₦airaland Forum

Empiree:
Sorry bro. Islam is Qur'an. QUR'AN it's Islam. Quran is REVEALATION not history books. Quran is the only accurate Divine Book that's guaranteed protection.

When it comes to Islam, the first thing we turn to is Qur'an that's our primary source of information. Not a piece of literature elsewhere. Quran sits in Judgement over everything else. You had better off saying "information about Islam". History is separately written by people which may contain inaccurate information.



Why didn't you answer this if you want to talk about Qur'an doesn't give information how prophet Muhammad was a prophet?. Why did you skip this?

Your attempt at muddling things up further reveals how ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest you are, the hallmark of a true Muslim.

The Quran is never Islam's only source document; we have the Qur'an, the hadith and the sirah. The Quran is not always detailed and/or clear hence you need the sirah, the hadith and the tafsir to clear up the confusions in the Quran. All the 5 schools of Islamic jurisprudence accept this as a fact.

You can try to muddle up issues as much as you want which further exposes your dishonesty.

I laughed when you tried, again, to muddle up the prophecy of the coming of Christ, and at the same time brought Mohammed into the equation, using the Christian scripture which you Muslims claim to be 'corrupt' or had been 'corrupted'. You Muslims are 100% confused.

How is it convenient for Muslims to lie with straight face?

Empiree:
Good. You don't agree because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible that 99 year old Josef married 12 year old Mary. Therefore, you are under no obligation to believe historian. Am I right?.

It is the same with historian called Ibn Ishaq that true2god is talking about. He wants to teach you Islam but he said if you want to know about Islam you should study sirah of prophet Muhammad (saw) written by In Ishaq. He said Quran only contains 10% history of Islam.

Now if you are sincere enough, why would you wanna believe historian who is not the prophet and his writing is not a Divine Book, the same way historian wrote about Josef and Mary?. In Ishaq was not the prophet but historian. Why would you wanna believe everything he said?.

Stop mixing things up bro; you are being intellectually dishonest. Read my post again, I said that the Qur'an contains less that 10% information (not history) about Islam. The sirah rasul allahh is the earliest biography about Islam and Mohammed available anywhere.

1)The Quran does not contain how Mohammed became a fake prophet.

2)The Quran does not have information on how khadija took Mohammed to her uncle, waraqa.

3) The Quran does not tell us how Mohammed became suicidal when the so-called angel jibril attempted to choke him to death, etc. There are many things Muslims believed and taught that are in the sirah but not in the Qur'an. If some are embarrassing to Muslims, it is not my fault.

There is nowhere it was recorded that Joseph was 99 while Mary was 12 at the point they married. You can show me the document if you have any. This information is only circulated by Muslims to justify Mohammed's marriage to Aisha when she was 6.

enilove:
You are right , most Christians need to know one or two things about Islam so as not to get into their traps.
Pls , try and create time even if its on weekend to teach us one or two things for Christ's sake.

How can I get the electronic copy of the surah?

Thanks . God bless you , in Jesus' name.

Give me your email address to forward you the e-copy of sirah rasool allahh by Mohammed ibn ishaq and the tafsir of the Koran by ibn Kathie.

enilove:
You are very correct .

It baffles one why the Muslims see this kind of repugnant declaration as God's revelation.

Why should a right thinking person be gambling with his\her life?

The most obnoxious answer someone could give regarding that surah 33:53 was that it was revealed to teach basic morals.

To me , I see the below as even worse than that Surah 33:53 :
Allah SWT says:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ۥ ٓ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ۗ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ۥ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلٰلًا مُّبِينًا
"It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error."
(QS. Al-Ahzaab: Verse 36)

Allah used to consult Muhammad for decisions and after that , no more options for the Muslims but to just follow .
But there was a case where Allah and Muhammad made mistake and someone had to put them right :

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512:
Sahih Bukhari :
Narrated Al-Bara:

There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)

The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:

'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95)

So , Allah and Muhammad did not remember the blinds and the unfit .

The worst of them all is this :

Allah SWT says:

وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِىٓ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِى فِى نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَخْشٰىهُ ۖ فَلَمَّا قَضٰى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنٰكَهَا لِكَىْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِىٓ أَزْوٰجِ أَدْعِيَآئِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
"And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished."
(QS. Al-Ahzaab: Verse 37)

I know the Muslims really need prayers . What do you think?

The best way to reach out to Muslims is through their own books: the Koran, the hadith and the sirah rasool allahh. These three types of Islamic source documents are enough to debate any Muslim and show him the foolishness in following the 7th century Arabian warlord.

The idea of using the Bible to convince a radical online Muslim is a waste of time; their own books already condemned their perfect man as a charlatan. You can see thousands of reasons, inside those books, that directly condemned the prophet of allahh (police be upon him).

On the ayah and the hadith you posted above, that's the way to go. No any critically-minded person will read those expositions and still consider Mohammed normal, even by the 7th century standard. Most Muslims are decent human beings who are very ignorant of the damning contents, in the 3 Islamic canonical books, against their criminal prophet. If you read sirah rasool Allah, by ibn ishaq you will surely conclude that Mohammed can only be compared to Uther Pendragon, if you watch the adventure of MERLIN.

You are doing a great job, keep it up. Learn more about Islam through the hadith and the sirah. The Quran contains less than 10% information about Islam.

enilove:
What kind of caricature post is this ? Was that the evidence Muhammad gave to show God called him?
It would have been better if you had not replied.

Must you follow religion because others are into it without knowing what it is all about ?

Muhammad had no evidence to show the people, and they there4 decided not to listen to him.
Muhammad had to take up arms with bandits to fight and force people to accept Islam.

THERE ARE SO MANY REASONS WHY THE QURAN YOU QUOTED IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD BUT MUHAMMAD'S.

When someone comes and say God calls me and his revelations are mostly in his favour , you have to be suspicious

Book 008, Number 3333:
Muslim :
Anas b. Malik (Allah be pleased with him) reported: When Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married Zainab bint jahsh, he invited people (to the wedding feast) and they ate food. They then sat there and entered into conversation. He (the Holy Prophet) made a stir as if he was preparing to stand up, but (the persons busy in talking) did not stand up. When he (the Holy Prophet) saw it, he stood up and when he did so, some other persons stood up. 'Asim and Abd al-A'la in their narrations made this addition: Three (persons) sat there, and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) came there to enter (the apartment) but he found the people sitting there. Then they stood up and went away. He said: Then I came and informed Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) that they had gone away. He (the Holy Prophet) then came there until he entered (the apartment). I also went and was about to enter, when he hung a curtain between me and him (and it was on this occasion that) Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, revealed this verse:" O you who believe, enter not the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you for a meal, not waiting for its cooking being finished to the (words)" Surely this is serious in the sight of Allah" (xxxiii. 53).

Allah SWT says:
يٰٓأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتَ النَّبِىِّ إِلَّآ أَنْ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ إِلٰى طَعَامٍ غَيْرَ نٰظِرِينَ إِنٰىهُ وَلٰكِنْ إِذَا دُعِيتُمْ فَادْخُلُوا فَإِذَا طَعِمْتُمْ فَانْتَشِرُوا وَلَا مُسْتَئْنِسِينَ لِحَدِيثٍ ۚ إِنَّ ذٰلِكُمْ كَانَ يُؤْذِى النَّبِىَّ فَيَسْتَحْىِۦ مِنْكُمْ ۖ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَسْتَحْىِۦ مِنَ الْحَقِّ ۚ وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُوهُنَّ مَتٰعًا فَسْئَلُوهُنَّ مِنْ وَرَآءِ حِجَابٍ ۚ ذٰلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُ لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ ۚ وَمَا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تُؤْذُوا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَلَآ أَنْ تَنْكِحُوٓا أَزْوٰجَهُ ۥ مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦٓ أَبَدًا ۚ إِنَّ ذٰلِكُمْ كَانَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ عَظِيمًا
"O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity."
(QS. Al-Ahzaab: Verse 53)

Is this what you call revelations? How does this concern you and other Muslims that worths being included in a divine book?
MUHAMMAD WAS THE WORST ADOPTED FATHER EVER :

Allah SWT says:
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِىٓ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِى فِى نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَخْشٰىهُ ۖ فَلَمَّا قَضٰى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنٰكَهَا لِكَىْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِىٓ أَزْوٰجِ أَدْعِيَآئِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا ۚ وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا
"And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, "Keep your wife and fear Allah," while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished."
(QS. Al-Ahzaab: Verse 37)

Can you see the kind of person the Muslims regard as prophet? Can you do this ?

Muhammad said this revelation was to guide other Muslim so as not to feel uncomfortable when there was need for them to marry their adopted son's wife.
Shortly after this , allah had to abolish the issue of adoption in Islam . What then was the need of the revelation.

Aishat who was very close to Muhammad knew this googling tactics and thereby said :

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48:
Bukhari :
Narrated Hisham's father:

Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage. 'Aisha said, "Doesn't a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?" But when the Verse: "(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,' (33.51) was revealed, " 'Aisha said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.' "

SOME OTHER PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF HIS FALSEHOODS :
Allah SWT says:

وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَآ ءَايَةً مَّكَانَ ءَايَةٍ ۙ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوٓا إِنَّمَآ أَنْتَ مُفْتَرٍ ۚ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
"And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."
(QS. An-Nahl: Verse 101)

What was the need for substituting one revelation for another?
Why was the first set of Quran burnt?

WHY WAS THE FIRST SETS OF QURAN DESTROYED? SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN AVOIDING THIS QUESTION.

All you know is to berate Christianity while you know nothing about yours.









t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?

This is the funniest ayah in the Quran:

ﻈِﻴﻤًﺎ
"O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity."
(QS. Al-Ahzaab: Verse 53)

I read ibn kathir's commentary on this ayah and I shook my head in disbelief that a reasonable person will still call this charlatan a prophet. According to ibn Kathir, the sahabas usually stay behind, chatting with Mohammed's wives, after meal. One of the sahabas, name not mentioned, suggested that he would marry Aisha after the death of Mohammed. This made Mohammed angry and uncomfortable with his sahabas hanging around his wives after meal. As usual, allahh came to the rescue by revealing Koran 33:53 to Muhammad.

allahh also assisted Mohammed in Koran 33;37 such that no man must marry any of his wife, whether he is dead or alive. What a prophet!

Empiree:
Allah Says (what means): "Say, (O Muhammad): 'O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, (from him) to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death.' So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided." [Quran 7: 158]




The verses in this regard are many, what we quote here is just one example. With regard to the Sunnah (traditions and approved actions of Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allah exalt his mention )), there are many clear indications that Allah's Messenger began his call to Islam with Tawheed.



Amr bin Abasah As-Sulami, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "During the times of ignorance … I heard of a man in Makkah who received revelation. So I set upon my riding beast and came to him. At that time he was in hiding, due to the oppression of his people. So I behaved in a way that enabled me to gain access to him in Makkah. I said to him: "Who are you?" He replied: "I am a Prophet.' So I said: "And what is a Prophet?' He said: 'Allah has sent me as a Messenger.' So I said: 'And what is it that He has sent you with?' He said: 'I have been sent to order the joining of ties of relationship, to break the idols, so that Allah is worshipped Alone and nothing at all is associated in worship along with Him." [Muslim]

I am sorry bro, there is no single place allahh directly spoke to Mohammed (police be upon him). Mohammed didn't hear any single 'schim' from any allahh. When Mohammed was frightened by the encounter he had at the cave of hirah, it was his wife, khadija, who took him to her Christian uncle, waraqah ibn nafa, who told Mohammed that he must have encountered an angel.

Who was with Mohammed to confirm the authenticity of his claim? None.

Did Mohammed, who allegedly saw the so-called angel Gabriel thought he saw an angel? No.

Did Mohammed taught he had a demonic encounter? Yes (read this encounter in sirah rasool allahh and altabari)

Was Mohammed suicidal after his first encounter with the so-called angel Gabriel? Yes.

You have to ask yourself many honest questions about Mohammed and Islam. Mohammed's Islam doesn't add up with people with bright and critical mind.

Empiree:
How is Kaaba new to you. Here it is in your bible with exception of dialects. Both Bible and Quran recognize Abraham presence at Kaaba(Baca) in Mecca

Bacca is not only mecca (according to zombie Muslims) but Barcelona or even real Madrid. It amazed me when Muslims shamelessly lie to make a point. Instead of brazenly lying, I will keep quiet. Anyway, lying is the 7th pillar of Islam, after jihad.

MetroBaba1:
Oga Seun, Direct Your Question To www.jw.org

JW official website that was designed to promote their beliefs and theology! How do you think he will get a balanced and uncompromised information from www.JW.org?

What Seun is asking is an independent response from the JWs, using their God-gjven brains. The truth is that if tomorrow the GB, at Brooklyn NY headquarters of JW, change their doctrine of this 'blood transfusion' issue, all JW zombies will immediately adjust to the 'new and brighter light'.

Why can't an average JW reason independently free from the manipulation and brainwashing of the 'watchtower organization'?

Empiree:
This is the point my friend. It is Islam itself they hate. You can see that he illustrated his point in his post when he said,




Crystal clear

'The pact of umar' is a classical example of how Muslims, under the khilafa Umar, segregated the demographics based on religion; the ummah (the Muslims) and the dhimmi (the people of the book). For the purpose of easy identification, all the dhimmi are to put on belt on their waist. Why are Muslims, in the western world, trying to recreate the 'pact of Umar' on the host?

You shout: 'they hate Islam' while Islam, for many centuries, had been the most oppressive ideology known to mankind. Why won't a rational person be mindful of this evil wherever it rules or raised its ugly head, eg Europe and the US? Why creating, subtly, another 'pact of umar' on your host who protected and provided for you?

I have a Muslim friend who left his banking job to go and 'hustle' in Austria. Upon getting to Austria he was so amazed at the beauty, organization and generosity of the Austrian people. Instead of him to appreciate what saw he had a mixed feelings about the country. He was happy he had left Nigeria but was also sad that the Austrians are 'kafirs' because they are mostly Christians, whether cultural or practicing.

Having spent less than 2 months in Austria he confided to his fellow Muslim friend that Austria would have been better if it were a Muslim country. That they should use the freedom of religion granted to everybody to convert as much people as possible so that it can become a Muslim nation in the future. This is a guy that left his banking job in Nigeria already scheming against the generous host country. This is Islamic mentality!

You can deny as much as you like but we will keep telling you gospel truth; you don't bite the fingers that feed you and expect another meal from same fingers. Muslims, like babies, don't mind biting their mother's nipples while being suckled. You guys must start learning how to respect and appreciate the society that accommodate you.

I don't need to tell you how the fulanis became the masters of the hausas in the northern Nigeria's traditional and precolonial ruling system. The script are the same worldwide. Use your brain boy!

capitalzero:
half truths and outrageous lies.

Highlight the lies and make a counter argument.

budaatum:
True2, I'm not so much disputing your points, and I'm sure you agree we see the available evidence in different ways. Nor am I presenting polls, but more concrete electoral results, though I'm willing to accept that you may consider they may be as significant as Obi1kenobi or even less so.

Let me tell you that I think. If there were a public referendum to ban the burqa in UK today it will be won by ban the burqas, there's absolutely no question about it, and I'm talking like 60% or more for a ban. But UK policy is not made by referendums or polls or public opinion for that matter, so that is a rather mute point.

UK policy is made in parliament, and to get into parliament, you have to win a constituency election, and before that you have to get on the ballot for a constituency election meaning you must have been selected by your party, as in win a constituency party nomination, which involves coming to people like me, grassroot card carrying party members who assess your suitability to represent the community on issues that concern us, and I'm not so much telling you, but letting you know that you'd be very hard pressed to find any constituency with enough people to nominate a burqa ban person to represent them if they seriously wish to contest, not win, mind, but ordinary contest for a seat in UK parliament unless your party is the fringe UKIP or the old BNP.

Now, assuming you get past me and the electorate and get into parliament, and since it was not on your parties manifesto (because if it was, please see my 126 to 3 on UKIP) you would have to propose a Private Members Bill, meaning, of all the concerns of all the people who elected you into office, the burqa is the most serious concern they have because if it weren't, and you, their parliamentary representative, decide that's what you want to spend your time on instead of what concerns the members of your constituency, they'd very soon let you know how they feel about it! But assuming it is the greatest concern of the electorate that elected you, you'd have to get a majority of members who attend parliament to vote your way. And you don't need a House majority, just a majority amongst members attending to vote on your bill, meaning if 9 members attend the final debate and vote afterwards, you only need 5 to ban a burqa.

Except that burqas is not our concern! But if it were, that 5 would be closer to half of 650 and at grassroots, we would have fought over it, and I and all the people on my side in half the 650 Constituencies would have to lose, and if burqas are as important to me as I'm showing here, I'd defect to the opposing party and get them to nominate a no burqa ban person, and I'd support that person at election, and if my not concerned about burqa nominee loses, and provided it was a manifesto item; which you would have had to vote for at Conference and won, and then campaigned at election and won too; and which it most likely would have to be - on your party's manifesto that is, if we all lost at grassroots, and you win a majority in election for parliament, and it's your party policy - then, and only then can you present a bill to be debated in parliament and which only passes if you have a majority in both houses of Commons and the Lord's supporting your ban a burqa bill. And after all that, I'll go pay someone to wear a burqa (not that I need to, because even English non-burqa wearing women would do so just to oppose your silly ban), so that you will have to justify yourself in the Crown Court. And if I lose there I'd go to Appeal Court, and if I lose there I'm off to the European Court of Human Rights. And if I lose there, I'd then propose an annual burqa wearing parade so you can arrest the thousands who attend. And trust me, I wouldn't need women to wear burqas that day. We men would wear it if only because nothing gives us more pleasure than sticking two fingers up to oppressive governments. And if you think I can't afford it, think again, or what do you think crowd funding is for, and don't you delude yourself that I wouldn't take Saudi money to fight you!

My point of all this is that we have more important things to concern ourselves with than banning a stupid burqa! Our government gave money to bail out business and let people starve, for instance, and we don't like it. The Churches and other religious organisations now run food banks to help the starving! NHS is starved of cash and one now struggles to see a doctor! People wait months for operations to save their lives and sometimes die while waiting! Inflation is killing us but pay rise is pegged at a paltry insignificant 1% while taxes are going up! Students have to take on loans to go to uni, where their parents went for free! They graduate with huge debt they can't pay because there's no jobs, meanwhile, the quality of education goes down and we produce nothing but services. Or when did you last buy anything in the shop Made in England? We are in Yemen killing the Yemenis on behalf of Saudis because they spend billions in our economy, and you expect some stupid burqa to be the issue we spend our time banning?!

Yeah, government, you'd like that, wouldn't you! Distract us with some stupid burqa that does no harm to anyone while you line your pockets with the national wealth right! You must think we Brits were born like this morning if you think that old switch bait trick would work on us!

I'm not disregarding anything you say True2. I just disagree with your interpretation and how it affects things. UK elects representatives to Parliament to pass laws, and is not ruled by referendum or polls or sentiment. Any election where any contestant from any party has put ban a burqa, or ban a nigga (just so you appreciate the history) on their ballot paper, not only has the contestant lost, the party itself has lost. And besides, how many people actually wear the damn thing anyway? You can't put one on your daughter and send her to school without Social Services getting involved, and no one will employ you, despite the law to not discriminate, not even McDonalds for minimum wage. You're more likely to find it in wealthy Kensington than poor Manchester since those more likely to wear it are rich Saudi Arabians down here on holiday riding around in their Bentley and Rolls Royce, and trust me, we are way too greedy to take their money than to concern ourself with their silly burqas, and they are more concerned in spending their petrodollars to blow themselves up. And, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that a burqa has been complicit in any terrorist act on our shores (least that I've heard of), so please, why should this non-issue be taking up any serious persons time?

No one is taking advantage of us, not Muslims, not burqa wearers, and most definitely not the government, and we wouldn't let them if they tried. And funny enough, we do more multiculturalism (everyone do your thing) since we find it promotes cohesion as we know we can't create other people in the image that we prefer. In fact, you're more likely to find the Jews not mixing than Muslims, since the Muslims are poorer and have to integrate to earn a living than the more wealthy Jews who can sustain their own communities, and whom no one is telling to integrate or not wear whatever they want!

But if there's a will, as you claim, go ahead and attempt to ban it and let's just see how you far you get against my extremely very strong and heavily involved will!

I may not fully understand the dynamics of British politics but one thing is clear, the people in power are elected (or selected) to represent the of the citizens. What is the point for a representative govt when public opinion are not valued and/or respected?

If more than 60% of British citizens are against wearing burka in public space, but their opinion (the normal citizens) run contrary to govt's established policies, then what is the significance of public opinion on a civil society? If a referendum can be held to for the autonomy of Scotland, and for Britain's right to leave the EU, what gives you the impression that, someday, a similar decision cannot be taken concerning the wearing of burka? Is referendum on burka was complex that the Scottish membership of the UK? It will even be a 'slap' on any country to waste public time/fund on burka issue which a common bye-law can easily take care of. You have to hnders that the burka is not an ordinary fashion style but a 'regalia' which has cultural, political and religious representation. In a pluralistic society like Britain, if a certain religious group wants to be identified with a unique religious appearance, whereby even the face of the 'wearer' is hidden behind a veil, is that not a way of creating division in the society? In Islam, we have what they call 'the pact of umar'. The pact of umar is a classical example of how Muslims, under the khilafa Umar, segregated the demographics based on religion; the ummah (the Muslims) and the dhimmi (the people of the book). For the purpose of easy identification, all the dhimmi are to put on belt on their waist. Why are Muslims, in the western world, trying to recreate the 'pact of Umar' on the host?

Empiree:
can we can bikini too in public because it provokes men and promote perverts?



I know this is your problem. This is why bikini should be banned too because if you recall the people who don't wear cloth but only cover their private are called primitive local tribes. So bikini wearers are nothing but primitive people. Whereas you see them as "educated" and "modern".

Every year in August in New York women are topless. Abeg, what's the difference between them and primitives?.

Am just wondering what's the difference between these two


PICTURE 1: Why is the woman on the left not seen as educated and why is the woman on the right not seen as illitrate?


PICTURE 2: Why is the lady on the left seen as mad woman?

Too much double Standards

Stay aside; I am dealing with people with good sense of reasoning.

budaatum:
A poll! Teresa May called the last elections because the polls said she'd win more seats and have a greater majority if she did. She lost her majority!

David Cameron gave us a referendum on leaving or remaining in Europe because the polls said we'd unanimously vote to remain. We voted to leave and he resigned.

What you fail to recognise is the difficult of actually banning it in UK. It goes against the fundamentals of being British, some of which go back to the Magna Carta for starts, which you can't do without a debate in parliament. And we don't seem to have the problems they seem to have in Europe regarding the segregation and ghettoisation of Muslims. That is the reason it remains a debate mostly held in the Sun and the Daily Mail, and is the preferred topic of people seeking relevance. Trump once said we have "no go areas" because they are taken over by Muslims, and British people laughed. The thought that anyone can come over here, carve out a piece of our land and say "we can't go there" is the stuff we do in comedy. Why do people think we'd so lose our spine?!

Propose a bill in parliament, present your justification for banning burqas and let's see. If there is justification for a ban then I'm sure burqas would be banned. In the meantime, I, and it seems, anyone in a position to pose a bill in parliament to ban burqas, is not actually bothering much with the scaremongering or rhetoric (which is pure sentiment) to do so, and neither am I. Give me the opportunity, and I'd ban God and religion instead, then you'd all stop picking on each other!

Hi bro, you made a claim that most British people, except for fringe elements in UKIP (and very insignificant number in the conservative party), do not have problem with women burka in the public. 'Obi1kenobi' gave you statistics and public opinion, on the subject matter, which you ingeniously ignored, but came up with another claim that data and polls are not reliable. The same 'data' that you have depended on to articulate your points.

There is nothing whatsoever difficult in banning the wearing of burka in public places if there is a will, by the people, to do it. And banning the burka does not in any way go against the British values. I believe that British values do not include stupidity and socio-cultural suicide. You seem not to understand (or deliberately ignorant) of the importance of social cohesion and integration which are anathema to Islamic values and principles.

As I said earlier, I'm not British but Igbo but happens to have a fair knowledge of Islamic history. The truth is, Muslims greatly took advantage of western nation's religious tolerance to push their Islamic agenda which you are subtly defending, or deliberately failed to understand.

Obi1kenobi:
I reject discrimination against anyone, including Muslims, but Muslims have to learn to adapt to the cultures they inhabit. They are needlessly exclusionary wherever they find themselves. The Islamic texts do not mandate anyone to wear full body veils or cover their faces. It should be an easy thing to compromise on for the sake of assimilation into foreign countries. If you're coming from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan or wherever, and you find yourself in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden etc, try to assimilate and interact and contribute to social cohesion, rather than putting up a wall to exclude everyone else. If your burka is that important to you, don't move to those countries and spit on their sense of social cohesion with alien behavior. These things should be common sense, but many Muslims capitalize on the liberties and generosity of their host communities in the West to seek to impose their own will. Yet, they do not compromise on their values in their own societies to outsiders.

This is the commonsense budaatam lacks. I think you comprehend the scenario far better.

budaatum:
But you are a bigot. The cap fits! That's why you expect it, but now want to claim it's immoral leftist! Bigotry is the result of selecting evidence or twisting available evidence to support your position. We get that from UKIP. They too say ban the burqa. Remember how many seats they won in the last elections? They lost 123 previously held councillor seats and ended up with only 3! And that's out of about 5000 seats contested!

UK is not Borno State! There is no evidence to suggest burqas are complicit in any crime in UK! And Brits are not stupid enough to be scared for no reason.

Perhaps you're the one who should be mindful of irrelevant equivalences!

Maybe your eyes were blinded by this post:

Your attempt to make a moral equivalence of all religion is stupid. The creed of a religion defines a religion and how its followers will relate to other people. Any religion that its leader made terror, war and genocide the foundation of this its tenet should not be granted a religious status. Have you read the history of Islam? Do you know how non-Muslims are being treated in Saudi Arabia and Iran (the leaders of the Sunnis and Shi'a Muslims)? Stop putting your head in the sand, like an ostrich. Straighten your head and tell the truth without employing any form of political correctness, which your write-up is basically promoting. Say the facts bro!

Seems you pick and choose any part of my comment you deem fit.

budaatum:
(You might want to provide evidence for that bonded above please.)

You're getting much closer. A nation with a history as you've described above should not go behaving as you advocate they now should. They should learn from their past and amend their behaviour, and UK has done so.

I disagree that they are still doing it in Africa and the Arab world! They may be trying to, but we Africans are way more intelligent today than to allow anyone to get away with what the British got away with in the past. And if they still are with the Arabs, then I can see why the Arabs might want to terrorise Britain. If they still did what they used to do in Africa, wouldn't you too?

However, the facts are that the burqa and Islamic veil pose no danger to the larger society and it has not been complicit in a terrorist act in UK so banning it is rather silly. To begin with, a very tiny number of people wear it here. They know where it's not to be worn. They do no harm to anyone by wearing it. And if they do wear it and are terrorists, in UK it's the same as wearing a sign saying "I am a terrorist" on your back, So why ban it? When it even serves as a form of identification?

But more importantly, when we go for the burqa and people like me cheer them on, they would go for the mosque, then go for the Muslim, and go for the Asians, then when they come for me, the black person, is that the time that I begin to oppose them?

Islam and Christianity do me no ill. I dislike the hatred some proclaim in the name of their loving gods, but that's not the case with the majority of the adherents. They both have stupid people amongst them, but I'm not stupid enough as to claim some bad people of either religion is a reason for eradicating everyone of those religions. I have Muslims in my family, I have Muslim friends, I work with them and buy meat from them in the market and none of them are like you seem to believe they are and barring evidence to support you, you are just going to have to continue believing that I blindly refuse to see what is not there and I'm ignorant and incapable of becoming a bigot like you.

For your 'bolded', the evidence is easy to get if you choose not t be lazy; you can get any news/info with a simple google search. At a time, the Nigerian military banned burka in borno state as a result of suicide bombers using it as a cover.

I laughed when you assumed that the British people are atoning their past 'mistakes' and would no longer commit genocide against the weak and defenseless people. You are 100% wrong bro! The British people are merely trying to adapt to present global reality and are aligning their decisions and policies to match current international demands, they haven't changed a bit. Go and watch the discussion between Prez F.D. Roosevelt (the former US President) and Winston Churchill (the former British PM) and you will understand, in full, the British post-WW2 and post-colonial policies in African and the middle East. You understand how ignorant you are in international politics. I don't know the part of Africa you are from, my brother you are still being colonized but your educational curriculum has been designed to tell you that colonialism is a thing of the past. Don't be deceived bro! All your francophone leaders still send their score cards to Paris while the anglophone leaders still report to their at Masters in 10 Downing street London. I won't teach you more than this, especially for someone who will never appreciate.

Your attempt to make a moral equivalence of all religion is stupid. The creed of a religion defines a religion and how its followers will relate to other people. Any religion that its leader made terror, war and genocide the foundation of this its tenet should not be granted a religious status. Have you read the history of Islam? Do you know how non-Muslims are being treated in Saudi Arabia and Iran (the leaders of the Sunnis and Shi'a Muslims)? Stop putting your head in the sand, like an ostrich. Straighten your head and tell the truth without employing any form of political correctness, which your write-up is basically promoting. Say the facts bro!

I have been expecting you to call me a 'bigot', since that's the keyword for people of dissenting views who don't follow the narrative of the immoral leftists.

budaatum:
True2god, you know nothing about buda, and your assumptions about buda make you argue against some imaginary buda you've made up in your head! It kind of makes what you say about buda meaningless to buda in particular, despite buda's understanding of your hatred for Islam.

So, let me inform you a little bit. First, buda would inform you that gods, all of them, are figments of your imagination, things you cook up in your heads and claim exist with absolutely no regard to the evidence. buda does not mind this imaginary creation of gods in people's heads, except that the imaginary cooking up of things in your heads transfers from gods to the entire universe at times as you yourself show by cooking up imaginary atrocities that Muslims have done to you and in UK, and the Muslim hypocrite buda you seem to see before you.

The fact that some countries behave badly does not mean UK, a nation that sees itself as far above the rest, should stoop so low to ignorant nation's levels. UK is a country with Christian values in it's dna. It is not a nation quick to anger, does not disregard evidence and make up silly rhetoric and call it true, remembers history - including what it as a nation has done to others, though quick to forget bad done to it; and UK is most mindful and vigilant of repeating the mistakes of the past, and God, saves the Queen and our most illustrious nation because of all that!

I am not joining you in some argument about who has the biggest god as it would be rather silly arguing which is the biggest amongst two imaginary entities. But one thing I know is that Christianity, which I assume to be your preferred sort of god, does not exactly advocate an eye for an eye as you claim. And the fact that Muslims admire your countries should be a reason to rejoice, since they have seen the good you seem to offer and want some of it. In no time now, they might take it back to their countries and eventually join you in singing Jesus is Lord, so long as you continue to ensure your behaviour is better than their's and don't get frustrated and become like them instead!

Bros, I dnt know the basis of your lecture; the debate is about Islamic veil and the danger it posed to the larger society which you blindly refused to see. The UK is never a standard to judge morality. The most vicious and bloodletting empire the world ever had is the British empire. The empire that committed the most genocide known to man is the British empire. You might need to learn about this fact since you willfully choose to be a ignorant of this fact. If the British people could turn back the hands of time, they will repeat what they did in the past, and are still doing presently (especially in Africa and the Arab world).

The British people had suddenly become role models and reasonable people because they have accommodated Muslims, even against the wishes of millions of white British natives, who Muslims will at the same time call 'racist', 'Nazis', 'facist' and 'bigots' in a bid to shut down any discussion about Islam in public discourse.

While you Muslims praised Christian love and tolerance, do you reciprocate same in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, etc. Do you have different moral standard for Christians and Muslims? Can a Christian make demand in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

I am not British bro! If Muslims admire Britain, they must be thankful to the locals who provided them comfort and safety and obey the law. Have you watched Muslim problems in Birmingham and Luton? Go watch the videos, open your mind and make a sound judgement.

budaatum:
Islam is not asking anyone in UK to wear a burqa, like you imply here. The battle is for the individual's right to wear whatever pleases them. And I would present this same argument if you had wanted to ban me from walking down the streets in my bra and knickers, which is not against the law, per se, in UK. Though I know I'd better not go near a school, or in a bank or a court in just those!

Islam is not asking everyone to wear the burka in the UK (because they are still in the minority) but asked every women to wear it in Saudi Arabia (because they are the majority). The asked every woman to wear Islamically sanctioned headscarf in Iran because they are they majority, can you see the pattern? Is there fashion choice, for women, in Islamic countries? No. Are women expected to dress according to state sanctioned dress codes? Yes. Where is the element of free choice in Islam?

Its very unfortunate that you have to disrespect women, on this forum, by uploading a picture of a half-naked woman to drive your point. That's silly bro!

4601CE:
Assholes everywhere
If the fastest growing religion in the world with roughly 1.8 Billion muslims. 25% of the world’s population nd the most widely practised religion in Africa is a threat to you or your world . Then …

Where do you this statistics? From Saudi Arabia?

budaatum:
Germany is actually not as fascist as Austria, as you'd know if you read the news. Germany has a very embarrassing history that makes them ensure they are not so fascist anymore. It's why they have allowed so many Muslims in, to help wipe out their fascist historical past.

UK has in modern time been liberal. UK in the past, persecuted Protestants, locking them up and all, and at other times, did the same to Catholics, so they learnt their lesson and would not go persecuting others just because of their religions these days. UK even has laws, the Equality Act 2010, to be specific, which makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their age, being or becoming a transsexual person, being married or in a civil partnership, being pregnant or on maternity leave disability, race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, belief or lack of religion/belief, sex, sexual orientation.

Go read British news today. Two huge items relating to religion gave been trending for weeks. One is the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, being hounded for being anti-semitic. The other is former Foreign Secretary, Conservative Party's Boris Johnson, being hounded for being against Islam.

You go on with your hatred and anti-religious rhetorical lies, and the favouring of one over the other. I get to live in harmony with you all since you aren't exactly as evil as you are making out or shoving it down my throat!

You are a Muslim hypocrite. Is there equality between the ummah and the 'kafir' in Islamic countries? Mention a single Arab-muslim nation where a kafir is equal to Muslim, both in human and religious right. It is ok for Muslims to praise non-muslim countries for protecting Muslims and Islam but will keep quiet while all Muslim countries oppress religious minorities.

You are not well informed about the old relationship between Austria and Germany. Both countries are one before being balkanized after the WW2 defeat. Both countries are culturally and ethnically homogenous. So be informed.

If you call my writings 'antireligious' rhetorics then you have to condemn your Quran and your hadith that promote the eternal hatred for the Jews and the Christians (Qur'an 5:51, 9:28-30, 98:6. sahih Bukhari 4:52:196).

budaatum:
You are the one who is not rationally minded actually. Where did you get Germany banned the burqa from?

The German parliament has supported a draft law banning women working in the civil service, judiciary and military from wearing full-face Islamic veils.
Burqas and niqabs will be prohibited in selected professions as part of the legislation

I do wonder why you have to lie to promote your ideology. Germany has history and can't possibly pass such a stupid law since it would resemble how they began the extermination of the Jews!

Go learn about the European countries (Austria, France, Denmark) that do have such bans and learn too about fascism, and then you might just understand why some are against it.

Typical Islamic wrapped thinking without commonsense! So German partial ban of burka has suddenly made me a liar and all other rational argument null and void. Can you 'see' that your IQ level is very low? So Germany is no longer a fascist state (because they partially banned burka) but all the countries that had a full ban in place are fascist?

Maybe you choose to use the word 'fascist' (just like racist) because you are very very familiar with it on the news without even trying to understand the meaning of the word 'fascism' and how the movement started. Opposing an evil ideology (Islam) and its subsidiary lifestyle (its fashions or laws) is not fascism but commonsense.

In the Arab/Muslim world (where fascism and oppression is 100% in practise), issues are not even debated. Laws will be made and if you don't like the law you migrate (hijra) but if you choose to stay and fight against the law you will be killed. This is how Muslim societies operate and this is why Muslims are running away from their own countries out of fear.

enilove:
What about temporary marriage , Is it allowed ?

Book 008, Number 3243:

Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: We were on an expedition with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and we had no women with us. We said: Should we not have ourselves castrated? He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment, and 'Abdullah then recited this verse: 'Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like trangressers" (al-Qur'an, v. 87).


My second question :
Was there agreement between Muhammad ( 51 years old) and Aishat ( 6 years ) old when he married her?

Pls explain.

I think this is what they call 'nikah mutua' in Islam; temporary marriage. Some people call it legalized prostitution by the prophet.

enilove, can make you give us the full reference of this hadith as narrated by ibn masud, one of the sahabas of the prophet who also benefited from this nikah mutua?

modupesalmat:
In Islam, celibacy is not allowed unlike in other religion where people can decide not to get married. Marriage in IslamMarriage is an obligatory aspect of Islam because according to an hadith narrated by anas “when a person gets married, half of his Deen (worship) is completed so let him/her fear Allah on the remaining half”. According to one of the sayings of the holy prophet “Marriage is my tradition who so ever keeps away from marriage is not from amongst me”. Via marriage, families are established constituting an important unit of every society. Islam never condemns sexual relations but doesn’t support free sexual relations with one another. In Islam, Marriage is the only legitimate way to intimacy. The main reason for marriage is that the couple can keep each other’s company, love each other, for procreation and to live in peace and tranquility. By choosing to get married, you are actually choosing the path of being obedient to Allah and his messenger because it is possible to choose to live a sinful lifestyle.

Click to continue: https://www.entrepreneurmuslimmoms.com/islam-and-marriage/

https://www.entrepreneurmuslimmoms.com

Modupe you must a lady. I want to ask you a question, do you follow the sunnah of your prophet? If 'yes', do you think your prophet was right to have engaged Ayisha, the so-called mother of believers, at the age of 6 and started sleeping with with when she became 9?

On the points you highlighted, before you decided to edit your post, do you think point no. 1 was followed when Mohammed decided to marry a 6 year old baby Ayisha, while he was 51-yr old man? Do you think a 6-yr old girl can make any decision for herself when it comes to marriage?

Gggg102:
simple issue.

you can't force anyone to wear a burqa.

you also can't force anyone to remove their burqa.

wearing of burqa is completely an issue of CHOICE. people should have personal liberty.

The state has the right to take any action to protect the lives and properties of her citizens, including banning the burka, if there are potential security risk identified. This is called commonsense.

budaatum:
I repeat, UK does not have any any laws whatsoever against the wearing of a burqa! UK relies on burqa wearing people to understand for themself, and despite their religion, that perhaps out of regard for the nation you are in, that you would not wear one when going into a bank, or to court or near a school (unless you have come to pick up your child, in which case we know you are a burqa wearing mother and would put in place means of recognising that it is you, like your child recognising you, which we shall monitor!)

That's what you get in a rational minded, reason reliant nation! We just don't have any evidence that 'burqa wearing' means 'crime committer', since we have no evidence to support that claim.

Britain has suddenly become a rational-minded, reason-reliant nation because the have not also banned the burka. Wow, that's great!

If I get you right, Germany, Denmark and the rest are not 'rational-minded' people because they love their people more that they love pandering to Muslims' weak sensibility. Yes, the Germans are not rationally minded for allowing over 1million Muslim migrants into their country, provided them houses, food and money (which Saudi Arabia will never do even for their fellow Muslim). If the Germans are rational, they will never allow a hostile religion like Islam to invade their country with millions of Muslim migrants.

The same British people you are praising for being tolerant today will dump you as soon as their oil interest in the Arabian world ends.

budaatum:
You don't get it do you? Nazir Ali was speaking in liberal UK that hasn't passed such stupid laws, and not in or about Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, countries that seem more dictatorial and fascist than UK. Imagine French people deciding the law allows them to strip a woman of her burqini on a beach! Does that not sound barbaric to you? And, we don't live by Saudi Arabian laws in UK, nor does what they do dictate to us what we should do! We, for instance are on our second female Prime Minister while they only just gave a steering wheel to women!

UK, and most of Europe, has been there before, banning cultural and religious practise willy nilly, and have seen where they got them. Or are we not talking about the Europe that persecuted people for being Catholic, prosecuted people for being Protestants, prosecuted people for being Jewish, black, not blue eyed and blond haired, born out of wedlock, gay, ginger, Irish, disabled, homosexual, female, and so on and so on? Only those who forget history would return to the bigotry of the past. And even if the majority forget, those with brains will remind them!

If I allow those in authority to pass laws that are against things I dislike today, one day those same laws would be used against me too. Would that be the time I say I don't like those laws?

If Germany, Austria, France, Denmark, etc, are dictatorial, why are millions of Muslims rushing to leave their homeland to migrate to those countries? Why do Muslims see more opportunities and better life in Germany, France, Denmark, etc, instead of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc. As a normal person, you adapt to local laws and not local laws adapt to your religion and beliefs. The real dictators are the Muslim/Arab leaders who are destroying their countries hence causing mass migration into the land of the 'kafirs'.

As a typical Muslim, you always attempt to justify your failures by pointing out the weaknesses in others, specially your arch-enemy, Christianity. This is not how life is meant to be. You take responsibility for your failures or success. Muslims pointing out past events in the Christendom to justify their present irrational and barbaric practices is ridiculous and makes no sense.

And remember, the countries I listed are some of the most liberal nations on earth, for the fact that they don't want Islamic burka, for their own safety, does not make them dictatorial. These countries are far better than all Muslim nations in terms of human right, religious and minority rights.

budaatum:
By your logic, black people in UK should bleach themselves white too, after all, one black person mugged someone yesterday! Or perhaps all black people should be thrown in jail or be kicked out the country? Thankfully, UK seems much more enlightened and less oppressive than you and that rather ignorant former Nazir Ali are and don't think one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

When I ran from an oppressive country to the Western world, can you understand that my desire might have been that I ran so that I could stop being oppressed? If you do, then please stop oppressing me by imposing on me what I should or shouldn't wear because of your fear of Islam!

This is the issue with modern Islam: when an issue is raised on certain practice or lifestyle of Muslims, the response from Muslims is usually to invoke racial problems to defend their argument. So weird and crazy! Islam is not a race but a belief system, why bring in racial prejudice into a discussion that has to do with Islamic dressings deemed a security risk?

If burka is not an issues countries like Austria, Germany, Denmark, France, etc will not ban it. For the fact that UK has not banned it does not mean that they won't ban it in future. The debate has already begun.

If a country like Germany, that have given Muslims houses and free money (which Saudi Arabia can never give to non-Muslims) but asked Muslims not to wear cloths that will hide their identity, how is that oppression? How is it oppressive for me to ask you to obey laws passed for security reasons, like banning burka and niqab? Your thinking is seriously flawed.

budaatum:
You do know these people were talking about burqa wearing in UK, right? Lots of burqa wearing women in UK would inform your rather ignorant self, it seems, that it is their choice to wear a burqa, so why do you wish to impose what you want on them? Next you'd be banning skirts and tops that don't hide girls underwear which is very popular amongst girls in UK too if we give you an ounce of a chance!

Imposing wear on anyone is the 'slavery', and a ban, of what you call "slave garment" is just such an imposition! That phrase "slave garment" applies in Nigeria maybe, but in UK, where the government would take your children away from you just because "my mummy shouted at me", it's more of a choice to be a slave, at best.

Bros you don't make a single sense in your post. In a normal society, you don't allow a woman who you can't see her face to enter a bank, hotel, a law court or a school environment. God created face for several reasons part of which are for communication and identification. When you cover your face will Islamic-arab veil, in the public, you have systematically segregated yourself from the mainstream society and also pose a security risk to others.

Recently, here in Nigeria, a 17-year old hardened assassin did carry out her evil act fully dressed in Islamic veil, she was unfortunately a Muslim as well. All female boko-haram suicide bomber carry out their act fully veiled. I wonder why you are blind to these facts.

In as much as it is an Arab religious and cultural things for their women to be veiled, they must understand that they need to adjust socially and culturally since they have chosen to leave, en mass, their Islamic countries to the western world. You can't run away from an oppressive society to a free society, only to come and destroy the free society that provided you good life and secure your future. Unfortunately, this is what Islam is notorious for.

tartar9:
Take responsibility for what,the OP's moronism?

Who is the slowpoke here? You, who lacks critical and refused to see 'reasons' why the slave garment (burka) should be banned worldwide, or the OP who only quoted a news report?

You need to abandon the mentality of the 7th century illiterate Arab-man (mohammed ibn abdullah) who scammed his fellow illiterates by claiming to receive divine revelation from an imaginary allahh. Why cover yourself with a slave sack, causing a social and security threat, in this 21st century?

Empiree:
Yup, we are here if that's what you want to hear. So deal with it

People don't always agree with govt's plans. If govt grants permission and people aren't okay with it, it is their right to protest but doesn't mean they have the right to kick congregation away.

I will tell you one that happened in a city in USA, I think 2014. A beautiful Mosque located in semi-isolated area was shut down due to ommunity started complaining about "noise pollution" and they filed complaints with the city to shut down the masjid. City indeed shut down the masjid and no more congregation but the masjid is standing there pending govt resolution.

One morning, mosque itself called for adhan(prayer) without anyone inside. Community again came out to see if the mosque was reopened but, alas!. It remained shut down. Those people started taking pictures and testified to truth is Islam. I don't have information as to wether the mosque is reopened or not.





Deal with it there is no peace treaty with folk like you. I tell you as is it. WE OWN THE WORLD

So eat dirts if it so frustrate you


Stop pretending as if Christians don't do the same. Muslims take over the streets why you scam your members of tithes.

And finally, no, we will not allow you to build church in heartland of Islam because you worship three-headed God contrary to Oneness of God that we know. So take your church and str prayers to Vatican

Yes, this is the same arrogance Muslims displayed in Spain, Portugal and France, in the medivial Europe, that led to the expulsion of Muslims and destruction of all mosques in Europe. If Islam/Muslims were expelled from Europe many years back, what gives you the confidence that they won't/can't be expelled again?

Christians can believe whatever they like, which had been core of their doctrines even before Mohammed was born; and I'm very sure allahh (if he does exist) was/is aware of Christian beliefs and he allowed it. So what's your Islamic problem with that? Once you Muslims don't believe in 'live and let live' and have divided the world into 'the ummah' and 'the kafirs', then the world will also rise against Islam vis-à-vis their Arab imperial agenda for global conquest.

Sane Arab nations like Qatar and UAE are allowing churches and temple in their countries, as long as you don't constitute public nuisance as Muslims do in Europe. The Christian world (Britain, US and Russia) have the money and the military to take over all Muslim world, if push comes to shove. Stop acting as if you are ignorant of this simple fact. Do you think Christianity will survive if the Muslim countries are the world powers?

Empiree:
Oga, once permission is given to pray on public roads, that's no longer lawlessness. In America, they pray on the streets but not before getting approval from the city or local govt.

In that case, it is not lawlessness because they paid for permit. And police are present to divert traffic. Same is done in France. Muslims don't just occupied the street without proper permit.


Deal With It

In over 90% of the cases no any permission is given to any Muslim to block the street for prayer. It is all about the Muslims making a statement that 'we are here'. If they are given permission to block the street, why are many European cities banning them from doing that? Why are the native citizens complaining of their public nuisance? Why are Muslims using street prayers as a prelude to making demand for more mosques? Can Christians get a permission to pray on the street in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, etc?

Your attempt to rationale foolishness or public bully, in the name of religion, does not make sense. In muslim-dominated country no any permit is needed for Muslims to block the street for prayers, despite the fact that they have 1000s of mosques where they can pray. If there are 1000s of mosques in a country like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, why can't they pray inside their mosques?

When last did you hear the Christians, Hindus, or the shintos block public road for prayers? Let's be a bit decent bro! Let religion out of this issue, it's common sense.

Adamh:
Let me answer op questions to you daft midgets with this simple scenario:

Plenty of Muslims go to the Friday mosque. Mosque gets filled up, and the surrounding praying areas also get filled up. The prayer is about to start or has begun. More Muslims show up, but there's no place left but the road. Muslims then proceed to pray on the road.

If you think Muslims love to pray on the road and aren't just forced to do so because there simply isn't enough space for everyone, then I don't know what to say to you.

This is simple common sense that you can't use your brain to solve. Smh

You are simply making excuses for lawlessness. In any sane society, law and order are usually for peace to reign. Muslims must understand that over 80% of mankind are not Muslims and also deserve to be respected, why block a public space because you wanna pray?

This seems to be a global phenomenon associated with Islam/Muslims; deliberate and insensitive road blocking. In France, Muslims (over 90% are migrants from Africa) will travel from Lyon and Bordeaux to attend a central mosque in Paris hence overfilling the mosques and streets? When asked why they are blocking a public street they will respond that there are no enough mosque in Paris for them to pray. That the govt should provide more and bigger mosques. They make demands that they will never accept if a 'kafir' make a similar one.

This act is a clever way of gradually taking over other people's land and space for Arab imperialistic agenda. After much fight and complaints, from the local, the police has to issue a warning against blocking public roads in Paris, especially by Muslims, on Fridays. Did the Muslims comply? No.

Islam, to me, is an instruments for lawlessness, when it comes to laws made by the 'kafirs' in the land of the 'kafirs' especially with regard to Islamic excesses.