[Morageort]

Sounds like the Al Sharpton of the Muslim world...

[pprropeciaaa]

Covering one eye only fuels my unholy lust for pirate women. Arr, surrender yer booty, ye busty wenches!

[Piediahef]

The cleric was just trying to be nice. He really meant that Saudi women are so ugly, they should all wear bags over their heads.

[Slchtjgb]

I think they should encouraged to become ninja's. Then, other half of the populace would be pirate-muslims, the other ninja-muslims. Ultra-conservatives would be happy, everyone would be happy! Except vikings, who feel left out.

[N95FzmMw]

Although it would be amusing for half the country's population to not have depth perception while operating in public.

[RilmAlime67]

Originally posted by Pekka
So then the one eye becomes too exciting for men. What then?

Talking about considering people as property... While I agree that this is insane, and abhor the general treatment of women in much (all?) of the Middle East, I have to take issue with your last statement. I don't think mandating dress is treating people as property. I think it is wrong, but it isn't treating them as chattel.

Besides, the west does the same thing, it just has different standards. There are laws (at least in America) dictating how low your pants can hang (for guys) and how much booty can be showing out your short-shorts (for teh ladies.) We ban boobies, they ban eyes. It is still dictation on dress. Unless you think all countries treat women as property?

Oh, and you may well be right that Mid-East countries treat women as property in general, but I don't think this one law is enough to say that. In aggregate with all the other bull they have going on, yes, but not with this law considered in isolation.

[GDRussiayear]

Originally posted by Pekka
Whatever. Blame America first, right? What the hell did I blame America for? All I was saying is that all societies have cultural dress codes, and some (many? most?) have legal ones. I don't like this, but is the truth. Just because Muslim societies have stricter ones for women doesn't mean the women are property. Treated in a bull-**** manner, yes, but not property.

edit: Also, although I didn't blame anything on America (in this thread), I am often harsher on America than on other countries. This is because I live in America and therefore know much more about it than other countries, so I know its flaws more intimately. Also, America tries to present itself as some sort of paragon of morality and freedom, and when it takes actions counter to those ideals, it needs to hammered, especially since as a citizen, I am partly responsible for the conduct of my country.

[optormtix]

Some Muslim clerics show too much lip.

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

Yes, and just because we sell slaves to other slavemasters, that doesn't make us really the owners of those people, just *******s. Blame Ukraine first.

[FreeDownloadOEMsoftware]

Hey what the **** do you expect. It's Saudi-Arabia, where wahabism runs rampant.

[womberte]

Clearly the only possible answer is to mutilate their faces and bodies so that no man could ever find them attractive.

[lipitrRrxX]

Originally posted by Heresson



In Saudi Arabia and other countries, You can get killed for doing gay stuff. In Poland, you can not have gay marriage. It can be both labelled as discrimination of gays, but there's a slight difference. Come to Belgium dude, you can marry over here. We have a good supply of strong sturdy Poles over here (in the construction business) you will like

[Loonerisav]

A true muslim would never pose in that outfit!

[xochgtlm]

Originally posted by Heresson
In some cases, large quantity changes quality.
If You ban sex with people under 15 or 18, it's understandable. If You ban sex with people under 78, it is not. It's still setting age of consent, You know.

In Saudi Arabia and other countries, You can get killed for doing gay stuff. In Poland, you can not have gay marriage. It can be both labelled as discrimination of gays, but there's a slight difference. Agreed. My point wasn't that this is a justifiable law. It isn't. I don't even support the laxer western dress codes.(Get me started on school dress codes sometime. I'll make a sailor blush with my language.) My only point was that you can restrict dress without making those restricted into property.

Oh, and DRosesDARs, thank you for teh hotness.

[clapsoewmred]

Why not just ban make up ?

[gamblingstats]

My only point was that you can restrict dress without making those restricted into property. Okay, how is yer point relevant to dress codes on women who are property?

[ZZChristopher]

This guy's daughter works as a pole-dancer and he allegedly paid for her £5,000 boob-job:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bakri_Muhammad

[Wavgbtif]

Apparently she's a right animal in bed aswell been in the newspapers over here, may aswell get some pretty pics since it's our taxes which went to his benefits and created those boobs

[leyliana]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Hey what the **** do you expect. It's Saudi-Arabia, where wahabism runs rampant. An aside: Shouldn't Wahabi be the name of an SUV?

[amagmasia]

Originally posted by Theben
Clearly the only possible answer is to mutilate their ... bodies so that no man could ever find them attractive. I think they do that already, what with the 'circumcision' thing? Doesn't seem to change matters much, but we've already determined that according to this Imam, Muslim men are so horny and desperate that they still can't help themselves.

But, as I've noticed some women saying, it still won't solve the problem. What if the woman blinks when she has the one-eye burqa? Won't men think it's a come-on, what with her winking at them and what not?