Today, Denmark Becomes The Fifth European Nation To Outlaw Full-Face Veils, Who Will Be Next?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6014163/Danish-ban-face-covering-garments-enters-force.html

[fiction-factory]

Example, naomi, of a post of yours from the Calais thread:
"I have seen people insisting that the perpetrator is mentally ill, or has misinterpreted the teachings of Islam - when actually he isn't - and he hasn't."
I'm not sure which cases you are referring to but assume you have access to the full medical reports and have qualifications which mean you know more than those who claim to know. Or you have evidence that the police/authorities/MSM lied to us.

[naomi24]

Rockrose, //I believe you 'claim' to know about Islam which is different to what you state. //

Not with you. What do I 'state'?

[-Talbot-]

Correction... Not the full faced veil... Which makes it even more likely that the vast majority of Muslim women would much prefer to wear neither a burka or a hijab.

[Rockrose]

You state that you know more about Islam than others in AB but you can only claim that.
Because there is no way for you to prove it - is there?

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, doesn’t it strike you as odd that the overwhelming majority of those who, in recent years, have committed terrorist atrocities are in fact Muslims? Where are all the other mentally ill people bent on committing mass murder world wide?

Rockrose, //You state that you know more about Islam than others in AB//

Others state that…. not I. There are a few people here who are, without doubt, knowledgeable in the subject, but I don’t know if their knowledge equals mine or exceeds mine. I have the good sense to listen when they speak though.

By the way, I don't need to 'prove' anything. Anyone is free to further research the contents of my posts.

[Purist]

I think the world would be a better place if all religion was outlawed

[vetuste_ennemi]

//You state that you know more about Islam than others in AB but you can only claim that.
Because there is no way for you to prove it - is there?//

Indeed there isn't. Nonetheless it's surprising that Naomi's critics, many of whom are assiduous researchers, don't take the opportunity to tell her where she's going wrong in her attacks on Islam. They are all seemingly better educated and brighter than the rest of us.

Here's a modest little challenge to Rockrose: answer Naomi's charge (implicit in her posts on this thread) that Islam teaches that a woman's status is inferior to that of a man.

If rebutting that claim is beyond you I'm sure you'll find a queue of champions willing to pick up the gauntlet on your behalf.

[naomi24]

What do you suggest we do to stop them blowing us up or running us down, Spath?

[Rockrose]

I don't have to take any challenge - I have answered Naomi's question, she is the one that makes the claims not me.

[naomi24]

Rockrose, what claims? Perhaps you should read my post at 13:31 again.

[Rockrose]

You make claims that you know more than anyone else, that you have talked to more Muslim woman than another user has had hot dinners - what is that if not a claim.

[naomi24]

//you have talked to more Muslim woman than another user has had hot dinners //

I'd hazard an educated guess that I'm right. I don't see him refuting it.

[Old_Geezer]

All one proves is that the group holds a greater percentage of mentally warped folk, not that the whole group is involved. And since many of the perpetrators and recruiters come from countries that are extreme in religious views, brainwashed from birth, that's going to skew the global stats. But it still cannot be applied to the whole group.

[Rockrose]

You made a claim and cannot back it up. - Seriously i should have taken the advice that was given a few pages ago and given up - you don't like someone else having the last word do you?

[Rockrose]

//And since many of the perpetrators and recruiters come from countries that are extreme in religious views//
But they don't a lot have been 'homegrown'

[jim360]

I'm impressed at how I'm being dragged into a discussion about Muslim face veils...

I can see *why* people might think that being opposed to a ban is equivalent to supporting the oppression that the face veil tends to represent, but it's still mistaken. The point is that if it's wrong for husbands/brothers etc to tell women what to wear then it's also wrong for the state to do the same.

But even you don't support a ban you should clearly still want to discourage, as far as possible, the wearing of face veils. I think everyone's largely agreed on that point, and the only disagreement is how to achieve this. Legal means seem heavy-handed -- and, in any case, probably end up targeting the wrong person by definition. For, if a woman chooses to wear a face veil, then why should that not be her choice? And, if a woman is being coerced into doing so, then she shouldn't be made the criminal.

[fiction-factory]

Unless they know you, Naomi, how can anyone possibly refute (or confirm) a statement that you've spoken to more Muslim woman than that person has had hot dinners.

[fiction-factory]

Well expressed, jim. I have tried to express pretty much the same thing at various points in the thread but you have made the points more eloquently and succinctly.