.jpg)
But in awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, FIFA have surely opened the door to rebellion. What the Hell is going on? This is a country with an indigenous population of just 1,300,000, approximately the size of Birmingham! Even in a football mad country like England, Birmingham struggles to sustain 4 football teams - Birmingham, Villa, West Brom and Walsall, yet Qatar will be building seven prefab stadia to host the greatest football tournament in the world, before exporting them to Third World associations, whose votes they secured when concocting the cunning plan!
Imagine the furore if the World Cup was given to Birmingham! But Birmingham does at least have a footballing history, a footballing heritage. West Brom have won the FA Cup, Birmingham the League Cup, Villa any number of trophies, including the old European Cup. But tell me, what role have Qatar or any club side from Qatar played in world football? Absolutely none, apart from winning the Arab equivalent of the Birmingham and Midshires Cup!
And then look at the human rights issue in Qatar. Homosexuality is a crime punishable with a 5 to 10 year prison sentence and it is still possible for a sentence of stoning to death to be passed for homosexual activities. So what are gay players and gay supporters supposed to do in 2022? Their conscience should dictate that they boycott the tournament or that they openly challenge the Qatar authorities by declaring their sexuality and arriving with a male WAB in tow, announcing on touchdown that between games they intend to engage in homosexual activities whilst official guests of the Qatar authorities. What would FIFA's position be if Qatar declared a selected player "unwelcome" I wonder?
Interestingly, it is illegal to proselytize and, technically, it is still a capital offence to convert from Islam. What would happen if the Qatar authorities decided to ban a Kaka, for instance, for wearing Christian insignia, making the sign of the Cross and deliberately proselytizing in pre match interviews.
Then there is the issue of women's rights. Men in Qatar may prevent female relatives from leaving the country by providing their names to immigration officers at ports of departure. The legal system allows leniency for a man found guilty of committing a "crime of honour," or a violent assault against a woman for perceived immodesty or defiant behaviour. Shari'a provides no punishment for spousal rape. The Government prohibits independent women's rights organizations. Although women legally are able to travel abroad alone, tradition and social pressures caused most to travel with male escorts. Muslim women cannot legally marry non-Muslims.
Meanwhile no English based player should travel to the country if they are members of the PFA, because trade unions are ILLEGAL in Qatar. Since 1995 the country has been suspended from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation insurance programs because of the Government's lack of compliance with internationally recognized worker rights standards.
Tell me, what the Hell is going on? FIFA talk about the family of football, but the "family" apparently is happy to exclude women, homosexuals and union members when it suits to do so.
MPs should immediately commence campaigning for a boycott of the Qatar World Cup on the grounds of breach of basic Human Rights. Campaigning should spread across Europe. By taking the tournament to Qatar, FIFA are endorsing the regime and that is unacceptable. FIFA talk about a legacy. Well Human Rights should be the basic legacy, the minimum requirement before a country is allowed to host a tournament. The Western democracies have a moral duty to make a stand by setting up an alternative World Cup and inviting the rest of the world to make the choice - a World Cup in Europe (and we have time to consider the merits of the Spanish, Benelux and English bids) or a World Cup in Qatar. You wouldn't have to be a world chess champion to make that decision, would you?
62 comments:
I agree about all this stuff about Qatar and human rights. What's more Russia has been descibed in the Wikileaks as a mafia State. But at the end of the day, someone told me once (and I think that was HF) not to seek justice in the world (remember when we were discussing Cyprus). So, get over it. It is done, it may be unfair but this is the world we live in. Or have you suddenly become a moralist and a fighter for justice in the world. Is so, then I am with you.
Incidentally, what surprised me is the fact that the Prime Minister of one the most important nations in the World, which happens to be going through a deep economic crisis, wasted so much time on this futile pursuit!
Think I said blame lay on both sides on that one Sav.
That pic is in bad taste HF so I suggest you remove it. You need to control yourself sometimes and not act so immature and deliberately provocative. The value of these girls is a million times more than that of those scantily clad slags you put on here. Have some respect for them HF.
Pictures of women in Qatar. Why should they be removed?
Girls HF, not women. And you have clearly chosen that pic to take the p*ss. We all know your views on the headscarf HF, and how this simple cloth scares you.
Come on now, I'm half your age, I shouldn't be telling you about respect and decency.
Google images, women in Qatar. First image. Try it. Harmless image but probably as close as these girls / women are allowed to get to sport because of decency restrictions imposed by a male domiinated state. That is the point Stani.
Unfortunately, we all live in male dominated states.
It doesn't matter what google says HF. You're being silly, they're girls at school.
If you cared about them...which is what you are implying, you would not put a picture of these school girls on the same site as you put pictures of mostly naked women. Are you going to take it off?
No Stani, I am not going to take it off. The image is available on google and is appropriate to the article. It is not in any way offensive and does not appear alongside any other images.
Why are you happy to look at images of scantily dressed Western women, joking about it, but then find it offensive when I show an image of Qatari females fully dressed, playing chess? They consented to the photograph being taken presumably? It is not being used in a sexual or offensive way is it? To be honest, it did not occur to me that they were girls, it is hard to tell age when you only have the face to judge by. But so what that they are girls? Girls in England PLAY football because there is not a paranoia about men seeing their legs, neck, arms etcetera. The fact that Qatari girls can't is a reason why they should not have been awarded the World Cup. And that is what this article is about.
There were offensive images of Muslm women available but I would not use them because THAT would be disrespectful. This image shows Qatari females playing chess. So what?
Hello Stani I usually agree with your views and also enjoy your cricket blog.
Unfortunately on this one I have to disagree as I know girls who are slags who ply their trade behind the service station in the Mile End Road, just opposite the mosque.
As we're on the subject I saw a dreadful sight whilst working in Acton recently - a young Asian girl (with head scarf) of perhaps 15 or 16 who's face had been grossly disfigured with a blade - do you suspect she was a slag too and that is why someone had hideously mutilated both sides of her face with a sharp knife?
Value is obviously in the eye of beholder.
HF, The Queen clearly does not share your views given the recent state visit by the Emir of Qatar to UK. Having said that the shady possible bribery of the Russians is nothing compared to the overt bribery of the Qatari grounds for developing nations offer. I'm sure most developing nations would rather have a share their gas money and Stani, what's the betting that all the developing nations will have to be Muslim states!
HF
It's offensive because you seem to suggest from the article that you care but the fact is you couldn't give a sh*t about them and are mocking them by using an image of them.
When did I say I was happy to look at those images you put up? I raised objection and even if it was through joking about it, it was still obvious otherwise I wouldn't have done it. And don't indirectly imply what I think of women mate, 'Wetsern' or otherwise. I have more respect for women in my little finger than you have had at any point in your entire life (If that's harsh on you, then it's because it's something I feel strong about). And yes I'm a Muslim, and I do so because I'm a Muslim. So you can malign my religion and say that it is bad to women but I am living proof it is not. The things you said in this article are all examples of tradition, culture and male domination. You know nothing about Sharia. Woman are abused everywhere, 'Great' Britain included. It is done by men, not religions.
Why is it appropriate to the article? Explain again because I never got it. And you keep playing with words...'women', 'females'...they are school girls HF.
Turds,
Thanks.
I was just talking about this pic mate, I've no idea what those girls at Mile End do or why they do it. I'm not sure what you mean by the other point you make about the girl with the disfigured face. If by this, and I say this to HF too, you think that I support men who treat women like this then you do not know me at all. After children, I hold greatest respect for women.
You probably dont know HF's views on head-scarves and probably quite innocently failed to see the subtle provocative antipathy being played out here. For someone of his age, it's sad. It's cool though, God is Great.
This lack of class and sanctimoniousness is very typical amongst many of us English. There are reasons we are hated throughout Europe, and as the world cup bid showed, throughout many other parts of the world too. Holier than thou, self-righteous, arrogant...no delicacy or savoir-faire. Unfortunately, a couple of the good ones amongst us (Wills and Becks), had to turn up to Zurich to take this middle finger the rest of the world wanted to show us.
00:49
Not sure mate...I do know there definitely is no true Muslim state in the world. What's betting there is no predominately white poor nation in the world?
Qatari school girls, if you will, playing chess. It makes the point all the more. Fully mature women, even when bullied or conditioned into conformity, at least have choices as an adult. Indoctrination of children is even more insidious.
I am certainly nt implying that you sanction honour killings or mutilatation Stani, but it is a fact that it is a defence in Qatar and that the girls in that picture might run the risk of violent assault or murder should they choose to be "immodest". What is more offensive, carrying apicture that they have consented to being taken, or a legal system that accepts in mitigation "honour" when women are killed or mutilated? I think you should have more of an issue with what happens in Qatar than with an innocent picture highlighting "sport" available to Qatari girls or women.
I have added an image at the bottom. Is this offensive?
If you are going to post images of naked women on this site, then you shouldn't post images of school girls.
I know what I have issues with around the world HF, you do not need to tell me. I am well aware of what this world is. But, this is a football blog HF, this is a football blog. See?
Children visit topless and nudist beaches Stani and the girls in the picture are not being used for sexual purposes and are not being invited to visit the site and look at any images which they may deem offensive.
You make my point in a way. This is a football blog, and the World Cup is a football tournament, so why in God's name is it being taken to Qatar. I wonder, will there be female toilets in this newly built Qatari stadia? I know there are Iranian football stadiums without female toilets.
It feels as if you are trying to force your moral codes upon me. I am sorry that yu object to the use of the image and, if I agreed that it was offensive or gratuitous, I would remove it; but I don't. It is relevant and is not offensive. When I selected the image, I did have you in mind in terms of potential offence. There are some humourous and saucy images available which I would not shirk from using, but out of respect to yourself I elected not to.
If you choose not to remove them then I will have to choose not to visit here. I'm not blackmailing or anything...just democratically making a point.
Thanks anyway.
Stani, typical Islamic comment, no true Muslim state, what do you mean? And as for no poor white nation, if your mates in the middle east shared Allah's gift of the riches from oil and gas amongst your fellow Muslims it would solve many issues, instead of wasting it on huge capitalist ventures. Who was it who sprung to the help of the Muslim victims of the tsunami? I think you'll find that was your benevolent white mates. And whilst HF is on human rights Stani, will you condone the use of Muslim slave labour from bangladesh and Pakistan to build the stadiums in Qatar? And why do you revert to colour when the conversation is about religion, will the stadium be moved to poor buddhist nations in SE Asia or Catholic in S America?
Your choice Stani.
If you do look in again Stani, I am afraid that you will have to come to terms with the fact that this blog will not be censored - by you or anybody. Nobody is being harmed by the image of the girls playing chess, they exist on the bank of google images anyway, so I do not understand the issue. If they weren't Muslim, you wouldn't object. That is a form of racism.
"Hated throughout Europe" you would think so..... I even thought so too, but I've found that's the British paranoia - I recently travel throughout Europe due to my new job to - Czech, Poland, Italy, France, Spain, Austria, Germany and Hungary - and to my utmost surprise I find nothing but love when chatting to locals in bars and restaurants.
The girl with the disfigured face had I think quite obviously been cut to teach a lesson through some sort of "honour" system.
I agree T.O, I have been met with warmth where ever I have travelled in the world. Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Bulgaria, Luxemburg, Italy, Germany, the old East Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Austia, Switzeland, Croatia, Bosnia, Greece, Turkey, Mexico, the USA, Thailand, Hong Kong, Indonesia, China, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Israel, Palestine - even Scotland, Ireland and Wales! I'm sure I've missed out places from that list but the point is, there is no rabid hatred of the British UNLESS religion indoctrinates people to hate!
What's the new job? Sounds fun!
01:59
No twat, try understanding what someone is saying first before you respond. I made the statement that there is no true Islamic state in the world and there isn't. None of the ones that proclaim to be Islamic, follow Islamic laws in accordance with the faith.
And you still haven't answered the original question and why. I'm not being racist, just asked a simple factual question.
Turds,
They wouldn't tell you to your face now would they? I'll use the World Cup bid as example again. Anson, Becks and Wills were promised to their face by people that England would get their vote. But what happened? We got 1 vote! What do we use to judge? What was said to their faces or what actually happened?
Anything could have happened to that girl. You have no facts about it and it is sad and just a reflection of the general Islamophobia (as demonstrated by HF throughout) existing amongst British non-Muslims that the first thing you should think is that it was some sort of honour punishment.
How am I demonstrating Islamaphobia Stani? I am phobic about all religious fanaticism, be it Islamic, Christian, Hasidic, whatever. Anybody who KNOWS he knows all the right answers is dangerous in my book.
You didn't post my comment before 16:02?
Which comment? I've posted everything in the comment bank. Nothing moderated out.
This one:
Yes but you are saying these are Islamic practices and just plain wrong and you should apologise for that. You're trying to be clever HF.
And whilst you go on about Qatar, we should look at our own country and how women are treated here.
-In London women are paid on average 25.4% less than men for work of equal value.
-A woman is raped every half hour in the UK but less than 7% of reported rapes end in conviction.
-In England, 30,000 pregnant mums lose their jobs every year through discrimination
We're not so great to our women either. Stop the arrogant hypocrisy. Woman are abused everywhere and it is not religion doing it, it is capitalist, power hungry, chauvinistic men.
Islam respects women, which is why women are the 2nd highest demographic entering Islam in the U.S after Afro-Americans. You can talk about Qatar as much as you want but it was plain wrong implying these practices are Islamic.
And you're not forcing your moral codes on anyone else? Go on, give us the Iain Dale answer: 'This is my blog....'
This blog is censored HF.
"If they weren't Muslim, you wouldn't object. That is a form of racism." Really? You know what I would or wouldn't do? More arrogance.
Out of respect for me you didn't bother using certain images? But you couldn't resist insulting my religion right?
Frankly I've had enough of your immaturity HF. This could be such a good blog but you needlessly provoke all kinds of people like some small child. I hope one day you can look back and think 'What the hell was I doing?'. It's not worth it HF. So sad.
Well "this one" wasn't left before or it would have been posted.
You do use some curious statistics. 30,000 pregnant mothers do NOT lose their jobs through discrimination in the UK. That is against the law. Where on earth did you get that from? 30,000 may CHOOSE to give up work to become full time mums, as my wife did, but nobody is forcing them too.
I'm also not sure where your absurd rape statistic comes from. If 7% only end in convictions, how do you know it was rape in the other 93% of the cases?
How many Muslim women are raped by Muslim men? I have no idea, but it is "impossible" under Sharia Law for a husband to rape a wife, even if the marriage is at the insistence of the family rather than because of the bride's choice. Any woman forced into a union, who is then forced into coitus by that union, is being raped in my view. That means an awful lot of Muslim women are raped but have no recourse under Law because your religion says that isn't rape. What sort of respect for women is that?
This is not an attack on your religion. Where in the article do I refer to Islam apart from stating the FACT that it is still technically an offence in Qatar to convert from Islam? That is a comment on Qatar, not on Islam. The fact that Qatar calls itself an "Islamic" state is a problem for Muslims perhaps. I am not criticising Muslims, I am criticising Qatar and the decision to give them the World Cup.
Please explain how this blog is censored? What have you ever tried to post that has been moderated out?
I didn't accuse you of anything, I just asked you where the comment was. Don't get uptight. Maybe you've confused that with my 'this blog is censored' comment.
I didn't say you censored my comments...you censor other people's so this blog is censored.
I got the stats from the Fawcett Society website. It's a reliable source and you can go have a look yourself. I don't just make things up like some people. Not as 'absurd' as you thought.
And what is the agenda of the Fawcett Society exactly? It is a campaigning group for women's rights so hardly an unbiased source is it? It's a bit like trusting to the BNP for stats on immigration! Get a grip man! Love the name though! The Fawcett Society giving stats on rape! No pun intended obviously!
I have no idea what happened to your original post, it certainly didn't get through!
You do not address the other arguments Stani. Try to do so without getting so angry. Debate rather than argue eh?
And with regard to censoring, do you want me to carry racist abuse and threats? Do you want to read a string of foul obscentities? Do you want me to carry links to hard core pornographic sites? I accept that there have to be some limits on freedom of speech to avoid unacceptable offence being caused. However, those apart, there is no censorship on this site and never has been.
Stani - I'm sorry but I can think of no other reason why a young girl of 15 / 16 should have a face that was so obviously carved up with a knife, can you? I've seen people who have been cut with a knife and it was obvious that she was the victim of such an attack. Her face was completely wrecked and the perpetrator had done a skilful and prolonged job in ruining her face. Perhaps you are unaware that it popular in Pakistan and elsewhere to disfigure women's faces with knives as well as acid?
If you wish to use the argument that I had no facts - then we have to examine your statement "The value of these girls is a million times more...." as making an positive assumption based only on a picture of girls in headscarf's is I believe deeply flawed.
And where exactly was I angry HF? Despite your deep hatred for my religion and your clear p*ss taking, I have not once been angry here.
Censoring: It's up to you what you want to carry. My point was that this blog IS censored, rightly or wrongly. You said it wasn't. That's all.
Turds,
Surely you're not as narrow minded as that?
I'm well aware about what happens in Pakistan as I am aware of those like Katie Piper. Next assumption please?
By the way, just because I write about Pakistan cricket, doesn't mean I am Pakistani Turds. That would be a simpleton's conclusion.
And whilst you and HF look down on countries like Qatar and Pakistan, they are comparatively new countries. Give them a chance. Let's not go back and bring up what was happening in England when it was only a few decades old shall we? But anyway, even if they wanted to develop, I'm sure Britain and it's friends across the pond would get together and slap them with sanctions or something, like they are doing against Iran. Sanctimonious.
I was saying those school girls are worth a million times more than the naked women HF puts on this site. They are to me, even if they are not to you, but like HF has previously suggested, we all have different values.
Anger is evidenced when you use extreme language, hurl insults and work yourself up into such an emotional state that you lose sight of the argument, Stani. It is also evidenced when you walk away from a debate or threaten to do so if the other party will not agree to do what you want him to do.
Now, I will address your latest highly emotive reply. If I hated your religion, why would I have read the Qu'ran? Why, indeed, would I say that it makes much more sense than the Christian Bible? That is a strange form of hatred, is it not? I do not hate any religion, but, as I have said before, I am amazed by how naive people can be, reading religious tracts clearly written for a purpose and clearly written in a moment of time, to serve the needs of that time, and believing the words are the words of God, when clearly they are a device of government. Take our Bible. The Old Testament was written when the Jews were the dominant tribe in the region so the central motifs of power, domination and "an eye for an eye" are explored. The New Testament was written when Jews were the slaves of the Romans, so a creed glorifying meekness, subservience and turn the other cheek was developed.
The issue of slavery shows why the religious texts, including yours, are absurd in the modern world. God would not endorse slavery would He? But slavery is acceptable in the Christian Bible and your Qu'ran.
Of course, if you accept that there are errors in the Qu'ran, it cannot be the word of God, because God is infallible and would not make mistakes. And there is the problem explored in the Satanic Verses. Never mind the mistakes in your own Holy text, it is saturated with references to the Torah and Bible, both of which are riddled with errors themselves. If written by God, why does he source so much from texts that clearly are not divine in their authorship?
And where do I take the piss out of your religion Stani? The article is about Qatar and Qatar's laws. You have interpreted those laws as the product of Islam. I repeat, I have not said that Islam is responsible for these laws, the unelected, autocratic rulers of Qatar have imposed those laws on the people of Qatar. It is you, a Muslim, who has linked this dreadful governance with the teachings of Islam. Why have YOU made this link? You seem to accept that the Qatar laws are BECAUSE of the teachings of Islam. If so, then God would appeared to be flawed because he has produced a book of rules that, when applied by humans who revere Him, result in persecution and oppression. You also end up with a society with a huge gulf between the rich and the poor. Indeed, show me a state where Islam is the state religion, where this is not the case!
You use the excuse that Pakistan and Qatar are "young" nations, but this excuse does not stand for Israel in your book does it? And anyway, what does time matter when you have God on your side? Follow the Qu'ran and surely you will have the perfect state, because God has written the rules. Why do you need time to develop and mature when your laws are divine?
Stani the reason I mentioned Pakistan was because there was a news item only this week where women of Pakistan who had been disfigured had got together to sing a song to raise awareness of this issue world wide - I don't believe they were trying to insight Islamaphobia.
I can assure you that I do not look down on countries like Qatar and Pakistan and I believe it is a paranoia on your part that leads you to this conclusion.
I only got involved in this conversation because I found your statement about girls in scarves somehow being a million times greater value because of a "simple cloth" slightly ludicrous.
My example of the girls in the Mile End road and the girl from Acton was designed to challenge your rather one sided views on slags.
Turds, you fail to understand the power of that headscarf. It is like Batman's utility belt of Superman's cape. Wear the scarf and you are pure, perfect, clean, don't wear it and you are a whore - or so Stani appears to suggest. The notion that conforming to a dress code makes you a better person is absurd. Talk to the boys abused by Irish priests!
Of course, Muslim men don't have to wear it, they can wear Western dress because it is more comfortable and because they want to look fashionable and trendy. But it is out of RESPECT for women that they are required to wear clothing that hides their flesh and hair and is uncomfortable in hot weather. Respect!
This is not anti Islam Stani, it is anti the application of Islam because, as you and I know, there is NO requirement in the Qa'ran for women to be wrapped up like Christmas presents before they set foot outside the door!
Sorry about the typo - Qu'ran. Apologies.
Hahahaha, where was I angry HF? This is just another example of the stereotype you hold about Muslims, that they get angry. Pathetic.
And how is walking away from a blinkered, self-centred, Islamophobbic, ego maniac a demonstration of anger? Actually, it's the opposite! It's patience!
Even Dirk Wilders has read he Quran, it does not mean he doesn't hate us. You make some silly arguments for a man who should be quite intelligent. But I know why you do it. Many people that come on this blog are prone to suggestibility, like Turds for example. You put out certain views and make certain statements that are not always correct and that you may not even believe yourself in order to get a required end result i.e. get them on side.
There are no errors in the Quran.
"the unelected, autocratic rulers of Qatar have imposed those laws on the people of Qatar"...so you didn't mention sharia then?
There is no comparison between Qatar/Pakistan an the illegal state of Israel. If Qatar and Pakistan were helped and defended by the U.S and U.K like Israel has, do you not think they'd be further down the line?
Comparing the scarf to batmans belt and supermans cape is not taking the p*ss? Grow up HF.
No one forces these women to wear scarves HF. But it bothers you because you would rather see them naked like the ones on your blog. Because you respect women!
Turds,
I wasnt talking about what the women of Pakistan were doing, I was talking about why you felt it needed mentioning. It's because you're trying to suggest that Islam treats women bad. But then you have no answer to why so many women are coming into Islam. You have no answer for this.
If I think that girls wearing scarves are worth a million times more than naked girls having photos taken of themselves with the mistaken belief they are 'free' then I'm allowed to hold that opinion. Why is it irritating you and HF so much? Yep, Islamophobia.
Can you and HF also explain why you and HF have generalised my statement to include all women when I was referring to the naked women HF was posting pictures of? Why have you tried to twist my words? Answer this...if you and HF are such great, honest and innocent people?
You seem to have a strange idea of what constitutes anger Stani. Let's just look at some of your language choices:
"immature, provocative, scantily clad slags, take the piss, you couldn't give a shit, mocking, malign my religion, subtle provocative antipathy, pathetic, Islamaphobic."
I am not sure that is the language of diplomacy, self control or restraint.
This article is about Qatar, not about Islam. Although I accept, as you seem to accept, that Sharia inevitably results in states like Qatar and Pakistan - undemocratic, cruel, savage and oppressive. If Sharia is so wonderful, if the Qu'ran is the word of God, why does the application of Islam result in such terrible governments Stani?
How about addressing some specifics? Please answer the following questions:
1. Why did you use statistics from the Fawcett Society to support your argument, knowing them to be biased and suspect?
2. Do you you think a woman can be raped by her husband?
3. Do you think a woman forced into marriage, and forced into coitus as a result of that marriage, is the victim of rape?
4. Why doesn't Sharia recognise this as rape?
5. If Sharia is right, why do societies based on Sharia all manifest oppression and cruelty?
6. Do you believe homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed?
7. Why is a woman who shows her body a worthless slut? My wife has sunbathed nude on a beach, does that make her a wothless slut? What right have you to judge her without ever having met her?
8. Why is it acceptable for Muslim men to show their bodies and flesh but not acceptable for Muslim women? Why did I see Muslim men jumping into swimmiing pools (in skimpy trunks) in Sri Lanks whilst their wives "sunbathed" in the full burka on a boiling hot day? How is that respecting women?
Please answer these questions without hurling obscenties. It would be good to debate the points rather than name call.
9. Do you agree it is OK for the Qataris to use Muslim slave labour from the Inidan subcontinent to build its stadiums?
10. "If Qatar were helped and defended by the U.S" Why do Qatar allow US CENTCOM HQ to reside in its state if not for its defence?
I am not the slightest bit irritated and have no problem with anyone, as I am a very much live and let live kind of guy. I have no idea what I've said that has led you believe otherwise.
I mentioned the girls with disfigured faces because I believed and still do that the girl in Acton had been a victim of such an attack. The same way that you assume that because girls wearing a "simple cloth" as a head scarf are somehow a million times better than those who do not, even though, like my assumptions you also have no evidence that this is actually the case.
I will repeat what I said earlier and you have chosen to completely ignore my words which I believe were quite clear.
I only got involved in this conversation because I found your statement about girls in scarves somehow being a million times greater value because of a "simple cloth" slightly ludicrous.
My example of the girls in the Mile End road and the girl from Acton was designed to challenge your rather one sided views on slags.
I recently commissioned a model for a three day photo shoot - she wore a bikini (The product I sell is a health a beauty device) she spoke five languages was out going, intelligent and a thoroughly decent girl. You cannot and should not judge anyone by looking at just a picture and that is the only point that I have been trying to make.
This has all got a little out of hand dont you think? Stani, I really dont see anything offensive in the pictures and if you genually do, surely you must also take offense to the second picture of the English schoolgirls. I dont see any way that carrying a picture of innocent school children, whatever the race, can be deemed offensive.
Personally, I am an Atheist and although i respect followers of all religions, firmly believe that religion has been the cause of more deaths throughout history through wars etc than it has helped. This whole discussion strengthens that belief!
Regardless, seeing this article as a direct insult can only be interpreted as paranoia on your part. The vast majority of us accept that there are co-existing religions and have no reason to deliberately have a pop at any one of them.
Hear Hear chunky - well said sir, the voice of reason.
HF
Those are just my words. There is no expression of emotion there. The perceived emotion has been chosen and put in by you because of your stereotype. THAT is my point.
"I am not sure that is the language of diplomacy, self control or restraint." You are a hypocrite of staggering proportions.
"This article is about Qatar, not about Islam." You mentioned and maligned Sharia. You brought Islam into it.
"If Sharia is so wonderful, if the Qu'ran is the word of God, why does the application of Islam result in such terrible governments Stani?"
There is no true Islamic state that follows Sharia law. You know this but you continue to talk garbage. Human beings are human beings, they do what they like as you are a clear example of. This is no blame to a religion. But of course, you voted for a civilised government that launched an illegal war that has killed thousands of innocent men women and children. You are so much better than everyone else. How did I miss it?
1. Knowing them to be biased? You know what I know? You know that photo you have of the guy with his head up his own arse...one of yours was it from the family album? Why are the Fawcett society stats suspect? What is your evidence?
2. Yes, and vice versa
3. Yes
4. It does. You think it doesn't because of your idea of Islam.
5. There is no society that is truly based on Sharia. Don't make me repeat that again!
6. Depends what they've done. I believe homosexuality is an illness and people with it should be helped. That's not being homophobic like some of your views on homosexuality.
7. I didn't call your wife a worthless slut. I'm sorry, but for your wife's sake, I have to say you're an idiot there. Would you get your wife to pose nude and have pictures taken of her and published on the net? No, then there is no comparison. Dont bring your family into arguments in a disrespectful manner just to prove a stupid point. Even if you have no respect for yourself, have some for them.
8. Muslim men are not allowed to show their bodies. If some Muslim men do, it is not because the religion allows it. Read that slow so you can understand the logic. Some Muslim women show their bodies too. And let's not go into respect for women eh HF? YOU know YOU better than me. As for how Islam respects women...see how many are coming in to the religion. Irrefutable facts. Go and ask them why...nothing to do with me. See what 'forces' them
9. What Muslim slave labour? And you query my sources? Do you think it was ok for Wembley stadium to cost twice it's original estimate and no one question where the money has gone despite millions of public money being spent on it?
10. Yeh, and quote the rest of that sentence...come on now HF, you can do it. Ok then, I'll do it for you: "If Qatar and Pakistan were helped and defended by the U.S and U.K like Israel has"...like Israel, like Israel! Why did you miss that bit out HF? Come on, tell everyone since your such an upstanding straight guy who doesn't deceive. The US and UK do not help anyone like they do Israel, least of all Qatar. Why the hell are you even disputing that? Ludicrous!!! You're doing your credibility no favours.
Turds,
Once again you misquote me and repeat your assumption. The comparison was with the girls in the scarves to the naked women in pictures on this site but you, like before, have once again said I compared girls in scarves with every other girl/woman. Why have deliberately you done this, please explain?
"I only got involved in this conversation because I found your statement about girls in scarves somehow being a million times greater value because of a "simple cloth" slightly ludicrous."...to the ones naked in the pictures, to the ones naked in the pictures!!
"I recently commissioned a model for a three day photo shoot - she wore a bikini (The product I sell is a health a beauty device) she spoke five languages was out going, intelligent and a thoroughly decent girl." That's your view. My view, which you are not allowing me to have, is that if she was really intelligent, she wouldn't need to take her clothes off for the purpose of selling something. You and HF believe it is ok to use your women...make them prostitute their bodies just to sell products. The fact that you think this is ok, merely demonstrates the lack of value of women you hold (try to understand that point). I hold women in much higher regard.
Chunky,
I take offence to both pictures. You should get the facts straight first before accusing me. The first picture is the one HF posted originally with the article. The second only followed when I raised issue...it was some strange attempt at proving something. When he did post the second, I then said both pictures should be removed. If you read above, and read properly, you will see this. Somehow, I don't think I'll get an apology from you for that...for some reason.
Also Chunky, you have admitted you do not have a religion so I'm not sure how you can judge whether I should be offended or not. I know exactly what has been said and intended here about my religion but you wouldn't see it because you do not have a religion. I take deep offence from things like when HF mocked the scarf comparing it to batman's belt and superman cape. Please step aside.
18:48,
Hearing voices again?
Wow, quite a tidal wave of replies Stani.
How about
If a woman does not perform her duty as a spouse, she has not done her duty to Allah. - The Prophet of Islam (saw) (http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/marriage.asp)
So a woman who is forced into an arranged marriage is REQUIRED to have sex. If she does not love her husband or want to have sex with him, she is required to submit to unconsenting sex, or rape according to Islam. Have I misunderstood? If so, please explain why.
This is supported by:
According to a narration, a woman came to the Prophet (s.a.w.) and asked him: "O Messenger of Allah, tell me what right has the husband upon the wife?" He said: "A lot." She said: "Explain me some of them." He replied "She may not fast without his permission, nor may she go out of her house without his consent. She has to use the best of perfumes, to wear the best of her clothes, to adorn herself as best as she can, to offer herself to him day and night, and still his rights are more than that."
Respect for women? A wife cannot leave the house without her husband's permission? Is that respect for women? And as for our unfortunate bride, the victim of an arranged marriage, what chance does she stand given she must "offer herself to him day and night"? (http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/woman.asp)
How do you explain:
Imam Al-Sadiq (a.s.) relates that a woman who came to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) was asked by him whether she was a 'put-off woman?' She asked the meaning of that, and the Prophet replied: "She is the woman who, when her husband calls her for some need, keeps putting it off until he falls asleep. Such a woman will, then, continuously be cursed by the angels until her husband wakes up."
The Qur'an briefly states the right of enjoying one's wife, by saying: "Your women are tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth when you like and do good beforehand for yourselves, and fear Allah, and know that you will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)" Holy Qur'an (2:223)
According to the above verse, the Qur'an confirms man's right to enjoy his wife in diverse ways, as she, too, has the right to enjoy this relationship. (http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/woman.asp)
If men have this "right", how can a wife be raped by her husband under Sharia?
I am genuinely confused Stani. This is material drawn from a Muslim site, not from a site striving to show Islam in a bad light.
Now I accept that Islam requires that both husband and wife enter into marriage willingly, but in a culture of male domination, and of honour killings (which I know Islam is opposed to!), what chance does a Muslim daughter stand if her father arranges a marriage for her?
Wow, quite a tidal wave of replies Stani.
How about
If a woman does not perform her duty as a spouse, she has not done her duty to Allah. - The Prophet of Islam (saw) (http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/marriage.asp)
So a woman who is forced into an arranged marriage is REQUIRED to have sex. If she does not love her husband or want to have sex with him, she is required to submit to unconsenting sex, or rape according to Islam. Have I misunderstood? If so, please explain why.
This is supported by:
According to a narration, a woman came to the Prophet (s.a.w.) and asked him: "O Messenger of Allah, tell me what right has the husband upon the wife?" He said: "A lot." She said: "Explain me some of them." He replied "She may not fast without his permission, nor may she go out of her house without his consent. She has to use the best of perfumes, to wear the best of her clothes, to adorn herself as best as she can, to offer herself to him day and night, and still his rights are more than that."
Respect for women? A wife cannot leave the house without her husband's permission? Is that respect for women? And as for our unfortunate bride, the victim of an arranged marriage, what chance does she stand given she must "offer herself to him day and night"? (http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/woman.asp)
How do you explain:
Imam Al-Sadiq (a.s.) relates that a woman who came to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) was asked by him whether she was a 'put-off woman?' She asked the meaning of that, and the Prophet replied: "She is the woman who, when her husband calls her for some need, keeps putting it off until he falls asleep. Such a woman will, then, continuously be cursed by the angels until her husband wakes up."
The Qur'an briefly states the right of enjoying one's wife, by saying: "Your women are tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth when you like and do good beforehand for yourselves, and fear Allah, and know that you will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)" Holy Qur'an (2:223)
According to the above verse, the Qur'an confirms man's right to enjoy his wife in diverse ways, as she, too, has the right to enjoy this relationship. (http://www.ezsoftech.com/omm/woman.asp)
If men have this "right", how can a wife be raped by her husband under Sharia?
I am genuinely confused Stani. This is material drawn from a Muslim site, not from a site striving to show Islam in a bad light.
Now I accept that Islam requires that both husband and wife enter into marriage willingly, but in a culture of male domination, and of honour killings (which I know Islam is opposed to!), what chance does a Muslim daughter stand if her father arranges a marriage for her?
Questions 9 & 10 are not mine Stani.
There may be no societies based strictly upon Sharia Stani, but those socities that are closer to Sharia than others are more brutal!
Why are nations that have Islam as their state religion so brutally governed?
Every time you pour a bucket of water over yourself, you get wet. It is reasonable, therefore, to draw a correlation between soaking yourself in water and being wet. If EVERY "Islamic" nation subjects its people to oppression and brutality, it is not reasonable to draw a correlation between Islam and oppressive government? I know there is no truly Islamic state, but the more "Islamic" the state, the more oppressive and brutal the government. Look at Iran. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at Qatar. Look at Pakistan. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Indonesia.
2247 Stani the girl we used was signed up to the elite model agency on the weekend we used her which is one of the top two agencies in the world there is now no reason now why she shouldn't earn literary 1,000's a day - from where I'm sitting that looks like a rather intelligent move. The health and beauty / medical device that I sell is used naked so putting her in a bikini was protecting her modesty - we also used a male model at the same time (an ex south hampton footballer) and I doubt you'll be protecting him. I think you took this completely the wrong way and I rarely agree with anything HF has to say.
Tell you what ive noticed - these girls in Iran and stuff getting stoned are for murder and adultery and stuff and they all wear head scarves makes you argument pretty thin don't it?
Did you see Pilger's documentary on ITV the other day HF? Called The War You Don't See?
How I would have loved it if you were there whilst I was watching it HF.
All your stereotypes on Muslims would have vanished. In fact, so compelling was it, you may have even apologised to me....actually, maybe not.
Why would I need to apologise? Were they Muslims who flew the planes into the Twin Towers Stani? Were they Muslims who blew up the tube trains and bus in London? Was it a Muslim who detonated himself in Stockholm? Was it a Muslim who tried to blow up Time Square? Were they Muslims who waged the 8 year Iran / Iraq war? Are the Taliban Muslims? Were the Iraqis who invaded Kuwait Muslims? Are the people who will stone this woman to death in Iran Muslims? Were they Muslims who indiscriminately murdered people in the hotels in Mombai? Were they Muslims who blew up the clubs in Thailand? Was it Muslims who tried to murder the Sri Lanka cricket team? Was it an "Islamic" nation that fired Scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War in a desperate attempt to make it a religious war? Who plants the bombs in Baghdad Stani? Muslims killing Muslims because of disagreements over the Hadith. What religion was the bomber who blew up the plane over Lockerbie? Were they Muslims who gassed the Kurds?
I am not saying all the wrong is on one side. My sympathies are with the Palastinians, although I recognise the right of Israel to defend itself against terrorism. Saudi Arabia, a Muslim nation, has been urging the USA to deal with Iran! Kuwait asked the UN for help! Saudi Arabia hosted the allied forces ahead of the invasion of Iraq!
Of course, we went into Iraq because of oil. I voted against Blair because of the invasion of Iraq so don't accuse me of supporting what was done. I also recognise America's role in helping Saddam to power. But the fact is, Saddam was an evil bastard, like virtually every Muslim ever allowed to secure power. Even your prophet Muhammad was a tribal warlord.
You can tell me all you like how the Qu'ran glorifies mercy but any religion that preaches that nobody dies unless at the will of Allah gives terrorists the ultimate get out of jail free card. And sadly, that card is used over and over and over again.
You provoke a bully, you expect a good beating. We were wrong to invade Iraq but Saddam got what he deserved. Sadly, innocent Iraqis did not deserve to die. But that doesn't stop one sect of Islam killing people from another sect of Islam in Iraq does it? And look at Afghanistan! Look at the corrupt bastard in power. He is a Muslim though isn't he?
Put your own house in order before you expect me to apologise! If Islam renounced violence, the violence against Muslims would stop. Remember, more Muslims died in the Iran / Iraq war than have been killed in both Gulf Wars and in Afghanistan.
Stani, HF is correct question 9 was not his. Your response "what Muslim slave labour" is so indicative of the self righteous and hypocritical religion that calls itself Islam. You have clearly never been to the Middle East where fellow Muslims from Indian Sub continent, Indonesia and Malaysia are treated like scum to furnish and service the middle east homage to capitalism. Muslims in their hundreds die in the construction of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi. Those that survive do so in accommodation no better than concentration camps that they return to after their 16 hour day working for a fraction of the money that a Muslim conman promised them back home. Once in Dubai or elsewhere they have their passports confiscated making them effective illegal immigrants with no right to complain. When in Dubai a few good CHRISTIANS suggested that there are human right issues then the ruler gives a few "hero" street cleaners a couple of medals and the rest carry on dying or working their lives for a pittance.
Stani, don't get on your soapbox over a picture HF choses to put on his website, go and find out a bit more about the compassion of your fellow Muslim in the middle east and then stand on your soapbox in the middle of Dubai to complain for civil rights for your fellow creed and see how long it takes before you are thrown into a filthy prison hoping the the good old Christian British Ambassador will get you out soon back to the good old civilised multiple cultural society of Britain where you have the right to post a picture on your own website without worrying about upsetting the regime!
Post a Comment