Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[holepuncture]

The 'moderates' couldn't care less about you lot, as you are not part of the disgraceful mob, frankly they consider you as beneath them. As for women, they consider you as nothing more than a domestic animal, like a dog.

 

"Taqiyya"

 

It is widely reported that around 15-25% sympathise or endorse extremism, that's a few hundred million problems for the rest of the world.

 

"Taqiyya"

 

They don't have any regard for me or for you, don't delude yourself to think otherwise.

 

This will define us for generations, rather than squabbling, appeasing and sympathising, we need to think about the future.

 

They're a danger to us all, they're a danger to themselves. We need to sort this out.

[Sour Mash]

Why does it matter where they are protesting? The fact that they exist and are clearly protesting openly is enough to fulfill the stated definition.

 

So a handful of people wondering along with a few placards, no-where near, in sight or sound, of who they're protesting against is a backlash? If the people they're meant to be opposing don't even know about it? It's not a strong negative reaction. It's not antagonistic. However much you want it to be so.

[Sour Mash]

You seem to be protesting about the failure of the Muslim community to respond to the terrorist problems in a manner that is open and supported by significant numbers. You also intimate that the lack of such a reaction is tantamount to condoning the Islamist extremists. Did you also take this view of the NI communities who failed to respond in the self same way as you demand? In such communities the fear of reprisals from the tiny minority of nutters is real, we saw real evidence of this in Glasgow last week, and the numerous kneecap pings and summary executions in Ni during the troubles was precisely designed to surprises any backlash. Your constant singling out of the Muslim community does your argument no favours and only serves to portray you as a bigoted ill informed, intolerant individual.

 

I haven't said any of those things. Weird post.

[moonraker]

I haven't said any of those things. Weird post.

 

I did not say you did I said it is what you intimated.

[Sour Mash]

You seem to be protesting about the failure of the Muslim community to respond to the terrorist problems in a manner that is open and supported by significant numbers. You also intimate that the lack of such a reaction is tantamount to condoning the Islamist extremists. .

 

I did not say you did I said it is what you intimated.

 

You haven't followed the last few pages at all it seems. As I said, weird post.

[moonraker]

You haven't followed the last few pages at all it seems. As I said, weird post.

 

Just re-read and stand by my interpretation of your comments, your lack of clarity leads me to the conclusions I stated.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Just re-read and stand by my interpretation of your comments, your lack of clarity leads me to the conclusions I stated.

 

You're quite right of course, but I have observed that he likes to skirt around his obvious islamaphobia with the intention of giving himself just enough "plausible deniability" to escape conviction. For example, he will not quite overtly state that he thinks Muslims make no positive contribution to society - but he will certainly imply it. He will just about avoid unambiguously stating that no muslims oppose the extremists, but he will accuse those who refute that of dishonesty. All this is transparent.

 

When challenged on his racist views he will inevitably resort to either semantics, the "I didn't say that" defence, or as a last resort the old "deny everything" strategy familiar in police interview suites up and down the length of the land. That is what he is selling on here - thankfuly I don't see many buyers frankly.

[Sour Mash]

You're quite right of course, but I have observed that he likes to skirt around his obvious islamaphobia with the intention of giving himself just enough "plausible deniability" to escape conviction. For example, he will not quite overtly state that he thinks Muslims make no positive contribution to society - but he will certainly imply it. He will just about avoid unambiguously stating that no muslims oppose the extremists, but he will accuse those who refute that of dishonesty. All this is transparent.

 

When challenged on his racist views he will inevitably resort to either semantics, the "I didn't say that" defence, or as a last resort the old "deny everything" strategy familiar in police interview suites up and down the length of the land. That is what he is selling on here - thankfuly I don't see many buyers frankly.

Ah, of course, the old Chapel End Charlie approach - when you don't have an answer, resort to name calling and making things up. Speaks volumes.

[Sour Mash]

Out of interest, were these events arranged by moderates?

 

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/01/labour-faced-with-sexism-row-again-after-men-and-women-were-segregated-at-asian-rally-5536791/

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11581329/Senior-Labour-politicians-Liam-Byrne-and-Tom-Watson-attend-segregated-Muslim-rally.html

[whelk]

From Charles Moore in The Spectator:

 

 

The Lahore attacks reflected hatred of Christians. Why must we deny it?

 

You might expect that the murder of Christians would excite particular horror in countries of Christian heritage. Yet almost the opposite seems to be true. Even amid the current slew of Islamist barbarities, the killing of 72 people, 29 of them children, on Easter Day in Lahore, stands out. So does the assault in Yemen in which nuns were murdered and a priest was kidnapped and then, apparently, crucified on Good Friday. But the coverage tends to downplay such stories — there has been much less about Lahore than Brussels, though more than twice as many died — or at least their religious element. The BBC correspondent in Lahore, Shahzheb Jillani, was at pains to emphasise that the victims were not solely Christians but ‘simply Pakistani citizens enjoying a day out in the park with their children’, as if that made it worse. Western European politicians rarely protest about the plight of Christians in Muslim lands or offer to help them. Such Christians are perhaps regarded as a bit of a nuisance in countries Islam dominates. The Jewish experience should warn us how insidious this way of turning the victims into the problem can be. Hatred of Christianity — as of Judaism — is central to the Islamist creed. In our secular societies in the West, we congratulate ourselves on our lack of zeal, and think that if we stay out of religious disputes, the angel of death will not select us. But the events in Brussels are a reminder that studied neutrality makes you weaker, and no safer.

[hypochondriac]

Out of interest, were these events arranged by moderates?

 

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/01/labour-faced-with-sexism-row-again-after-men-and-women-were-segregated-at-asian-rally-5536791/

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11581329/Senior-Labour-politicians-Liam-Byrne-and-Tom-Watson-attend-segregated-Muslim-rally.html

 

No clearly not. I've already said to you that there is a nasty extremist element within Islam. It still doesn't change the fact no matter how much you want to deny it that there was a backlash to the terrorism.

[Verbal]

From Charles Moore in The Spectator:

 

 

The Lahore attacks reflected hatred of Christians. Why must we deny it?

 

You might expect that the murder of Christians would excite particular horror in countries of Christian heritage. Yet almost the opposite seems to be true. Even amid the current slew of Islamist barbarities, the killing of 72 people, 29 of them children, on Easter Day in Lahore, stands out. So does the assault in Yemen in which nuns were murdered and a priest was kidnapped and then, apparently, crucified on Good Friday. But the coverage tends to downplay such stories — there has been much less about Lahore than Brussels, though more than twice as many died — or at least their religious element. The BBC correspondent in Lahore, Shahzheb Jillani, was at pains to emphasise that the victims were not solely Christians but ‘simply Pakistani citizens enjoying a day out in the park with their children’, as if that made it worse. Western European politicians rarely protest about the plight of Christians in Muslim lands or offer to help them. Such Christians are perhaps regarded as a bit of a nuisance in countries Islam dominates. The Jewish experience should warn us how insidious this way of turning the victims into the problem can be. Hatred of Christianity — as of Judaism — is central to the Islamist creed. In our secular societies in the West, we congratulate ourselves on our lack of zeal, and think that if we stay out of religious disputes, the angel of death will not select us. But the events in Brussels are a reminder that studied neutrality makes you weaker, and no safer.

 

The motives behind the Lahore attacks are much more complex than knee-jerk reactionaries like Moore would allow. If he knew who 'the Christians' in Pakistan actually were, he'd see there's more to this than some stupid liberal-elite/BBC conspiracy theory about obscuring 'hatred of Christianity'.

 

The vast majority of Christians in Pakistan come from families who were, pre-Partition, 'untouchables' or Dalits - the lowest, poorest and most despised caste in the Indian social hierarchy. That stigma persists in all kinds of ways: these people variously are enslaved (in 'bonded labour' in the Sindh and Punjabi brick kilns, mostly); are the victims of organ trafficking (many in bonded labour are promised freedom from slavery if they donate a kidney - then are not paid); are the victims of false 'blasphemy' charges which are in fact land-grabs by greedy neighbours; and are forced to live, at enormous cost, in slums (some of the highest priced real estate square footage in the country is in these slums).

 

In Lahore, the Christian slum is right in the urban heart of the city. The two Christian slums in Islamabad are a bit more set apart but still pretty central. If there were simply the victims of religious hatred they wouldn't be there - it would be far too dangerous. In fact, they're there because they are both the most exploited social group in the country, and the most necessary (many are employed to keep the cities clean - one of the worst jobs possible, but essential to the functioning of cities with desperately weak infrastructures).

 

The attacks on Christians in a children's funfair, of all places, indicates contempt just as much for these people's social position as for their religious beliefs. And in any case, the Islamists' real target is the Pakistani government - they want to discredit the state's ability to be a state, and what better, cost-free way of doing it is there than bombing women and children of a social group no one cares about?

[shirleysfc]

From Charles Moore in The Spectator:

 

 

The Lahore attacks reflected hatred of Christians. Why must we deny it?

 

You might expect that the murder of Christians would excite particular horror in countries of Christian heritage. Yet almost the opposite seems to be true. Even amid the current slew of Islamist barbarities, the killing of 72 people, 29 of them children, on Easter Day in Lahore, stands out. So does the assault in Yemen in which nuns were murdered and a priest was kidnapped and then, apparently, crucified on Good Friday. But the coverage tends to downplay such stories — there has been much less about Lahore than Brussels, though more than twice as many died — or at least their religious element. The BBC correspondent in Lahore, Shahzheb Jillani, was at pains to emphasise that the victims were not solely Christians but ‘simply Pakistani citizens enjoying a day out in the park with their children’, as if that made it worse. Western European politicians rarely protest about the plight of Christians in Muslim lands or offer to help them. Such Christians are perhaps regarded as a bit of a nuisance in countries Islam dominates. The Jewish experience should warn us how insidious this way of turning the victims into the problem can be. Hatred of Christianity — as of Judaism — is central to the Islamist creed. In our secular societies in the West, we congratulate ourselves on our lack of zeal, and think that if we stay out of religious disputes, the angel of death will not select us. But the events in Brussels are a reminder that studied neutrality makes you weaker, and no safer.

 

More Muslims were killed in the Lahore attack, than Christians.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/lahore-park-bomb-1.3509203

 

Any loss of life in these attacks, whatever the religion of those that died, is tragic.

[sadoldgit]

Possibly, but tell that to the poster that says there has been a clear backlash from them.

 

Depends what your definition of backlash is. It would appear that you expect them all to come out publically maybe? You have ignored the evidence that their has been a response. You have ignored quite reasonable opinions that actually the atrocities have nothing to do with "normal" Muslims and that they have nothing to apologise for. Fair enough, That is your opinion. I think you are wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.

[sadoldgit]

No clearly not. I've already said to you that there is a nasty extremist element within Islam. It still doesn't change the fact no matter how much you want to deny it that there was a backlash to the terrorism.

 

Who would have thought it. Hypo and me agreeing on something?

[hypochondriac]

Who would have thought it. Hypo and me agreeing on something?

 

I can't see it lasting. You'll be off on one about nazis and evil Christians in a minute.

[Fatboy40]

..."Taqiyya" ...

 

I've removed the rest of the text from your post as it's inflammatory, however I've never heard of 'Taqiyya' before and I try to understand other religions concepts before flinging mud at them...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

 

... however this is one that I find uncomfortable (but I expect that the bible also has something similar if you carefully analysed it).

[buctootim]

I've removed the rest of the text from your post as it's inflammatory, however I've never heard of 'Taqiyya' before and I try to understand other religions concepts before flinging mud at them...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

 

... however this is one that I find uncomfortable (but I expect that the bible also has something similar if you carefully analysed it).

 

Its interesting. There are so many sects and different traditions within Islam, much more divergence than Christianity. I have no idea how meaningful it is.

[Sour Mash]

Depends what your definition of backlash is. It would appear that you expect them all to come out publically maybe? You have ignored the evidence that their has been a response. You have ignored quite reasonable opinions that actually the atrocities have nothing to do with "normal" Muslims and that they have nothing to apologise for. Fair enough, That is your opinion. I think you are wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.

Its not my definition, I didn't write the Oxford English Dictionary. What I expect or don't expect isn't the point, you told us that there was a clear backlash, which has shown definitely not to be the case.

[Sour Mash]

No clearly not. I've already said to you that there is a nasty extremist element within Islam. It still doesn't change the fact no matter how much you want to deny it that there was a backlash to the terrorism.

No, there wasn't a backlash. Not under any of the definitions of "antagonistic" or "a strong negative reaction by a large number of people".

 

Worrying to see that Muslim extremist have such a hold on mainstream British society and the current Labour party though.

[hypochondriac]

No, there wasn't a backlash. Not under any of the definitions of "antagonistic" or "a strong negative reaction by a large number of people".

 

Worrying to see that Muslim extremist have such a hold on mainstream British society and the current Labour party though.

 

We've been through this. I've quite clearly given you the definition of "antagonistic" (something that is openly hostile or opposes something.) and explained why that definition fits the demonstrations made by Muslims. There were CLEARLY Muslims opposing terrorism thus there was a backlash. Just because you think any demonstration should have been more public or more widespread doesn't mean that there wasn't a "backlash" as defined by myself earlier, you just don't want to listen. It's an odd stance to take, particularly because I've said I agree with you in some ways but it's an undeniable fact that a backlash took place.

Edited 31 March, 2016 by hypochondriac

[shirleysfc]

Worrying to see that Muslim extremist have such a hold on mainstream British society...

 

What do you mean by this?

[moonraker]

No, there wasn't a backlash. Not under any of the definitions of "antagonistic" or "a strong negative reaction by a large number of people".

 

Worrying to see that Muslim extremist have such a hold on mainstream British society and the current Labour party though.

 

YYou argue there has been no backlash, because your interpretation of the definition does not fit what has occurred and then you make a completely unfounded claim that Muslim extremists have a hold on British society. Within my understanding of the term ‘a hold on British Society’ I might concede that the bankers or other influential commercial interests have some sort of hold on British society but to claim that any terror group has is nonsensical, they certainly have an effect but that is not the same thing. Please explain what you mean by a hold on British society?

[Sour Mash]

YYou argue there has been no backlash, because your interpretation of the definition does not fit what has occurred and then you make a completely unfounded claim that Muslim extremists have a hold on British society. Within my understanding of the term ‘a hold on British Society’ I might concede that the bankers or other influential commercial interests have some sort of hold on British society but to claim that any terror group has is nonsensical, they certainly have an effect but that is not the same thing. Please explain what you mean by a hold on British society?

Running meetings with the 2nd biggest Parliamentary party in the country, attended by senior members of that party.

[Sour Mash]

We've been through this. I've quite clearly given you the definition of "antagonistic" (something that is openly hostile or opposes something.) and explained why that definition fits the demonstrations made by Muslims. There were CLEARLY Muslims opposing terrorism thus there was a backlash. Just because you think any demonstration should have been more public or more widespread doesn't mean that there wasn't a "backlash" as defined by myself earlier, you just don't want to listen. It's an odd stance to take, particularly because I've said I agree with you in some ways but it's an undeniable fact that a backlash took place.

How can you antagonise someone if they have neither sight nor sound of what you're doing?

Edited 31 March, 2016 by Sour Mash

[Batman]

Running meetings with the 2nd biggest Parliamentary party in the country, attended by senior members of that party.

 

I find it remarkbale that Labour are pretty content/quiet with such obvious segregation at these events. It is completely unacceptable

If UKiP held similar meetings, say, Immigrants one side and UK nationals the other, Corbyn and such like would be going mental

[shirleysfc]

How can you antagonise someone if they have neither sight nor sound of what you're doing?

 

The definition of antagonistic is "showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something".

 

The protest/march was showing active opposition towards terrorism, therefore it was antagonistic.

[moonraker]

Running meetings with the 2nd biggest Parliamentary party in the country, attended by senior members of that party.

 

Wow which Labour Party meetings? Who are these Muslim extremists running the meetings? What are the meetings about?

[Sour Mash]

Wow which Labour Party meetings? Who are these Muslim extremists running the meetings? What are the meetings about?

Just read the links.

[Sour Mash]

The definition of antagonistic is "showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something".

 

The protest/march was showing active opposition towards terrorism, therefore it was antagonistic.

I've just written my response to this post on a placard and walked down my local street with it, let me know if you find what's written on it antagonistic or not.

[shirleysfc]

I've just written my response to this post on a placard and walked down my local street with it, let me know if you find what's written on it antagonistic or not.

 

It doesn't matter what I think. If you're "showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something" then you're being antagonistic.

 

Unless you're not happy with this dictionary definition?

[hypochondriac]

I've just written my response to this post on a placard and walked down my local street with it, let me know if you find what's written on it antagonistic or not.

 

The act itself was antagonistic towards terrorism. Whether the terrorist knows about it or finds it antagonistic or not is entirely irrelevant in the context of meeting the stated definition.

[moonraker]

Just read the links.

 

So a minor meeting of Oldham West and Royton Labour Parties - Labour’s ‘Friends of Bangladesh’ appears to be segregated and UKIP provides narrative whoopee. Without doubt men are on one side and women on the other, with one exception all of the attendees appear to be of sub-continent ethnicity, and I would hazard a guess that those attending are more than happy with this arrangement. What would you have the labour party do, force them to sit in designated seats, would that not be an infringement of personal choice. Are you advocating that all events in the UK must ensure that the genders are equally dispersed, the Women’s Institute or the Mothers Union might struggle to comply? This may be a cultural and religious issue but it is definitely not a political one. So if all you can offer as evidence of Muslims having a hold on our country is a single, local, meeting organised by a predominantly Muslim group in support of secular political candidate you really do need to grow up.

[Sour Mash]

So a minor meeting of Oldham West and Royton Labour Parties - Labour’s ‘Friends of Bangladesh’ appears to be segregated and UKIP provides narrative whoopee. Without doubt men are on one side and women on the other, with one exception all of the attendees appear to be of sub-continent ethnicity, and I would hazard a guess that those attending are more than happy with this arrangement. What would you have the labour party do, force them to sit in designated seats, would that not be an infringement of personal choice. Are you advocating that all events in the UK must ensure that the genders are equally dispersed, the Women’s Institute or the Mothers Union might struggle to comply? This may be a cultural and religious issue but it is definitely not a political one. So if all you can offer as evidence of Muslims having a hold on our country is a single, local, meeting organised by a predominantly Muslim group in support of secular political candidate you really do need to grow up.

You're in support of gender segregation and think its a good thing. Most people don't.

[moonraker]

You're in support of gender segregation and think its a good thing. Most people don't.

 

Where did I say that, the segregation was not instigated by the Labour Party but by the attendees culture, traditions and religion. There are many cultural, traditional and religious behaviours and boundaries across Britain that I personally do not subscribe to, if others choose to adopt them or accept them and they are within the law and do not harm or devalue mineor any other individuals life who am I to criticise. Sadly you ignore a couple of the greatest British cultural traditions, that of tolerances and freedom of choice.

[shirleysfc]

You're in support of gender segregation and think its a good thing. Most people don't.

 

Did the people attending the meeting choose where to sit or were they forced?

[Sour Mash]

It doesn't matter what I think. If you're "showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something" then you're being antagonistic.

 

Unless you're not happy with this dictionary definition?

So a person talking to themselves, saying something that no-one else can hear is being antagonistic?

 

"showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something" - active opposition? No.

"One who opposes and contends against another" Opposing and contending with another? No.

 

So in sum total of this clear backlash by moderates, we've got a handful of people, going on a march that they were going on anyway and wasn't even arranged with anything to do with terrorism, holding up a few placards. More UK nationals have gone to join Isis than have done that.

[Sour Mash]

Where did I say that, the segregation was not instigated by the Labour Party but by the attendees culture, traditions and religion. There are many cultural, traditional and religious behaviours and boundaries across Britain that I personally do not subscribe to, if others choose to adopt them or accept them and they are within the law and do not harm or devalue mineor any other individuals life who am I to criticise. Sadly you ignore a couple of the greatest British cultural traditions, that of tolerances and freedom of choice.

Someone who supports a culture that enforces gender segregation at public meetings is a fan of tolerance and freedom of choice

 

Out of interest, do you consider the people that arranged the set up of these meetings moderates or extremists?

[shirleysfc]

So a person talking to themselves, saying something that no-one else can hear is being antagonistic?

 

"showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something" - active opposition? No.

"One who opposes and contends against another" Opposing and contending with another? No.

 

So in sum total of this clear backlash by moderates, we've got a handful of people, going on a march that they were going on anyway and wasn't even arranged with anything to do with terrorism, holding up a few placards. More UK nationals have gone to join Isis than have done that.

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5917267/british-muslim-youths-voice-outrage-of-isis.html

 

https://m.facebook.com/pages/Muslims-Against-ISIS/1444672609121662

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

 

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Muslim-Scholars-Groups-Against-ISIS-Speal-Out-361309791.html

[moonraker]

Someone who supports a culture that enforces gender segregation at public meetings is a fan of tolerance and freedom of choice

 

Out of interest, do you consider the people that arranged the set up of these meetings moderates or extremists?

 

Someone who choses what others may think and do within the law is a bigot, a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them. Who are you to tell people how to live their lives, I thought the British had moved on from outlawing the adherence to the religion of ones choice. An still you fail to actually answer anything just answer a question with a question (Answer moderates) and drag up inconsequential third party media reports that you obviously believe constitute admissible evidence, when all they do is reinforce your bigotry.

[Sour Mash]

Someone who choses what others may think and do within the law is a bigot, a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them. Who are you to tell people how to live their lives, I thought the British had moved on from outlawing the adherence to the religion of ones choice. An still you fail to actually answer anything just answer a question with a question (Answer moderates) and drag up inconsequential third party media reports that you obviously believe constitute admissible evidence, when all they do is reinforce your bigotry.

I haven't told anyone how to live their lives.

 

So, I'll ask again, moderates or extremists? Or will you just rant and not answer?

[Sour Mash]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5917267/british-muslim-youths-voice-outrage-of-isis.html

 

https://m.facebook.com/pages/Muslims-Against-ISIS/1444672609121662

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

 

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Muslim-Scholars-Groups-Against-ISIS-Speal-Out-361309791.html

Twitter and Facebook posts, what a backlash

 

That'll show those terrorists and no mistake.

[TwoPints]

No, there wasn't a backlash. Not under any of the definitions of "antagonistic" or "a strong negative reaction by a large number of people".

 

Worrying to see that Muslim extremist have such a hold on mainstream British society and the current Labour party though.

Just because you keep saying there wasn't a backlash doesn't make it true. There clearly was, you just don't want to see it.

[moonraker]

I haven't told anyone how to live their lives.

 

So, I'll ask again, moderates or extremists? Or will you just rant and not answer?

 

Uh the answers in my last response moderates. Now will you answer the myriad of questions that have been put to you? Im not holding my breath. And as you are so keen on literal definition, neither I nor anyone else has ranted on this message board, ranting is verbal act not a written one.

[Sour Mash]

Uh the answers in my last response moderates. Now will you answer the myriad of questions that have been put to you? Im not holding my breath. And as you are so keen on literal definition, neither I nor anyone else has ranted on this message board, ranting is verbal act not a written one.

Which questions? Try using this "?", it might help you a bit.

[aintforever]

Someone who choses what others may think and do within the law is a bigot .

 

Like saying, "you're female - sit over there"

[moonraker]

Twitter and Facebook posts, what a backlash

 

That'll show those terrorists and no mistake.

 

Did you miss the official statements from respected and acknowledged Islamic institutions and leaders, no as usual you choose to ignore that which does not fit your bigotry.

[Sour Mash]

Uh the answers in my last response moderates. Now will you answer the myriad of questions that have been put to you? Im not holding my breath. And as you are so keen on literal definition, neither I nor anyone else has ranted on this message board, ranting is verbal act not a written one.

Interesting that you think that gender segregation is just a normal, regular part of every day Islamic culture, which you want to see a growth of through the UK. Bizarre.

[moonraker]

Like saying, "you're female - sit over there"

 

What proof is there that that was said, dont invent stuff.

[moonraker]

Interesting that you think that gender segregation is just a normal, regular part of every day Islamic culture, which you want to see a growth of through the UK. Bizarre.

 

Yet again claimimg I said something that I clearly did not, and still no answers.