Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

There is no honour amongst loons, it seems.

I've noticed that FD has a simple formula:

1. I will quote you in full
2. I will usually reel off a single line in an attempt to pretend I am not bothered.
3. If I write a second sentence, I will diagnose a psychological problem.
4. If I write a third sentence, it will be to introduce an invented/rogue statistic, or a juvenile name calling. (eg You smell, or you're anti-semitic, or you are juvenile, grow up)

You've been rumbled FD. herve in the mean time is left twisting in the wind with only RC sharing his misreading of the stats. Shame that - no honour amongst loons at all.



Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:2. I will usually reel off a single line in an attempt to pretend I am not bothered.

I still prefer that above your senseless evading yapping that goes on and on.

shafique wrote:4. If I write a third sentence, it will be to introduce an invented/rogue statistic, or a juvenile name calling. (eg You smell, or you're anti-semitic, or you are juvenile, grow up)

You humour is juvenile, but hey thats just my opinion man. And yes, you are a hard core antisemite.

Flying Dutchman wrote:You humour is juvenile, but hey thats just my opinion man. And yes, you are a hard core antisemite.

Original Christianity has always urged to slaughter Jews, and we've seen that plenty of times through out history. So are Christians "anti-Semites" ??

Palestineans, Lebanese, and Syrians are all native original Semites, and Israel keeps on attacking those people, do does that make them anti-semites as well

Lame Western terms NEVER matched our Eastern reality - - Thats why u need to focus on ur own business.

symmetric wrote: Lame Western terms NEVER matched our Eastern reality - - Thats why u need to focus on ur own business.

Great inside indeed. I alway ask Sir Shafique not to apply Greek terms like "Politics" (City life), "Math" (Knowledge) etc. to his imaginary reality, which is of cause much more real for him than real one.

LOL RC - you really should get over yourself with the Greek words in English. It was a funny exchange with you when I used the English word 'politics' and you insisted it should mean something different based on the Greek word.

English contains many words that came from Arabic too, you know. Algebra for one.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:English contains many words that came from Arabic too, you know. Algebra for one.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, I know other more common word Al Cohol. By the way I hope that you are much better in Algebra than in Arithmetic, regardless of how weird it sounds.

I'm not too bad at arithmetic too.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:You've been rumbled FD. herve in the mean time is left twisting in the wind with only RC sharing his misreading of the stats. Shame that - no honour amongst loons at all.

Shafique, English is my second language and it was some misunderstanding between us case to case but if I got it right do you know what would have been following between officers in Russian empire in XIX century?

Well, I do have a gun licence and know how to handle firearms... but still, I'm glad we can't duel over the interwebs!

(But to be fair RC - the honour part was about FD leaving herve hanging in the wind with his misunderstanding of the stats. I just said you seem to be sharing the misconception - so it is FD who is without honour, not you. )

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:There is no honour amongst loons, it seems.

I've noticed that FD has a simple formula:

1. I will quote you in full
2. I will usually reel off a single line in an attempt to pretend I am not bothered.
3. If I write a second sentence, I will diagnose a psychological problem.
4. If I write a third sentence, it will be to introduce an invented/rogue statistic, or a juvenile name calling. (eg You smell, or you're anti-semitic, or you are juvenile, grow up)

You've been rumbled FD. herve in the mean time is left twisting in the wind with only RC sharing his misreading of the stats. Shame that - no honour amongst loons at all.



Cheers,
Shafique

Spot on

shafique wrote::D Well, I do have a gun licence and know how to handle firearms...
Cheers,
Shafique

Gettin' ready for the arab spring in the UK, huh?

Great news for the UK:

UK to consider criminalizing forced marriages
LONDON (AP) — Britain says it is considering criminalizing the act of forcing someone into a marriage under moves to tighten immigration policy.
Prime Minister David Cameron said Monday that ministers would examine whether existing law could be changed.
Currently, a potential victim can apply to a civil court for a protection order — and anyone breaching that order can be jailed for two years.
Cameron said Britain should strengthen its response to the issue and draft a new criminal offense.
He also pledged to introduce stricter tests for marriage visas, aimed at weeding out immigrants who conduct sham weddings to win access to the U.K.
Britain is seeking to cut net immigration from about 196,000 to below 100,000 by 2015.

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-consider-crimi ... 35289.html

It sounds like a sensible move to me. The devil will be in the detail - but I'm sure this will get the support of Imams etc as well. The Tribals won't be happy though.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:It sounds like a sensible move to me. The devil will be in the detail - but I'm sure this will get the support of Imams etc as well. The Tribals won't be happy though.

Cheers,
Shafique

"Tribals" in the UK??? Are they behind those "marry for money/passport" sham marriages????

No, those are just crooks. The Tribals are those who think the Taliban are too soft!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:No, those are just crooks. The Tribals are those who think the Taliban are too soft!

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, you lost me. What does that have to do with Australia stopping forced marriages??

Sorry Bora - I was replying to gertrude's post about the proposed change in the law in the UK to outlaw forced marriages. The 'Tribals' that I said won't be happy referred to those in the UK who think forced marriages are ok - contrary to what Islam teaches.

Cheers,
Shafique

Ok don't really like to get involved with the Politics forum or do any major googling but just had a quick look at forced marriages in the UK. "The majority of these seem to be within the Pakistani community" a telegraph article said. The BBC said that the FMU reported up to 65% of all known cases involve pakistanis. Just by looking at the articles for the UK would seem to imply that the majority of forced marriages (at least in the UK) are from the Muslim community. It also states that it is against Islam to subject anyone to a forced marriage and that each party must consent. Personally I think forced marriages are abhorrent we should all be free to make our own mistakes.

Patience - yes, there is indeed a problem amongst some Pakistani families in the UK. I made specific reference to this in my first post. I don't think it should be over-blown though, in terms of numbers, but it is serious and abhorent for each case. Forced is different from arranged - and Islam requires consent for marriage.

I'll have to check with my wife if I'm free to make my own mistakes.

Cheers,
Shafique

Here is a recent Newsweek article - one Sikh woman tells the story of forced marriage for her and the other daughters in her family. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... s-too.html

Here are examples of forced marriage around the world, compiled by The Forced Marriage Prevention Initiative, http://forcedmarriage.wordpress.com/case-examples/

And there are cases of men being forced into marriage because they are gay or have a disability and the family wants a wife to take over the care-giving duties - examples from the UK's ForcedMarriage.net, http://www.forcedmarriage.net/casestudy1.html

Forced marriage is a cultural problem and for purposes of family honour (so kids don't get a bad reputation for sleeping around with boy/girlfriends and producing children out of wedlock), strategic reasons like family or business alliances, covering up a child's hom.o.se.xuality, pawning the care of a sick/disabled/mentally ill child onto a spouse. Most definitely religion is used as an excuse to get a child to comply with the marriage. However, I challenge anyone to find a religion that states that underage boys and girls must be forced into marriage or they are breaking the rules of their God.

I'm all for it, this law should have come into effect a long time back and more countries should adopt it. And K is also correct just like honour killings not matter how much the phobes would like it to be its not a muslim "thing" Its a cultral thing and indeed a highly shamefull and criminal act.

kanelli wrote: However, I challenge anyone to find a religion that states that underage boys and girls must be forced into marriage or they are breaking the rules of their God.

Mulsims follow the teachings of a man who married a 6 years old girl, and had $ex with with her when she turned 9.
Therefore one can tell Islam is a pretty strong endorsment of forced marriage and statutory rape.
Unless you find it normal for a man to have $ex with an underage girl.
By any mean, this man in the West ,would serv a long prison term, don't you agree?

Loons really are gullible.

However, I am never failed to be amused when they start repeating their spin on Islam and political marriages in the past (whilst remaining silent on exactly the same marriages in Europe centuries after the Prophet's marriages) .

shafique wrote:Someone correct me, but didn't Richard II of England marry a child - IIRC Isabel of France was only 7 or 8 when they were married. This was a few centuries after Islam - so I wouldn't be surprised if the imaginative loon posters blamed Islam for this marriage!

Edit: It seems the Romans were also at it - the custom in the Eastern Roman ('Byzantine') empire from the late 12th century:

Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm

dubai-chat/cops-spying-emiratis-t47332-165.html

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:However, I am never failed to be amused when they start repeating their spin on Islam and political marriages in the past (whilst remaining silent on exactly the same marriages in Europe centuries after the Prophet's marriages) .

shafique wrote:Someone correct me, but didn't Richard II of England marry a child - IIRC Isabel of France was only 7 or 8 when they were married. This was a few centuries after Islam - so I wouldn't be surprised if the imaginative loon posters blamed Islam for this marriage!

Edit: It seems the Romans were also at it - the custom in the Eastern Roman ('Byzantine') empire from the late 12th century:

Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine.Cheers,
Shafique

Can you quote anybody, TODAY, who boast and worship TODAY Richard II Baldwin III or Alexius?
Instead there are a billions thugs outhere, including you, who worship a guy who did marry a child.
So Mr shafique do you condemn the practice to marry a 6 y o girl and have s.ex with her? Y N ?
You are trapped, because if you don't you a perv, and if you do, you worship a perv.

I don't worship any man. I think you're confused (as usual) caps.

But you're right - not many Europeans marry 7 year olds today. But they did. How many Muslims do you know who today follow Richard II's example? Why did he marry a 7 year old?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: How many Muslims do you know who today follow Richard II's example? Why did he marry a 7 year old?

Cheers,
Shafique

You not confused, you a hypocrite, no muslims follow Richard II, of course, they follow muhammad and his book, your prophet and thug who had s.ex with a child, do you deny it or do you approve of it? because you are the one who kiss the ground 5 times a day saying his name, the messenger of your god, right?
And who gives a s.hit of Richard whatever anyways. nobody.

You could have just said 'No, I don't know of any Muslims following the example of Richard the II'.

The correct answer to why Richard II married a 7 year old is - 'It was a political marriage'.

(You're welcome)

Cheers,
Shafique

Did muhammad forced a child to marry and have s.ex with? Simple question.

No.

Simple answer to a simple question.

But more to the point, Islam does not condone pre-marital s.ex, under aged s.ex or forced marriages. Despite what loons want to believe.

Cheers,
Shafique

muhammad “married” Aisha when she was six years old. You are wrong again.....

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/pedophile.htm