Thread: koran, allah, and all things islam

Good, now let's wait for Macha's response. I shan't be holding my breath, and suggest you don't either.

A few Articles from somebody keda would consider deeply evil.

Muslim Like Me
Stanford—'a wonderful place to be different'—helped inspire a guide to Islam.
BY SUMBUL ALI-KARAMALI


Photo: L.A. Cicero

WHEN I FIRST came to Stanford as a shy 17-year-old in the fall of 1981, at a time when the Iranian revolution and ensuing hostage crisis were fresh in the collective American mind, I previously had been away from home for only three consecutive days. Freshman orientation week was, for me, filled with dilemmas. How would I pray five times a day without my roommate's noticing? How would I inconspicuously say no-thank-you-I-don't-drink when the choice given me by the professor in the Burbank lounge was white wine or red? How could I know if the indefinable food emerging from the Stern Hall kitchens contained pork?

I suspect the Muslim experience at Stanford is different these days. (I am assuming, of course, that the Stern kitchens have improved.) Mine was shaped by a kind of philosophical isolation: at Stanford, I never met any other Muslim undergraduates. American-born Muslims would not begin attaining college age in significant numbers for a few more years. Muslim graduate students from overseas were irrelevant to my brave new self-contained world of undergraduate life.

But Stanford was a wonderful place to be different. Eclectic and quirky as the undergraduate population has often been, I found, on the part of my classmates, great curiosity regarding my way of life.

During law school and later while working in San Francisco, I had cause to appreciate the acceptance I had found at Stanford. A partner in my firm demanded to be told why Muslims (like me?) were more violent than other kinds of people. Another inquired why all Muslim women were oppressed, sensing no irony in asking this question of a corporate lawyer wearing new Italian pumps. But at least they asked the questions; sometimes they even asked me to recommend books.

Books on Islam? Bookstores then carried only dry textbooks and the occasional slim volume of Sufi poetry.

So I quit my job and earned a master's in Islamic law from the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies and wrote that literary demystification of Islam so many had asked me to recommend. By the time I finished, the world had changed again, thanks to Osama bin Laden. I rewrote and resignedly watched as bookstores added tomes on terrorism and the “clash of civilizations” to their collections of dry textbooks.

As I revised, I couldn't help reflecting that it was a “clash of ignorances” that really needed to be averted. The Western perception of Islam has become an evil caricature of reality, like some reversed portrait of Dorian Gray, where the normal reality hides in the attic and the visible portrait becomes increasingly repulsive. While attention is given to Muslim extremists, moderate Muslims try to chip away a great wall of media misinformation.

My book is as much a product of my development at Stanford as my degree in Islamic law. An R.A. once told me that I'd shattered all his stereotypes of Muslims. In the questions on Islam I receive today, I hear the echoes of my decades-old conversations with classmates. I find courage to answer with the interfaith hope that understanding is possible. My undergraduate experience is proof.

It’s Our Choice: Standing up to Extremisms of all Shades

Reprinted with the kind permission of the author as part of a new feature here at The Agonist sponsored by FSB Associates which will run on Mondays: The FSB Book Club. Full disclosure: absolutely no money is changing hands here. FSB has generously agreed, at my request, to provide us with book excerpts and from time to time interactions and chats with the authors themselves.
by Sumbul Ali-Karamali
In Ohio, early voting began yesterday. In a seemingly unrelated event, four days ago in Ohio two men sprayed a noxious chemical into the babysitting room at a mosque in Dayton, causing babies and children to suffer burning eyes and throats, and forcing panicked evacuation of the mosque. Two apparently disparate events, perhaps, but they’re unexpectedly connected.
The incident at the mosque occurred at the end of the same week that an anti-Muslim propaganda dvd was distributed by mail in Ohio. Twenty-eight million copies of this same dvd had previously distributed as a paid advertisement in major newspapers in swing states, of which Ohio is one.
Called “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War on the West,” this film has been described as perpetuating anti-Muslim hate speech, characterizing Muslims as followers of a violent religion, and equating Muslims with Nazis (though Muslims are a faith group and Nazis were members of a European state with a standing military). The movie features Islamophobic pundits speaking on behalf of all Muslims.
Several organizations, including the “Hate Hurts America” coalition (www.obsessionwithhate.com) – a nonpartisan diverse community coalition that brings together Americans of various faiths, races and backgrounds in a unified stance against intolerance – have already thoroughly debunked much of what the dvd claims as truth. In fact, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Islamic Studies professor featured in the film, issued a statement communicating distress “that [the filmmakers’] alarmist drivel should be mixed with [his] whittled down interview” and that it “proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead.”
At least two lawsuits have been filed because a nonprofit, which the distributor of the film purportedly is, cannot participate in political activities. Although the filmmakers claim that they simply wish to inform both parties about the “threat of radical Islam,” the film, three years old now, was distributed in battleground states just weeks before the upcoming election. Moreover, one of the talking heads in the film has insisted elsewhere that Obama, whatever he says, is still a “political Muslim” (whatever that is). And the Republicans are clearly reputed to be the party “tough on terror,” with McCain repeatedly using the threat of “Islamofascism” (whatever that is) to garner support for his campaign.
But here’s the obvious point that so many are missing: the so-called “war” this film talks about and allegedly inevitable “clash of civilizations” isn’t about incompatibility between Muslims and the Jewish-Christian world. Or even between Islam and the West. It’s a war of ideology between the dogmatic, rigid, exclusivist people on both sides.
A friend of mine recently mentioned in an email that he’s come to realize that the world is divided into two religious groups. “Nope,” he wrote, “it’s not Jewish-Christian and Muslim. It’s thoughtful and dogmatic.” And it’s the dogmatic fear-mongers in this film, the very parallels of the dogmatic fear-mongers in the Islamic world, which are precipating a war here.
The message of the Obsession dvd is to convince Americans that Muslims are on a violent mission to further their goal of global domination. In other words, they say that Muslims despise the West and are out to convert or destroy it. The filmmakers are recruiting Americans to their side with this argument and attempting to affect the election to stop this claimed calamity.
Well, guess what? Muslim extremist groups do exactly the same thing.
Al-Qaeda and similar groups of Muslim extremists busily translate American anti-Islam hate literature into Arabic so that they can convince Muslim populations that the West abominates Islam and means to crush it. They had the Crusades as proof, after all, and now they have Iraq and Afghanistan, as well. Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations mindset simply plays into their hands and proves their own correctness: the West despises Islam and means to destroy it.
So the real war is between hate-mongering, fear-mongering extremists on both sides who recruit followers to perpetuate an eternal war against “the other side.”
Airing bin Laden’s videos and declaring him an enemy legitimizes him and perpetuates hate speech. Would we interview prominent members of the Ku Klux Klan on national television? Would we distribute a KKK dvd on racist philosophy? No, because it would be tantamount to hate speech. Distributing the Obsession dvd is the same thing; it’s distributing hate speech.
And, as the children at the Dayton, Ohio mosque can attest, perhaps it’s already resulted in at least one hate crime committed by Americans.
Thank goodness, though, that at least one newspaper in this country understands that freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it wisely. The Greensboro News and Record in North Carolina refused to distribute the Obsession dvd and declined the money that came with it. The publisher stated that the dvd was divisive and it played on people’s fears. Editor John Robinson said that “just because you can publish doesn't mean you should."
Today is Eid ul-Fitr, the Festival of the Fast-Breaking, the holiday that comes immediately after the fasting month of Ramadan. Muslims all over the country, and indeed the world, are celebrating Eid. And despite the dvd, despite all the flourishing hatred the 9/11 attacks unleashed, a wonderful thing happened today: The Empire State Building in New York, the self-same city that suffered those attacks, lit its world-famous tower lights in green today Eid, in the same tradition of its yearly lightings for Christmas and Hanukah.
It’s there, I think with pride in America, my country, it’s that way that peace lies.
©2008 Sumbul Ali-Karamali
Sumbul Ali-Karamali grew up in California frequently answering difficult questions about Islam and its practices posed by friends, colleagues, and neighbors. ("What do you mean you can't go to the prom because of your religion?") She holds a B.A. from Stanford University and a J.D from the University of California at Davis and earned a graduate degree in Islamic law from the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. She has served as a teaching assistant in Islamic Law at SOAS and a research associate at the Centre of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law in London. Her book, The Muslim Next Door, is available from White Cloud Press.
The Muslim Next Door: the Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing by Sumbul Ali-Karamali

"Why don't moderate Muslims stand up and say something?" I've been asked frequently on my book tour in the last year. My response is, "We are, but not everyone is listening." Our media, for example, prefers to feature oppressed Muslim women, rather than the thousands of Muslim women advocating social justice or running for public office or promoting women's rights.

So I thought I'd write about an electrifying conference I just attended in Malaysia - the Women in Islamic Spirituality and Equality (WISE) conference. Along with over 200 other Muslim women from 55 countries, I attended panels and seminars, all focused on educating and empowering Muslim women and promoting their rights from an Islamic perspective.

Why an Islamic perspective? Promoting women's rights from any perspective is requisite. An Islamic perspective is just one of many avenues. But for Muslim women's rights, this avenue is crucial, because Muslim women need to know that their religion gives them rights that their patriarchal culture often takes away. Muslim women do not wish to abandon their religion in order to gain equal rights (and who does?). They want both. That's why we must promote women's rights as an Islamic imperative, not as a contradiction to Islam.

Unfortunately, in Muslim-majority countries, often what masquerades as religion is actually culture, tribal custom, patriarchy, or all three. Even worse, tribal and other authorities themselves gain power by framing their non-religious actions as religious. Given that most Muslim-majority countries have gained independence only in the last century and struggle with the same problems as the rest of the developing world - e.g., lack of education and poverty - it's no wonder that women suffer disproportionately.

Educating Muslim women to understand that Islam itself grants them equal rights gives them the tools to effect change. At the WISE conference, attendees shared stories of effecting change in their various countries, strategies they used, and methods they found most valuable.

For example, Eman, an effervescent Egyptian woman with blond-streaked hair, described her efforts to stop female genital mutilation (FGM) in rural Egypt. Primarily practiced in Egypt and parts of Africa, FGM goes back to the time of the pharaohs and predates Islam by a thousand years. It is not Islamic, and has been practiced by Egyptian Christians as well as Egyptian Muslims. FGM is cultural: the Saudis are against it; the Pakistanis don't do it; and overwhelming numbers of Muslims worldwide still have never heard of it. Designed to ensure a woman's chastity, FGM is now illegal in Egypt, and has been banned by Islamic legal opinions, or fatwas. Even so, it persists.

Eman, the executive director of an Egyptian NGO, traveled to rural areas to investigate why and how FGM occurred. Because FGM is illegal, villagers now take their daughters to barbers and midwives, for whom FGM is a critical source of income to barbers and midwives. Eman and her colleagues approached a barber who performed hundreds of these procedures and showed him the fatwas and the laws banning FGM.

Eman offered the barber a deal: stop this practice, put the fatwa in your window, sign a contract, and we'll fund the renovation of your barber shop so you get more business. He agreed, and for the price of a barber's chair (he'd been sitting people on the ground for their haircuts) a television, and a new paint job, his business is thriving and he is a new poster boy for the elimination of FGM. Hundreds of girls a year saved and the word against FGM is spreading - all for the price of a few hundred dollars.

Eman succeeded because she addressed the underlying motivation behind FGM: not religion, but economic incentive and ignorance.

Less dramatically, but just as importantly, Laisa - a Muslim lawyer from the Philippines -described how her organization persuaded Muslim religious leaders to assist in promoting equal rights for women. Together, they developed a handbook filled with rigorously researched sermons that promoted gender equality on the basis of Islamic scriptures. Laisa and her colleagues have been using this handbook to train other Muslim religious leaders in promoting gender-sensitive interpretations of Islam in the Philippines.

Laisa and Eman are just two of the many women working for equality through Islam. The Muslim world is increasingly populated with women's rights activists challenging patriarchal culture, tribal custom, and oppressive governments. They are taking back Islam, which - as so many people forget - clearly sought to improve the status of women.

Islam never held me back from being an American Muslim woman lawyer and writer. I was lucky enough to be raised in a free democracy with education and available opportunity - it is lack of these that holds women back. Islam should not, and does not, hold other women back, either.

The WISE conference is one example that proves it.

Muhammad Would Love Star Trek
By Sumbul Ali-Karamali
author

As a practicing Muslim, I'm always answering questions, and it's amazing how often Star Trek works its way into my answers. Captain Kirk was my first crush and I still sometimes hear his affable yet steel-edged cadences in my mind. Perhaps never before Star Trek had such jewels of wisdom been delivered by someone so un-selfconsciously ensconced in olive-green polyester. Call it coincidence, but the Prophet Muhammad favored green, too.

Prophet Muhammad would have loved Star Trek. Muhammad would have admired Captain Kirk for the same reasons that Muhammad's followers admired him. Muhammad was a social reformer in 7th century Arabia, and Captain Kirk was a social reformer in space. Oh, Captain Kirk was supposed to be following the Prime Directive, but he managed significant social reform on all those planets. He once stopped centuries of warfare by showing that computerized brutality was still brutality. Human beings are barbaric, he said, but we can wake up every morning and say to ourselves, 'You know, I don't think I'll kill anyone today. Not today.'"

Like Captain Kirk, Muhammad reformed society by limiting violence. He outlawed all forms of warfare except the jihad, which is the use of force in self-defense to overthrow an oppressor.

He also established an egalitarian social structure. He advocated a pluralism that was unvalued in his time. The first muezzin of Islam was a freed Ethiopian slave. Muhammad had family connections who were Christian, Jewish, and pagan. In his last sermon, Muhammad famously proclaimed that no one had superiority over another, not a white man over a black man, not a black man over a white man, not an Arab over a non-Arab, not a non-Arab over an Arab. And the Qur'an says that God could have made us all into one religious community, but instead made us into different nations and tribes so that we would learn from one another.

Pluralism was Star Trek's hallmark, too. Captain Kirk's bridge boasted international and interplanetary diversity. Only three years after the Civil Rights Act, Star Trek proudly featured a black woman on the bridge. We might now cringe at Uhura's mini-dress and her role as glorified telephone operator, and we roll our eyes at some of her lines (like, "Captain, I'm frightened"). But, we can recognize that Star Trek established a feminist model that later Star Trek movies - and society - could build on.

Muhammad and the Qur'an were feminist, too, believe it or not. Together, they gave women more rights in the 7th century than any other legal system in the world did at the time. In fact, Islam gave women more rights than Englishwomen would have for another thousand years. Jane Austen's heroines would actually have fared better under Islamic law than English law.

Islam, like Star Trek, established a feminist model that could be built upon later. Muslims have a duty to build upon this model. They haven't nearly done enough in the last few centuries. For one thing, they've been hampered by socioeconomic and political obstacles (colonization being a big one). Today, though, many Muslims groups and individuals are working to promote women's rights and human rights from an Islamic perspective. That's what Muhammad, despite the limitations of his premodern society, tried to do.

And that's what Captain Kirk, despite his society, tried to do, too.

I hugely enjoyed the new Star Trek movie, but I thought it lacked the social conscience of the original series. The original Captain Kirk is still my hero - as is Prophet Muhammad. And for some of the same reasons.

Sumbul Ali-Karamali has a degree in Islamic law and is the author of "The Muslim Next Door: the Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing."

That Veil Thing

By Sumbul Ali-Karamali

Author of The Muslim Next Door


Recently, Roqaya Al-Gassra from Bahrain competed in the Beijing Olympics wearing a head scarf and a full-length suit. I was surprised that her running gear did not occasion more comment. But if wearing a modest track suit allows her to compete in a sport that she wouldn’t otherwise feel comfortable competing in, I think that’s wonderful. I’ve already seen posts from several Muslim women cheering her on for solidarity’s sake, and I empathize. But I’m left feeling vaguely troubled, because in all the discussions about Muslim head-scarves, I frequently see a gaping black hole.

And that is the question of whether head-covering is required in the first place. Although Muslims rightly celebrate al-Gassra’s demonstration that adherence to religious dress is not an obstacle to Olympic dreams, they assume that al-Gassra’s head-covering is an Islamic requirement. How wonderful, they say, that Islamic dress did not prevent al-Gassra from being a world-class runner!

But what’s Islamic dress? And is a head-covering required? Both Muslims and non-Muslims in recent years assume that it’s a clear edict. Add to that Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s state-enforced requirement of the head-covering, and the issue transforms from a personal question of faith to a politically charged one.

When I grew up in Southern California, the “mosque” I attended was simply a group of families gathering in someone’s garage to teach their kids some rudimentary aspects of religion. Gradually, as more families joined, we rented a community center. Eventually, we bought our own building, complete with parking lot. The women who came to our mosque were nearly all immigrants of various nationalities. But very few covered their hair. Those who didn’t would have told you that Islam didn’t require it and that head-covering was a personal choice.

I myself do not cover my hair, except – as all Muslim women do – when I pray. However, even custom is not as absolute as we are taught to think; some scholars cite evidence showing that in very early Islam, women even prayed with their heads uncovered.

Recently, when I enrolled my kids in classes at the local mosque, I was told that my daughter and I both had to cover our hair (indeed, that only our faces and hands and feet could show) just so she could attend the classes. When I objected that head-covering was not unanimously required in Islam, and certainly not required for 8-year-old girls, I was unequivocally told that yes it was, it was perfectly clearly required: neither I nor my daughter could come to Sunday School without covering my hair. We didn’t last very long at that mosque.

What has happened in the intervening years?

Starting in the late 1970s, Saudi-style Islam – called Wahabi or Salafi – began to purposefully influence Muslims world-wide by funding mosques with Wahabi imams and granting stipends to those who promoted their brand of Islam. Wahabism, founded in the 18th century, has always been considered extreme in its theology, and was rejected by mainstream Islamic scholars throughout the years. It has never qualified as one of the Islamic schools of thought that mutually recognize one another as valid.

The Saudis, though comprising less than 2 percent of the world’s Muslims, have disproportionately influenced Muslim practice (as well as the non-Muslim perception of Islam) for several reasons: they have more wealth than any other Muslim nation; they control the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina; and they have Western allies. The Saudi type of Islam – though it portrays itself as the true form of Islam – is very much intermingled with conservative, patriarchal Arab culture. The religious authorities in Saudi Arabia interpret Islam in such a way that women are not allowed to drive, vote, show their hair, or be alone with men unrelated to them. But this philosophy is out of step with 90 percent of the Muslim world.

Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, never forced women to cover their hair. Muhammad routinely included women in political and societal discussions. He appointed at least one woman as the imam of her mixed-gender household. Even in early Islam, a woman could be a qadi, or judge. Women could be muftis, or qualified religious scholars. For the seventh century, this was feminist, progressive thinking.

Last year, a radio program featured an American convert to Islam, one who wore the niqab, or face-veil. (I had never seen one of these until I was twenty-eight and had moved to London, where many Arab women vacationed.) She insisted that the niqab was “recommended” and I must admit that I felt – despite my advocacy of diverse viewpoints – really irritated. Face-veils, even in early Islam, were “recommended” by a very small minority of men.

The Qur’an simply requires modesty for both men and women, and does so in language nearly identical for men as for women. The Qur’an also urges women to “draw their garments more closely upon themselves.” But even the early Islamic scholars did not agree on what constituted modesty consistent with these verses. All agreed that the legs above the knees must be covered, as well as the chest. Most, but not all, asserted that only faces, hands, and feet should show. Very, very few considered that faces should be covered. Therefore, as long as the chest and legs above the knees are covered, there’s room for personal, valid interpretation of Islamic modesty.

However it’s interpreted, nearly all scholars agreed that the purpose of modesty was to prevent harm to women, who didn’t have much power in those days and whose head-coverings or veils were meant to convey a protected status.

Moreover, in the 7th century, Islam spread across the Arabian peninsula and into the Persian and Byzantine empires, where many women covered their hair or wore veils as a sign of high social status (the women working in the fields couldn’t afford to be so encumbered). As the Arabs ruled more cultures, they often absorbed the customs and practices of those cultures. Islamic scholars were developing Islamic doctrine concurrently with the spread of Islam, and could not have helped but be influenced by cultural norms.

But that’s okay! The early Islamic discussion on appropriate clothing took into account the established social practices and cultural norms. Significantly, this aspect seems to be missing from today’s discussions on the hijab.

A woman should be able to dress how she wants. Of course there are limits in the U.S., too, not just religious ones but cultural ones; for instance, we don’t allow people to appear nude in public, and we require that – for the public safety – driver’s licenses should show faces. But banning a headscarf is just as much a violation of personal liberty as requiring one. In Turkey and France, where women have not been allowed to wear headscarves in public institutions, scores of women have tragically been denied the opportunity to attend school or get jobs.

It’s wonderful that Roqaya al-Ghassra participated in the Olympic games dressed as she was, because the hijab is a choice, and it’s not about “religious dress” or oppression. It’s a decision about modesty, the same as wearing long sleeves instead of short or a high neckline instead of a plunging one. Her choice is not the same as mine – but it doesn’t have to be under Islam.

Sumbul Ali-Karamali grew up in Southern California in an ethnically South Asian family. She earned her undergraduate degree in English, with Distinction, from Stanford University. After working as an editor in a publishing company, she attended law school and graduated with her J.D. from the University of California at Davis. She practiced corporate law in San Francisco for several years.

Although always a practicing Muslim, Sumbul began the formal study of Islam when she attended the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). She graduated from SOAS with her L.L.M. in Islamic Law, with Distinction. She has taught Islamic law as a teaching assistant at the University of London, worked as a research associate at the Centre of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law in London, and lectured on Islam and Islamic law. She has had many articles published, both in mainstream news publications and legal journals. Her first book, an accessible yet scholarly, anecdote-filled introduction to Islam and Islamic law written for the lay reader, was published by White Cloud Press in September of 2008 and is called The Muslim Next Door: the Qur’an, the Media, and that Veil Thing.

Sumbul is currently spending her time on speaking engagements, radio and television interviews, writing, raising her two children, and volunteering her time to various causes. She serves on the board of trustees of a nonprofit educational institution that teaches multicultural education and environmental education to children and youth. She also serves on the steering committee of Women in Islamic Spirituality and Equality (WISE), an initiative dedicated to mobilizing a movement for social justice.

For enjoyment, Sumbul plays her violin, teaches the occasional Indian cooking class, and watches Star Trek reruns with her husband.

The Muslim Next Door: the Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing by Sumbul Ali-Karamali

Originally Posted by machangezi

Originally Posted by keda

In your opinion, is Islam perfect in every respect?

No, it ain't. I have said this a thousand times on this same forum.

Apparently DrBob had previously answered the same question in the same way too.

Maybe you guys are simply not answering in a way that keda finds acceptable or palatable? He does have a tendency to repeat the same question(s), looking for the specific, narrow, and defined answer he wants. Throw a few "evils" in there, see if that helps.

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Fuck their cultural sensitivities, they chose to live in the UK

Yep, they chose to live there but your home office gave them the right to stay indefinitely. Stop moaning, will ya?

Originally Posted by Ant

Maybe you guys are simply ot answering in a way that keda finds acceptable?

He's looking for an answer that suits his idiotic agenda. Alas! He ain't gettin one.

Originally Posted by machangezi

Originally Posted by Sdigit

they chose to live in the UK

Yep, they chose to live there but your home office gave them the right to stay indefinitely. Stop moaning, will ya?

Yes you are quite correct they were given the right to stay, that is not the point I'm taking issue with.

As I said before, they were not given the right to break UK laws or disrespect UK courts.

This is an important issue because it sets precedents, which is all part of their gradual erosion and undermining of UK law and society.

To simply say" Stop moaning will ya" and allow this to contiue is to give a free rein to these people to continue in this manner and for us to continue to allow it.

^427^
Any chance of some summaries?

When it becomes compulsory to read everything everyone posts, do let me know and I'll decide if I wish to comply.

Originally Posted by keda

When it becomes compulsory to read everything everyone posts, do let me know and I'll decide if I wish to comply.

Well if you're going to be making informed comment, it may not be compulsory but surely it's requisite.


Oh wait, yeah I see what you're saying. Carry on regardless then, as you were.

Originally Posted by keda

When it becomes compulsory to read everything everyone posts, do let me know and I'll decide if I wish to comply.

Don't know about compulsory but if you have any pretensions to discussing or debating it is pretty essential to know what the others are saying. You do, after all, whinge on a number of threads about wanting debate and discussion. Oddly enough, when you get it you ignore it.

It's good that you admit that all you do is post cut'n'pastes of other people's writing and completely ignore anything that doesn't validate your opinion. That's what I thought you did but it's nice to see you finally bring it out into the open, "γνῶθι σεαυτόν" and all that.

Originally Posted by slackula

Jeebus al keda, is that the best you have? It seems like you aren't even trying, you just want to post up some scurrilous rubbish and have it accepted as gospel ( ) by everybody here?

Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to TD!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by slackula

Jeebus al keda, is that the best you have? It seems like you aren't even trying, you just want to post up some scurrilous rubbish and have it accepted as gospel ( ) by everybody here?

Hi, you must be new here. Welcome to TD!

thanks, but it is pretty depressing to see people post up garbage like he does and then reject anything refuting it because it is simply too difficult to read or comprehend.

I don't use the ignore function much (well, except for you, but *everybody* does that right? ) , but I really can't see that there is any point responding to the drivel that al keda throws out; he can't even back it up himself FFS! All his posts and claims are comprehensively disproved and he responds with frothing at the mouth, ad hominem, or moving the goalposts.

What a hopeless muppet, I hope he feels safe under his undisclosed bed with his blankie!

Originally Posted by slackula

All his posts and claims are comprehensively disproved and he responds with frothing at the mouth, ad hominem, or moving the goalposts.

You may be new here but you're certainly a quick learner!

I don't use the ignore function much (well, except for you, but *everybody* does that right? )

Newb!

It’s wonderful that Roqaya al-Ghassra participated in the Olympic games dressed as she was, because the hijab is a choice, and it’s not about “religious dress” or oppression. It’s a decision about modesty, the same as wearing long sleeves instead of short or a high neckline instead of a plunging one. Her choice is not the same as mine – but it doesn’t have to be under Islam.

"Hijab is a choice"
Did she ever have a choice ? Growing up in a strict muslim family in a country under sharia law ?
A bright example for all future generations in track and freak.... aahemm field. Sorry.



Choice my ass:

The 20-year-old Ethiopian who represents Bahrain has raised the ire of a leading politician in the Gulf State for wearing a short sleeveless top and shorts.

Pictures of her wearing the outfit when winning the 3,000m at the Golden League meeting in Oslo last week have caused outrage in Bahrain. That performance installed Jamal as the favourite for the 1500m here in Holmes' absence.

Hamad Al Mohannadi, the chairman of Bahrain's parliamentary legislative committee, said: "We were all shocked by the look of the young woman . . . the outfit is not in any way related with the normal clothes Bahraini young women are accustomed to wearing."

Bahrain wanted to promote sport but within the "perimeters" of Islam. "It is disrespecting Islamic precepts and offending local values. We should not allow the good name of Bahrain to be abused," Al Mohannadi said. "The athlete should also be made aware of the indecency of her outfit."

Last year Bahrain's Ruqaya Al Ghasra ran the 100m at the Olympics with her legs and arms covered.

Congrat. Miss Al Ghasra, you had a CHOICE and remind me of those stooges of the Führer.

Originally Posted by Sdigit

they were not given the right to break UK laws or disrespect UK courts

If they have broken UK laws or disrespected UK courts chuck them back to mussie-estan and make an example out of them, end of story.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

It’s wonderful that Roqaya al-Ghassra participated in the Olympic games dressed as she was, because the hijab is a choice, and it’s not about “religious dress” or oppression. It’s a decision about modesty, the same as wearing long sleeves instead of short or a high neckline instead of a plunging one. Her choice is not the same as mine – but it doesn’t have to be under Islam.

"Hijab is a choice"
Did she ever have a choice ? Growing up in a strict muslim family in a country under sharia law ?
A bright example for all future generations in track and freak.... aahemm field. Sorry.



Choice my ass:

The 20-year-old Ethiopian who represents Bahrain has raised the ire of a leading politician in the Gulf State for wearing a short sleeveless top and shorts.

Pictures of her wearing the outfit when winning the 3,000m at the Golden League meeting in Oslo last week have caused outrage in Bahrain. That performance installed Jamal as the favourite for the 1500m here in Holmes' absence.

Hamad Al Mohannadi, the chairman of Bahrain's parliamentary legislative committee, said: "We were all shocked by the look of the young woman . . . the outfit is not in any way related with the normal clothes Bahraini young women are accustomed to wearing."

Bahrain wanted to promote sport but within the "perimeters" of Islam. "It is disrespecting Islamic precepts and offending local values. We should not allow the good name of Bahrain to be abused," Al Mohannadi said. "The athlete should also be made aware of the indecency of her outfit."

Last year Bahrain's Ruqaya Al Ghasra ran the 100m at the Olympics with her legs and arms covered.

Congrat. Miss Al Ghasra, you had a CHOICE and remind me of those stooges of the Führer.

Macha, tell me this poor little girl is happy.

And what about the emote ? Showing your ass will not give more freedom for the womens living under islamic dictatorship.

She might / might not be happy, I don't know. Are those underage tarts walking the streets of Amsterdam happy? You want me to upload their photos so you can guess if they are happy?

Wallali, do you think it's possible to judge (from a photograph) if she's happy or not? I have recently spoken to an eleven year old girl at a workshop who against the advise of her mother and father has chosen to wear hijab.