Dutch government says it plans to ban burqa

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


As a political marriage, and as we know that marriages are not finalized until consummated. After consummation, he didn't have sex with her until her teens. Pedophile means you like sex with prepubescent kids. Him having sex with one prepubescent for the reasons of consummation of a political marriage is not the same thing.

Why the hell should a religious leader indulge in politics in the first place?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

a marital rapist,

And if this actually did happen was it upheld?

I do not understand this question. He is known to have said, in the Hadith tradition, "Your wives are your field. Irrigate them as you will, or keep them fallow."

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

a murderer of his critics (remember that poet he murdered? Or that woman who was killed in her sleep),

Was this really anything different from others at the time? As Elok said, look at the other leaders around.

It was quite a regression from the Buddha, who either debated or ignored his critics. The Buddha did not kill a single man. And Buddha was born in the BC years. Or take the example of the Jain tirthankaras, who did the same.

As for that comment about other people who lived in a similar time - consider the example of Adi Shankara, who finished of Buddhism in India - without the help of a state or of a king. His preferred method of spreading the faith was debating. His debates were always risky, because the condition was that the loser would become the disciple of the victor. And he won every single debate he took on, and won back the royal patronage Hinduism had lost. All without any military nonsense.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

an iconoclast of the worst sort (the destruction of the idols at Mecca, the destruction of Somnath, which was believed to hold one idol which "escaped" from Mecca, which set the pattern for the destruction of all the major temples of North India),

Iconoclasm is not exactly considered a bad thing in someone trying to create a new religion. It'd probably be par for the course, I'd imagine.

Again, this claim is rubbished by the example of the first person who set up a new religion which was different from the Earth religions - the Buddha. How iconoclastic was he, exactly? How many temples did he order destroyed? How many heretics killed? In fact, how much violence done at all?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

and a person who committed genocide against the Arabian Jews?

Those who sold out his army and were killed after a judicial ruling?

Again the question arises - what does a religious leader need an army for?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Do you really think that such a twisted man can serve as an ideal for all of us today?

So do you consider everyone who was not born during modern morals to be such 'twisted men' who cannot be followed?

Yes. They cannot be emulated in every aspect, as Muslims claim Mohammed can be.

But there is a man who does live up to any modern criticism which can be levelled against him, and that is the Buddha. He is a person who can be used as an ideal in his entirety even today.

Can you say the same about Mohammed?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why the hell should a religious leader indulge in politics in the first place?

Why not? It isn't like it is rare. The Popes, who are religious leaders, engage in politics all the time. When you are looked upon by a people as their ultimate leader, you are in the political circle as well. You can't just abdicate all responsibility and say "oh no, look to someone else, I'm just here for the religious philosophy".

He is known to have said, in the Hadith tradition, "Your wives are your field. Irrigate them as you will, or keep them fallow."

And this means you can rape your women?

Secondly, some scholars have shown that most of the hadith (if not all of it) was fabricated after the fact (though many Muslims reject this scholarship, of course). Though even the ones who back the hadith do believe a lot of it was fabricated but there is a core of truth behind it.

It was quite a regression from the Buddha, who either debated or ignored his critics. The Buddha did not kill a single man. And Buddha was born in the BC years. Or take the example of the Jain tirthankaras, who did the same.

As for that comment about other people who lived in a similar time - consider the example of Adi Shankara, who finished of Buddhism in India - without the help of a state of of a king. His preferred method of spreading the faith was debating. His debates were always risky, because the condition was that the loser would become the disciple of the victor. And he won every single debate he took on, and won back the royal patronage Hinduism had lost. All without any military nonsense.

Both were solely religious leaders dealing in philosophy. Neither had control of a people (Buddha gave up his responsibility). Neither was considered a political leader by his people. They had the luxury of disengaging from politics and could say, as Jesus would, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". It's a bit harder if your people look to you as a political leader.

How iconoclastic was he, exactly?

Did he not attack attacks cherished beliefs or traditional institutions?

But there is a man who does live up to any modern criticism which can be levelled against him, and that is the Buddha. He is a person who can be used as an ideal in his entirety even today.

It is nice when you can disengage from the world in such a way. Most people don't have such luxury. And that, in the end, is a good thing. Because people need to be a part of the world and advance humanity through technology and work.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Sava
What if it's cold and I'm wearing a scarf or a ski mask? Should that be banned too?

Oh wait... I guess it would only be banned if I'm a Muslim. If I'm a non-Muslim and I wear a scarf or ski mask during the winter, it's all good.

This law makes it illigal to wear ANY facecovering clothing so yes, wearing ski masks will be illigal in Holland.

bigoted eurotrash

Ignorant americans

[atawa]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
... and then you wonder why people say the things about you that they do (especially since you were totally pwned on the pedophila thing and you still continue to repeat it)

Then how do you call someone who rapes a nine year old?

But thats not the main issue as it was normal at that time for girls to get married once they reached puberty, but usualy they were married to someone similar to their own age, not someone 25 years older.
The problem is that according to sharia, still used in part of the muslim world today, it is legal to mary nine year olds.
In 2006 thousends of nine year old girls who should be playing and going to school are being raped and thrown into a life of misery becouse religious idiots take some outdated book too seriously
(Not to mention the medical risks to both girl and baby, usualy fatal for the child, sometimes also for the mother)

[Elok]

The Buddha was from a different civilization entirely. I don't know if anyone in Mecca at the time would have even heard of him, so the length of time by which he predates Islam seems irrelevant to me. If they had no contact with that culture, or at least no direct contact, you might as well hold up Gandhi as the man they should have emulated.

And the Buddha was a purely spiritual leader. Mohammed was both spiritual leader and general of an army. His priorities were a bit different from a guy intent on pure, moderate asceticism. Plus he may have actually needed an army, since his new religion disrupted the carefully balanced mess of a social structure Mecca was built on. IIRC, he didn't preach fighting back against oppression until he had to flee the city after catching wind of a planned assassination. Sure, it would have been a lot nicer if he'd continued to preach forbearance and nonviolent resistance, but I don't blame the guy for getting pissed after his neighbors tried to kill him. De facto exile makes a man do rash things.

[Datajack Franit]

Originally posted by MikeH
Beating women for not wearing a burqua is wrong, and it's against the law.
Banning burqua's to prevent that happening is the wrong solution to the problem.

Holy Jesus Christ...


Saxon genitive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Saxon genitive is the traditional term used for the 's (apostrophe-s) word-ending in the English language. The term is now infrequently used by linguists who argue that 's represents a possessive case, not a genitive.

Modern English forms the Saxon genitive as follows:
Regular noun
not ending in "s" Regular noun
ending in "s" Irregular noun
Singular -'s -'s -'s
Plural -s' -es' -'s
Example (Singular) cat's class's child's
Example (Plural) cats' classes' children's


ONE BURQUA
TWO BURQUAS

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I like to point out that Mohammed was a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, and he commited genocide against the Jews of Arabia. Mohammed, by any decent standard, was an evil man.

... and then you wonder why people say the things about you that they do (especially since you were totally pwned on the pedophila thing and you still continue to repeat it)

Have never been "pwnd" on the pedophilia thing. You and a few others claimed that Mohammed married a 9 year old (or there abouts I don't remember the exact age and can't be bothered to look it up) but then claim that doesn't mean he slept with her. Sorry, no dice. You're the one making the outrageous claim that a man doesn't sleep with his wife so you need to come up some proof the man isn't a disgusting pedophile.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava


So he's basically like every other leader in history?

ZOMFG

Oerdin, do me a favor. Name a culture or human society that hasn't fought any wars, commited any murders, or been responsible for any evils.

K THX

Your sh1t stinks just as bad as everyone elses.

Sava, you seem to have misunderstood. My point isn't that Mohammed is worse then everyone else, though he's clearly in the bottom 1/3 of humanity, but that Mohammed should never, NEVER, NEVER be held up to be anything good. Dispite his crimes we still routinely hear people say Mohammed was great and everyone should pattern their lives on Mohammed's life. Mohammed was a criminal and there was nothing admirable about the man. There for I will continue to take exception with people who claim Mohammed was somehow a peaceful Jesus like figure.

I hate all organized religions but at least Jesus didn't rape anyone, commit genocide, molest children, or murder people. There for I find Jesus to be less objectionable then Mohammed who did all of the above.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When Hindu kids (in the past) are married at 5 years old that means they are sleeping with each other right then. It is outrageous to claim they aren't sleeping together so you need to come up with proof that they aren't!

[Imran Siddiqui]

And, of course, it isn't like there was any birth control back then, but Aisha never gave Muhammed a child. If he was ******** her before and throughout her puberty years, you'd think at least one kid would come forth. Instead it was only Khadijah and Maria al-Qibtiyya who bore him children.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And, of course, it isn't like there was any birth control back then, but Aisha never gave Muhammed a child. If he was ******** her before and throughout her puberty years, you'd think at least one kid would come forth. Instead it was only Khadijah and Maria al-Qibtiyya who bore him children.

maybe he had fertility problems.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
Beating women for not wearing a burqua is wrong, and it's against the law.

Banning burqua's to prevent that happening is the wrong solution to the problem.

Some women genuinely do choose (ie. not be forced) to wear a burqua for religious reasons and they should be allowed to do so.

And what about places like the UK which have laws against people walking the streets or going into places like banks or public buildings wearing masks of having their faces obscured? Should these people get a free pass on a law which applies to everyone else?

[Dinner]

Aneeshm, most of the peaceful spreading of religion which Buddha did could also be said of Jesus. Jesus was another religious leader who never killed anyone and in fact intervined to stop his followers from taking up arms against people who wanted to kill them.

The point being that at least two major world religions were not started by people who professed violence and murder where as Mohammed used violence and murder as the foundation of his power.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When Hindu kids (in the past) are married at 5 years old that means they are sleeping with each other right then. It is outrageous to claim they aren't sleeping together so you need to come up with proof that they aren't!

Hindus have a comming of age cerimony. Also being engaged is entirely different from being married. Mohammed was married where as Hindus were simply engaged via arranged marriage. I'm not a big fan of arranged marriage especially at a young age since it implies that the marriage is forced.

Then again those every day Hindu families didn't found a religion did they? They are not held up to be the ideal for all mankind to follow are they? Yet, Mohammed is and that is why people need to be educated about Mohammed's evil actions. So that when people make claims about how good Mohammed supposedly was those lies can be exposed by the truth. The murders, the rape, the pedophilia, the genocide.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And, of course, it isn't like there was any birth control back then, but Aisha never gave Muhammed a child. If he was ******** her before and throughout her puberty years, you'd think at least one kid would come forth. Instead it was only Khadijah and Maria al-Qibtiyya who bore him children.

Lots of wives have sex with their husbands all the time and never have kids.