President Sarkozy, in the first presidential address to pariament in 136 years, declared the wearing of the burqua as unwelcome in France.
You could say the government is getting involved in an area in which it has no business. On the other hand, I think Sarkozy is making a point. The radical muslims are slowly destroying France and he's thrown down the gauntlet.
Is there any proof or direct linkage between the influx of Muslim immigrants and spike in violence in France? It seems the govt is trying to interfere into the religious beliefs of a certain section of the society. I guess like Iran where woman uncover there face seems to be a reasonable concession but a total ban on Burqa seems unfair for me. Every culture or belief should have the right to survive(of course peacefully with others around)
It's all over the news. You'll find dozens of articles about it on Google alone.
But is it only because of the Muslim immigrants or due to a combination of factors like unemployment/recession and so on. And taking a stand against Islamic way of life may actually be counter productive in the long run. More ever there is police/intelligence organizations to deal with issues like civil unrest/terrorism. It is my personal opinion that such a unnecessary stand may incite more terrorist propaganda by organizations like Taliban/Al Qaeda. I hope the govt of France has anticipated the pros and cons of taking such a stand.
Agreed. And CW, of course I know you know this--I'd read across the board and analyze for yourself. This poster in particular is extremely single minded.
Ah Ms. Sorensen, we meet again. And again, if you care to discuss the issues, I would be happy to do so. If, however, you want to trash me to others, as your above-noted statement says outright, please do so on your own time.
CW and I are friends. She looks to me sometimes for advice. She has a good head on her shoulders, but doesn't always know what to make of American framed politics, as she is Indian.
Not everything is about you...proving again the single mindedness... I have seen how you 'debate' and delete comments not showing you in a good light. Not interested in another go around. My name is Lita--I've never gone by Ms. and my last name like that. But just don't address me and we will be fine.
Oh you know, I watched this poster for a long time already, and she just has to trash somebody, don't take it personally.
Misha- I'm terribly sorry, but I believe that to be incorrect. I do know you must be very jealous that I beat you at your capitalist game, though, . Darn. The liberal is also a capitalist makin' the money. Shoot! lololololololll
And please don't intercede in my conversations like some old daddy figure. It's quite unbecoming! 'Specially when you don't know the history.
I should have been more precise and added time to time.
Either way since you both don't want to have me in between, I am reaching for a full fat strawberry ice-cream and making myself comfortable.
Oh, and one last remark - since you seem to be interested in the topic, this hub may be of interest to you, too.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-The-Burqa-A- … nslavement
Strawberry icecream sounds delish (as my three year old says) but I would love to hear what your opinion of the burqua issue is Misha
I've trashed nobody, Misha. Where do you get this stuff? No, I'm not a sweet little female submissive thing that likes to talk about rainbows and flirt. I like debate, and as you say, 'fight.' That does not equal trashing... The only issue we've ever had was when you kept going after RK. Didn't like it. Had to say something after you had two forum replies shut down over it.
And you are jealous of my capitalistic tendencies. lolololololollo. Haha. And probably saw what I wrote on pgrundy's hub and so are getting in my face. haha Do ya want me to teach you?
No, I don't. And I'm really surprised that you think that. I stick to facts and don't take it when someone doesn't back up their thoughts with same. And Lita's right this time - stay out of it.
Single minded focus--hard, due right--I would think would not be 'trashing' to you, but a compliment. So there you have it.
And I'm telling CW to check out all sources. Good advice not intended to sway anyone one way or the other... This is not about you.
If it is a compliment, then why would you need to "warn" CW away from me, in order to "aid" her understanding? I am sure she is capable of deciding where she stands on her own.
She is my friend...and I was also agreeing with her.. But a little innocent of American politics, as I say.
You don't take it as a compliment that you are right wing? I think you should and must.
I thought you didn't want to have anything to do with me?
I simply did not like the last mode of exchange we had whatsoever. And the condescension. For the record, I'm probably older than you think I am--but, lol, not giving any secrets away. Hey! I drink my water! (And have worked as graphic designer, too...so we have that in common. Thought all Apple people were liberals? hhhmmm! )
I've found--and this is the honest truth--that I respect about 2 people on these forums who call themselves conservatives. The rest have no argument I'd call interesting. It's all just stereotypes of the other side which are kind of handy for working out one's angst, I guess, but in reality, very dull.
And actually...I've got to start on a design project now..
Other immigrants that are having economic problems don't resort to violence. I think Sarkozy is sending a shot across their bow, and it's an important shot to make. They are already pushing for Sharia law in France. I don't believe that the laws of one religion should intrude on the host country, just because the rest of the world is "infidel" according to the radical muslims.
Im neither Fench, nor Arab, But i feel very concerned about the pushing of Sharia law in France. That is arrant nonesense and should not be condoned. Let Sharia stay in the Arab zone only. If i were the French President, i will be tougher. Imagine having your arm and legs chopped off for flimsy reasons, and all in the name of God!
1) Are those articles from unbiased sources?
2) Who's to say whether or not the spike in violence is because of the immigrants themselves or intolerant citizens?
So now we attack France. The French are very tolerant, as I can bear witness.
No not attacking France at all, just wondering why a country hailed for giving the world the concept of 'Liberty Equality and Fraternity' should choose to impinge upon personal liberties like that.
Simple. There is a large and growing unhappy immigrant community in France. Many of them are muslims and finding they are not being taken seriously because their culture of the men sitting around drinking coffee and smoking hash all day long while the women work is not acceptable to many French people. The recent riots in Paris were mostly North African immigrants of student age unhappy with their lack of progress.
As a backlash, the radical muslimist are calling for more men to pressure their women to proudly display their religious clothes and it has become more common to see full burkas. This is how religion works - using the word of god to control the ignorant for political gains.
Banning this display of "submission" is - as usual - just as political as religious. And I have to say - I personally find myself uncomfortable meeting a man dressed in clerics clothes with three women following along fully covered up at a "respectful" distance.
This is inevitable. Religions will cause clashes like this. One of my main arguments against them.
There are some sweeping generalisations in your argument but there is also a lot of truth; a lot of it I agree with.
Having said that, I personally know Muslim women who have themselves embraced the burqa without pressure from their menfolk. Now I may personally be completely opposed to the concept of the burqa (just for the record I AM completely opposed) but I think that it is the prerogative of the women to decide whether they should don it or not. It does not lie in the mouth of the government of a free society to say what its citizens can and cannot wear.
That is exactly what France is trying to do: "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité" to all those women who are oprressed and forced to wear something that hides them from society. Of course there are women who do it because of their own choice, but there are so many that are forced by their families and DO NOT have a choice to do otherwise. I see Banning the Burqua a way to give a choice to those women who do not want to conform with dress codes imposed by their religion.
Another way to look at things, though, is that France's own culture "has a right" to exist without being "turned into something different" because people from a different culture want to change it. Maybe there's some sense in everyone staying within his own culture, rather than trying to alter other people's cultures to fit their own preferences. That doesn't mean everyone can't respect everyone else. It just means that, maybe, people of such vastly different cultures shouldn't try to mix (unless people are willing to adapt to the culture of the place to which they move).
ha at least we know how he honestly feels
Well the Burkah is unwelcome by me, I have hair and do not want it covered. France has many Islamic people so will be interesting.
I wonder why France banned Burqa, nevertheless people of France are considered as open minded and humanists then why they banned Burqa???
Scientifically covered humans lead to a better society in contrast to nakedess then why they don't like clothes??? Why clothes irritate them even they can't see others wearing anything. If they cry about human rights all the time then why is there double standard??? They must ban Burqas on the Nuns of churches as well. They must ban the Sikhs to wear caps and grow beard.
Wearing a burka is the privilege of muslim women and no one can challenge that. But when shorts and skirts are on the Arabian streets, Bin laden protested and was driven away... but the local Arabian people dont welcome western styles. How can they expect western nations will welcome their styles? Moreover, closed with burka, all terrorists can be safe... even if it is men. They cant be asked to uncover their faces. So, an official ban on burka may suit Mr.Sarkosi. Let the women wear burka or anything inside their homes.
In an old English film "Operation Beirut", the hero finishes his secret mission wearing a burka. So, burka is not safe for muslims also.
I think the French president is trying to bring safety to france, but i think there are better methods. I wouldn't want as a christian to be told i can't wear a cross or anything or as a jew to be told i can't wear the star of david
There are some good arguments in favour of banning the burqua or the hijab, but the bottom line is that preventing people from wearing it is an infringement upon their personal freedoms.
I think it is intolerant of the French president to think to ban the burqua and intolerant of the French people if this becomes law.
When the French banned the Sikh turban, I was outraged, and I would be again if the burqa was banned.
That said, I have many issues with the burqa per se, but that is another matter.
Fascinating though the interchange between individuals here is, I thought the topic of discussion was the one above?
I don't think Sarkozy wants to ban the burqua per se, I think he wants to send a message to the radical muslims living in France that they do indeed live in France, not their homeland, and taking the stance that their law is above French law just because it is a religious practice is not acceptable. Again, I think it's a shot across their bow - that they can't have it all their own way.
It is also somewhat practical. If a terrorist can hide behind a burqua to get an ID or commit acts of terrorism, then yeah, it should be banned.
Fair enough, you want to send a message to a lunatic fringe do so by all means, but a curtailment of personal freedoms should be unacceptable in a society that prides itself on its democracy (liberty equality fraternity).
And what were people going to hide in a turban or a headscarf that they would not be able to in a hat? What is the message they were hoping to send with that?
Yes, I agree with you. On the other hand, freedom of speech does not give you the right to yell "FIRE" in a dark, crowded theater if there is no fire.
I can't comment on that one, other than to say it was none of the government's business to address it at all.
I am sorry if unknowingly I have been the cause of this conversation drifting towards ill feelings towards anybody due to my apparent ignorance about world affairs. I was just stating my personal opinion which is extremely limited due to my obvious lack of knowledge, experience and analytical abilities. Have a good day everyone.
I don't think you need to apoligise because you asked a very legitimate question
You didn't, CW. That was not my intention at all. As I guess you have asked my advice on matters I never would have thought about somebody not knowing--oh, I guess taking seriously (did you...now I don't know ?) that Rush Limbaugh could become president, I concluded that you are a bit innocent of American politics. I think you have stated the same?
Perhaps I have a tendency to act big sisterly or something to you and should not...
I certainly know you are one of the brightest people here, and most sensitive. Or I would not call you friend... I think Sufi will be sending you an e-mail invite to something, btw...
Why can't any country in this world take decisions that its majority wants and not be pounced upon by the rest of the world? If I can state what I would and wouldn't like in my own home, why can't a country do the same? Hats off to France - they tell it like it is and don't kowtow to public opinion!
Giving the majority what they want is not always an acceptable policy. Because every so often the majority may be wrong. And in any case why should the personal likes and dislikes of the majority be more important than the freedoms of a minority?
Reena- Fantastic post. Even I agree that the way the fanatics(even if they are in majority) in certain parts of Gulf treat others shouldn't be held as the model example or yardstick for others to react similarly towards them. Then what difference would there be between fanatics and those who are wise. Even in India people who go there to make some quick money never decide to settle there unlike countries in Europe or North America. The way others treat us shouldn't be the yardstick by which we should treat them. And more ever it can sometimes even be dangerous to unnecessarily provoke such people openly.
I don't completely agree Countrywoman. Sometimes it is very important to examine how someone is treating us and why. If we didn't fight back - tit-for-tat - against the Nazis, we might not be the free people we are today. And yes, it was very dangerous to go against them, but there was no choice, that is, no other choice for a free people to make.
Eye for eye? I used to be in this camp, but now I seem to slowly drift towards "another cheek" camp. Violence breeds violence, we have enough examples around...
Thanks Misha. A political leader doesn't have to spell out every action openly especially if it pertains to national interests like security and controlling violence. At the same time trying to educate folks who maybe neutral helps in the long run to cut off the supply chain as such controversial issues tend to be the talking points for the extremists recruiting agenda.
May be. However watching CW-girl on these forums proved to me that even if eye-for-eye might have its place, this place is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay smaller than I used to think
This is not to say that I rob myself of pleasures of hitting others' eyes in return, and may be even sometimes taking two eyes for one - I am just a human at the end
Yes, well, some people choose advisors of significantly limited mental capacity.
Not sure I understand. Can you rephrase please?
Sorry, I was being rather sarcastic. Yes, this place is waaaaaaaaaaay smaller. I was just agreeing with you.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind....
While I don't at all support the French idea, you have to understand it in the long and cherished context of France seeing itself as a secular country.
Maybe it's time for the successor to Freedom Fries! Freedom Burqas! I'll wear one! But I'm warning you, I won't wear undies underneath.
Is a secular country one that doesn't tolerate religion or one that makes no stand one way or the other about religion?
Are they going to ban the wearing of cross necklaces, as well? Of yamulkes? Sikh turbans? Maybe the last one, but certainly not the first two. It's clear discrimination.
But those things don't have the ability to mask your identity. Are those things compulsory for one gender to hide signs of that gender from people who might otherwise lose control of their urges?
(just to stir the ol' pot a little more)
Burkhas can be a security risk in a way in which the others are not. That is a relevant factor.
Yes it is also about banning the 'other', the unfamiliar and that which you think of an an alien practice.
And perhaps it has something to do with Carla Bruni's fashion sensibilities being disturbed by the all concealing burqa as well
The first statement, it is the turnban, the head scarf and the burqa that the French do not want, they have no problem with other religious symbols.
As for the second statement, it was merely a joke; someone else on this thread thinks so as well; Lita I think
Why would they ban Cross necklaces France is still largely Catholic.
I do believe the majority viewpoint is what needs to be paramount in any country!
If certain countries in the Gulf can insist on women wearing a burkha, why can't France insist on them NOT wearing one? Fair enough, I say! Why does it have to be one rule for them and another for the rest of the world?
If France is content to be known as a totalitarian regime that does not give freedom and equal status to all its citizens then certainly let them proceed with disallowing the burqa, bindi, sindoor; turban, headscarf, whatever it is that they wish. O wait they already did some of that.
My point is you cannot call yourself an egalitarian, equal opportunities, truly free society if you dictate terms such as these to your citizens.
I think all countries should stay away from dress codes. The right to wear the clothes you choose should not be in any ones hands but your own.
I certainly hope France (and everywhere else) bans the burqa for driving. Take my word for it - the burqa-wearing women drivers on Qatar's roads are a danger to everyone. Their choice of dress restricts their field of vision to more or less straight ahead, which may not even include the rear view mirror.
In Saudi, one of the reasons the clerics there are wholly opposed to allowing women to drive, is that it could encourage immodest dressing. But that's Saudi...
It is my understanding that they don't have "a choice" of what to wear. But if it is as hazardous as you say, then yes it should be banned for that reason alone.
If the Qatari women don't have a choice it is only because they are in thrall to their husbands or fathers. Most Qatari women wear the Abaya but do not hide their faces. Those that do should not be allowed to drive. (And, for me, their husbands should not be allowed to breathe).
My actual opinion on this, and especially after reading Paraglider's response is that whole thing is mildly ridiculous. Of course, in general dress should be a personal freedom. Dress so 'modest' that it causes lack of freedom and danger to others (being wrapped up like a mummy so one cannot drive) is another thing all together. (Unbelievable.) As to those who say banning the burqua is a defensive action against terrorists - oh, possibly. Wrong? Yes and no. Ridiculous in sum total - absolutely.
Maybe this garment of choice didn't meet with the taste of Sarkozy's ex-fashion model wife and she decided to do away with it. In any case, this whole thing puts an exciting new modern twist on a case of the emperor has no clothes.
Wearing burqua is a religious custom.Some Muslim women are
used to it while some are not.Those who are not used to without
burqua will face a great problem in France.France must have its
own point of view about wearing burqua and maybe this decision was not inspired by any religious point of view,yet it shows the
intolerance of religious freedom in France.
Don't worry Misha, you have my company there(since even I am a "stupid" one with a "significantly limited mental capacity")
Countrywoman, please accept my apologies. I was not referring to you and I am truly sorry you took it that way.
I believe we all are stupid in a certain ways CW-girl. And I definitely enjoy your company - don't tell your husband though
I am sure even he enjoys some other company and sometimes when I pass by his system he minimizes his window. I always wonder what could it be. Anyway its fun to unearth the mysteries. At least in my case he knows I am active at hubpages(maybe not aware to what extent though).
Relax, the both of you, Misha and CW. LOL. I am most certain the Madame here is referring to my significant lack of mental capacity. OMG
She really should be careful that her confidantes understand her very specific context. lololollollllolol
That's really all I need to say, .
It's very tough. Sarko said the burqua has nothing to do with the religion. but, many muslims disagree strongly with that statement. i do agree that it seems to be a way to keep women from expressing and showing themselves. but, France is a free country (LIBERTE, Egalite, Fraterite)and I think he crossed the line saying wearing it "is not welcome" in our country. If Obama said something like that there would be a major uproar among american muslims.
By the way - it is not yet July. In Qatar (and Saudi, Kuwait, Oman and UAE) the temperature in the shade is already 48C (118F). Then add a bit for the sun. To insist that your women (you know, the ones that you own) wear French designer underwear, jeans and tops (for your enjoyment) underneath an all concealing 'modest' black tent, is not cultural. It is oppression, pure and simple. Some women choose to wear 'modest' dress and that's absolutely fine, but let's not pretend most of the Middle East burqa is women's choice. It's not.
I'm going to be in the Middle East next week, and will dress modestly, to fit in and not get hassled too much, but cooly. And a black tent ain't my idea of cool, I'll be going more for long-sleeved cotton dresses, I think.
ABout the only one we can go to - Israel. We are going to a family wedding, and staying in Jerusalem, so modest dress is a good idea, although not required.
I won't be seeing you then! Israel is the only one I can't go to, at least not without a second passport. Have a good trip
It's more going back into other countries that would be the problem, I think, than going to Israel?
We can't go to any of the others, because OH was born in Tel Aviv and thus it's pretty obvious he's been there (-:
Interesting - I don't know. But I can't try it because I can't risk not being allowed back here!
45 degrees here in Agra as well, Paraglider so yes the very idea of a burqa is positively scary! Symbol of oppression... agree with you there as well.
The point is, if someone chooses to don it, because they misguidedly believe that the prophet said to don hijab (scholars have opined incidentally that the prophet never said that; he only said dress modestly) or for any other religious reason they should be allowed to do so.
As for what the burqa could hide for a potential terrorist; why the same as a trench coat I would imagine.
And it's recent. When I worked in Saudi, I saw plenty of old photographs of street and souq scenes. Modest dress (headscarves, in many colours too) but not a veil in sight. The burqa has been imposed in Saudi in recent years, by the clerics. It is not traditional, nor a religious duty.
I went to school with a large number of Muslim women who wore the hijab and they were very independent. One lady actually was one of the most outspoken in class and used to critique a lot of things the professor said. Some other Muslim women I knew used to dress pretty much like the rest of our classmates besides the hijab.
I knew one girl who stopped wearing it while at college away from her parents, and surprisingly her Christian friends that had a father that was a minister were less understanding about it. I think women should have the right to choose what they wear and full burqas are really a bit much, but I have seen many fashionable ladies wearing the hijab married to productive men that hold full time jobs.
If full burkas are a bit much then bikinis are a bit less. Bikinis should be banned as well
and no one gets up in arms because women cannot wear bikinis there!!
Why do you care what other people wear? I know I do not really. Honestly I think wearing the burqa is too extreme for me, but after going to school and being around Muslim women I know some actually want to wear the hijab. Others do not want to wear it, but I am cognizant of the misconception that many Muslim women feel forced to wear it.
Because i am very much caring. Hijab brings peace, serenity, modesty and respect where as Bikinis (and other such stuff) bring adultry, rape and oppression under the guise of art, love and humanity.
I think you should allow people to do what they want with their lives. Personally I am all about people having the personal freedom to wear what they want wherever, whenever, but I find it provocative that you state a bikini would insight rape and other violent acts. To me it means you do not respect women if you feel that because respecting women means you allow them to wear what they want.
who am i to stop you, but it's my obligation to give you the right pictures and then you decide. To me, respecting women does not mean to rape as much as you can, respecting women does not mean to sexually harrass women at work. This happens because it's very natural and scientific that men have got sexual desire much higher than the women. Women are built as innocent, elegant and beautiful, so if a women exposes herself then she becomes very prone to adultry, rape, sexual harassment. Take for instance the case of USA, why USA has got the highest rape cases (registered) as compared to any other country of the world ???
I am not saying the burqa should be banned, I am just saying it is not my clothing item of choice. On the other hand, I would not dare wear a bikini either lol.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I was one of the few people on the thread not coming down on you like a ton of bricks. I have no problem with you being a Muslim and having your beliefs, but where do you get your statistics about the US? Can you site your source please?
• 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 4 boys will be sexually assaulted before age 18. (Office of Criminal Justice Planning)
• 80% of all rapes that occur are committed by a date or acquaintance. (Office of Criminal Justice Planning)
• 1.3 women in the United States are forcibly raped each minute. (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation)
• 68% of rapes occur between the hours of 6pm and 6am. (U.S. Dept of Justice)
• Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee)
• Of the 22.3 million adolescents in the U.S. today, 1.8 million have been victims of serious sexual assault. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice)
I have'nt described the atom bomb formula, so i am not getting the thing which you are not sure about.
WORKPLACE RAPE STATISTICS
According to Kleiner, Brian H.
Publication: Journal of Employment Counseling
Date: Monday, September 1 2003
Each year, approximately 51,000 incidents of rape and sexual assault occur in the workplace.
According to the data for 1993 through 1999 from the National Crime Victimization Survey estimating the extent of workplace crime in the United States. The report describes Average Annual Workplace Victimization of Rape and Sexual Assault is 36,500
The figures you quote are significant. As a percentage of the population, it is not so big.
What would be interesting would be to get the figures for one or more of the countries that do not provide any figures for rape. The problem is they do not publish any information. America admits the number of victims because it is a free society and therefore it's problems are known and dealt with. A lot better solution than denying human rights abuses because the evidence of rape and other abuse is totally suppressed, or the women have no rights because of culture.
You are pointing towards Saudi Arabia, no rapes take place there, hardly one per year, so no need to get the overhead of publishing this figure of 1.
Regarding improvement in these ISM based societies, ha, what the heck man, what's wrong with you, whom you are trying to decieve, you can very well decieve your own people but not us. The rate of crime is going up day by day in Europe, America and Australia.
Actually there is rape in Saudi Arabia, and many women have written memoirs under pen names to share accounts of what has happened to their family and friends. Have you heard of the Princess Trilogy? By the way, there are Saudi women who are casting off the repressive clothing sanctions and web caming with men on the Internet, and what they show is much more risque than a bikini.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3hbd6 … b-cam_news
The video is in Arabic, but the captions are in English.
The attached video is related to the case of only one woman, may be she is a prostitute. Only one woman's way of life does not mean all the women want the same. Regarding admiration, yes, definitly women need admiration and praise by men. ISLAM gives this right and therefore muslim husbands entertain their wives, admire their beauty, praise them, take them in parks, bazzars and restaurants.
No this is a news story about many average women who have done this, and they are not prostitutes. You did not even listen to the video, yet you deem to comment. Point being, you cannot say all women in a particular country or part of the world are whores because they wear bikinis, which is pretty much what you have been implying here.
News story of LBC, a Zionists run TV Channel. By the way not all the women were shown in that news and not all the women were interviewed in that news. I hope, some day US Department of Justice will be having a survey on "WHETHER ALL THE WOMEN WEARING BIKINIS INVOLVE IN ILLEGITIMATE SEX OR NOT"
Violence against women is unfortunately common all over the world.
...and also to say, that last part of their post sounds like they are talking about a pet instead of a woman.
Exactly. I don't know about others but I find him terribly amusing.... Does anybody take him seriously? I sure as hell find him extremely funny.... Thanks Usman for the laughs.
You beat me to it Jon tutor; that I precisely what I was going to say. Talk about lunatic fringe
Okay this thread is getting wacky noodle. I am not even sure what usmanila is talking about anymore .
Chill....He is providing oodles of entertainment for all of us...You do have a wonderful smile.
Why do you think I am not calm lol. I am free to comment however I wish, and having a man tell me to chill is ridiculous.
Oops SweetiePie... Sorry you took it that way.... I was just having fun.
Okay that is fine, but I just did not see why you thought I had to chill...especially since my comment about wacky noodle was silly and not serious. I honestly only have been responding to this fellow to see what he would say next, and most of it was hillarious. It took him over fifteen hours to compile his statistics.
LOL no, you are wrong. i was sleeping in my home
No, for eight hours (maximum), the rest of the time is for my family and study.
What are you studying for..... under grad... major??
I am glad you are very cautious, that's the reason you dont like to wear bikini. Be ware of such kind of men who praise just to have ....................................
Dude talk for yourself. I have a GF and pretty happy with her...R u married?
Will the realationship last forever or for a few nights ???
Only a few nights as he may be a Freemason or Zionist.
It;s like stepping back in time..... to the stone age.
The only reason you can quote any figures for these countries is because they are free.No one forces any one to do anything.
Your attitude is bordering on neurotic, you accept nothing outside your narrow prejudiced view.
But the ideologies of Freemasonry: Humanism, Atheism and Materialism are forcing them under the hollow slogans of art, love and humanity. These pagan doctrines of Ancient Egypt removed the fear of God and fear of reward / penalty after death which ultimatly turned people into naked monsters raping and looting each other. Do you know about Spencer Tunicks Naked World ???
Just wanted to add to the thread that being single is fun and great. If you are single usmanaila there is nothing wrong with that, I prefer to be myself. However, I have probably flirted with men and worn outfits you would not approve of, but that is my choice of course.
I am with you on that one SweetiePie....Just wanted to understand this guy....who rejects anything outside marriage including premarital sex or masturbation to be wrong.... based on his fundamentalist brainwashing... but he is fine with marrying 4 wives. You gotta hand it to him....he finds his impracticable beliefs ranging from personal human relations which are strictly based on a stone age book called koran to present day delusions about Freemasons and Zionists to be the facts....Gosh... Give me a break.
Yes, my dear, you are right, we marry 4 wives, we give them love, we give them respect, we share with them equally, we give them inheritence etc etc.
While you people love to have mistresses more or less than 400, you just give them your d**k, you misuse them, you does not treat them equally, you dont give them any thing from your property and wealth, you just f**k them and dispose them off like a chewing gum or tissue paper etc etc
I think he is great. He is helping to persuade people that his religion is irrational rubbish. And the irony is - it is people such as him who have pushed the French government into banning their religious apparel. I suspect he has missed this though.
TWISTED! As usual. 4 wives, a great excuse to have a mini harem, isnt it?
I wonder where he gets his 400 figure.... you are right... a mini harem would certainly do... even the "prophet" had many wives(11-13) ... even marrying minors (Ayesha) and son's wife (Zainab)
Hazrat Aisha (RA) in Islam:
Let's discuss the age of Aisha being 9 when she married our Prophet in Islam!
First of all, it is important to know:
Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married. Anyway, the reason no one objected was to the Prophet's marriage was:
1. People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia. They used to live between 40 to 60 years maximum. So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar.
2. Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries. See the following examples:
Example 1: Activists condemn Gypsy girl's arranged wedding in Romania
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 Posted: 3:58 PM EDT (1958 GMT)
BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) -- Human rights activists and Romanians on Tuesday condemned the arranged marriage of a 12-year-old Gypsy girl, saying it was illegal and a violation of human rights.
A 9-year old Thai girl gave birth:
The news item is from the New Straits Times, 10/3/2001.
In our world today, we still have people especially in the third world countries, marry very young girls. Why should we call someone who married a 9-year old girl 1400 years ago a child molester, when we still practice it today? The girl above even gave birth at the age of 9!
And should we also call Aisha's (our Prophet's wife) parents child molesters too, since they agreed by their own will and choice to marry their daughter to our Prophet, and they were proud of it too?
Child brides as young as 8 (eight) were common among the Byzantine emperors and nobility!
The article specifically says they were common and not exceptions!
It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages when they either had their first periods, or their breasts start showing off. In other words, when they turn into "women", then they get married off. It was quite different for men on the other hand, because physical power and the ability of living an independent life had always been and will always be a mandatory requirement for men to have in life. So men waited much longer than women in terms of getting married. The guy had to develop both his body and mind before he was ready for marriage.
That is why you see girls as young as 9 or 10 were married to men as old as 30 or even older. The culture back then and in many third world countries today (NON-MUSLIM ONES TOO) is quite different than what you live in today.
Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!
So to call Prophet Muhammad a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite ABSURD.
That's sick. Just because it happened in the past doesn't make it any more acceptable now. They also used to burn people at the stake for not being "catholic" - just as sick.
Are women some kinda cattle that can be "offered"...what about the dude accepting to marry 6 yr old and having sex when the girl was 9....and making the adopted son divorce his own wife so that he could fulfill his lust....Gosh...it just aint right ever.
May be it's sick for you. But for me, the sickness lyes in raping innocents of USA repeatidly and letting them out of jail after 2,4 or 8 years sentence, then they rape again and your sadist elders give you the education of TOLERANCE, PATIENCE and BROAD MINDEDNESS
Copy pasting seems to be an acceptable practice for ya ... Here is something for ya... Would you rather prefer this... "Under sharia, a rape requires four male witness to be proved. And if a woman who complains of rape is herself charged with adultery if she does not produce four male witnesses and stoned to death. That was the case with Amina Lawal of Nigeria who was sentenced to stoning by Sharia court because she got pregnant and could not produce four witnesses. Only from a lot of world wide infidel pressure she was saved.
Thousands of rape victims are in Pakistani jails for lack of 4 witnesses. " http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/26428
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/a … 012180.php
http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticl … RTID=33098
It seems, some Freemason put you on hubpages for maligning Islam. You have got no hubs till now, very strange
Now comming to your paid allegation from Zionists.
There is not a single country in the whole world which is a true Islamic State (Caliphate) and there is not a single country in the whole world which is practicing Islam in its affairs. The so called Muslim countries in the whole world are the result of the divide and rule application of Non - Muslims in the last century by which the Zionists and their agents especially Mustafa Kamal Ataturk (name sake Turk Muslim) were 100 % successful in eliminating and destroying the Ottoman Caliphate in 1922, through their evil machinations and hidden agendas.
Today, you will find some of the Muslim countries having sharia laws partially documented according to the needs of the so called Muslim leaders and politicians (Agents of Zion), for instance, Pakistan has got misapprehended Hudood Ordinance BUT it hasn’t got any sharia law for thieves, Saudi Arabia has got sharia punishment for thieves BUT it has not any sharia law against the American Base in it despite Islam does not permit any outsider army in its territory. These hypocrites are misusing Islam plus the international media picks it up as HEAD LINES for maligning Islam.
If a 50 year old Arab marries a 16 year old juvenile it comes in HEADLINES BUT if a 50 year old American white rapist rapes a 12 year old little girl it comes as a small news in the 2nd or 3rd page. So, the objectives of both the Zionists and their name sake Muslim agents seems to be achieved BUT the case is opposite, the more they try to criticize Islam the more it gets strong and excel. Today, the fastest growing religion in the west is Islam, which sword is converting them to Islam???
Today, those name sake Muslim countries having their own Hudood ordinances are updating it according to Qur'an and Sunnah (Traditions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him). International Islamic scholars, knocked them with the following summarized guidelines related to Adultery and Rape on the basis of Qur'an and Sunnah.
Rape is different in nature as compared to adultery, so different types of evidences for both are summarized as
1 - When an unmarried man and woman caught in adultery - they get 100 lashes each
Evidence 1: 4 sane persons scrutinized them having sexual intercourse.
Evidence 2: Acknowledgment of both guilty.
Evidence 3: DNA Tests.
2 - When a married man and woman caught in adultery - they get death penalty
Evidence 1: 4 sane persons scrutinized them having sexual intercourse
Evidence 2: Acknowledgment of both guilty.
Evidence 3: DNA Tests
3 - When a rapist rapes a woman - the rapist gets the death penalty not the woman.
Evidence 1: Acknowledgment of the victim only.
Evidence 2: Physical evidence of bodily scar/bruise/mark/damage, torn clothing etc of the victim.
Evidence 3: DNA Tests
Did you just make this up? How could some one who is unmarried commit adultery?
What a foul religion you adhere to - it belongs in the dark ages. In fact - I am surprised is not not a sin to use a computer. Do you secretly look at porn?
Thank goodness you are doing such a great job of persuading everyone to despise Islam. On behalf of all freemasons, I thank you for your efforts.
And Jon is right to point out - as I have - that you are stealing other people's writing and posting it as your own.
This is theft, and should be dealt with according to your wishes.
I TOLD YOU HE'S TWISTED DIDN'T I? I agree with you. Certainly spreading the word to KEEP AWAY FROM INHUMANE RELIIGIONS. You join at your own risk!!
The pornographic industry belong to you kind of people it's not our product.
By the way, you have got a nice shining casing on your top, how often you clean up your head for the smooth landing of flyies ???
You know nothing about me.... stop this BS... I found this site while searching online and find it pretty interesting to discuss so many topics...I am not paid by anyone... I will publish when I feel like and don't need your approval for it..... It ain't cool if you attack all other folks but can't take the heat yourself... I am not against Islam.....I am against all fundamentalists including Christians. My mom is catholic... my dad got introduced to JW... things changed...We were ridiculed in school for not celebrating holidays... my dad was adamant about the JW beliefs... there were fights and it turned from bad to worse.... they finally got divorced.... my mom had to undergo therapy sessions to get back from that trauma.... You have no idea what we went through... When I was 12 I lost my favorite cousin in 911 tragedy.... Now I hate all fundamentalists ... C Ya.
Sorry for all that. But if you analyze 911 was not done by Muslims. Your father did not divorce your mom because of Islam. Yes, i agree with you that all the other religions are not fit to follow because all of them faced severe changes and interpolations in their scriptures. Even now, what is written in Bibles, the popes and priests follow the opposite. In contrast, Islam is totally pure and crystal clear. Islam does not forbid entertainment but in boundries. Islam has got Qur'an, well preserved for more than 1400 years ago. Not a single word rather a single letter has been changed or altered in it. Islam is the only way to PEACE for you, me and all of us.
What do you mean by..... not done by Muslims.... don't tell me you wanna me to believe in that conspiracy BS.... I know Bush was an incompetent idiot... but still he couldn't be that sinister... When I see fundamentalists I can tell.... My dad was one.... those fundamentalists who commit suicide bombings.... shouting Jihad... surely ain't peaceful.
1 UP for the French President. Over to you Britain. Sitting and watching and waiting for what? You allow too much nonsense such as this to happen all in the name of freedom.
So sorry good people of HP community. Just PISSED with this guy, thats all.
To be honest, I don't care beacuse I don't know what you're talking about!
Misha, well see? I guess there is always something people can find to agree on. Sometimes it just takes time for it to show up.
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
People are always saying B Hussein Obama hasn't accomplished anything. But contrary to popular belief, B Hussein O has an impressive list of accomplishments! • First President to apply for college aid as a foreign...
by Jack Lee2 months ago
Do you agree or disagree?The American people support the wall yet Congress, especially Democrats are against it.The democrats on the other hand has threaten to shut down the government if funding for Planned Parenthood...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
France - Belguim - the ban is spreadingPresident Nicolas Sarkozy urged French Muslims today not to feel hurt nor stigmatised by a planned ban on full face veils that will fine women who hide their faces and jail men if...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.