Paris restaurant 'refuses to serve Muslim women'

[Shawn0000]

2 hours ago, mesterm said:

 

Yes, a prophet who is a pedophile is pathetic.

 

Would be if he was, you mean?  Or have you now given up on being open minded about this and succumbed to blind following?

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

Its perfectly fine to be intolerant of those whose opinions differ from your own…specially when those opinions threaten life and limb.

 

Yes, and in that way it is perfectly fine to be intolerant of some Muslims, but to extend that to all Muslims, people who do not threaten life and limb just because they share a religious group with some who do, is bigoted and is not perfectly fine, it's so simple an infant school child could understand.

[JHolmesJr]

Just now, Shawn0000 said:

 

Yes, and in that way it is perfectly fine to be intolerant of some Muslims, but to extend that to all Muslims, people who do not threaten life and limb just because they share a religious group with some who do, is bigoted and is not perfectly fine...

 

you never know with these people…and when you do its usually too late….better to be safe in this climate.

[Shawn0000]

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

you never know with these people…and when you do its usually too late….better to be safe in this climate.

 

Well, I am happy not to be a coward, best of luck to you, hope you get that bunker dug in time.

[JHolmesJr]

40 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Well, I am happy not to be a coward, best of luck to you, hope you get that bunker dug in time.

 

Ok....enjoy your bravery medal. 

[metisdead]

Inflammatory and offensive posts and replies have been removed:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

8) You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages, vulgarities, obscenities or profanities.

[arjunadawn]

On 8/29/2016 at 2:56 AM, PremiumLane said:

 

Yet most terrorism is caused by white right wing groups, but I guess they are not sitting on oil  

 

Among the most ignorant (or deliberately misleading) statements I have read since islamic jihad vomited on the modern world----and reading the news and state DoubleSpeak out of Europe these days, few things can match their deception and ignorance.

 

This statement beats their leftist drivel.

[arjunadawn]

If one reads the koran then turns to the history books, such as Durant, they will find this same dynamic played out for a very long time. "Woe is we. Why do you hate us?" etc etc etc, all the while "slandering the others' gods and destroying their idols." Q. When people finally pushed back, in Mecca, the Sub Continent, Damascus, Andalusia, Sicily, Vienna, Byzantium, ad infinitum., the refrain was always "Why don't you like us? Why do you persecute us?" As in Mecca 1, the people responded "We do not persecute you. We only want you to stop offending our traditions and gods." (Koran, Mecca 1 period) Not satisfied, they continued the same ole same ole until they were ejected from the city and had to hijra/migration jihad to Medina. This IS the essential blueprint. Not my exegesis, its their theology and exegesis.

 

Thus, this dynamic that is playing out in Europe, France specifically, etc., is familiar to anyone who has studied the koran and hadith and/or history. This is 100% the exact same formula that has repeated in various locations throughout the world. From the invitations to community, the pleas of tolerance, the refrain 'it is defensive' to please 'cant we all get along,' etc-----it is the same.

[7by7]

10 hours ago, overherebc said:

When I start to see protests by Muslims against the actions of other Muslims in Europe then I might start to believe that something is moving forward.

 

A very small selection, from France as this topic is about France. There are many more examples from all over Europe and elsewhere if you care to look.

 

Isis: French Muslims Protest Against Islamic State 'Barbarism'

 

French Muslims march to protest murder of police couple

 

French imams rail against 'crazies who have seized our religion'

 

 

Start believing.

[Shawn0000]

17 minutes ago, arjunadawn said:

If one reads the koran then turns to the history books, such as Durant, they will find this same dynamic played out for a very long time. "Woe is we. Why do you hate us?" etc etc etc, all the while "slandering the others' gods and destroying their idols." Q. When people finally pushed back, in Mecca, the Sub Continent, Damascus, Andalusia, Sicily, Vienna, Byzantium, ad infinitum., the refrain was always "Why don't you like us? Why do you persecute us?" As in Mecca 1, the people responded "We do not persecute you. We only want you to stop offending our traditions and gods." (Koran, Mecca 1 period) Not satisfied, they continued the same ole same ole until they were ejected from the city and had to hijra/migration jihad to Medina. This IS the essential blueprint. Not my exegesis, its their theology and exegesis.

 

Thus, this dynamic that is playing out in Europe, France specifically, etc., is familiar to anyone who has studied the koran and hadith and/or history. This is 100% the exact same formula that has repeated in various locations throughout the world. From the invitations to community, the pleas of tolerance, the refrain 'it is defensive' to please 'cant we all get along,' etc-----it is the same.

 

You are drawing a parallel between the expansionist caliphates of Rashidun and Umayyad with people who do not want to live in an Islamic state just because some members of ISIS have come to France to launch attacks, shameful stuff, they both just happen to be Muslims but they have nothing to do with each other so of course peaceful french Muslims have every right to question why they are hated just because they also happen to be Muslims like the attackers who they hate.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No REAL Christian is an extremist. Jesus said "love your enemy" not "kill him"..........

 

Every chapter of the Koran begins with the word "Mercy."

 

So to use your argument, no real Muslim is an extremist.

 

Quote

I say. IMO, the restaurant owner has the right to exclude anyone he wants to, as long as doing so is not illegal.

 

As both the video taken at the time and his own admission afterwards show, he refused to serve them due to their religion; that is illegal in France.

[arjunadawn]

14 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You are drawing a parallel between the expansionist caliphates of Rashidun and Umayyad with people who do not want to live in an Islamic state just because some members of ISIS have come to France to launch attacks, shameful stuff, they both just happen to be Muslims but they have nothing to do with each other so of course peaceful french Muslims have every right to question why they are hated just because they also happen to be Muslims like the attackers who they hate.

No, no I am not. You have; it is not even possible to exercise this from my post. I never remotely mentioned caliphates, nor 'expansion.' In fact, i specifically offered the observation on the other of two vehicles in which islam expand[ed]- hijra/migration. Islam has only ever advanced by two primary vehicles- hijra and offensive/overt jihad- both being essential means to make the world islamic for al lah. These two vehicles are  integral to islamic theosophy! Indisputable. It is THE essential blueprint moving islam toward the return of jesus and the mahdi- preparing earth for al lah.

 

Islam has not had the means to expand by Offensive/Overt jihad for a very, very long time. Some reason 1683, others suggest the early 20th century. Makes no matter as islam is only capable now of hijra/migration jihad. And so, not surprisingly, we find that the OP is not about 'expansionist" (read caliphate) offensive/overt jihad; nor was my post. The issue that underlies all these OPs these days are the migration events related to muslims in the House of War, dar al harb, non sharia countries. This is the conflict. This frames the issue. I have drawn no parallel.

 

And so, on the one hand, you are correct- peaceful muslims have every right to question...whatever they wish. But it is disingenuous to feign surprise because it is objectively, measurably, demonstrably correct that the French narrative playing out these days is the essential first narrative of nascent islam- it is 100% the same as early Mecca period (and has been repeated numerous times since). The scriptures are pregnant with the trials and tribulations of muslims as they sought to impose their new religion on others but were variously rebuffed and rejected. Plenty of very specific stories too.

 

The issue with, what you call, peaceful muslims is complex. The worst injury is hardly their fictitious "gosh, I don't know why you don't like us" nonsense; they know. It may still suck. They may still be regular folks caught up in some terrible crap, but they know. Its ludicrous to suggest they do not 'get it." Ah Duh! If even a tree or a stone will call out "come, there is a Jew hiding behind me; slay him" (Sahih Muslim 6985) then certainly we can expect muslims today to essentially at least get what is happening, whether deserved or not. Lastly, on this point, it is utter nonsense that opposing that which hates you is itself hate. How vacant, and typical of apologists. It is against the grain of history and humanity to continue to pretend there is not a single ideology wrecking death and blood and oblivion upon this earth. ...they don't know why...

 

Read the koran and hadith. Its all I do! They know what is happening as surely as I do. The real tragedy for such people is the cognitive dissonance of the western leftists who are seeking to employ islam as a solvent on the west. Be constantly inculcating the ludicrous narrative that islamic terrorism has nothing to do with islam is absurd. So much in fact, that when the peaceful muslims, as you mention, seek to distance themselves from jihad, they have no platform, no podium. They are bereft of voice because...their government asserts their is no connection! Its dizzying. It forces these people into an isolation and eventually, yes, a choosing. They are by various pressures moved closer into the islamist orbit. By the state lying and deciding no responsible conversation can ever take place. Thus millions, left to construct their own narrative based on the endless parade of islamic terrorist and allahu akbars (which are not islamic, rather mental health), form their own narratives, with no context. The leftist stewards of Europe are definitely injuring 'the peaceful muslim' population you offer.

 

It would be helpful if posters briefly told us what they mean by peaceful muslims. Do they mean those that do not bomb and kill but fund it by zakat? Do they mean those that stab and slice or those who support throwing gays from rooftops? Do they mean those who form sharia patrols or those who believe sharia should be the law of their host country? Essentially, where is the difference? I do not buy the fantasy of the imaginary moderate muslim population. Peaceful or moderate muslim  is a label that serves a purpose but would never be self assigned by islam to itself. There is zero context for this. Islamic supplicants live with their religion in a spectrum, like others. The problem is, the scriptures themselves are varying degrees of conflict with the west, from one end to the other. Show me I am wrong and all I have said is likely wrong. I am not.

 

 

[thaihome]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I find a moral equivalence between murder and treating women as inferior to men and controlling every aspect of their lives, including what they wear.

 

Can you prove that the half a billion or so muslim women that wear some form of covering are "forced" to or are controlled in every aspect of their lives.

 

I have meet many muslim women and I can assure you none fit your description. 

 

How many have you meet?

 

I seriously doubt the women in the OP were forced to do any other then leave the restaurant. 

 

TH

[7by7]

13 minutes ago, arjunadawn said:

<snip>

It would be helpful if posters briefly told us what they mean by peaceful muslims. Do they mean those that do not bomb and kill but fund it by zakat? Do they mean those that stab and slice or those who support throwing gays from rooftops? Do they mean those who form sharia patrols or those who believe sharia should be the law of their host country?

 

None of the above.

 

Peaceful Muslims are those who want to get on with their own lives and have the freedom to practice their own religion.

 

Peaceful Muslims do not want to impose their religion and/or it's rules upon others. Islam is a proselytising religion, yes. But so is Christianity. Both religions have forced people to 'convert or die' in the past but for true followers of both, those days are long gone.

 

Obeying the law in non-muslim countries concludes

Quote

Therefore, we should obey the law of the land in which we live as a matter of upholding our citizenship or visa contract. We should not lie, betray, or defraud anyone, nor can we justify violating anyone’s rights because they are not Muslims.

 

 

Quote

The problem is, the scriptures themselves are varying degrees of conflict with the west, from one end to the other. Show me I am wrong and all I have said is likely wrong. I am not.

 

Have a read of the many articles on the above site, which are written by Islamic scholars who certainly know far more about Islam than I, and probably you, too.

[ClutchClark]

So there is a thread thats been open all day on efforts to eradicate the mass practice of female genital mutilation.

 

It has 8 responses total all day.

 

Apparently the do-gooders here are more concerned two muslim women were denied their rights to dine at a french cafe than the fact a million women are physically mutilated.

 

Can one of you guys explain that to me.

 

Appreciated .

[Steely Dan]

For me, I doubt if these 2 "Muslimas" were aware of he restaurant is named after a religious place in Jerusalem, also known as the "Upper Room",

Snipped for brevity.

Interesting, there is of course the small possibility that the Muslimas knew full well about the background to the name and were actually fishing for some reaction. Not likely at first glance, but clock boy or Mosque fire type incidents do occur quite often.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Steely Dan]

So there is a thread thats been open all day on efforts to eradicate the mass practice of female genital mutilation.

 

It has 8 responses total all day.

 

Apparently the do-gooders here are more concerned two muslim women were denied their rights to dine at a french cafe than the fact a million women are physically mutilated.

 

Can one of you guys explain that to me.

 

Appreciated .

Political agenda trumps everything else, human suffering only counts when it furthers said agenda.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[arjunadawn]

42 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

Can you prove that the half a billion or so muslim women that wear some form of covering are "forced" to or are controlled in every aspect of their lives.

I have meet many muslim women and I can assure you none fit your description. 

How many have you meet?

I seriously doubt the women in the OP were forced to do any other then leave the restaurant. 

TH

Not untrue, but hardly the most objective evaluation of what constitutes force. Numerous women do it because it is all they know, and have hardly thought otherwise. Should they, many might say it is liberating. But this does not translate into choice. I have worked in many muslim countries where I have met women who loathe being covered. But it is also true I only interacted with a minority. So, the real test is the rationale behind the covering. Motive suggests everything.

 

God will not speak to the prophet if a woman is present who is uncovered, or a dog.

Women risked rape if they went to use the bathroom at night, lest they be uncovered.

Men entirely shaped the convention.

 

Choice? Maybe, but the argument regarding choice is secondary to the assertion that it proves a security threat. Choice and the appearance of degradation is hardly the core issue.

[sambum]

35 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

So there is a thread thats been open all day on efforts to eradicate the mass practice of female genital mutilation.

 

It has 8 responses total all day.

 

Apparently the do-gooders here are more concerned two muslim women were denied their rights to dine at a french cafe than the fact a million women are physically mutilated.

 

Can one of you guys explain that to me.

 

Appreciated .

 

Where is that thread?

[metisdead]

4 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

Where is that thread?

 

It's in the World News forum here:

 

 

Egypt to sharpen laws against Female Genital Mutilation

 

Please continue the discussion regarding that issue in that topic.

[MajarTheLion]

23 hours ago, stander said:

I have disdain for all religion, and again if that makes me a bigot, I wear the badge with pride.

To quote Steven Weinberg -

“Good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

 

Interesting sentiment, but plenty of evil has been perpetrated by atheists.

 

On a separate note, the problem with religions is they're run by human beings.

 

We probably agree more than my reply may indicate.

[stander]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Interesting sentiment, but plenty of evil has been perpetrated by atheists.

 

On a separate note, the problem with religions is they're run by human beings.

 

We probably agree more than my reply may indicate.

I, like most atheists believe the world would be a better place without religion. If religion helps believers feel better about dying, then that is fine, but for atheists religion is of no use to us.

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, stander said:

I, like most atheists believe the world would be a better place without religion. If religion helps believers feel better about dying, then that is fine, but for atheists religion is of no use to us.

 

 

Just attempting to subsume current events under a general heading of 'religion' is just wishy-washy.

[Shawn0000]

4 hours ago, stander said:

I, like most atheists believe the world would be a better place without religion. If religion helps believers feel better about dying, then that is fine, but for atheists religion is of no use to us.

 

 

That's what religion means to kindergarten children, adults read the philosophy.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

That's what religion means to kindergarten children, adults read the philosophy.

How many Christians sell all they have and give it to the poor, love their enemy etc? How many Muslims treat women as less worth than a man ( which is part of their philosophy )?

[Shawn0000]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How many Christians sell all they have and give it to the poor, love their enemy etc? How many Muslims treat women as less worth than a man ( which is part of their philosophy )?

 

I'm not sure how many have sold all they had and given it to the poor but that is besides the point, that is not how many people interpret the bible and everyone is entitled to interpret it as they do, that is kind of fundamental to philosophy.  The way I see it is just because Jesus told a couple of people to give up all of their possessions doesn't mean he thought everyone should, he was giving specific advice to those people he said it to otherwise he would have given the same advice to the rich people he dined with, but he didn't.

 

Your comment about Muslims treating women as being of less worth than a man is interesting as the Bible says the same things but people don't expect Christians to live by those old laws, they expect them to ignore them just like in reality most Muslims are doing, whereas because they know it is in the Quran they expect Muslims to be living by those old crazy laws and use them against them even though they are not living by them.  In the Quran it is said that a woman's worth is half that of a mans, in the Bible it actually puts monetary value on both; with a woman being half that of a man.  In this respect they are both exactly the same, neither religion pays any attention to that old nonsense and instead followers get on with the allegory, actual philosophy not some very out of date legal system that is recorded within the books which there is very little to philosophize on. 

 

Anyway, what were you getting at with your questions?  Do you think that most Christians and Muslims are not concerned with readings of their scriptures and just want to go to heaven? 

[GarryP]

53 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

I'm not sure how many have sold all they had and given it to the poor but that is besides the point, that is not how many people interpret the bible and everyone is entitled to interpret it as they do, that is kind of fundamental to philosophy.  The way I see it is just because Jesus told a couple of people to give up all of their possessions doesn't mean he thought everyone should, he was giving specific advice to those people he said it to otherwise he would have given the same advice to the rich people he dined with, but he didn't.

 

Your comment about Muslims treating women as being of less worth than a man is interesting as the Bible says the same things but people don't expect Christians to live by those old laws, they expect them to ignore them just like in reality most Muslims are doing, whereas because they know it is in the Quran they expect Muslims to be living by those old crazy laws and use them against them even though they are not living by them.  In the Quran it is said that a woman's worth is half that of a mans, in the Bible it actually puts monetary value on both; with a woman being half that of a man.  In this respect they are both exactly the same, neither religion pays any attention to that old nonsense and instead followers get on with the allegory, actual philosophy not some very out of date legal system that is recorded within the books which there is very little to philosophize on. 

 

Anyway, what were you getting at with your questions?  Do you think that most Christians and Muslims are not concerned with readings of their scriptures and just want to go to heaven? 

"Neither religion pays any attention to that old nonsense..", so there is no segregation of women in the mosque? They are free to mingle with the menfolk when conducting their daily prayers? 

[Shawn0000]

5 minutes ago, GarryP said:

"Neither religion pays any attention to that old nonsense..", so there is no segregation of women in the mosque? They are free to mingle with the menfolk when conducting their daily prayers? 

 

Segregation is not the same as treating women as being of less worth, ask yourself why you did not phrase it as men not being free to mingle with women at the mosque.

[7by7]

^^^^^^

Indeed, we are back to the old "some countries have restrictive laws and discriminate against women or people of a different religion so we should do the same" idiocy.

 

BTW, GarryP, the following link may answer you questions about separating men and women at prayer:

 

Why Separate Men and Women in the Synagogue?

 

Oh, hang on; different religion!

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about Saudi Arabia have been removed.