Australian Politics Forum - Gandalf's version of democracy

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #30 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:42pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 3:54pm:

I am not going to look for proof of something you are not prepared to disagree with.

I'm sorry, what am I allegedly not prepared to disagree with?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 3:54pm:

What you are suggesting is stupid, which is why you are afraid to come out and say it.

Presumably you are referring to my suggestion that non-muslims have indicated that they have no problem with muslims implementing hudud laws on muslims. I don't think thats stupid at all - especially when Chinese and Indian Malaysians overwhelmingly say either they have no problem with Malays introducing hudud or they are non-committal. Its far more stupid to claim they do have an objection - with absolutely no supporting evidence.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 3:54pm:

You demand proof from me, but from you we cannot even get an opinion, or even a guess. Just endless spin and misrepresentation.

Thats because you don't listen - even though I have given you this opinion of mine repeatedly in this thread, which I'll repeat once again: Chinese and other non-muslim Malaysians have no problem with introducing hudud, which is universally understood in Malaysia as something that will only ever affect muslims. It is my *OPINION* that it makes perfect sense for non-muslim Malaysians to have no objection to muslims enacting their own capital punishment laws that won't apply to them.

And no, apostasy laws have never ever been suggested to apply to non-muslims, how could it? You have to be muslim first to be an apostate - unless you are offering the ridiculous suggestions that Muslims would propose executing Chinese christians for converting to islam? Tongue

Well that wouldn't surprise me considering your extraordinary form in this thread so far. Anyway, Malaysians understand this, even if you don't, and attitudes on the subject are formed with this understanding in mind.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 3:54pm:

Let me guess, a Muslim political party that supports killing apostates conducted a survey

I'm sorry, which muslim political party conducted a survey? Or are you referring to the survey conducted by University Malaya Centre for Democracy and Elections?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21614
A cat with a view

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #31 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 6:40pm

gandalf,

Is a tyranny ever lawful ?

e.g.
If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule. a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.

I am thinking of this Koran verse....

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #32 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:05pm

Yadda wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule. a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.

It worked for Australia!

[rimshot]

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21614
A cat with a view

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #33 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:17pm

Stratos wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:05pm:

Yadda wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule. a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.

It worked for Australia!

[rimshot]

Stratos,

Touche!

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Gandalf's version of democracy Reply #34 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:28pm Yadda seeing your rants almost comes as a relief after trying to deal with FD's inane babbling.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #35 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:32pm

Yadda wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 6:40pm:

gandalf,

Is a tyranny ever lawful ?

e.g.
If a group [a nation] of people, by a majority, democratically elected a government to rule over them, and with the consent of the majority of the people, governed as a tyranny [over a portion of the people], would that state, be a lawful state ?

Dictionary;
tyranny = =
1 cruel and oppressive government or rule. a state under such rule.
2 cruel and arbitrary exercise of power or control.
3 rule by a tyrant.

Sure why not? A state is lawful or at least exists when other states recognise and respect its existence. Any amount of tyrannical countries have held elections where they can point to democratic principles. And even where democracy is respected an abused population can still vote for tyrannical tendencies.

We are going to see a lot more of it, Europe is battening down its hatches, on top of economic woes country shoppers will be receiving greater and negative attention.

Back to top

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #36 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:12pm

Quote:

I'm sorry, what am I allegedly not prepared to disagree with?

For starters, what I actually said. You had to invent something to disagree with.

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?

Quote:

Presumably you are referring to my suggestion that non-muslims have indicated that they have no problem with muslims implementing hudud laws on muslims.

Earth to Gandalf: We are talking about chopping people's heads off. You don't have to "presume" what we are talking about. I tell you every single post, and every single response you pretend you cannot understand basic English.

Quote:

Thats because you don't listen - even though I have given you this opinion of mine repeatedly in this thread

You keep giving me an opinion on a different issue. You change the topic, then give your opinion on it. You do this over and over again, apparently oblivious to how mind-numbingly stupid it is.

Quote:

And no, apostasy laws have never ever been suggested to apply to non-muslims, how could it?

Is an apostate a Muslim?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #37 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:29pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

For starters, what I actually said. You had to invent something to disagree with.

Lets be clear, I 100% disagree with your claim that 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose introducing stoning and execution for apostasy. And just to clarify, that is exactly the same as saying 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose introducing hudud laws that apply only to muslims - since apostasy and stoning laws are part and parcel of any proposed hudud law in Malaysia. Moreover, it goes without saying - always has gone without saying - that any proposed hudud laws in Malaysia only applies to muslims.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

Take an honest guess - how many non-Muslim Malaysians do you really believe are in favour of allowing Muslims to start killing people in the name of Islam?

Shall I repeat myself for a fourth time?

How about you take an "honest guess" FD - how many non-muslims do you really believe would oppose muslims enacting their own laws that apply only to muslims?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

ou keep giving me an opinion on a different issue. You change the topic, then give your opinion on it.

reply #s 11, 16 and 22 contain the opinion you asked for - it is exactly the same topic, and is exactly the same response - just repeated three times for your convenience. I did the courtesy of repeating it every time you asked for it - but if you cannot comprehend a very simple explanation, then I'm afraid there's not much else I can do for you.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:12pm:

Is an apostate a Muslim?

An apostate is a former muslim. Chinese and Indian Malaysians never were muslims. Try and explain to me how islamic apostasy laws apply to people who never were muslim in the first place. This should be interesting.

Meanwhile, I expect more obfuscation, more twisting and turning an extremely simple point into something incomprehensible - just so you can avoid manning up and conceding what is plain in front of your face: that you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that 100% of non-muslims in Malaysia oppose Malays implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #38 - Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:53pm

Quote:

And just to clarify, that is exactly the same as saying 2/3rds of the Malaysian population oppose introducing hudud laws that apply only to muslims - since apostasy and stoning laws are part and parcel of any proposed hudud law in Malaysia.

But it is not part of existing hudud laws, and your survey was obviously asking them about laws they know about, rather than about potential laws. The Pew survey showed a variety of opinions within the Muslim community based on each particular aspect of Shariah law. You cannot seriously expect us to believe that the non-Muslim Malaysian community has a one-size-fits-all opinion on the matter. You are trying to equate the most barbaric aspects of Islamic law with the most banal.

Quote:

How about you take an "honest guess" FD - how many non-muslims do you really believe would oppose muslims enacting their own laws that apply only to muslims?

Anywhere between 0% and 100%, depending on the specific law.

Quote:

An apostate is a former muslim.

Do you really think that ethnic Chinese and Indians would consider it "fair" to kill someone because they are a former Muslim? Do you think it is reasonable to insist that the law only applies to Muslims when it also applies to "former" muslims?

Quote:

Try and explain to me how islamic apostasy laws apply to people who never were muslim in the first place. This should be interesting.

Why should I do that? Again, it is your little fantasy.

Quote:

Meanwhile, I expect more obfuscation, more twisting and turning an extremely simple point into something incomprehensible - just so you can avoid manning up and conceding what is plain in front of your face: that you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that 100% of non-muslims in Malaysia oppose Malays implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws.

Earth to Gandalf: I did not say that. Ask me to back up what I actually say, but please stop demanding I prove every little fantasy you dream up.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #39 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:32am

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

But it is not part of existing hudud laws

There are no existing hudud laws in Malaysia.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

and your survey was obviously asking them about laws they know about, rather than about potential laws.

And what do they know about FD? You seem to suddenly know all about it. For your information they were talking about the PAS proposed hudud which absolutely does include stoning and execution for apostasy - they have made this clear.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

You cannot seriously expect us to believe that the non-Muslim Malaysian community has a one-size-fits-all opinion on the matter.

Hillarious. You're the one trying to claim that 100% of them have a one-size-fits-all opinion on apostasy and stoning.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

You are trying to equate the most barbaric aspects of Islamic law with the most banal.

lol now you are just plain confused. They were specifically asked about hudud. There are no "banal" laws - they are all barbaric in your books - hudud specifically refers to death and amputations. And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

Do you really think that ethnic Chinese and Indians would consider it "fair" to kill someone because they are a former Muslim?

According to the survey, yes. If you have any evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.The survey didn't ask respondents to exclude the known hudud law of executing apostates in their assessment that hudud is "fair to all".

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

Quote:
Meanwhile, I expect more obfuscation, more twisting and turning an extremely simple point into something incomprehensible - just so you can avoid manning up and conceding what is plain in front of your face: that you don't have a leg to stand on in claiming that 100% of non-muslims in Malaysia oppose Malays implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws.

Earth to Gandalf: I did not say that

Bullshit. You said 2/3rds oppose implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws. Explain to me how you reach this 2/3rds without including 100% of the non-muslim community. Do the maths.

Interesting that you have dropped the stoning now.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #40 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:55am

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:32am:

Bullshit. You said 2/3rds oppose implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws. Explain to me how you reach this 2/3rds without including 100% of the non-muslim community. Do the maths.

And just to clarify, you didn't merely say that they "oppose" it, your original claim was that they actively blocked Malays from implementing their own hudud laws - a minority of Malays plus 100% of non-muslims which makes 2/3rds of the entire population. This is the biggest BS in the whole discussion - since there is no evidence whatsoever indicating that non-muslims want to block this - in fact the evidence suggests that they are happy to let muslims implement their own capital punishment laws - if they want it.

And by the way, you have to be muslim at the time the laws are implemented to be eligible for the apostasy law.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #41 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:17am

Quote:

And what do they know about FD? You seem to suddenly know all about it. For your information they were talking about the PAS proposed hudud which absolutely does include stoning and execution for apostasy - they have made this clear.

I know what you posted about it, which is that they see it as a way of reducing rampant crime (by Muslims?) and as fair because it only applies to Muslims. Neither of these makes sense for executing apostates, and the rampant crime thing does not make sense for stoning adulterers.

Furthermore, it does not make sense for the Indians and Chinese to be willing to accept these laws out of some sense of inter-community "live and let live" when it involves executing apostates.

Quote:

And the point here is non-muslim Malaysians don't have to like the laws to appreciate that muslims have the right to enact those laws on themselves if they like.

And on apostates?

Quote:

Bullshit. You said 2/3rds oppose implementing muslim-only capital punishment laws. Explain to me how you reach this 2/3rds without including 100% of the non-muslim community. Do the maths.

The numbers I got were less than 1/3 of the population, based on the Muslims only. This allows for a small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese who are happy to see the indigenous kill each other for whatever reason to still give roughly 2/3 of the population opposing the laws. It is you who has a problem with the maths, yet again.

Quote:

Interesting that you have dropped the stoning now.

What do you think I mean when I say "the most barbaric" laws? It does not get any worse than stoning people to death.

Quote:

And just to clarify, you didn't merely say that they "oppose" it, your original claim was that they actively blocked Malays from implementing their own hudud laws

Of course they do. They are hardly going to vote for Islamic extremists. The pro-killing people group only just make a majority of the Muslim community. They don't need to do anything active to block it. It's not like it is some kind of conspiracy. Less than 1/3 of the population actually want these laws to begin with, and a significant portion of the rest are the ones at risk of being executed.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #42 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 4:14pm

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

I know what you posted about it

Evidently not - for one thing it needed to be pointed out to you that the survey was not conducted by PAS, or any other "Muslim political party that supports killing apostates."

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

which is that they see it as a way of reducing rampant crime (by Muslims?) and as fair because it only applies to Muslims. Neither of these makes sense for executing apostates, and the rampant crime thing does not make sense for stoning adulterers.

You need to demonstrate that the Chinese and Indian respondents were specifically thinking about those crimes only when they stated that hudud is "fair to all". Otherwise, the default position is that apostasy and adultery hudud laws are included - because thats been PAS policy all along - and the survey was specifically in response to PAS's policy.

Either way, the point is there is no evidence here to suggest that the respondents oppose stoning and apostasy laws - and thats what you need to demonstrate. And simply arguing your point with your lame-arsed "take an honest guess" routine simply doesn't cut it.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

Furthermore, it does not make sense for the Indians and Chinese to be willing to accept these laws out of some sense of inter-community "live and let live" when it involves executing apostates

Yes it does, since it can never affect them (unless they convert to islam). You have to be muslim to start with to be eligible for the apostasy laws. For them, its basicaly saying "if they want to enact laws to kill themselves, then so be it". Of course it could be the non-muslims might oppose this on moral grounds - but we need some evidence to prove it.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

The numbers I got were less than 1/3 of the population, based on the Muslims only. This allows for a small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese who are happy to see the indigenous kill each other for whatever reason to still give roughly 2/3 of the population opposing the laws. It is you who has a problem with the maths, yet again.

No. Please follow the calculation carefully: 39% of the population are non-muslim. Amongst the muslim population around 53% support executing apostates (62% of 86% who support sharia). That makes 47% of muslims who oppose the laws, which makes up around 28% of the population.

Right?

Ok, so we need to get the "oppose" camp up from 28% to 2/3rds (66.6%) using the non-muslim population. The non-muslims makes up around 39% of the population. How many non-muslims do we need? - 66.6%-28% = 38.6%. Well look at that - 100% of the non-muslim population pretty much makes exactly 2/3rds of the population (28% + 39% = 67%) :p. There literally is no " small but significant minority" left.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

and a significant portion of the rest are the ones at risk of being executed.

Good grief, how do you suppose that??

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 5^th, 2014 at 4:36pm by polite_gandalf »

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48834
At my desk.

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #43 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:33pm

Quote:

You need to demonstrate that the Chinese and Indian respondents were specifically thinking about those crimes only when they stated that hudud is "fair to all". Otherwise, the default position is that apostasy and adultery hudud laws are included

Gandalf, when you need to invent new fields of logic to back up your case it's time to give it a rest.

Do you believe that when the Indians and Chinese said it would reduce rampant crime, they were referring to apostasy or adultery?

Quote:

because thats been PAS policy all along - and the survey was specifically in response to PAS's policy

So the survey was specifically in response to a policy on executing apostates and stoning adulterers to death, yet did not mention these things at any point? Furthermore the responses indicate that the participants had something else in mind. Doesn't that make you the least bit skeptical of the results?

Quote:

Either way, the point is there is no evidence here to suggest that the respondents oppose stoning and apostasy laws - and thats what you need to demonstrate.

You would probably have trouble proving that Australians oppose Muslims killing people in the name of Islam. You might even find some who don't get particularly wound up over vague waffle about Muslims living by their own rules. That is not reasonable grounds for discarding common sense.

Quote:

And simply arguing your point with your lame-arsed "take an honest guess" routine simply doesn't cut it.

It was never intended to be an argument. I just don't see the point in proving something when you don't even have the balls to disagree with it.

Quote:

Yes it does, since it can never affect them (unless they convert to islam).

Way to completely miss the point Gandalf. It does not make sense. Think about it.

Quote:

You have to be muslim to start with to be eligible for the apostasy laws. For them, its basicaly saying "if they want to enact laws to kill themselves, then so be it". Of course it could be the non-muslims might oppose this on moral grounds - but we need some evidence to prove it.

You need evidence that Chinese and Indians have morals?

Quote:

Ok, so we need to get the "oppose" camp up from 28% to 2/3rds (66.6%) using the non-muslim population. The non-muslims makes up around 39% of the population. How many non-muslims do we need? - 66.6%-28% = 38.6%. Well look at that - 100% of the non-muslim population pretty much makes exactly 2/3rds of the population (28% + 39% = 67%) :p. There literally is no " small but significant minority" left.

I see you've been very creative with your rounding there Gandalf. Even so, you still cannot make it 100%. Fact is, you have been asking me to prove your own little fantasy for you all along.

Quote:

Good grief, how do you suppose that??

There are a lot of people considered Muslim by the Malaysian government who are not actually Muslim. That's what the "rehabilitation camps" are for. There are a lot more who simply keep their mouth shut. If anyone has a motive to get their view across, it is these people. They are the ones who risk getting executed.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Gandalf's version of democracy
Reply #44 - Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:53pm

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

I see you've been very creative with your rounding there Gandalf. Even so, you still cannot make it 100%. Fact is, you have been asking me to prove your own little fantasy for you all along.

Please point out to me this "creative rounding". The numbers add up - I used the exact same figures you used in the OP. If you are correct in saying that 2/3rds of the entire population oppose the laws, then there is no "small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese" that support hudud apostasy laws - You literally need 100% of the non-muslim population.

From the OP:
Quote:

Gandalf has taken the extraordinary position that the reason they do not have these laws is because the 1/3 of the population that supports them don't really care enough to get them, rather than because 2/3 of the population oppose them

Clearly, you came up with 2/3rds "oppose" by simple default - 1/3 support, therefore 2/3rds must oppose. The 1/3 is the Malays you got from the survey, and the 2/3rds is everyone else. You see the problem here FD? The "support" camp *ONLY* comes from the Malays (muslims) who stated in the PEW survey that they support death for apostasy. And here's the crunch: there simply is no one left to be included amongst your imaginary "small but significant minority of Indians and Chinese" who support death for apostasy. You literally just made it up on the spot - directly contradicting yourself - just so you can reject my (obviously correct) claim that 2/3rds must include 100% of non-muslims - even though thats clearly what you meant in the OP. That how petty you are FD.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged