a real choice.

Now the worst aspect in all of this is the very fact many women are treated appalling and through many of these regressive beliefs throughout the Muslim world and by not being critical of poor beliefs. Is endorsing those nations that do oppress women.
There is no denying within all the Abrahamic faiths, sex slaves were permissible. Showing how poorly women were looked upon. Now there is no denying Muslim women had more rights than their counterparts in the west, but this soon regressed over time. This though is far removed from the rights women had who were not Muslim, who were deemed as a lower class within that society lacking many of these rights that only Muslim women could have. In fact both Christian and Muslim societies’ were very much based around an Apartheid system religiously. Islam was not the first providing better rights for women, as this was seen in Celtic and Spartan societies’, but again only for Celtic and Spartan women.

So all you have proved Irn, is you are unable to take on my points and instead looked to delegitimize me. Where instead actually show I have the ability to admit when I am and have been wrong.
You would have no need to even attempt to deligitmise me, if you were able to reason your views
The reason why you cannot, is you lack empathic intelligence.

Anyway look forward to your reply






Move into the this thread to keep them all in the right place

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Not all of us question Islam -  the ones who do, don't realise that like most religions, used correctly, it's just about peace and loving your fellow brothers and sisters.

I love the curiosity. It's why Islam is spreading. So I would never knock the curious.

I think its far more as to why people can go from living ordinary lives, to then easily accept an extremist form of Islam, and how at every turn, people continue to deny that Islamic doctrine is the most important fundamental driving factor behind this extremism, because this extremism is not a new phenomenon in islam. Its been around for centuries.The biggest problem for Islam, has always been its poor reliance on the hadiths. None of which have been found to the actual time of Muhammad but centuries later. Thus rendering their reliability very poor as it was men again centuries after Muhammad who formed a subjective checking system in how to validate or dismiss hadiths. If as you claim humans are flawed and they can read and get the message wring from the Quran. Then the same standard has to apply in regards to works that have no outside corroborating sources and no original copies. If they did not elevate the hadiths to the same level of the Quran, rendering the Quran not being the final message. Then islam would not have countless of the many oppressive criminal laws, that are in existence today.

For example, there is no punishment in the Quran for homosexuality. To then use a claim that a hadith is reliable and the bases of that law and punishment. Renders them the Quran as incomplete and imperfect. As its supposed to be the last message and thus anything outside the Quran should be viewed as unreliable. Not then use these hadiths to deify Muhammad. By making these opinions and acts on a par to the message from Allah in the Quran. The vast majority of Muslims render the Quran at times of lesser importance to the hadiths. This is because there is no command or punishment stated within the Quran. Then no hadith should then be used to then create a law and punishment which conflicts with the Quran. Even if the verse in the Quran claims homosexuality is a sin, then this book if from a deity claimed to be Allah, would not have left out such an important command, if he deemed it punishable. Clearly it seems Muslims have tried to overthrow their own deity, by going against his laws and inventing new ones based off stories none of which can be verified. To justify punishing people. Which as there is no command to punish on many things.

Then this would be not deemed appropriate for Muslims to judge and criminalize homosexuality for example. If allah exists through the belief in the Quran as his word and final words to mankind and classed this as a sin but commanded no punishment. Clearly that means judgement based on the doctrine of islam, would be made only by Allah and nobody else in the supposed day of judgement. So to do this inventing and rendering the Quran second in importance to certain hadiths. Would mean either Quran cannot be the last message. It be incomplete and imperfect, rendering the Qurans claim as fraudulent. As how can allah then exist through the Surah's of the Quran, if they incorporate works not found within the Quran. Which would then by doing so, also be blasphemy, by challenging this deity Allah, if of course it existed.  As elevating some hadiths above the Quran, renders then Allah as flawed and incompetent by leaving out many aspects not found within the Quran. Or is nothing more than the fraudulent invented writings of men. as seen how can a religion conflict with its own guide book which is meant to be the last message, if you then invent views formed from fable?  It means then that some acts and views by Muhammad as claimed by unreliable hadiths. Which are in the majority believed by Muslims and enshrined in law to then even emulate Muhammad's deeds in life (which is why ISIS keep sex slaves, as Muhammad gave sex slaves to his men and officers). Make's Muhammad of far greater importance than Allah himself to Muslims by making unreliable fables as if part of Islamic teaching. If though many do not match the quran. Thus Muslims who accept and elevate hadiths over that of the Quran, by doing so would render the Quran as secondary in importance to the hadiths. This is why there is so many problems within Islam, its one big contradiction. Where in reality they are following the views of a human messenger and then to unreliable documents collated centuries after the supposed events.

Even Christianity, which is older that Islam by some 6 centuries has thousands of fragments of many of the New Testament works within the 1st century AD.

Now were is any fragments of the hadiths? There certainly is early copies of the Quran, even possible before the rise of Muhammad, which would be embarrassing. As that would further prove the religion was formed around worshiping him then, if the Quran precedes him in written form.
I hope you realise that.

So the vast majority of Muslims clearly are in conflict with islam, of which even the Quran warns about these hadiths being false.. It is also off many of the hadiths, that the extremists use to back their views and stance.



“Or have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all things which God has created? Or that perhaps their time may be drawing near? Which Hadith, other than this (Quran), do they believe in?” 7:185

“God has brought down the best Hadith; a book (Quran) that is consistent in its frequent repetitions.” 39:23

“So in which hadith, other than this (Quran), do they believe?” 77:50

"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114

“ ….. We did not leave anything out of the book; then to their Lord they will be summoned.” 6:38


Seems as a clear as day to me as to why islam and more so today, has a problem with extremism and being in complete conflict within itself over as seen beliefs that elevate the claimed views and deeds of a messenger to that of Surah's of this Allah..
If hadiths had been viewed as nothing more than questionable history. Then there would be far less extremism and poor laws within islam. As a core part of the extremist beliefs stem from the hadiths as a well as the Quran and it does not matter that if some of these hadiths are viewed as unreliable by some Muslim scholars. As many do validate them as reliable and used as backing for the barbaric acts and deeds.
As many Muslims validate works called hadiths as if they are Surah's of Allah. Of course the worst problem in Islam, is still found within the Quran, martyrdom, which like some other religions, make them look forward to death over that of life. You are then having to coexist with people who believe that this is the fastest way into this make belief heaven. Where they view their own life as of no importance, rendering those they target also the same.

That is a very dangerous concept, also found in Christianity with the second coming. Where people in both faiths look forward to and wish for the end of times. When you have a concept, that plays off the life of a person, claiming they get a free pass into heaven, if they give their life in the cause of that faith. It again renders what islam teaches Muslims to do helping the poor with charity etc of no importance and not required. As here they can by-pass this by a free pass through the act of martyrdom. Now i am sure you will claim, they are not martyrs these extremists in the acts they commits? Well in a Place in the Middle east its taught and glorified to murder Jews through terrorist acts, as if they are justifiable acts. They claim suicide bombers to those who stab Israeli's as martyrs. Thus failing to condemn murderers, making murders and terrorist acts acceptable within Islam, by being interpreted as sanctioned executions.

ISIS kill innocents, so do Palestinian terrorists, they only differ over who they find guilty of a transgression. Proving again islam is the major factor that allows and endorses terrorism. It only condemns, when those murdered are deemed by them as Not guilty or to the them again viewed as innocent of a crime against islam. Why islam really needs to start getting its house in order and condemn all acts of terror and murders, as until they do, they fundamentally make terrorism acceptable within islam..


Sorry I have diverged a tad, but it is because of hadiths that many of the poor beliefs are found within islam, like for example the Hijab, where only Muhammad's wivies wore them. so its claimed and yet no such command is found within the Quran.

It also could be argued that hundreds of Millions of Muslims abuse the faith through validating unreliable hadiths, over the Quran and that only a Muslim who goes only by the Quran, would then be a true follower of Islam.

Those who base islamic doctrine by incporporating hadiths (when they should be no more than fables)  should really be called Muhammadlems and follow Muhammadlam.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I used to know a Muslim who ate in secret during Ramadan - well not in complete secrecy obviously because I knew about it.

I know one who eats bacon!  

Bacon the great converter



I know several that eat bacon 'but please don't tell my parents'