im sure you know as well as i do that "mutual consent" is in a very high number of cases not carried out, certainly in pak. it's "mutual consent" in that the woman (or man, in some cases) can refuse if they really want to but if they do they'll be at the very least disowned and the worst killed. and no, this is not exclusive to muslims. ** but sikhs arent constantly on their high horse about the west being "immoral", and are not blowing up nightclubs in the name of their religion. sikh men in western countries generally dont think they have a god-given right to have casual sex with non-believers then come home to an obedient, subservient wife.**
Why is here any discussion about sikhs?
can i also ask you what the difference is, in practice, between a westerner who has one several-year relationship then another one which becomes a life partnership, and a muslim who marries young, gets divorced in their twenties and then marries another muslim for life?
No you don't have to. People already know it.
There is no reality in your answer would be anyway.
i agree, but it makes no difference.
So you have made up your mind anyway not to accept despite being agreed to?
they claim to be muslims. they use islam as a justification for their behavior. they use islam as a justification when they condemn "the west" for being "immoral". they use islam as a means for distinguishing between kafir whores with whom they're free to have casual sex, and sacred muslimah.
The topic is about this stupid woman condemning muslims in general and Islam based on her whatever motive. You are getting on high horse for no reason here.
whether or not they are following islam or not is irrelevant: THEY ARE MUSLIMS. they go to mosques, they do salat, they call themselves muslims. THEY ARE MUSLIMS. male chauvinism and misogyny is a cancer within islam that it is imperative we remove. no, there is no problem with islam. but there is a problem with muslims.
lol.
Again on high horse there.
well out of interest, in your opinion why shouldn't a woman lead namaz?
No. Take it or leave it. Period.
and its interesting that, as always the case, you're prepared to get annoyed about that yet stuff like hatan surucu just gets brushed off with a "well that's a shame; nothing to do with islam though.". interesting and sad. presumably you'd agree with the turkish schoolkid who thought it was right to kill her because "the whore lived like a german"? i mean, you wouldn't have killed her oh no no of course. but he had a point, right?
No. No one has the right to kill anyone based on the ideology differences.
Sounds familiar though?
my point is that muslims are all too easily to condemn westerners for being so utterly vile as to have more than one serious relationship in their lives, when most of the islamic world has an appalling record as regards gender equality.
No they do not. You added the word serious there just to try to put weight in your argument.
What about non-serious relationship which eventually leads to broken families, broken hearts and confused children?
to claim every westerner is some drunken slut is just as stupid as claiming every muslim marriage is a healthy two-way relationship with "mutual consent" from all parties. and whats ironic is the unspoken claim of the latter is usually used to justify the former.
Agree there. generalization should not be accepted. When it comes to good or bad; east or west, north or south, all have problems.
By the way: Your writing seems you are not who you are pretending to be. I may be wrong there.