Why are we not bombing the fuck out of this lot with the yanks? I can understand why the Commons voted against not to get involved with the Syria thing. But this is different. If anyone needs blasting to fuck it's these cunts.

beurette

 

ahem

Disclaimer: I presume that's a women

Disclaimer: I presume that's a women

 

 

am gonna pm portman dave

I'm sure the women of Iran would love to go back to the 'backwards' 1970s.

You're itching to put up a pic of 'westernised' women in the 70s.

am gonna pm portman dave

I can now see why they make bgoefc nervous

shes certainly a big girl

Nowhere in the quran does it say women need to cover up

I'd heard that.....but then I've also been told by a Muslim that it does. I guess it's open to interpretation.........

 

"And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, (with their Khimar) and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31

do they cover their bollocks?

 

zico was asking, like

Controlled explosion in London on Baker Street apparently , station evacuated.

Controlled explosion in London on Baker Street apparently , station evacuated.

Nothing on BBC news channel or Sky News yet

Look at the size of her fanny bulge!

I'd heard that.....but then I've also been told by a Muslim that it does. I guess it's open to interpretation.........

 

 

And there's the problem

 

The old testament was full of cunts as well

 

Here's one with a sense of humour

 

I'd heard that.....but then I've also been told by a Muslim that it does. I guess it's open to interpretation.........

"And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, (with their Khimar) and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31

I'm sure there's bullshit like that in the Old Testament too if you look. Then again, we are told Isis is fuck all to do with Islam which is odd as their basic principles are taken from their holy book.

Backward fuckers.

Look at the size of her fanny bulge!

Is the correct terminology not "cunt lump"

Edited November 19, 201510 yr by Sweep

I feel like not only do I have to make amends but best also clear the browsing history on the girlfriends laptop

 

I'm sure there's bullshit like that in the Old Testament too if you look.

Indeed, the Old Testament is full of weird shit

 

I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily true that it doesn't suggest in the Quran that women shouldn't be covered....all depending on how you interpret it.

I've got a Muslim friend who is devout and visited Hajj demonstration recently, missed the big crush by 30 minutes by the way.

 

It's his third visit and he knows the Koran backward (scuse the pun), and even judges competitions on folk reciting and relating it.

 

I can only compare it with my Oktoberfest trips

Indeed, the Old Testament is full of weird shit

I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily true that it doesn't suggest in the Quran that women shouldn't be covered....all depending on how you interpret it.

it does upset me when I see younger girls covered up, poor mites. Now I know their top boy is a paedophile but really, what is wrong with these people? It's a fucked up world we are living in.

Indeed, the Old Testament is full of weird shit

 

I'm just pointing out that it's not necessarily true that it doesn't suggest in the Quran that women shouldn't be covered....all depending on how you interpret it.

This one seems to think not

 

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html

 

All this tells me they ain't all the same

 

I find it equally backwards they choose to fast during day light hours a few times a year

 

Though I did catch the muslim girl in our office eating a banana in a non sexy way during Ramadan

Edited November 19, 201510 yr by ZicoKelly

My friend is not keen on covered faces either.

 

He likes all his wives to be seen.

Is the correct terminology not "cunt lump"

Beetle bonnet or monkey's chin.

This one seems to think not http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html

All this tells me they ain't all the same

I find it equally backwards they choose to fast during day light hours a few times a year

Though I did catch the muslim girl in our office eating a banana in a non sexy way during Ramadan

I suppose you can find text in the Quran to say pretty much anything you want depending how you interprate it.....a bit like we can with the Old Testament. I suppose the difference is that Christianity (except for some of the weird sects) realise you don't have to take 2000 year old text literally. Perhaps the Rayguns will catch up in a couple of hundred years and realise the same

aye arabic to english

 

and translated by a married bloke

I suppose you can find text in the Quran to say pretty much anything you want depending how you interprate it.....a bit like we can with the Old Testament. I suppose the difference is that Christianity (except for some of the weird sects) realise you don't have to take 2000 year old text literally. Perhaps the Rayguns will catch up in a couple of hundred years and realise the same

Aye

 

The Christian crusaders were doing the same 1000 years ago

 

That said, it was the Muslims who started it

 

Mind you Ruth Kelly was Opus Dei and according to the da vinci code they were also a bunch of not rights

Edited November 19, 201510 yr by ZicoKelly

Back in the 60's folk were openly racist on BBC and folk got arrested for being gay (well til 1967)

 

Different times now my friend

Its different but do you accept that people who came to this country then were more inclined to integrate but now its acceptable they don't ?

 

I maybe wrong but your answer is that its ok to accept we have moved on in the case of gays and colour of skin but in terms of backward beliefs we have to accept backward beliefs because the people who have them have non white skin?

Edited November 19, 201510 yr by bgoefc