NPR: France's Burqa Ban 'Sinister,' Adds to 'Islamophobic Climate'
Eleanor Beardsley slanted towards opponents of France's ban on the niqab, or Islamic face veil, on two NPR programs on Monday. Beardsley played several sound bites from French Muslims during her Morning Edition report who forwarded the notion that the law contributes to an "anti-Muslim climate" in the country, and agreed with a guest on Tell Me More who labeled the ban "sinister."
The correspondent, who is based in France, led her report on Morning Edition with a clip from the imam of a mosque in Aubervilliers, a suburb of Paris, who stated, "You know there is an Islamophobic climate right now and the police don't like to see us praying in the streets." She also turned to another Muslim man who singled out the niqab ban for contributing to this apparent climate:
BEARDSLEY: Rachid Zaieri says for the most part, it's fine being a Muslim in France, though he admits in the last few years, there has been a rise in political talk against Islam, and this burqa ban is part of that, he says.
RACHID ZAIERI (translated from French): We don't feel this law is sincere. It doesn't mean we're for the burqa, but we think this law is just an excuse to tell French people, watch out: there's a growing Muslim population that you should be afraid of.
Beardsley continued by touting how "many Muslims here blame President Nicolas Sarkozy for what they say is an anti-Muslim climate in France today. They say the French president creates debates around Islam so that people will forget about the real problems, like the economy." (the NPR.org article she wrote to go along with her report used this claim in the title: "France's Burqa Ban Adds To Anti-Muslim Climate") She then highlighted two Muslim women who wear the niqab:
BEARDSLEY: ...Even by the French government's own estimates, fewer than 2,000 women across the country wear the niqab. Twenty-two-year-old Someya, who doesn't want to give her last name, is one of them.
SOMEYA (translated): I feel like I'm doing something higher. I'm wearing it for God and for my husband, so that he'll be the only person who can see me and be able to appreciate my face.
BEARDSLEY: Someya says she'll take off her niqab today because she has no choice, but she believes the government is infringing on her personal freedom.
Eighteen-year-old Sarah Morvan, a Muslim convert who also wears the niqab, has just pulled on her long black gloves and stepped out into the street. Not a bit of skin is showing. Morvan says she will not remove her veil, and the new law will only force her to stay at home more often with her three-month-old daughter, who she pushes in a stroller in the afternoon sun. (audio clip of Sarah Morvan speaking in French) It's a very emotional experience to wear the niqab, says Morvan, who embraced wearing it two years ago. You are sheltered from all onlookers and completely cut off from society.
The NPR reporter played only one sound bite from a Muslim supporter of the ban at the very end of the report:
BEARDSLEY: Aubervilliers is 70 percent Muslim. Many, like cafe owner Kamel Mesbah, say they understand the intent of the law, to weaken what he calls the burqa culture. (audio clip of Kamel Mesbah speaking in French) You can't have things like men and women refusing to shake each other's hands and separate hours for boys and girls at the public swimming pool, he says. That's just not France.
Later in the day, Tell Me More host Michel Martin brought on Beardsley to talk about the law, along with French Muslim feminist Sihem Habchi, a supporter of the ban, and French journalist Nabila Ramdani, who, as Martin pointed out, wrote "a number of commentaries for London's Guardian newspaper expressing her opposition to the new law." Ramdani blasted French President Nicolas Sarkozy for his support of the ban:
RAMDANI: Well, we've heard a segment from Nicolas Sarkozy earlier, and he's right. The law is not about religion. As an actual fact, the text of the law doesn't mention Islam even once. He claims it's about liberty and dignity. And it is, for me, abundantly clear that this ban is a violation of fundamental human rights, and has little to do with the liberation of women or the dignity. Quite the opposite, because in actual terms, what this ban would mean is that it forbids women from stepping out of the house, which means that, effectively, it prevents them from being free individuals. It excludes them from society completely, and it effectively puts them under house arrest.
It's, in fact, a very sinister state interference into a religious matter, and a cynical political move to capture the far right vote ahead of the presidential elections next year. And it is a cynical text of law because it not only tells women how to dress, which is patronizing enough, but worse still, it criminalizes a handful of women who have chosen a lifestyle of their own, in respect of the secular nature of French society, and I have to insist on that point, to choose to cover their faces.
Near the end of the segment, Martin asked the NPR correspondent for her take on the law's future. She agreed with Ramdani and even used the same label:
BEARDSLEY: ...One thing I would say is that I do think the law is a bit political. I agree with Nabila when she says that. There's so few women that wear the burqa and the niqab, and in a country like France, I think the garment will ultimately disappear because, you know, I interviewed an 18-year-old who said she wanted to wear it till the day she died. But really, how long is he going to last in France with her complete covering black over her entire body? Probably not very long. So I think that Sarkozy is just pushing for this law. Really, it's a non-issue, I think, and he wants voters from the far right. He's scared of a rise in the far right. So I think the reasons for enacting it are a bit sinister.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Who'da thunk it!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:07am.
Funny how NPR and liberals support slavery.
Slavery claiming the sanction
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:19am.
Slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the African republics of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan. Of non-Muslim & Christians of course.
There is just no amazement in how the media actively covers up how they treat women. How is it they can rag on Christians and love Muslims is truly diabolic. Tells you who their "father" is.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
The problem
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:09am.
I see with covering of the face is that it makes hiding male terrorists much easier. If you have a group of people that are completely covered and a society that is afraid to confront them for identification purposes, you are handing the Islamists a great tool for lying to the Infidels. And they are permitted to do that to further their goals, which is killing the Infidels.
Virginia used to have a ban on covering of the face in public as an anti-Klan law. Someone challenged it several years ago and I don't know how that turned out.
Meanwhile, TSA is groping 5 year olds.
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:15am.
I couldn't watch the whole video. It disgusts me. Don't even get me started on the number of ways it disgusts me. I'll stop now.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
J
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:24am.
I saw this vid yesterday and I've gotta disagree with your take on it.
As soon as I saw her -the little girl, if, in fact, she really is a little girl- enter into the frame I got chills. I thought: "I hope they're not letting that one go unchecked. I gotta baaaad feeling about her!" I was actually surprised given her size and that snide little sneer she seemed to be hiding, that they didn't find about 40 pounds of buckshot and a high-explosive fuse hidden under her shirt.
Frankly, I feel much safer knowing this new trend of suicide bomber -2nd grade girls- is being watched much closer than in previous years. All hail the TSA.
I'd imagine if she'd been wearing a burkha
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:37am.
...they'd have just passed her on through.
Because you know, little burkhas are incapable of hiding stuff, whereas a little cotton shirt and elastic waist pants are notorious for hiding bombs in.
I can't believe our government sanctions that s****.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
<sound of duct tape ripping off roll>
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:56am.
I was waiting for an OT to post that video; you beat me to it!
What the hell is wrong with these people!!!!
And the Muslims are upset because
...the police don't like to see us praying in the streets."
Gosh, now why would anyone have a problem with that?????
They're not prevented; the police just don't "like" it. AWWWWWW...
He fails to mention that the police have been instructed to leave them alone.
I know, mb
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:07pm.
I AM NOT GOING TO RANT.
It would be really ugly if I started. But I want to. As I know do you.
This country has gone insane.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde....TSA Groping
Submitted by ww thumper on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:08pm.
I am also disgusted with that nonsence !! That is what happens when half the nation votes for FOOLS for the leadership of our Country !! WW :-(
MY PASTOR SAYS "GOD BLESS AMERICA"!!!I ASK " GOD SAVE AMERICA, AND RESTORE OUR AMERICAN HONOR!"
So Wrong On Many Levels
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:10pm.
Absolutely disgusting display of Liberalism destroying common sense and potentially human spirit. What specific reason was there for this search? Just because she was about to fly commercial air is not enough justification for this treatment.
A child of this age cannot process the TSA body search and compartmentalize it the way adults can.
In her mind, she has done nothing wrong to be treated thusly, is being groped by a stranger despite societal warnings to the contrary, is being groped by a uniformed authority that is most likely indistinguishable from police to her, see's her mother as helpless to prevent the unwanted and unwarranted touching of her private areas, and the exam is done in the open with more strangers watching and in a manner exactly how criminals on TV she has seen are searched.
Who knows how this singular event will unnecessarily and negatively shape her life.
Strat, I can't begin to tell you how upset that made me
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:16pm.
I couldn't watch more than a couple of seconds of it. It was positively mortifying.
I did, however, send a link of it to Allen West, with a request to haul Reno V.2.0 up before Congress for a little show and tell, with her as the star of the assault. We have the right as citizens to not be assaulted by our own government, and for the TSA to do this to a child...again, I don't have the words.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
thank you stratman*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:06pm.
Totally concur with your analysis. May I add, this is typical of liberal political correctness. They have an agenda but never ever consider consequences. Erase the lines, redefine issues and then tell me how are our children will be able to learn to protect themselves or identify the bad guys in the world?
Blonde and cajun2: We, as
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:54pm.
Blonde and cajun2:
We, as adults, are supposed to protect our young. The Left talks a lot about protecting children but in reality sexualize and now assault them with the permission of Government.
Contemptible.
Incident Widening
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:16am.
AP is reporting the parents of the child body searched was "selected", which I take to mean random. Someone's ass should be kicked for this, then fired for gross negligence.
Ky. parents: TSA frisked our 6-year-old daughter
BOWLING GREEN, Ky. – A Kentucky couple wants the TSA to change how it screens children after their 6-year-old daughter was frisked at the New Orleans airport.
Selena Drexel told ABC's "Good Morning America" Wednesday the family was returning home from a vacation earlier this month when their daughter Anna was selected for a pat-down.
The couple posted a video of the search on YouTube.
The girl's father, Todd Drexel, says Anna was confused by the search and started crying afterward because she thought she'd done something wrong.
Selena Drexel says such searches are inappropriate for children because they're usually told not to let adults touch them in sensitive areas.
In a statement, the Transportation Security Administration says the officer followed proper procedure but that the agency is reviewing its screening policies.
Thanks, Strat
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:23am.
I would urge everyone to do what I did, send this off to your Congressional representation and ask them to investigate this incident, and one's like it (not to mention TSA's sexual assault policy).
As I posted above, I want to see Reno V.2.0 front and center as the target of a show and tell for Congress.
You nailed it with your psychoanalysis of how this little girl would feel. Truthfully, I put my brain on lockdown yesterday after just a few seconds of watching that video. I have no words. That's how furious I am.
This. Is. Our. Government. Perpertrating. This. Crime. Against. Children.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I agree with the outrage...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:31am.
but disagree with its framing as a liberal vs. conservative issue.
Jer
Kindly point out WHERE, Jer
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:36am.
....I "framed it as liberal vs. conservative".
Are you objecting to Reno V.2.0? What, exactly?
This is why I am sick and tired of your posting. You are purposefully baiting people while trying to appear "nice". I'm over it. It's crap. All of it.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Perhaps he was referring to the whole thread
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:44am.
rather than your post?
Butt out, trog
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:55am.
This is no concern of yours.
Go play your circle jerk games in the middle of someone else's conversation.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You had a conversation?
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 11:58am.
Don't make it public, if you don't want anybody to interfer.
What did you not understand about "Butt Out"?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:02pm.
.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
What do you not understand about "public"?
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:06pm.
You can't tell me what to do.
"You can't tell me what to
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:32pm.
"You can't tell me what to do."
Blonde just did.
Jer:
The TSA's policies are forged partly out of political correctness. No meaningful, sustained, or pointed profiling such as the Israelis, such as any good police officer uses but aren't supposed to, such as every conscious person uses, including you, as they interact in public to determine friendlies from potential threats.
Political correctness from the TSA - random searches, searching all, avoiding searching those who would profile out of fear of Liberals chastizing them, searching six year old girls for no damn reason other than to appear "fair" - is derived from the Left's bastardization of civility within society. This is why the failed sociopolitical policies of the Left are directly to blame for the mismanagement of security by the TSA as specifically exemplified in the search of the six year old girl for what so far appears to be no damn good reason other than political correctness.
How do you explain and justify the six year old girl's search and whenceforth did that policy spring?
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 1:07pm.
"How do you explain and justify the six year old girl's search and whenceforth did that policy spring?"
I appologize for the bluntness, but doesn't my stating that I "agreed with the outrage" suggest that I am NOT justifying the search? And I honestly do not know when the policy was established or first implemented.
Jer
Point 1 understood. You
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 1:39pm.
Point 1 understood. You didn't like the search either. I was never unclear on that issue.
Point 2 you did not answer. The first part of my multi-part question was foundation for the second part about why, not when, the policy that lead to searching a six year old for no damn apparent reason other than the distorted Leftist fantasy of "fairness", AKA political correctness.
I hope you only misunderstood my "why" or "what" for your "when" and were not being evasive. Now that that is clarified, what is your answer to the my previous post - what is the basis for the policy that caused the six year old girl to be searched? Rephrased, why was this child searched?
Answering "9/11" won't cut it.
It's exactly what I was referring to, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:17pm.
...the framing which was occurring over the course of several near-consecuitive posts on the topic. I didn't claim you specifically had framed it as such, although you certainly didn't appear to disagree with it being couched in those terms.
I haven't changed the style of my posting one iota during my entire time at NewsBusters. But, I am sick and tired of your mischaracterizing my comments, for attacking me for things I haven't even been remotely guilty--good grief, even Liberallies acknowledged you were off base the other day, just as strat had to be corrected by Rush Fan--and for the arrogant refusal to even give me the courtesy of an explanation for the behavior.
Carry on. I won't bother you again.
Jer
Nice Dodge
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:35pm.
I didn't claim you specifically had framed it as such
Yet you posted your "conservative vs. liberal" whine to me. Wiggle a bit more....that wasn't sufficient to get you off the hook.
You don't like me pillorying Napolitano? Too bad. Reno V.2.0 is as big of a jackbooted thug as V.1.0 was. Torching US citizens and feeling up six year olds are about equal in my book.
I said "do what I did, write to your congressional representation"....where's the ideology there, Jer? Because my rep is a fierce conservative? That was the framing, eh?
Other than my reference to the jackbooted thug whose department is perpetrating this outrage and totalitarian tactics (FACT), my rants on this subject are without ideology.
Go hang out with Troggy for all I care. Or better yet, look in the mirror. I'm not the only one here who has a problem with your postings of late. Which is why I've been ignoring you for quite a while. It's what I do to people I like who've made me mad, so I don't take their heads off. Until they press me. You got the slap you deserved.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Well then consider yourself pressed, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 1:12pm.
I don't like threats. And, btw, there are quite a few here who don't especially care for your haughty "don't mess with me because I run this place" attitude.
Jer
Thank you ever so much for your accolades
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 4:57pm.
Much appreciated.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Sorry, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 5:24pm.
but your post is well outside the 46 minute mark from the time of my comment and therefore your snarky response is officially irrelevant.
And a reminder: After tomorrow, it will have been three full days since this blog was published. You know what that means...any subsequent comment posted will not be considered to be part of the present thread.
Rules are rules.
Jer
Objection
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 5:31pm.
from the peanut gallery. I'm afraid that a snarky claim of snarkiness, followed by even greater snarky snarkiness is nothing more than badgering the witness. In other words, your credibility took a big hit with that last remark of snark.
Objection overruled.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 5:41pm.
I was only repeating the rules established by the very party to whom my comment was addressed. So any snarkiness, to the extent my retort can be properly described as such, was entirely justified.
Now sit your ass back down. I'm heading over to dKos to grab a jury of my peers.
Jer
Damn
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 5:45pm.
I thought I had one there.
You did, no worries.
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 6:35pm.
Result was the key. Going to DKos, Priceless.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Congrats!
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 6:38pm.
I see you've now learned how to tell time. Maybe.
For the record...it's three days BETWEEN posting a non-related comment and the current discussion. Like as in your first comment (which doesn't bear upon the current discussion)....and the NOW discussion.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Personalities instead of substance*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:40pm.
If any of you had actually read the posts on this thread, it was my post that centered on the lefts political correctness gone amuck. Typical tactics of the left is to ignore the substance of an issue or argument and concentrate on personalities or minutiae. The harm done to this child has been ignored except by those who are able to recognize the implications and consequences of many of the lefts political correctness.
And I have not changed the style nor substance of my posts in the entire time at NewsBusters. Destruction of morality, boundaries, creating racial and class divide,sexualizing our childrens lives and education, the murder of unborn defenseless children; issues that have always been my focus here at NB.
Jer will always be oppositional, that is his style. Focus on my post Jer, not Blondes.
And Troggy, best you shut up until your buddies, psychobear and incestmo arrive to back you up since you will need their support since you are only capable of throwing out one line lies and insults.
hm
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:54pm.
I write a one-liner suggesting an alternative explanation, which is later validated by the only person who can really do that and you call me a liar. As always: Get your narrative straight.
BTW: What you described sounds more like the general concept of politics. No label needed.
And for what it's worth: If everybody had thoroughly criticized the corpus of anti-terror policies with regard to their effectiveness the current methods and the way they are used could have been easily avoided.
iz funnee germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 7:19am.
ok. not funnee. sad rilly. you butt safe todei murrycan. iz miss j. fwank wilson. iz cajum2 remindz how lonelee iz troggiz trolliz witout Soros buddei. no poop on floor. sadnezz aboundingz. Only got Veet. Only got mattoodin. Only got cajum2z. Only got blondee hardoo. Only got Mizzur Blumerz. no fwankie wit soros. Sadz.
cajun, my thoughts exactly
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 12:37pm.
Stick with the topic at hand, folks. Inane personal attacks are just that: Inane.
Well, please note lotr...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 1:28pm.
that my initial post was addressed to the person introducing the topic; and my brief observation was on point, entirely reasonable and completely free of any personal attack.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 8:59pm.
Already duly noted. The comment is directed toward personal attacks in general. Defending one's self doesn't constitute a personal attack.
I've been around on NB long enough that I'd like to think that the tone of dialog is usually less inflammatory here than other politically-charged sites, so I'd like to think the standard here is higher, even if it is very tempting on the internet to "let loose" on others.
With all due respect, lotr...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:34pm.
(and, although a cliche`, I mean that quite literally because you deserve tremendous respect for the tenor and quality of your posts) but, for better or for worse, the tone of dialog here is far more inflammatory than politically-charged sites such as HuffPo and MediaMatters and HotAir where comments are monitored much more closely and subjected to far greater regulation.
NewsBusters is the Wild West by comparison. After nearly four years here, I still don't know what the rules are with respect to posting, other than there seem to be virtually none which are actually implemented with any reasonable degree of uniformity and consistency, save the prohibition against repeatedly spelling out certain profanities/vulgarities.
Jer
Pluging your
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:43pm.
Libtard sites again Jer,
Hey I got an idea, how about we go visit those Tony Snow has Cancer, or died threads.
Or anytime Cheney visited a hospital. Those were so heartwarming, and comforting.
Jer, if we are to "Wild West" for you, then why do you post about 100 times a day here?
Those type of threads at HuffPo were the very reason
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:56pm.
rules of strict moderation were implemented and strictly enforced, Boudin.
With respect to your closing question, I get a kick out of seeing how many of my comments will elicit a substance-deficient response from a stalker (that would be you). The answer: a very high percentage.
Jer
OOhh Jer, That would be name calling by you,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:23pm.
And you prop yourself up as the leader in civility, tch tch?
A fair [but in this case a minor] point, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:31pm.
I should have said "your penchant for stalking me".
Jer
Sorry Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:38pm.
I just hate to see idiocy go uncontested.
This isnt the first time you have suggested the folks here were inferior. If I thought they were, I wouldn't be here, so I take offense,,,,, not that I think you and your 100 post a day care.
Jer makes cajun curious*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:11pm.
I have been to the sites you mentioned. Conservatives get bashed there not just in the articles but the posters as well. This being a conservative site should not surprise anyone that liberals will get called out when spouting talking points only. . Posters here sometimes tough, raw, pointed, principled, and assertive. I find those qualities flattering.
So, if you dont mind taking the time, please define the "wild west" characteristics of NB for me. Thank you.
Careful Deuce
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:27pm.
Asking Jer a question he can/wont answer is akin to stalking him these days. Jer is having a little trouble remembering why he is what he is these days.
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 10:59pm.
There is not even a close equivalency in the degree of "bashing" occurring at the three websites I mentioned in comparison to that which occurs at NewsBusters. Having said that, I don't entirely disagree with your characterizations--tough, raw, pointed, etc.--and the allure of those qualities. That's why I included the phrase "for better or for worse" in my comment.
The sense of passion and spirit infusing and invigorating comment threads at a less restrictive website is palpably absent in the more sterile and banal atmospheres of the highly moderated sites. And the verbal skirmishes at the former can be clearly appealing and cathartic on, and up to, a certain level. But that level is exceedingly difficult to calibrate and, as such, it can, and often does, lead to unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive brawls.
Jer
partially agree Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:16pm.
There are at times unproductive brawls at NB. I am a registered poster at a number of other sites. But I much prefer NB for a number of reasons. The format allows for direct replies to a particular poster. The format also allows for long discussions and posting links to support ideas and debates not available at other sites. The personalities, diversity of ideas, knowledge and experiences of the posters are of great interest to me. Other sites tend to allow for opinions and talking points that lead to insults and "brawls" much more frequent than here at NB.
Even posters that share opinions I disagree with still have a degree of skill, knowledge, and experiences that provide for great debate and thoughtful introspection. There are also posters here with astounding humor and talent that add a light hearted view at times when the world seems like a very hostile place.
There are also posters here that are very intense and totally committed to a particular viewpoint and when confronted or debated on those issues will sometimes dig in their heels and throw out insults as a distraction. They are inevitable in any venue. Met one tonight calls himself russedav.
Brawls, rugged and raw posters are not as frequent at NB as you may think but perhaps it is my infrequent participation in those "brawls" that colors my perception. The extensive knowledge and intellelect of many posters here is why NB attracts those same kind of posters. A challenge is often welcomed by intelligent people. If that makes NB more like the "wild west". then I need to start wearing my boots more often....;-)
Uh oh, this is what happens
Submitted by lotr on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:17pm.
Uh oh, this is what happens when I don't verify things for myself. I must confess: I've not gone near those sites.... which is one reason why I respect guys like you venturing into "enemy territory."
But, please understand: Based upon other media enterprises (e.g., the Jon Stewart Daily Show), I've got the impression that if a conservative, no matter how logical or reasonable, came in contesting liberal conventional wisdom (say, on an issue like abortion), he would very quickly be treated to the "fuck you asshole" [sic] response.
I would be ecstatic if I were wrong....
Then be ecstatic, lotr...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 11:59pm.
because you are very wrong. Now, I don't know what may take place at dKos or DU because I don't visit those sites. But at HuffPo, there are scores of conservative posters who are friended and fanned by numerous lib members, and they mix it up quite a bit, but there is no 'F U asshole' type attacks permitted or even far milder abuse.
I was following one thread last night at HuffPo [I don't post there] and in particular the spirited banter occurring between a conservative and a few libs with needles being inserted right and left until finally the conservative said "okay, gotta go, see you dirty hippies tomorrow" which evoked some similarly good-natured retorts and that was it. There are advantages to the HuffPo approach, but also some advantages to the NB system which cajun described very well.
Jer
very glad to hear that Jer
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 10:13am.
I'm ecstatic. I believe I may have to venture over to HuffPo then.
One big problem I believe that we face in USA right now is the break down in dialog between what appears to be two factions that are becoming more and more insular. This is bad, because it results in demonization of the "other side."
I enjoy coming into NB for updates on what I believe is bias in the media, but am often drawn to the comments of those with liberal views precisely because it is them that I wish to hold dialog with -- in my mind, the converted ain't in need of conversion.
lotr...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 5:22pm.
Well I don't want to "oversell" the HuffPo civility by suggesting it is all sweetness and light," well said, chum" bonhomie on the comment threads. It's not. There are sharp and contentious exchanges and the typically cynical, often brutal assessments of the tactics employed and policies adopted by the "other side". But the really malicious personal attacks and swarming abuse has largely been eliminated--not because the folks at HuffPo are inherently more cordial and commodious, but rather the result of strict comment moderation and rule enforcement.
Finally, I could not agree with you more about the break down in dialog with and demonization of the "enemy". I recently briefly alluded to the disturbing trend toward two separate nations inhabiting one country while existing in entirely separate and distinct philosophical universes, drifting ever farther apart. It is an extraordinarily serious, seemingly insoluble issue, and one which we could spend hours discussing--and perhaps also one which is forum-worthy at some future time. (An excellent feature of NB unavailable at HuffPo and other sites.)
Jer
well said
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 9:59pm.
Agreed.... while there are philosophical differences, there's another problem of "objectifying" the "other side" (and we can all be guilty of it, me included). Fortunately there's still a fair degree of "mingling" out there, but unfortunately this seems to be less and less common. I also agree this would be a forum-worthy topic.
Torn Country
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 11:20pm.
That is why the push for long standing strong "diversity" weakens a nation and does not make it stronger. Common values, religion & language make a nation stronger. Roots are great and important to appreciate but the melting pot aspect is even more important. People who come here should not expect a remake of Iraq or whatever. This was founded as a Christian Nation by extremely religious and conservative people. It is not "us" who departed these values but progressives. They left God & his values. The values that made our laws and our Country great. There is indeed a war against our traditional morals, values, & the Constitution. We "didn't start it" as they say.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Before I leave you completely alone, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 12:44pm.
What do you consider "baiting"? For heaven's sake, I'm a lib at a conservative site. There will be many statements I disagree with. If i express that disagreement matter-of-factly--which I certainly did in this case--does that constitute "baiting"?
Is the brevity of the post the problem? Am I supposed to begin a potential dialogue by posingt a lengthy and exhaustively detailed explanation of my position which you may choose to ignore anyway?
I really don't understand why you are sick and tired. A real-world example of my objectionable baiting would help,
Jer
How about this, Jer?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 2:01pm.
TM... Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:12pm. I posted it merely to supplement my argument that NOTHING will ever satisfy those who are thoroughly invested in delegitimizing Obama. Whatever additional birth information may be revealed supporting an Hawaiian birth will merely generate more claims of fraud, conspiracy, and payoffs...and a shift in emphasis to the "natural born citizen" claim, and a ratcheting up of demands for a release of all education, financial aid, affirmative action, employment, residency and travel records--not only for Obama, but his mother, father and adoptive father as well. Blonde will not be satisfied until he does all of that and more. None of his detractors will ever be satisfied no matter what is released. Jer
You dragged my name into a thread where I hadn't posted....furthermore, you ascribed to me positions which I have never taken.
I'd call that baiting.
I told you above why I'd been mostly ignoring you lately. But you just had to keep poking and prodding, hence my big blow up at you, which is what I was attempting to avoid. Yet here you are, saying I am threatening you (which I wasn't), yet you refuse to look in the mirror at your own culpability.
Have a nice life.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
B: Jer did the same in
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 2:30pm.
B:
Jer did the same in this thread with me.
Carry on. I won't bother you again."
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/04/12/npr-frances-burqa-ban-sinister-adds-islamophobic-climate#new#ixzz1JQdkJx00
Jer:
Please don't tease us with promises you are incapable of delivering on.
Isn't this your cue for another warning by strat to all
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 3:08pm.
members of NewsBusters to "watch out for Jer...he'll try to disarm you with a smiley emoticon, but he really is trying to put you down."
That was rich. Partly because you felt it necessary to arrogate to yourself the role of Lord and Protector of this domain, officiously intervening on behalf of the mentally infirm who are incapable of thinking for themselves and making their on judgments. And partly because it was all so stunningly absurd. [Not to mention the fact that you were dead wrong.]
So, yeah, I mentioned your name in the post to Blonde. Did you think she would overlook that fact and it was therefore necessary for you to highlight it?
But, frankly strat, I no longer feel obligated to show any special deference to one who isn't man enough to accept an apology or even acknowledge the tendering of one, and lacks the integrity to respond to a request from someone--devastated that a long-time pal was upset with him--to at least grant him the courtesy of describing the alleged bad behavior so he could explain it or change it.
Sorry, I was taught differently.
Jer
A thread where you hadn't even posted, Blonde?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 2:33pm.
Are you sure you want to maintain that position? If I tried to pull that stunt, I would have already been called a liar about ten times.
And why didn't you include my response to you on that same thread which contained an apology to you, as you will note by reviewing the following comment which I posted shortly thereafter.:
**********************************************
#254 Calm down, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:58pm.
Just before responding to TM, I noticed your post to strat containing the following:
I personally don't care about Obama's COLB or BC.
What I WANT to see is his college admission and financial aid request forms.
Because I truly believe that these will prove he claimed to have been foreign born, or a citizen of another country, applying for foreign aid. Either way, damning.
Obama is mere illusion. Until he proves otherwise, I don't believe anything about him. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Your closing remark, in particular, made it appear there was little hope you would ever consider Obama anything other than a colossal fraud. I apologize for apparently "over interpreting" your words and putting inappropriate ones in your mouth.
Jer
[Just kidding about checking your PMs].
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/02/17/george-stephanopo...
***********************************************
Apparently, neither you nor strat put much stock in apologies. He also ignored mine to him.
Any other examples?
Jer
They apparently don't teach "How to Tell Time" in Law School
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 2:48pm.
I learned it in kindergarten.
8:12 p.m. (your original post which I cited) is BEFORE 8:58 p.m., which is the CALM DOWN BLONDE post to which you're referring.
So yeah, I'll stand by that statement. Because I would hardly consider my posting on that thread 3 DAYS PRIOR, kidding around w/Cool Arrow about a transgendered Sotero, to be part of the "birther" conversation where you baited me, as I said you did.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I should have realized that arrogance and humility
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 3:19pm.
are sort of like oil and water.
Jer
Locked.
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 3:22pm.
.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
B:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 2:34pm.
So are we safe to say "you turned on him?"
;)
SoL...Although fully cognizant ot the peril
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 3:24pm.
of putting words in Blonde's mouth, I think it's safe to say the answer to your question is "yes". A 180.
Jer
Getting the next generation ready
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 9:03pm.
The only point I can see for this frisking is to teach kids to accept this behavior in the future, and remind them that the government is all powerful and they have no rights.
This is something else our GOP should be on top of.
Funny how none of these twits
Submitted by rwesley2.0 on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:13am.
Funny how none of these twits give two rips about any anti-American, anti-Christian, or anti-conservative "climates".
Let's do what Europe does! Let's do what France does!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:19am.
Isn't that something Liberal always advocate because Europe/France are so much more adult than we?
So shouldn't we say "oui, oui" to a burqa ban here? I think it is time.
Oui -
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:33pm.
Ban Muslims. Burqa problem solved.
It Didn't Occur to NPR to Ask Why Muslims
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:24am.
Want to live in France where their civil rights are so trampled. And aren't they free to go back to Islamistan?
to be consistant
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:21am.
They must also support these victims of clothing prejudice.
It's a white vs. black issue
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:24am.
Absolutely prejudice.
cultural apartheid
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:32am.
There is very little difference between the demands of the Islamacists who live in Western countries and that of the White supremacists who demand their own particular rights in order to protect their 'culture'.
But yet the Libs love Muslims
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:52am.
Liberalism must be a terminal mental disease.
It's the poor misunderstood muslims...
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:21am.
They must be allowed to oppress their women if they are going to be free. They must be allowed to abuse and murder their women if they are going to be free. It's not their fault that some of them occasionally spontaneously explode in public. They must be allowed to explode to show that they are peaceful.
Christians on the other hand must not be allowed to show or display any of their religios symbols or that will upset and offend the muslims and prevent them from being free.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Inhumane
Submitted by miss911ninja on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:02pm.
They must also allow their women to suffer from Vitamin D deficiency, unless they're taking supplements. The young Muslim mother who pulled on her long black gloves and covered her face before stepping out to take her daughter for a stroller ride "in the afternoon sun," wasn't getting any benefit from that sun. And can you imagine never feeling the sun on your face? It's inhumane.
If Only
Submitted by John21 on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:23am.
We had any leadership in this country, we wouldn't be kissing up to every nutjob minority. I was educated in school that democracy was based on majority rules, with this administration and the leftist media they have managed to turn that into any special interest group that whine loud enough or pays well enough rules.
The corruption of America is increasing because we the people have lost are way and have quit thinking for ourselves and listening to the elitist media to think for us. Unfortunitly the elitist are less qualified to do that than at any time in our history.
You went to a lousy school if
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:59am.
You went to a lousy school if they taught you that we live in a democracy.
No Tyranny
Submitted by miss911ninja on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:04pm.
Yes, and actually our system was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority.
Instead,
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:34pm.
we have tyranny of the minority.
Majority Rules
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:54pm.
Thank God we don't live in a system where the majority always rules. It seems to me that the beauty of our system is that it seeks to protect the rights of the individual, and the minority, even against the tyranny of the majority.
GMTA!
Submitted by miss911ninja on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:07pm.
GMTA!
There is anther issue about this.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:53am.
Just this past Sunday, for the first time I have ever seen this. A woman pulled up to a parking spot in Queens New York wearing a Burka.
Look, forget about if it is a religious right or not. This woman driving an SUV wearing that hood is dangerous. She cannot possibly have reasonable vision to drive. Imagine she is in an accident and her slit for viewing the world shifts and she is now blind driving her SUV, let alone the lack of peripheral vision.
Come on people, get real!
You want to see Islamophobia?
Submitted by russedav on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:52am.
Wait until Dim pseudo-females like Nazi Pelosi are forcibly kept barefoot and pregnant and Dim pseudo-males like Bwaney Fwank are castrated before being tortured to death and other Dim pseudo-males like liar Upchuck Schumer gets to be molested by imams. AntiChristian bigots who try to overthrow our once Christian nation and replace it with whatever other system comes their way should be wary of what they wish for, but they're too stupid in their Biblical and historical illiteracy stemming from the gross fascism of their deranged narcissism to be able to do so. Our Founders warned that if our nation abandoned its Christian faith it would be a certain death sentence and for those few of us God has given eyes to see, the terrible possibility of that threat looms ever closer so only God can save us now; Christianity was all that stopped Islam from overrunning Europe centuries ago and that same dire historical truth will repeat itself here.
NPR is populated by kooks.
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 11:59am.
The muslims would have to cut off Nina Totenberg's head before NPR would question the threat they pose. Dopes. Go have another piece of mama Totenberg's holiday fruitcake.
ISLAM ON THE MARCH.......
Submitted by Herbster on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:14pm.
The barbarians are no longer at the gates.....they are in our cities. We have judges now considering sharia law in the cases that come before them. We have the usual suspects in the state run media. We have banks involved in sharia loans. We have the usual suspects at all levels of government.......including the one who lives in public housing called the White House. Are we so blinded by political correctness that we cannot see what has happened to England, France, Spain, Germany, etc? Must we wait to see the victory mosques being built. ala ground zero in New York City? These people move to Europe and the U.S. not to start a new life and assimilate, but to gradually succeed in attaining a world wide caliphate. This is what is taught in muslim "Schools" worldwide. Hate America, hate Israel, hate Christianity is the byword. ................once the camel gets it's nose under the tent.......
VIVA LA FRANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by notinstl on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:19pm.
VIVA LA FRANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Personally, I fully support
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:33pm.
Personally, I fully support islamophobia....
There are a whole lot of REAL
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:51pm.
There are a whole lot of REAL reasons to fear Islam. Is that still a phobia or are phobias only for perceived dangers when there really is none?
Also, the beginning of wisdom is to fear God. Journalists would rightly fear it if they knew what they were endorsing!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Real Reasons to Fear
Submitted by miss911ninja on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:14pm.
That is why I suggest rejecting the term "Islamophobia," but proudly calling ourselves ISLAMOSAVVY.
No, I think the millions
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:50pm.
of non French born muslims who are overwhelming France are creating the "anti muslim climate" along with the yearly riots and fires set by criminal muslim youths each spring in Paris.
Painting with a Broad Brush
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:52pm.
There is a lot of universalizing going on in this thread. Many of you speak about Muslims as though all Muslims believe the same things, as though all Muslims live the same way, and as though all Muslims act the same way. You simply can't say "Muslims believe ..." or "Muslims do..." because such statements ignore variety and diversity in the practice of Islam. Not all Muslim women are burqa wearers. And not all those who wear the burqa are forced to do so. In fact, some choose the burqa because it is a symbol of their faith, akin to a Christian choosing to wear a cross. Some Muslim women in many Islamic societies are doctors, lawyers, college professors, etc. The vast majority of Muslims don't abuse their women, nor castrate and torture men. If you value critical thought, then you should avoid taking a few sensationalized examples and arguing that those who engage in marginal and fringe activities represent all Islam.
Please stop apologizing for
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 12:54pm.
Please stop apologizing for these people. Nobody is buying it any more.
Religious Freedom
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:03pm.
It seems to me that anybody who cares about freedom, especially religious freedom, ought to be concerned. It is the little "chipping away" that erodes our rights in such a way that we don't even realize it is happening. I think the famous quote by Martin Niemoller is appropriate here:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."
More lefty drivel, not to
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 2:52pm.
More lefty drivel, not to mention unoriginal...
Say again
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:39pm.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because they destroyed themselves.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because they also destroyed themselves..
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because because you don't like the Jews.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
You got that one wrong. It's "and there was no one left who wants to speak to me." That's because most people don't speak to the self-destructive. It's just a waste of time. The self-destructive types usually don't last long enough to even hear what we're saying.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Niemoller
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:17pm.
Martin Niemoller was a German pastor, and initially a supporter of Hitler, who made this statement after reflecting upon the sequence of events that led to the Holocaust. In this quote he is expressing regret at not recognizing soon enough the sequence of events, the small violations against freedom because those being targeted were somebody else, that turned Germany into a dictatorship. I dropped this quote because if we compromise on the freedoms of others because they are "others," then what will be our defense when the government comes for our most cherished freedoms, like guns, for example.
One thing you are not taking into account...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:41pm.
That Islam is anti-western. We were not anti muslim until they attacked us. It is they that are trying to destroy us. Not the other way around. We westerners are on the defense, not the offense.
All Muslims?
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:08pm.
You think all Muslims attacked us on 9/11? Did all Christians murder George Tiller? Is it possible that the men who flew the planes into the Twin Towers did so for reasons other than religion? Political reasons, perhaps? Social reasons perhaps?
Gee.....I must have missed...........
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:12pm.
all of the Christians dancing in the streets after Tillers murder. I did however see most of the Muslim world dancing in the streets after 9-11, and shouting "death to America". Poor analogy my friend.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Also, who does more for Muslims? American Taxpayers, thats who
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:27pm.
Why, I dont know!
How many Muslims have given their lives for the sake of others? Thousands of other folks of faith (or not) have just this decade given their lives to help Muslims.
Muslims die for selfish reasons, for virgins, and other BS, but rarely freedom. If not for Iraq, I could say never.
Maybe our newest dimwit should remind us of the last time the Muslims were promoting peace, rather then creating conflict. Maybe he/she can find a conflict other then South America, (commies and liberty at stake) where Islam is not the dividing force.
Those who practice Islam are slaves to their religion, and hate those who are not. I have seen it happen before my very eyes. Muslims, unlike Re-pubes, dont compromise.
OMG. Yeah, Allahu Akbar translates to "I want ice cream"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:47pm.
We've had some real dangerous dhimmiots here at NB, but you're #3 with a bullet at this point.
The vast majority of
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 2:22pm.
The vast majority of Muslims.....[ ]......If you value critical thought, then you should avoid taking a few sensationalized examples and arguing that those who engage in marginal and fringe activities represent all Islam.
Do they all live by Shari'a law?
Shari'a
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 2:49pm.
Depends upon what you mean by Shari'a law. Shari'a means different things to different Muslims. There are Shari'a schools of thought, such as Hanbali and Hanafi (just to name two of several). Hanbali would be most familiar to Americans because it is the very conservative interpretation of Shari'a that is associated with Saudi Arabia. Hanafi Shari'a is very different, being the more liberal approach of the two. In addition to there being different schools of Shari'a law, there are also criminal codes based upon Shari'a, and civil law codes based upon Shari'a. Many Islamic countries allow civil disputes to be adjudicated through Shari'a law (often if both parties agree), but do not have a Shari'a criminal code. In fact, there are only a few countries, like Nigeria, that have installed a Shari'a criminal code.
Walking around like the Grim Reaper is akin to wearing a cross?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:32pm.
LOL.
See, now if you said "carrying a cross" you might have had a point, but of course no one does that.
A false analogy
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:04pm.
"In fact, some choose the burqa because it is a symbol of their faith, akin to a Christian choosing to wear a cross."
That's a false analogy, as only WOMEN wear Burqa's (When's the last time you saw, or even heard of, some guy, other than a suicide bomber, wearing a Burqa?), while both men and women can, and do, wear Christian crosses. It's equivalent to making an analogy between a t-shirt and a corset.
Also, Islam BANS the use of religious symbols, like crosses. So, that Burqa CAN'T be a symbol of their faith, as you claimed. It must be for something else, don't you agree?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Disagree
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:07pm.
Nope, I disagree because I have met burqa wearers who describe it exactly and I stated. I didn't just make that up.
Yea, right.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:18pm.
Yea, right. I really believe that a women who wears a Burqa does so because, even though religious symbols are banned in Islam, they want to symbolism their Islamic beliefs, NOT.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Your view of symbols it too narrow
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:32pm.
Your understanding of the term symbol is too narrow here. Islam is very careful about idolatry, thus symbols in the manner you are thinking, images of Muhammad for example, are strictly forbidden. That does not mean their religion is devoid of symbolism, just the opposite in fact. A Muslim who prays properly (on knees, forehead to the ground) symbolizes his or her submission to Allah. Colors have also been important symbols to Muslims. Women who choose to adopt the burqa, hijab (and the various other coverings) in contexts where it is not expected of them to do so often describe their choice to do so as representing their faith and commitment to the community and to Islam. In other words, it is symbolic of that commitment.
Ok, you're an expert.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:43pm.
Ok, you're an expert, and we shall all defer to you when discussing Islam. Never mid tht fact that the "colors" you refer to are NOT religious in nature, but reflect the old governments that existed when Islam was first conceived and praticed. The same is true with all other "Islamic' symbols, like bowing, or the Crescent Moon.
I don't know where you've been getting your information, but Islams bans ALL symbolism. Muslims don't even bow to Allah, as you claim. Do you know why they bow? They bow to display CONTRITION for their sins. It''s not a symbolic act at all.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
All Religions Use Symbolism
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:56pm.
I submit to you that there never has been, and never will be, a religion that does not employ symbolism in some manner. I will give you another example since you did not like the others above. During Hajj, at the village of Mina, Muslims will cast small pebbles at a stone pillar. One of these pillars is is known as "the Great Satan." If you want to argue that Islam is devoid of symbolism, are you going to argue that Muslims literally believe the this large stone is actually Satan and that they are flicking pebbles at the actual Satan? The small people they throw are indeed symbols, and the stones they flick them at are symbols as well (of their rejection of Satan).
That violates Islam
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:07pm.
The casting of the stones doesn't symbolism Islam. They people who are doing that are emulating the actions of Mohammad. When they emulate his actions, they are sybolizing HIM. By symbolizing a man, a form of worship, they are actually violating Islamic teachings.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
LOL. Yeah, muslims are no dopes.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:16pm.
They're so intelligent that they believe there are evil spirits that fly out of your nose when you sneeze.
Here you go Al Crowa - about 80 pages of "rulings" on Jinns.
Wrong Analogy Justin
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:42pm.
You fail to point out the origin of these coverings - to prevent men from being overwhelmed with natural, unrestrained lust for post-menarche females (note, pre-menarche females are not commanded to wear coverings). The covering is a method of keeping one's females (yes, there's the concept of "ownership" of females by males) safe from males not of the family. The presumption is that all males are untrustworthy and lecherous. The presumption is that a female's father and brothers are OK, yet the same father and brothers are potential rapists and kidnappers in the eyes of others not of their families. In other words, no one is to be trusted, the tradition of the desert nomads.
So, the burqa is a protection of females from males in a society that trusts no one. Every female I've asked about their coverings say it is part of their devotion but also state they feel safer, more comfortable to be covered in public away from people's eyes, particularly men.
The cross, however, is a symbol of devotion to Christ and is not meant to hide anything. The cross is not a symbol of distrust of all men (or women for that matter). In fact, the cross is a symbol of foundational Christian love for all man.
Equivalencies from the Left are usual wrong. Yours is no different.
Origins
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:06pm.
I am fully aware of the origins of these garments. They were quite common in the ancient Near East. Indeed, Paul in 1 Timothy argues that women ought to wear similar veils. However, it is possible for a woman to adopt the burqa as a symbol of her faith independent of its origins--the religious imagination is endlessly creative that way. For instance, it took a while for the cross to catch on as a religious symbol for Christians. In fact, the literature seems to indicate that early Christians were quite embarrassed by the cross as it was only used by the Romans for criminals and undesirables. They were upset that their hero, their messiah, died such a humiliating death. Nonetheless, despite its rather horrific origins, the cross caught on as faith symbol for a religious community.
You're pointing out a contradiction.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:10pm.
You keep claiming that a Burqa symbolizes Islam, yet Islam itself doesn't allow for the use of that type of symbolism. Isn't that a contradiction?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The cross was "worn',
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:07pm.
The cross was "worn', symbolically as His burden, by Christ to the place of His execution as well as in His death on that cross out of His devotion and saving grace for mankind. Christians wear the cross as a symbol of devotion to Christ dying for our sins. Burqas are not worn because Mohammed or Allah wore them. Mohammed and Allah do not require the pre-menstrual females to wear coverings, nor are coverings required of men. They are their purely to protect one man's female from other men.
Coverings were and are cultural and utilitarian, with the religion of Islam wedged in between history. Your own arguments here point to the fact that Muslims are not monolithic. One Muslim's Allah is not the same as another man's Allah, but burqas are Allah's will? What does the Koran say about coverings. What does the Haddith say?
Where is your proof that Christ ordered all women to cover outside the home or when non-family males were or may be encountered? There is no commandment to wear the cross in Christianity. Explain how burqas are symbolic and honor Allah. You cannot do it without the call of the desert nomad to protect his chattel.
To view them as equivalencies is superficial and dissociative of their origin and meaning.
I guess that means France is now "far-right"
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:01pm.
While I am inclined to disagree with this law (what's next, outlawing yamakas or roman collars?), the overt liberal bias of NPR is plainly evident with statements like:
"...he wants voters from the far right. He's scared of a rise in the far right. So I think the reasons for enacting it are a bit sinister."
"Far right"? "Sinister"? Utter horse dung.
So then, of one wants to get into the finger pointing, it would appear that it is precisely the opposite -- that it's really the "sinister" far-leftists (i.e., the "secular progressives") who are currently in power in France.
Priceless! Alert NPR!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:46pm.
Priceless! Alert NPR!
"that it's really the "sinister" far-leftists (i.e., the "secular progressives") who are currently in power in France."
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
You are sheltered from all
Submitted by Hologram5 on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 1:06pm.
You are sheltered from all onlookers and completely cut off from society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this inherently IS the problem. If they don't want to be part of the society the live with then why live there? You either be part of the society you make up or you go back to the desert and live in the mud huts you came from. This is why there is so much phobia of Islam, they separate themselves and isolate themselves.
I'm surprised it took this
Submitted by ThatDude on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 2:09pm.
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to make note of that. I was arguing with my liberal cousin about this the other day when he posted about the ban. Apparently liberals are even willing to throw the French and their culture under the bus in order for more Muslim tolerance. Immigration only works if those immigrating are willing to at least somewhat adjust to the laws, social, and cultural norms of the country they immigrate to. If people are unwilling to do so, then they shouldn't leave their country in the first place. It's like having a house guest who doesn't respect house rules and keeps pushing beyond each capitulation until the homeowner no longer is in control of his own household.
NPR sees nothing sinister
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 3:46pm.
NPR sees nothing sinister about burning bibles, raping non-muslim women because they deserve it, slavery and the killing of christians and Jews for sport. NPR is nothing more than a group of pro-islamic cyborgs supporting the collective.
They rape all women, Muslims
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:25pm.
They rape all women, Muslims included, and surprisingly, rape young boys also, & get away with it. 3 or 4 men are needed as witnesses & be willing to testify for the woman. Otherwise she is defaming the men with a false charge, and thus she faces severe punishment! They raped that Libyan female atty. who cried out to the press present. They took her off & tried to put a BAG over her head! VERY BRUTAL. It is Muslim women who testify to the horrors.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Compiled articles:
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:34pm.
Compiled articles: http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimrape.htm
snip ==
The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims in the Swedish and European public.
from: http://www.truthandgrace.com/muslimrape.htm
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Truth and Grace
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:41pm.
truthandgrace.com?! "A Christian Review of Bad Religions..." That hardly sounds like a neutral source! In fact, sounds like they might have an ax to grind against any religion that is not Christianity.
Thanks for further cementing
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:54pm.
Thanks for further cementing your legacy here, most likely brief at this rate, as a troll.
If you had looked at the link you would have seen it was a listing of articles from the MSM detailing the crimes.
Cheerleader for Sharia
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:07pm.
This guy's obviously a cheerleader for Sharia. He has to be, or he's absolutely dense about it because with all the problems going on with the Middle East, the one thing in common is that there is a HUGE push for enacting Sharia in its most severe form(like in Iran) in all the other places with the uprisings.
He might be that dense, but I doubt it, my money's on the cheerleader. He's got no problem with it.
-Jon
Wrong
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:11pm.
I have said it before on these boards, and I will say it again. I am not religious, I am in fact an atheist. So I am not in bed with any religion. I am, however, very interested in fairness.
Curious how compelled you are
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:32pm.
Curious how compelled you are to feel on the personal level, the desire to defend Christians as strongly as your displayed desire to defend the antithesis of Christianity, Islam?
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Then STHU, Crow.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:30pm.
By admission, your posts on religious discussions now carry zero weight.
Now here's a nice MOPAR gearhead site - maybe you can go over there and proselytize about the superiority of Fords, another topic you likely know NOTHING about.
Hey, now that is a great site!
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:56pm.
And Fords do suck, but not as hard as Chevy's
Boudin: you see the Super Bee?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:59pm.
Almost as cool as a Chevy Volt ;)
I used to smoke
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:51pm.
I used to put them a sleep, with my 383. My 69" 360, was even quicker. Torsion bar cars, the doors on these cars swing like new.
To be fair I was naive W/(330 JetFire w/2SPG) (great car), stupid even/(390), I just loved driving 80 miles to get a tire from the only guy in the State who could do passenger car Split Rims.
Truly, I love them all!
Social Behavior and Religion
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:42pm.
You have to be careful about confusing the things that people do with their religion. In other words, not everything a person does, Muslim or not, is done in the name of religion, or because their religion demands it. For instance, I have known church-going people over the years who smoke pot. Is it therefore legitimate to conclude that because such people are Christian, and smoke pot, that all Christians smoke pot? Is it equally fair to assume that since this Christian smoked pot, that the religion demands or requires such behavior? If those men raped that woman, we can't jump to the conclusion that they did it for religious reasons! In fact, they may have been motivated by something completely unrelated to religion.
You juts don't get it, do you?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 4:57pm.
"If those men raped that woman, we can't jump to the conclusion that they did it for religious reasons! "
Ye, we can, because they stated that as their reason! That's also the reason that women, having been raped, are stoned to death, because, according to Islam, they are now impure, and thus an affront to God, Allah, himself!
WHY do you keep avoid the uncomfortable truth that in Islam, women are property, no more and no less? They have no rights whatsoever. Rights are only afforded to men, and only Muslim men at that. It's written right in the Koran. The Burqa is a physical symbol of that property status. Only WOMEN wear them, and they wear them so they don't appear to be impure and subject to punishment according to the Koran.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not all are literalists
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:04pm.
The Qur'an is an ancient religious text grounded in a very specific cultural context. Like the Old Testament, like the New Testament, it reflects the values of the culture in which it was written. That is why you can find similar objectionable material in all these texts. I maintain that most Muslims know this, and thus they know how to read and understand the text in such a way that makes it more compatible with modern values--just as Christians and Jews do with their sacred texts. The mistake you are making is assuming that all Muslims read and understand the text literally, when, in fact, "fundamentalist" Muslims are about as numerous and biblical inerrantists...meaning not that common.
You maintain an incorrect assumption
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:26pm.
"I maintain that most Muslims know this, and thus they know how to read and understand the text in such a way that makes it more compatible with modern values--just as Christians and Jews do with their sacred texts."
You maintain an incorrect assumption. The vast majority of the followers of Islam pride themselves on NOT modifying their social and religious believes and practices according to "modern values." They pride themselves on maintaining the social and religious values of over a thousand years ago, including the subjugation of women. It is this maintenance, this permanence, of values which is one of Islam's greatest appeals.
Most Muslims don't WANT their core values, their beliefs, to change over time. They reject that idea completely. Which is why they have so many problems integrating into "modern" society. The resistance to this ban is a perfect example of being unwilling to modify their "old" values to coincide with "modern" values." "Modern values " say that the Burqa's are not necessary, and are demeaning to women. Do most Burqa wearers accept this and, following the dictates of "modern values" cast off those Burqa's? No, they reject that idea, don't they? So much for adopting their believes to reflect those of "modern values."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Jesus Christ had sex with pre-pubescent girls?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:27pm.
...and then wrote that it was A-OK like Mo did?
Your equivalency argument is a steaming pile of camel dung.
Average Age of Marriage
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:36pm.
In fact, it was quite common for girls to marry by the time they were 12 in first century Palestine (the homeland of Jesus). This was necessitated by an average lifespan that was between 30-40 years. Moreover, as fathers wanted to keep their sons as labor for as long as possible, 12 year olds were often married to men in their early 20s.
It wasn't that common
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:12pm.
It wasn't that common as you believe, especially at that age. As a matter of fact, it was very rare.
MOST families keep their children around until AFTER they reached adulthood, which was around the age of 18 or so (which is why adulthood is normally considered being 18 or older. That's not a recent invention, you know. That's concept of adulthood predates Christianity itself.).
The parents needed their children to say and work at home and not marry someone else at a young age. It wasn't until the prospective husband could prove that he could provide for his family that a girl was even allowed to marry. How many prospective husbands could provide for a 12 year old bride? The answer to that is: very few! A girl that young wouldn't have the skills necessary to maintain a household, to care for their husband and their children, as was expected of all brides. 12 year old brides? That almost never happened. A girl that young couldn't even produce children, which was the main reason for marriages.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Childhood
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:15pm.
No, childhood as you imagine it is a modern invention. In the ancient world and through the middle ages children as young as twelve were reaching adulthood. Moreover, in ancient Palestine, with such a short average life span an 18 year old would practically be a crone.
Childhood is a modern invention?
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:21pm.
I think you are mistaken.
How 15% of American girls go through puberty by the age of SEVEN
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Tell that to the Assyrians
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:42pm.
"No, childhood as you imagine it is a modern invention."
Yea, right, tell that to the Assyrians, who, somewhere around 3500 BC, invented terms like "adolescent" and "adult". "Modern invention," my ass!
Of course, the actual terms we use are adopted from Latin, but, as I can't write ancient Assyrian cuneiform, it'll have to do.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Have you ever studied history?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:51pm.
"Moreover, in ancient Palestine, with such a short average life span an 18 year old would practically be a crone."
Have you ever actually studied History? Most people in those days, men and women both, died at the age of 50 to 60, if they were lucky enough to survive childhood. Unfortunately, most children died by the age of three in those days. People, on average, haven't died at the young ages you claim since we switched from being hunter-gatherers to agrarians over 10 thousand years ago. The steady, predictable food sources which agriculture provided us lead to vastly increased lifespans.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
OK, Crow, I see you are going the nitpickization route.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 5:51pm.
Now tell us about six-years olds "in the homeland of Jesus."
And how, according to Mo, it's acceptable for men to stimulate themselves by rubbing their dicks on infants, AKA "thighing."
Pedophilia decrees from www.islamic-fatwa.net
Question 1809
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question forwarded by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)
Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children. (mufa’khathat - literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child).
What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her ?
Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:
As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.
It would seem that Crow
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:11pm.
had to visit the Islamist Apologist website for his next talking point, SoL. Perhaps, he hadn't counted on someone, or more than one, who actually knows of what he speaks, when it comes to Islam.
UpNorth:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:20pm.
He may actually be a mufa’khathat-er.
Thankfully, I never been invited to a wedding where female babies were passed around for mufa’khathat-ing. I usually just hang at the bar and flirt with (unrelated) adult women.
Islamic Fatwa
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:23pm.
You do realize, don't you, that islamic-fatwa.net is in Arabic? Are you able to translate Arabic and thus confirm the contents of question 1809?
Again, he doesn't address the message,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:27pm.
only the way one may have found the message. Tell us, Justin, would you tolerate the practice if it were your daughter, niece or the daughter or niece of someone close to you? Reading your apologies for the Islamists, I have to think your answer would be yes.
Try this
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:36pm.
Well, you can always try this site. It's in English. If that doesn't work, try this one instead.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
... and my favorite, http://www.islam-qa.com/en
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:42pm.
New fatwas every day!
AND you can search by perversion!
A Fatwa A Day Keeps The Infidel Away
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:38pm.
Didn't know Allah is cool with abortion. No wonder the Left hearts Islam.
Anyone still think Allah is the same as God in Christianity?
The last sentence in the above link sounds like a new NBC sitcom based on the old Robert Young 1950's TV series.
Strat:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:38pm.
Oh, yeah, remember Bud?
What a juvenile delinquent he was.
"Bud, so you didn't put out the garbage again last night???"
Funny stuff over there at IQ&A though. "Due to zina, I didn't make nifaas, because I thought tawaaf would excuse me, except in the case of makkah, with the extenuating circumstance of moderate bleeding due to ihram.
I don't know why, but
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:54pm.
this one has weighed heavily on my mind and soul for most of the day.
Jer
Bud or nifaas?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:56pm.
Oh yeah, that one. Always a moral dilemma.
"Smoke em if you got em!"
Which may be resolved by simply asking...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:57pm.
What would Bud do?
Jer
There's a typo in that
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:03pm.
There's a typo in that translation. The correct translation is it "... is permissible for a person to place the audio player inside the toilet whilst he listens to it."
Ahh...Now it makes perfect sense.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:13pm.
Allah be praised.
Jer
Did Jerry Lewis Write That Fatwa?
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:58pm.
I laughed till my head came off.
Bud doesn't ring a bell at this moment. Is he on Haij from NewsBusters?
SoL, Come on it's the recycle boxes, and all that sustainability
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 9:13pm.
BS... and of course the games moslems play
Shoots brah, Looks like you all wiped out Crow... ROTFLMAO, yea crow I'm laughing AT you!
You Didn't Build That.
The way you summarize what you read
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:50pm.
remains mysterious. Where is there any support whatsoever for abortion in what you linked?
Wow, lookee here, strat
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:55pm.
Troggy is trying to engage you. He was even somewhat polite (for a change).
Poor little troll is attention starved today.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Ouch, bet those
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:43pm.
slaps stung, Cobra. I wonder if the Crow will now claim, that because they're in English, they aren't "authentic" or have been hijacked by those seeking to undermine the "Religion of Peace" by exposing the truth of it.
Yes, Crow, I am fluent in Arabic.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:45pm.
الذهاب يمارس الجنس مع نفسك
You cheated!
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 6:55pm.
Be honest, you used an online translator!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra, no I am fluent in Arabic.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:09pm.
But this translator is much more accurate.
Try it.
SoL
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 7:35pm.
As you have demonstrated your ability to say "go away" in Arabic and in a very unflattering manner for that matter, I wonder whether you could direct me to the source of the little excerpt you posted above.
Allah is the source. I know you've heard of him.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:01pm.
He's in the process of taking over your country at this very moment.
So this is a case
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:09pm.
where your evasion means you don't know and you just copied and pasted something you believe to be true?
Allah knows best.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:12pm.
I think we're all onboard with that.
SoL
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:22pm.
That you have this special personal relationship with Allah together with your fluency in Arabic cursing makes all your statements concerning this subject so vacuously true as if they had never been posted.
Correct. I have cleared all of this with Allah.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/13/2011 - 8:27pm.
Continue questioning us at your peril.
iz funnee germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 9:13am.
hey murrycane, you attachment butt so no fall down and roll florrz get dirtee. you be cereal nah or merkel, she power, she poop on you. Soros! Power! Merkel! Golbal Warmtime!
Pee Es: merkel is conservativz. Got boney fide baloney.
Pee Pee Es: merkel she more power than you Allah, murrycane.
Anyone see
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 7:58pm.
this
or this
Seems that two men, one Afghan and one Iranian, burned a Koran, Quran, or whatever the title du jour is today. SO, where are the outraged Islamists storming the Iranian embassy, or the Afghan embassy? Where are the riots, and the fatwas?
After all, if it took place in Iran, as purported, isn't the Islamic Republic of Iran responsible?
Give me hope, UpNorth
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:43pm.
I was wondering if there was enough of them books to burn before they would,,,,,,,,, well lets say, "thin themselves out".
Yeah - it's so much nicer and
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 04/12/2011 - 8:25pm.
Yeah - it's so much nicer and less 'sinister' to beat Muslim women if they happen to be in the company of men not their spouse. Or behead them for 'allowing' themselves to be gang-raped by Muslim men. Or getting their hands cut off for not making the falafel crisp enough.
Yeah. The way Muslims treat their women isn't 'sinister' at all.