An integral aspect of any discussion, dialogue or debate is for one to have consistency in one’s argument. However, it seems that in most discussions that occur between Muslims, consistency is not as scrupulously maintained as it would be in a similar discussion with non-Muslims.
Exemplifying this is an issue in my local community, which is close to my heart for several reasons; the Auburn Tigers Women’s Australian Football team.
An individual outside of our community may wonder, “How could a womens’ football team be an example of inconsistency in discussions that take place between Muslims”? However, the answer is sadly very simple – some men like to argue different sets of rules for men than for women.
Recently I have heard mountains of criticism piled against the women’s team. There have been suggestions (albeit, not quite as concise) that the team promotes desire (shahwa) and temptation (fitna) amongst individuals watching the games. This is proposed to be a result of the ‘immodest’ attire worn by the women when playing games and training. Indeed, some have even gone as far as to say that the women’s team should be wound up because the players do not cover their nakedness (awrah) while playing.
These are quite significant claims to level against the players in the team. Indeed, they are significant even to those that support the establishment and maintenance of the team (myself included in this group). However, these are based upon some extremely inconsistent arguments, which indicate that religious scrupulousness is, perhaps, not the primary objective that is being pursued by those espousing them.
Firstly, the Auburn Australian Football Club also has men’s teams. But just to start, for those readers that are not familiar with Australian Football, the following provides an example of a standard playing kit compared to baseball uniform:
Why do I point this out? Well, most Muslims will know that the male awrah is not typically covered in an Australian Football kit. To get around this, most of the men wear tights underneath their uniforms to cover between their navel and knees completely.
Here is an example of a player in the team wearing such tights in order to completely cover his nakedness: http://www.smh.com.au/national/smoothing-the-harsh-edges-of-a-cultural-clash-20110408-1d7pk.html
What is interesting here, however, is that despite the exposure of what are often well toned arms, there are few suggestions that the men’s teams promote shahwa or fitna. Moreover, there are no suggestions the men are failing to cover their awrah because their tights show the shape of their bodies.
So, how can such arguments be placed against the women’s team in the very same club, when they play in attire like this?:
May Allah (swt) protect me from the fallacy of tu quoque, in simple terms, ‘pot calling the kettle black’, (that is – just because individuals that identify a crime are also guilty of a similar crime themselves, it doesn’t mean that their identification of the crime is invalid), however this is not the case that I am making here. Rather, we have a clear inconsistency which must be identified. Simply stated, the most coherent arguments placed against the women’s team are summarised:
“The women’s team is against Islamic principles because the women expose their nakedness. The men’s team also expose their nakedness in the very same way the women do, but that is not against Islamic principles.”
Clearly, when worded this way, the argument is completely fallacious. It is akin to saying, “I believe in universal free speech, but Geography teachers should not be able to say what they think.”
I hear the readers screaming already, “but don’t you have to wear clothing that is not tight”? Indeed, this is a valid fiqhi question, and many opinions indicate that it is essential. However, I know of no opinion that says it applies to women and not to men. In fact there are clear opinions that suggest that men invalidate their prayers if they pray in standard trousers, due to their usual tightness around the groin area. It is reported that the Prophet (asws) prohibited praying in trousers unless a loose garment was placed around them (in the collection of Abu Dawood).
However, this is ultimately a position with a bit of wiggle room. Classical Hanafi texts (I am not in a position to comment on other schools on this topic) detail what makes up the awrah of men and women (In public, men: the navel to the knees, women: all but the hands and face – and possibly feet). The also outline the importance of wearing garments to cover the awrah that are opaque enough to hide the colour of the skin.
The key Hanafi scholar, Imam al Haskafi, in his major work Dur al Mukhtar states:
“Garments that are appropriate for covering the nakedness are those that cannot be seen through”
Imam Ibn Abideen, in his commentary on the above text, elaborates:
“[Those that cannot be seen through] means that the colour of the skin is not visible through the garment. As such, see-through garments are prohibited… If the garment makes the colour of the skin non-visible, but is tight enough to show the shape of the body, this will have not impact the validity of the prayer.”
These illustrate that, while undesirable, tight clothing is not expressly prohibited in the Hanafi School, unless it allows the colour of the skin to be seen.
The readers would now be within their rights to ask, “why has the discussion shifted from one about consistency to one about rulings in fiqh”? A minor digression, please pardon me.
I am attempting to illustrate another issue here that is indicative of inconsistency: convenience in argument.
Those that argue against the women’s team speak of specific fiqhi opinions that do not allow tight clothing as a means of covering one’s awrah. However, they not only ignore the application of these opinions to men, but they also reject the valid opinions that allow for tight clothing. Not exactly water-tight rationale here.
Ultimately, what is most sad about this specific situation is not the foundational inconsistencies in the arguments of those that reject the permissibility of the women’s team, but rather the impact it has upon any objective responder to such arguments. Conclusions such as, ‘men have double standards’ and ‘women are being oppressed’, would not be completely irrational, given the application of these arguments.
Also disappointing is that in an environment where one football code’s world governing body continues to prevent Muslim women from wearing the headscarf at the highest levels of the sport, and some local swimming centres prevent Muslim women from swimming in anything that covers their entire body, the story of the Auburn Tigers Women’s Australian Football team, which is fully supported by the respective code’s governing body, is one that should be embraced, celebrated and encouraged.
I do sincerely pray that this wonderful initiative will be around for many years to come, so that many more young Muslim women may be able to participate in amateur sport in an environment that is genuinely Muslim friendly. The Australian Football League is ensuring that there are prayer rooms and halal food options at each of its stadia. Muslim players at the elite level are encouraged to observe the prayer and fast Ramadan (and do). Most importantly, our women are not told they are not good enough to play because they cover themselves out of modesty.
Let us pray that inconsistency in the way Muslims have discussions with one another do not lead to the destruction of such initiatives. Certainly, they are destructive enough in the impact they have upon intra-community relations and the perception of our Law from those outside of the faith.
Abdullah Kunde is one of my favourites, I have seen several of his debates and really liked them a lot. He is most promising and has already delivered a lot. It is great to see him on this site.
Also, top article raising an important point in a articulate and interesting manner (yet concise).
‘ ”The readers would now be within their rights to ask, “why has the discussion shifted from one about consistency to one about rulings in fiqh”? A minor digression, please pardon me.
I am attempting to illustrate another issue here that is indicative of inconsistency: convenience in argument.” ‘
He should moist certainly be pardoned. Digression: Most Relevant. A very good way to show the chauvinistic inconsistencies present in the dialogue around such issues is how the fiqh aspects are ‘pick n’ mix’, with the most ‘puritanical’ (I mean that in the Christian sense of enjoyable or easy things ipso facto being suspect) views always coming out on top, although I would suggest that this bias is largely due to the unhealthy but prevalent puritanical Wahhabi ideology, which is often prone to ignore the opinions of the earlier scholars such as Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) in preference to the ‘re-interpretations’ (invariably of a puritanical bent) of Taymiyya, Ibn Baz and others. I know Kunde isn’t saying that, that’s just my ten cents worth.
Also, there is most certainly a de – sexualisation of women present, where the presence of toned arms and buttocks in Aussie mens’ football is assumed to have no role whereas the slightest show of a woman must be an abominable fitna (even stranger in a society like Australia where far ‘better’ fitnas are available at the beach and elsewhere), I don’t think Aussie Muslims women’s football would be my first choice if I was in Australia and wanted to see female flesh…
No doubt there is a clear difference in common sense terms between male and female sexuality especially vis-a-vis excitability and behaviour but this has been made an excuse to ignore the wide parameters gifted to us by Islam, and set off on a course to banning women driving (!) as in Saudi by focusing purely on men’s ‘right’ to not be ‘stimulated’ by women as opposed to their DUTY of self control, as some degree of stimulation is unavoidable. This reality sadly escapes the main body of puritanical Muslim males. I believe that this kind of article is useful in preventing this type of hypocrisy.
Also, I am going to be politically incorrect here and say this bluntly: guys who can’t control themselves at a football game of women dressed like in the picture that Kunde showed had better get the f*** out of Australia as there is far worse fitna there (and elsewhere) and if you don’t have self control then don’t put the onus on women, take responsibility and realise that neither the world nor the beautiful religion of Islam revolves around the neuroses of sexually frustrated men.
In any case: Abdullah Kunde = Top Bloke.
Saudi scholars bashed…
Had to be said, excellent article and agree completely. This is a classic example of people overstepping the middle way of Islam.
I am not as eloquent as Kunde but I would suggest one common sense example: if Islam was interested in ERADICATING the visibility of female beauty instead of LIMITING SEXUAL STIMULUS IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE then it would not have allowed for the seeing of the woman’s face, which is the centre of beauty and always has been. I dare say this new fetish for objectifying and personalising a women’s breast or backside is rather strange: the face is clearly the centre of beauty, which Islam allows one to see but advises (but not enforces) one look away if one is feeling lust: even then, is one seeks marriage, one can look unashamedly with lust.
Agree about the Wahhabi ‘puritans’. Sorry, all this junk that you just cannot find in traditional Islam (Hanafi or otherwise) seems to come from that neck of the woods…for example, people of their ilk will not even agree with Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) (a REAL Salaf) that the face can be uncovered in the first place. It’s a bit unrealistic then to expect a balanced judgement from them in the case of ‘Aussie Rules Football’.
Also, a lot of these guys have fallen into the modern myth that only women are beautiful, to the point of encouraging & tacitly sympathising with lesbianism: men are not treated as attractive, desirable or beautiful at all. In that sense, these ‘strict’ (read: deviant) Muslims have more in common with liberals and Feminists: Men have no sexual utility or value, the woman is the sole object of beauty.
Where does it say that in Islam?
Saudis bashed again…
Then I too will come out of the closet and say that was a ‘Hadou – Kunde’ (geddit?) in the FACE for the purveyors of sexual paranoia and double standards in the Muslim community: a brave article and a necessary one.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not some kind of women’s libber or ‘feminist’ (that would be as dumb as being a ‘masculinist’).
I don’t think that any form of power, whether it is beauty or physical strength, should be exercised in an excessive or inconsiderate manner. Liberalism (sometimes) objects to the use of physical strength in this way but allows non – physical power (such as displaying ones’ body or sexuality) to be exercised in an unlimited way under the banner of ‘personal freedom’, which is actually unlimited dumbness.
As far as I am concerned, it is as dumb to let women make unrestricted ‘use’ of their beauty or ‘charms’ as it is to let men make unlimited use of their physical strength in distinction to women. The same way that a man should exersize SUPERIOR (not just equal) physical restraint in a relationship as regards to hitting a woman due to his physical advantage, women should exersize restraint in that aspect in which they have an advantage over men: sexual excitability or controlling the access to sex etc. I DO think women are a beauty object (not in the les way Boss is worried about though) and that they should act with restraint as prescribed by Islam: You shouldn’t go around eating a juicy Quarter Pounder in a refugee camp and then be surprised if someone asked you for a bite. However, if a woman displays her ‘adornment’ for all, not bothering to check and see if the guy is sexually frustrated or not, then I think it is a similar thing.
Or put another way, I think women should dress however they want, as long as they are willing to have sex with anyone who asks (and not just if you are ‘Flo – Rida’ or Matthew McConaughy or some shit). Like teachers always say in the movies to the student who is chewing gum in class: ‘I hope you have enough for everyone’. Same goes for any exhibitionist.
As Stephen King once wrote: ‘Women sometimes do with their tongues what men do with their hands’ (I may be paraphrasing, it was in a novel though, I think Dolores Claibourne)
Having got all that out of the way, I STILL think Kunde hits the spot: These guys take the piss, restricting women to an un – Islamic degree because THEY have got a problem. Well, tough boys, just as there is a requirement of self control on women and how they use their sexual charms there is a requirement of self control on men, and all the more so today when a bit a skin at a football game is the least of your worries compared to the latest sex tape, porn or even advert for shampoo. It is a bit dumb for them to impose harsher laws on Muslim women than required while at the same time being powerless before the much greater assault of sexualising imagery out there. They know they cannot do anything about the porn industry or sexual problems (even amongst the Muslims) so they just pick an easy target: Muslims girls playing football. It’s like how the government blames everything on a powerless minority, such as immigrants or Gypsies or Muslims or Jews and then can neglect the REAL problems because the dumb Joe Public is focused on that. At least the girls have Kunde, a REAL man, to be chivalrous and lay his intellectual cloak across the puddle or nonsense out there.
Also, I think they focus on women in the Muslim community because of their own insecurities and paranoias, and the retro fit a distorted version of religion onto it to justify it. I was in Oz recently and you could see that guys keep themselves fit, I mean, I am as hetero as Mel GIbson, but I could tell there were a lot of guys getting with a beach body (like me) out running and stuff. Where I come from, the only place Muslim men will run to is the kebab shop. When is the last time you saw an ‘Iron Man’ contest in Saudi Arabia? So I think they don’t see themselves as sex objects (though they should) and don’t recognise male beauty and thus victimise women as the sole bearers of responsibility and make exaggerated rules for them.
Lastly, I DO think that Aussie Football should be banned, both men’s and women’s, but not because it is haraam or a ‘fitna’ but because it is RUBBISH.
I also liked the article a lot but it made me think of my own experiences and I want to mention them, even though they are only tangentially related to the topic.
When I was in school/college/uni, I also used to be one of these people who followed this kind of thinking, that there should be NO visibility of women and that there should be NO contact between men and women. Although I was head of the Islamic Society at a big uni, I enforced this kind of thinking (and it does come from where the others have indicated) and would bully others who disagreed. I never thought about the wisdom of the allowance and leeway in Islam for contact between the sexes (in fact, I mistakenly did not believe there was any such leeway). The things I was taught to fear the most were illicit contact between a man and a woman. I truly thought this was one of the worst things possible and no good could ever come of it. I never thought about the harm that could come from NOT having any contact between the sexes, like losing half your iman or all the other problems that are common to people of any religion or gender who cannot find a partner. I was only focused on the dangers of ‘mixing’.
When, with hindsight, unsurprisingly, I found myself alone and unmarried at a late age (close to forty), I looked at the evidence and found that I had been insisting on something that was unIslamic and that the absolute segregation and covering of faces and not allowing the hearing of a woman’s voice etc. had no basis in Islam. I had been told by the same people who taught me the former nonsense that the believers would get an Islamic ‘arranged’ marriage (there’s actually no such thing, in theory or practice).But by that time I had left university and was in the world of work and did not have access to Muslim girls anymore: it was easy to get access to the non – Muslims (but of course, I was socially retarded in that aspect also) but impossible to meet with any Muslim women. The haraam became possible (but difficult) and the Halal became impossible. The arranged Islamic marriage I was ‘saving’ myself for was nowhere to be found except with those girls, pardon me for saying, who clearly no – one wanted. All the rest had been picked off by more conventional means by those professing to abhor such advances.
So through my youth (now sadly waning) I followed an untrue ‘Puritan’ Islam (you know who they are) and when I realised my mistake, it was too late. I am saying this because I acted like the people Abdullah Kunde is writing against and I now regret it because I am alone and probably always will be since I missed the boat due to thinking I was being a good Muslim when I was really being an idiot.
Perhaps if I had people like Kunde around at that time to make me think a little more about what I was doing my life would now be happier.
I would advise people not to just do whatever is the ‘strictest’ thing that a ‘scholar’ tells you to do, merely because it is the ‘safest’ option: I can tell you from painful personal experience that it is not.
Look into things properly by yourself like Kunde did with Hanafi fiqh and find the truth before you go messing up your lives and others by doing things you think are part of Islam but are actually the inventions of deranged idiots from Saudi or India or wherever.
It’s a Hat – Trick!
Actually, that’s messed up, there are a lot of people who have these kind of regrets, but I am going to be harsh and say that you promoted this stuff and probably harmed a lot of other people. How many guys and girls would have met their future spouse at uni if not for people like you?
I know the type, a Hadith for everything (only if it agrees with what you a priori believe) and more self righteousness and more self flagellation than a medieval monk.
Islam is being taken hostage by mindless Mullahs who produce fatwas in tons and these fatwas are actually not based on the Quran but are only the absurd views of these Mullahs.
These Mullahs just dosent like anything creative and constructive being done by Muslim men and women , they always make sure that Islam is reduced to a very strict system of do’s and dont’s exactly opposite to the highly flexible system that God gave.
These Mullahs say women should not be allowed in sports where small clothes are worn because men get attracted !.
I want to say to these Mullahs and people who think likewise
1) On one hand if we get bad ideas on seeing a women who is not dressed properly then on the other hand we have our consciousness asking us to not to give vent to these ideas.Then why not appeal to the good thoughts ?
2) From how many places will you ban women just because you feel attracted ?
3) Cant you control your thoughts and behave like a good man like how God wanted us to be instead of banning women from each and everything ?
I want to say to my Muslim brothers and sisters not to listen or encourage these Mullahs as they take us away from Islam.
Thank you, you have put it so well, I agree completely and so will any Muslim who has his eyes open and can face the truth. Especially when you write:
”Cant you control your thoughts and behave like a good man like how God wanted us to be instead of banning women from each and everything?”
It gives me hope that there are people like yourself who recognise what is really going on. Islam has been hijacked by sell – out modernists on one side and Wahhabi psychos on the other.
Wahhabis bashed AGAIN?!
As for how many places they will ban women from just because they feel attracted to them, allow me to suggest that they will end up banning from the bedroom as well and end up practising man – on – man love.
Like the Shinto practitioners who considered women and their touch to be ‘unclean’ there will be only one option left to them…
In fact, people say it is already very common in Saudi…
These Mullahs ban women from education , sports , any outside activity and imprison them at home .
These Mullahs prevent Muslims to go for scientific education instead encourage them to confine to madrasas where they are asked to cram the Quran with out even knowing what it is saying.
We will never find these Mullahs giving fatwas encouraging Muslims to read , write , asking them to stop quarelling in between , asking Muslims to be truthful , asking Muslims to behave well with women , asking Muslims to be honest , asking Muslims to donate and help poor , asking Muslims to forgive.
Coming onto Saudi Arabia , i think it is what it responsible for the misery of innumerable Muslims in the world .It never raises any voice against the crimes done against Palestinians by Israel instead it supports Israel .
It leaves no stone unturned in suppressing Shias and directly and indirectly killing them . It is ready to give support to Israel and America to hit Iran a fellow Muslim nation .
Thousands of Muslims in Africa and Asia does not have proper food to eat ,it will not give money to these Muslims instead it will give money to buy arms to kill Shias and even Sunnis who oppose their view .It never uses its money to establish universities and libraries instead it will use its money to buy casinos in America and villas in Europe.
It churns out extreme radical thoughts and exports it to the Muslim world .A progressive and creative nation of Pakistan is now on the brink of destruction after Saudi promoted its radicalism to it .
Wahhabi – bashing RAMPAGE!
“Coming onto Saudi Arabia , i think it is what it responsible for the misery of innumerable Muslims in the world .It never raises any voice against the crimes done against Palestinians by Israel instead it supports Israel .”
“Thousands of Muslims in Africa and Asia does not have proper food to eat ,it will not give money to these Muslims ”
Respectfully, you really are an idiot. You are not even reading these articles before posting them.
For example, in the article on aid, Africa is not even mentioned AT ALL and the amount in question (49 billion dollars over 30 years) is negligible when compared with the YEARLY FDI by Saudi into the US alone, so stop taking the piss mate. Also, are these loans (accounting for a third of the total) interest and condition free? Because people will argue (as they have) that this money is used to buy the Wahhabis in roads and political leverage so that they can engage in the kind of behaviour mentioned by the Boss.
If you had any political awareness other than navel – gazing you would know that being ‘praised’ by the IMF M.D is no praise at all and that organisation is monopolised by the U.S, Saudi Arabias’ sugar daddy. So Saudi has nearly half of the planets known oil reserves and it throws a few peanuts to other countries to buy influence or out of genuine philanthropy. Hence, this excuses the monopolization of oil wealth by an absolute monarchy. This is known as keeping up appearances, however, this is lost on you as your level of political awareness is clearly that of a tribal Arab: Your tribe right or wrong eh?
No surprise though, even Bin Laden couldn’t bring himself to take on the Royal Family and Al Sheikhs so we shouldn’t expect much from a sock – puppet like yourself.
I won’t embarrass you any further by exposing your pathetic articles on Saudi ‘antagonising’ Israel. LMFAO!
I would encourage readers to view some of the ‘sources’ of that Wiki article as well as the ‘external links’ for a view as to the objectivity of this guys research.
Free Lover, I remind you of the following MDI blog rules. Everyone posting comments on the MDI site will be expected to abide by these rules.
1. No personal attacks
We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person.
2. Expect to be disagreed with!
This is how good debate is conducted. Questioning of your opinions should be taken as a compliment about their weight.
3. Be courteous in your debating style
Apologise when you err; apologies are always well-received here. Discussion or dialogue should be civil, respectful, and constructive.
4. No gratuitous insults against a person’s beliefs.
We all know the difference between challenging someone’s beliefs, and insulting them. Insult will be judged by the MDI Editor based upon the clear intent of comments made, and not necessarily by any offense taken. An idea or belief can be questioned, challenged and refuted without recourse to gratuitous insult.
Even better post Jesus, it had to be said: I was a card carrying ‘Salafi’/Wahhabi type myself through uni and by the time I realised that their opinions are arbitrary and against true Islam, it was too late for me.
I agree that all of this type of stupidity originates and is disseminated by Saudi and the Gulf states which have used their oil wealth and protection from America to export their dissenting population to other Muslim countries in Africa, SE Asia, Pakistan etc. in search of easy authority and jobs in ‘madrassas’ and easy marriage opportunities due to the glamour and seeming authority of their ‘Arab’ background. Bin Laden = Case Point.
You see plenty of Muslims in Pakistan and SE Asia getting killed and blown up but you never hear these guys doing a bombing in Saudi or UAE. It’s like they have exported violence and puritans everywhere but to themselves.
Excellent posts Jesus!
Wahhabis BASHED AGAIN!
Do You Wish to Continue?
10, 9, 8, 7, 6…
I agree that there can be no doubt that there are large numbers of ‘disaster tourists’ in the poorer (majority) countries of the Islamic world: many young, disillusioned, unemployed, angry (and understandably horny) men from the Middle East leave and find celebrity status in places like Pakistan and Indonesia (as well as a ready supply of accessible females with low dowry, an impossibility in their home countries). I hate to agree, but it is true. It is also the case with some wealthy people like Bin Laden, who despite messing stuff up for Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pak himself remained loyal to the Saudi Royal Family throughout his life and only wanted to verbally correct them and did not sanction violence against them (the foreigners living in Saudi were another matter though).
I think a lot of radicalised Arab men are exported to the wider Muslim world by these interests in the Middle East as a means of ’emptying it’s prisons’ (so to speak) and keeping things quite at home.
I also think a lot of angry young Muslim men voluntarily leave the Middle East as they have given up all hope of ever being able to effect change at home and therefore agitate abroad since the system in Saudi etc. is too powerful and entrenched to change. In any case, the Saudi scholars and Royalty enjoy a symbiotic relationship which keeps them safe from the violence and stupidity of their own followers.
“but you never hear these guys doing a bombing in Saudi”
Absolutely terrible attempt at a comeback!
The article from Wikipedia actually supports The Boss so you should try to read what the guys before actually said before playing the ‘poor Saudis, they are suffering too!’ card: i.e that there are no where near as many attacks in the Eastern Middle East as there are in Pak/Afghan, that these attacks are encouraged against foreigners as opposed to the Rulers/scholars of Saudi. Which is exactly what that article confirms. In fact I encourage the others to read it as it paints a far worse picture of Saudi Arabian rulers and scholars that you guys did!
For example, there was NO – ONE mentioned killed in terrorist attacks between 2009 – 2011 according to that article. If we were to look at violence in Afghan, Pak or Iraq over the same period we would see literally tens of thousands dead. So your comparison of Saudi ‘suffering’ at the hands of terrorists in insulting and you should be ashamed.
The article also BLAMES Saudi for exporting terrorism, just as people above said:
”After the September 11, 2001 attacks, there was continued world pressure for the Saudi government to crack down on the radical imams preaching anti-American rhetoric in Saudi mosques. These calls grew as it turned out that 17 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi officials pledged to make efforts to crack down on these imams, yet preaching continued.”
As for the Royal Family being targeted, your own source says of a botched assassination attempt that:
”It was the first attempt on the life of a royal since the murder of King Faisal in 1975.”
Like the Boss told you, Bin Laden etc. remained loyal to the Royal Family (as are the Saudi clergy) and did not encourage fighting against them, as evidenced by the almost total absence of targeting of them despite their being rather numerous. And it does not even say who the attacker was.
However, it IS very interesting to read the article about what happened to the one guy who DID get assassinated (not by a terrorist though), King Faisal. He tried to rein in the clergy, including the idiotic rambler Ibn Baz and was assassinated for his trouble.
In think the above Wikipedia entry is more relevant to the discussion that your own, which you obviously did not take the trouble to read.
I made a response to a “specific” claim. That specific claim was:
“but you never hear these guys doing a bombing in Saudi”
What is the claim being made here? The claim is that we “NEVER HERE” these guys doing a bombing. Well………. that’s wrong because we do “hear” such things. As a matter of fact, I was living in Riyadh back in 2003 when Al Qaeda committed their deadly terrorist attacks and I know people who were killed. I know a friend whose compound was attacked and he woke me up in the middle of the night when it happened. I was so depressed after the attacks that I left the country in reaction to it.
Now you go ahead AND ALTER what I responding back to by saying:
“that there are no where near as many attacks in the Eastern Middle East as there are in Pak/Afghan,”
Well there’s a big difference between saying that we never hear of such attacks and saying that there aren’t as many attacks.
Also, regarding the foreign aid bit. I never said that Saudi gives enough. I was merely responding to this claim:
““Thousands of Muslims in Africa and Asia does not have proper food to eat ,it will not give money to these Muslims ””
What does the claim assert? It asserts that NO MONEY is given. It doesn’t say “NOT ENOUGH MONEY” is being given. Again, there’s a difference.
So in addition to misrepresenting my position and putting words into my mouth and misunderstanding what I was responding back to, you are an immature and abusive person. It’s best you to try to get rid of these bad habits.
And at least try to PRETEND to offer a sincere apology next time, since your sarcasm only makes you out to look more immature than you have already shown yourself to be.
I love the way absolutely no – one stood up for Wahhabis OR ‘Aussie Rules’ Football.
They must both be indefensible.
And the guy who just now tried to stand up for them ended up insulting them too!
Apologies indeed for my rudeness Mr Williams & readers. I lost control due to the bad faith and manifest dishonesty of the Zawadi’s reply but I should not have used insults, so I apologise again. MDI gives a platform to all and this should not be abused by people such as myself.
Allow me to make up for it by using Mr Zawadis’ beloved Wikipedia to demonstrate the rigour of his argument that Saudi is an implacable friend of the Muslim world and gives aid to them like a Muslim Robin Hood:
Perhaps the $1.63 billion dollars it gives a year (which I bet does not even cover the Zakat payments for the Royal Family, though I am sure it includes them & those of it’s public) could be diverted to Iraq which Saudi helped bomb back into the stone age? Just a suggestion.
By the way Mr Zawadi, how much IS the Zakat on the Royal Families income? Are the Shia in Iraq eligible?
I’m just asking…
Well Mr Zawadi, then you are responding to a straw man. I am sure Jesus was not saying that Saudi is one of the few countries in the world that experiences NO terrorist attacks, that would be ridiculous.
I am afraid Jesus is probably naive as to literally a Wahhabi would take his comments.
Nor was he probably saying that you don’t give ANY aid (though you article did indeed show NO aid given to Africa, so you failed to prove your point anyway, though again, I am sure some is given to that part of the world also). Given that there is a misappropriation of resources, the argument COULD have be made by Jesus that you indeed give NO aid. Allow me to make it for you now: Your Royal Family stole the oil revenue for Bugattis, liposuction and concubines and saying Saudi Arabia (as a government) gives ‘aid’ is like saying that if I stole a hundred pounds from the Ummah and gave back five pence, then this is a meritorious act. Sadly, this is what you seem to think.
In any case, your hypocrisy is manifest since you were not JUST trying to show that there are indeed attacks in Saudi (perishingly few compared to the violence inflicted by Saudi citizens in the rest of the Muslim world or the United States for that matter) but you were trying to play the victim, as was the case with your post about charity, you in reality tried to show that Saudi is benevolent but you dodged the point about whose money is it and the Zakat payments on the disposable income of the Royal Family.
If you were honest, you would not bother to respond to Jesus as you would appreciate that his points (Saudi export of terror, supported by your own Wiki article ironically, Saudi gluttony) were entirely correct though not to be taken as ‘no one has ever killed a Saudi in a terrorist attack’ or that ‘no – one from Saudi gives charity’, much as when one says: ‘The weather in London is terrible’ one does not mean that there has never been a day of nice weather.
However, it is beyond me to disabuse a Wahhabi of his literalism.
Instead you choose to focus on a flea – fart in a hurricane (poor Saudis, they have it SOOOOO hard!).
You remind me of someone I know. Have we met in person before in London?
As for my “literalism”, I will not apologize for responding to claims as they are being made, while there is no evidence from context that it is intended to mean anything else. Your London weather analogy is silly. As for Saudi donating to Africa, a few seconds research on google would reveal that they indeed do so to countries such as Kenya and others.
As for Saudi citizens committing terrorism, lol, you sound like those Islamophobes like Robert Spencer who love stereotyping. How about you tell me, which country you are from and I will point out a number of terrorists from the place you call home? How about the fact that many Saudis also fight terrorism, huh?
I repeat…….. you are an immature man. An ignoramus as well. Learn how to argue properly and stop committing logical fallacies and depending on your rhetoric. And stop attacking strawman, I never said anything good about Saudi in what I have written here and you are assuming things I haven’t said here (raising my suspicions that we know each other, otherwise you are just a person who just loves attacking strawman). You are calling me a Saudi when I am not a Saudi. You claim that I think highly of Saudi, when I actually don’t in a general sense. You keep looking more and more pathetic in my eyes each time you speak. It’s best you put a sock in it and start using your time wisely doing other things.
this thread is now closed