Saudi Arabian woman is kicked out of mall for not wearing gloves

[TheGreatGatsby]

...

the fact that you lied

Of course Pogo lied. He's a libtard. That's what they do. And libtards are under the impression that Muslims are an asset in advancing the libtard agenda; which is why they vigorously defend them. What they don't get is that that's the Iraq strategy only on a larger scale.

You lie in bed with Muslims, don't cry when your house is infested with flees; that is if you have the occasion to cry; your head might be on a pike somewhere...

Where's the "lie"?


Exactly. You go **** yourself too. Maybe you and schnockerface can get into the same reading comprehension class.

And thanks for once again proving how spot-on my sigline quote is.

You're a habitual liar, dude. Now like I said, you believe that Muslims are an asset. And therein is your problem.

 

[irosie91]

...

the fact that you lied

Of course Pogo lied. He's a libtard. That's what they do. And libtards are under the impression that Muslims are an asset in advancing the libtard agenda; which is why they vigorously defend them. What they don't get is that that's the Iraq strategy only on a larger scale.

You lie in bed with Muslims, don't cry when your house is infested with flees; that is if you have the occasion to cry; your head might be on a pike somewhere...

Where's the "lie"?


Exactly. You go **** yourself too. Maybe you and schnockerface can get into the same reading comprehension class.

And thanks for once again proving how spot-on my sigline quote is.

when did you first read the writings of Isaac Asimov? ------I read his stuff circa 1962. Is he your "god" His stuff was a bit weird. Why would you take a very esoteric writer of
weird science fiction as your cult leader?

 

[Pogo]

...

the fact that you lied

Of course Pogo lied. He's a libtard. That's what they do. And libtards are under the impression that Muslims are an asset in advancing the libtard agenda; which is why they vigorously defend them. What they don't get is that that's the Iraq strategy only on a larger scale.

You lie in bed with Muslims, don't cry when your house is infested with flees; that is if you have the occasion to cry; your head might be on a pike somewhere...

Where's the "lie"?


Exactly. You go **** yourself too. Maybe you and schnockerface can get into the same reading comprehension class.

And thanks for once again proving how spot-on my sigline quote is.

You're a habitual liar, dude. Now like I said, you believe that Muslims are an asset. And therein is your problem.

I don't have a "problem" Gas Bag --- you do. I've pointed out from the beginning of this thread that it isn't even about Islam (or religion) -- let alone "Muslims being an asset".

That's why I challenged you to quote it, and you can't -- because it doesn't exist, because you made it up.
Now look where you are. Field of Strawman.



As I said ---- reading is fun-duh-mental.

 

[Pogo]

She knew the rules and chose to violate them. So she got kicked out. Problem solved. .....

That's exactly what Rosa Parks did. Imagine that.

 

[irosie91]

I notice no one is demanding of sunni "where does it say in the Koran that a woman must wear gloves" ????. Unlike most of the "experts" here---I actually read that piece of shit. I can answer the question------it doesn't.......not that I care. Shariah shit exists as per the SCHOLARS OF ISLAAAAAAM it stinks but it is what it is

 

[Pogo]

I notice no one is demanding of sunni "where does it say in the Koran that a woman must wear gloves" ????. Unlike most of the "experts" here---I actually read that piece of shit. I can answer the question------it doesn't.......

That's what I've been saying the entire time here.

DUH.

 

[Sunni Man]

The wearing of gloves by muslim women is not mandated by the Quran.

It is a cultural form of dress prevalent in some arab countries. .....

 

[irosie91]

I notice no one is demanding of sunni "where does it say in the Koran that a woman must wear gloves" ????. Unlike most of the "experts" here---I actually read that piece of shit. I can answer the question------it doesn't.......

That's what I've been saying the entire time here.DUH.

as usual-----that which you have been "saying" Pogo is useless. A very standard response to a description of that which muslims DO----that which is the HISTORIC and PRESENT filth of shariah is "show me in the Koran....." as a kind of cynical defense against the reality of the filth of shariah. Law in Saudi Arabia IS SHARIAH LAW-------if the law in that shariah shit hole is "a woman must wear gloves to hide her NAKED HANDS---in public----then that is the law that ISLAMIC SCHOLARs HAVE DETERMIINED TO BE DIVINE ISLAMIC LAW. The entire stinking filth of islam is not specifically described in
the Koran -----any more than the entire filth of their disgusting "god" muhummad is described as that which he was---------a RAPIST THIEVING DOG ------his disgusting piggish actions do come up ------but his shit is described a "holy"

 

[irosie91]

The wearing of gloves by muslim women is not mandated by the Quran.

It is a cultural form of dress prevalent in some arab countries. .....

right as a question of piety-------in conformity with the stink of islam....... when I was very young girls wore WHITE GLOVES on formal occasions -----but no one got arrested for failing to do so or thrown out of anything-----the lady was abused by in the name of the rapist pig of Arabia and the pile of shit in jannah-----not that I care

 

[Pogo]

I notice no one is demanding of sunni "where does it say in the Koran that a woman must wear gloves" ????. Unlike most of the "experts" here---I actually read that piece of shit. I can answer the question------it doesn't.......

That's what I've been saying the entire time here.DUH.

as usual-----that which you have been "saying" Pogo is useless. A very standard response to a description of that which muslims DO----that which is the HISTORIC and PRESENT filth of shariah is "show me in the Koran....." as a kind of cynical defense against the reality of the filth of shariah. Law in Saudi Arabia IS SHARIAH LAW-------if the law in that shariah shit hole is "a woman must wear gloves to hide her NAKED HANDS---in public----then that is the law that ISLAMIC SCHOLARs HAVE DETERMIINED TO BE DIVINE ISLAMIC LAW. The entire stinking filth of islam is not specifically described in
the Koran -----any more than the entire filth of their disgusting "god" muhummad is described as that which he was---------a RAPIST THIEVING DOG ------his disgusting piggish actions do come up ------but his shit is described a "holy"

And that's a theocracy. And it's based on primitive patriarchal culture. And that's what I've been pointing out since my first post here.

 

[irosie91]

I notice no one is demanding of sunni "where does it say in the Koran that a woman must wear gloves" ????. Unlike most of the "experts" here---I actually read that piece of shit. I can answer the question------it doesn't.......

That's what I've been saying the entire time here.DUH.

as usual-----that which you have been "saying" Pogo is useless. A very standard response to a description of that which muslims DO----that which is the HISTORIC and PRESENT filth of shariah is "show me in the Koran....." as a kind of cynical defense against the reality of the filth of shariah. Law in Saudi Arabia IS SHARIAH LAW-------if the law in that shariah shit hole is "a woman must wear gloves to hide her NAKED HANDS---in public----then that is the law that ISLAMIC SCHOLARs HAVE DETERMIINED TO BE DIVINE ISLAMIC LAW. The entire stinking filth of islam is not specifically described in
the Koran -----any more than the entire filth of their disgusting "god" muhummad is described as that which he was---------a RAPIST THIEVING DOG ------his disgusting piggish actions do come up ------but his shit is described a "holy"

And that's a theocracy. And it's based on primitive patriarchal culture. And that's what I've been pointing out since my first post here.

It is based on ISLAM. Islam developed in that shit hole and its laws are SHARIAH LAW ----as determined by the RECOGNIZED sunni SCHOLARS of the world. Long ago ------ie 1400 years ago SAUDI ARABIA was a culturally diverse land which harbored Sabeans, Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians and probably hindus ----maybe some Buddhists --------The land itself served as a trading link-----between the far east and-----what was then THE WEST. I am not suggesting it was a particularly "civilized" place------it was chock full of Bedouin tribes that consisted of the unwashed and illiterate and barbaric-----but it had a chance until the rapist pig war , Muhummad destroyed all that was decent there. The land went from somewhat "literate" to utterly benighted and remains so

 

[Pogo]

The wearing of gloves by muslim women is not mandated by the Quran.

It is a cultural form of dress prevalent in some arab countries. .....

right as a question of piety-------in conformity with the stink of islam....... when I was very young girls wore WHITE GLOVES on formal occasions -----but no one got arrested for failing to do so or thrown out of anything-----the lady was abused by in the name of the rapist pig of Arabia and the pile of shit in jannah-----not that I care

And once agan --- as already noted last week --- the same thing goes on here, and it's got nothing to do with Islam, Christianism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism:

Caption:
"June 30, 1922. Washington policeman Bill Norton measuring the distance between knee and suit at the Tidal Basin bathing beach after Col. Sherrill, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, issued an order that suits not be over six inches above the knee." National Photo Co.​

-- We don't call that guy a "theocrat", because he doesn't work for the Church. But his job here is the same as the mall cop in the OP.

 

[irosie91]

The wearing of gloves by muslim women is not mandated by the Quran.

It is a cultural form of dress prevalent in some arab countries. .....

right as a question of piety-------in conformity with the stink of islam....... when I was very young girls wore WHITE GLOVES on formal occasions -----but no one got arrested for failing to do so or thrown out of anything-----the lady was abused by in the name of the rapist pig of Arabia and the pile of shit in jannah-----not that I care

And once agan --- as already noted last week --- the same thing goes on here, and it's got nothing to do with Islam, Christianism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism:

Caption:
"June 30, 1922. Washington policeman Bill Norton measuring the distance between knee and suit at the Tidal Basin bathing beach after Col. Sherrill, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, issued an order that suits not be over six inches above the knee." National Photo Co.​

-- We don't call that guy a "theocrat", because he doesn't work for the Church. But his job here is the same as the mall cop in the OP.

the phrase "the same thing happens" is in the present tense-----you cited an event that took place more than 90 years ago In fact----regarding the issue of GLOVES for muslim women in Saudi Arabia-----it is ---for me-----not an issue If Saudi Arabia wants to have such a law----fine with me. It is a good precedent -----it allows for DRESS CODE laws all over the world including "NO HIJAB" laws in civilized lands. I did not start the useless thread

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

...

the fact that you lied

Of course Pogo lied. He's a libtard. That's what they do. And libtards are under the impression that Muslims are an asset in advancing the libtard agenda; which is why they vigorously defend them. What they don't get is that that's the Iraq strategy only on a larger scale.

You lie in bed with Muslims, don't cry when your house is infested with flees; that is if you have the occasion to cry; your head might be on a pike somewhere...

Where's the "lie"?


Exactly. You go **** yourself too. Maybe you and schnockerface can get into the same reading comprehension class.

And thanks for once again proving how spot-on my sigline quote is.

You're a habitual liar, dude. Now like I said, you believe that Muslims are an asset. And therein is your problem.

I don't have a "problem" Gas Bag --- you do. I've pointed out from the beginning of this thread that it isn't even about Islam (or religion) -- let alone "Muslims being an asset".

That's why I challenged you to quote it, and you can't -- because it doesn't exist, because you made it up.
Now look where you are. Field of Strawman.



As I said ---- reading is fun-duh-mental.

If the OP regards the SA regulatory system and RELIGIOUS CULTURE, then that's not a factor that a nit wit like you can sweep away. This absolutely is all about Islam, nit wit.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I did not start the useless thread

Go **** yourself. Nobody said you have to post in it.

 

[Pogo]

The wearing of gloves by muslim women is not mandated by the Quran.

It is a cultural form of dress prevalent in some arab countries. .....

right as a question of piety-------in conformity with the stink of islam....... when I was very young girls wore WHITE GLOVES on formal occasions -----but no one got arrested for failing to do so or thrown out of anything-----the lady was abused by in the name of the rapist pig of Arabia and the pile of shit in jannah-----not that I care

And once agan --- as already noted last week --- the same thing goes on here, and it's got nothing to do with Islam, Christianism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism:

Caption:
"June 30, 1922. Washington policeman Bill Norton measuring the distance between knee and suit at the Tidal Basin bathing beach after Col. Sherrill, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, issued an order that suits not be over six inches above the knee." National Photo Co.​

-- We don't call that guy a "theocrat", because he doesn't work for the Church. But his job here is the same as the mall cop in the OP.

the phrase "the same thing happens" is in the present tense-----you cited an event that took place more than 90 years ago In fact----regarding the issue of GLOVES for muslim women in Saudi Arabia-----it is ---for me-----not an issue If Saudi Arabia wants to have such a law----fine with me. It is a good precedent -----it allows for DRESS CODE laws all over the world including "NO HIJAB" laws in civilized lands. I did not start the useless thread

Once again the point sails over your head. It doesn't matter what the TIME PERIOD is -- we're seeing an example of moral policing, just as in the other case, and neither one has anything to do with "religion".

 

[Pogo]

the fact that you lied

Of course Pogo lied. He's a libtard. That's what they do. And libtards are under the impression that Muslims are an asset in advancing the libtard agenda; which is why they vigorously defend them. What they don't get is that that's the Iraq strategy only on a larger scale.

You lie in bed with Muslims, don't cry when your house is infested with flees; that is if you have the occasion to cry; your head might be on a pike somewhere...

Where's the "lie"?


Exactly. You go **** yourself too. Maybe you and schnockerface can get into the same reading comprehension class.

And thanks for once again proving how spot-on my sigline quote is.

You're a habitual liar, dude. Now like I said, you believe that Muslims are an asset. And therein is your problem.

I don't have a "problem" Gas Bag --- you do. I've pointed out from the beginning of this thread that it isn't even about Islam (or religion) -- let alone "Muslims being an asset".

That's why I challenged you to quote it, and you can't -- because it doesn't exist, because you made it up.
Now look where you are. Field of Strawman.



As I said ---- reading is fun-duh-mental.

If the OP regards the SA regulatory system and RELIGIOUS CULTURE, then that's not a factor that a nit wit like you can sweep away. This absolutely is all about Islam, nit wit.

Then it's funny you STILL can't demonstrate that. Just like you STILL can't quote this "Muslims being an asset" horseshit.

Once AGAIN posting a point ignored earlier in the same thread....

These are Muslim women (in Saudi Arabia):

---- and these are Muslim women (in Iraq):

and these are Muslim women (in Tunisia):

See how they're all dressed the same, because they're all the same religion?

Me neither.

And you can see in the caption of the last one that it's specifically a social media campaign.... once again for you slow readers, that's social media, not religious media ---- to counter another social media campaign called "be a man and veil 'your' woman" ---- which illustrates directly that this is a sociocultural issue, not a religious one, and specifically about controlling women with a sense of "ownership".

----- "veil YOUR women. Not "veil Allah's women", not "veil Islam's women" -- YOUR women --- YOU, the male, the patriarch, the "man of the house", the reader, should veil the women YOU "own". Doesn't even matter if you're a practicing Muslim or not -- this is about social control devices. Because an individual can participate in religion or not as he or she sees fit but everyone is beholden to social mores.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Of course Pogo lied. He's a libtard. That's what they do. And libtards are under the impression that Muslims are an asset in advancing the libtard agenda; which is why they vigorously defend them. What they don't get is that that's the Iraq strategy only on a larger scale.

You lie in bed with Muslims, don't cry when your house is infested with flees; that is if you have the occasion to cry; your head might be on a pike somewhere...

Where's the "lie"?


Exactly. You go **** yourself too. Maybe you and schnockerface can get into the same reading comprehension class.

And thanks for once again proving how spot-on my sigline quote is.

You're a habitual liar, dude. Now like I said, you believe that Muslims are an asset. And therein is your problem.

I don't have a "problem" Gas Bag --- you do. I've pointed out from the beginning of this thread that it isn't even about Islam (or religion) -- let alone "Muslims being an asset".

That's why I challenged you to quote it, and you can't -- because it doesn't exist, because you made it up.
Now look where you are. Field of Strawman.



As I said ---- reading is fun-duh-mental.

If the OP regards the SA regulatory system and RELIGIOUS CULTURE, then that's not a factor that a nit wit like you can sweep away. This absolutely is all about Islam, nit wit.

Then it's funny you STILL can't demonstrate that. Just like you STILL can't quote this "Muslims being an asset" horseshit.

Once AGAIN posting a point ignored earlier in the same thread....

These are Muslim women (in Saudi Arabia):

---- and these are Muslim women (in Iraq):

and these are Muslim women (in Tunisia):

See how they're all the same, because they're all the same religion?

Me neither.

And you can see in the caption of the last one that it's specifically a social media campaign.... once again for you slow readers, that's social media, not religious media ---- to counter another social media campaign called "be a man and veil 'your' woman" ---- which illustrates directly that this is a sociocultural issue, not a religious one, and specifically about controlling women with a sense of "ownership".

----- "veil YOUR women. Not "veil Allah's women, not "veil Islam's women" -- YOUR women --- YOU, the male, the patriarch, the "man of the house".

At what point did I say that all brands of Islam are equal? However, all brands of Islam are oppressive. Even that Tunisia that you're touting has Islam as a state religion and the president must be Muslim. And those girls ain't exactly bikini'd up are they? But that particular brand of Islam even recognizes how Islam on full blast is a threat to freedom, and they don't allow hijabs to be worn by government workers. Hmmmmm..... yea, here's your ass!

 

[Pogo]

Where's the "lie"?


Exactly. You go **** yourself too. Maybe you and schnockerface can get into the same reading comprehension class.

And thanks for once again proving how spot-on my sigline quote is.

You're a habitual liar, dude. Now like I said, you believe that Muslims are an asset. And therein is your problem.

I don't have a "problem" Gas Bag --- you do. I've pointed out from the beginning of this thread that it isn't even about Islam (or religion) -- let alone "Muslims being an asset".

That's why I challenged you to quote it, and you can't -- because it doesn't exist, because you made it up.
Now look where you are. Field of Strawman.



As I said ---- reading is fun-duh-mental.

If the OP regards the SA regulatory system and RELIGIOUS CULTURE, then that's not a factor that a nit wit like you can sweep away. This absolutely is all about Islam, nit wit.

Then it's funny you STILL can't demonstrate that. Just like you STILL can't quote this "Muslims being an asset" horseshit.

Once AGAIN posting a point ignored earlier in the same thread....

These are Muslim women (in Saudi Arabia):

---- and these are Muslim women (in Iraq):

and these are Muslim women (in Tunisia):

See how they're all the same, because they're all the same religion?

Me neither.

And you can see in the caption of the last one that it's specifically a social media campaign.... once again for you slow readers, that's social media, not religious media ---- to counter another social media campaign called "be a man and veil 'your' woman" ---- which illustrates directly that this is a sociocultural issue, not a religious one, and specifically about controlling women with a sense of "ownership".

----- "veil YOUR women. Not "veil Allah's women, not "veil Islam's women" -- YOUR women --- YOU, the male, the patriarch, the "man of the house", the reader, should veil the women YOU "own". Doesn't even matter if you're a practicing Muslim or not -- this is about social control devices. Because an individual can participate in religion or not as he or she sees fit but everyone is beholden to social mores.

At what point did I say that all brands of Islam are equal?

Now you're gonna try to sell these as "different brands"??

What, is there a King James Qur'an now?

At what point? Exactly at the point you first committed your cum hoc fallacy lumping correlation as causation. To your credit (or more correctly to your lack of blame) you didn't do it in the OP but waited for dowthread. I could look up the specific post if that's beyond your ability.

However, all brands of Islam are oppressive.

Then it's STILL interesting that you can't document that and have reverted to conflating civil law with religion.... right here....

Even that Tunisia that you're touting has Islam as a state religion and the president must be Muslim. And those girls ain't exactly bikini'd up are they? But that particular brand of Islam even recognizes how Islam on full blast is a threat to freedom, and they don't allow hijabs to be worn by government workers. Hmmmmm..... yea, here's your ass!

Oh my, look at the time. Dinner is served.

 

[irosie91]

The wearing of gloves by muslim women is not mandated by the Quran.

It is a cultural form of dress prevalent in some arab countries. .....

right as a question of piety-------in conformity with the stink of islam....... when I was very young girls wore WHITE GLOVES on formal occasions -----but no one got arrested for failing to do so or thrown out of anything-----the lady was abused by in the name of the rapist pig of Arabia and the pile of shit in jannah-----not that I care

And once agan --- as already noted last week --- the same thing goes on here, and it's got nothing to do with Islam, Christianism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism:

Caption:
"June 30, 1922. Washington policeman Bill Norton measuring the distance between knee and suit at the Tidal Basin bathing beach after Col. Sherrill, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, issued an order that suits not be over six inches above the knee." National Photo Co.​

-- We don't call that guy a "theocrat", because he doesn't work for the Church. But his job here is the same as the mall cop in the OP.

the phrase "the same thing happens" is in the present tense-----you cited an event that took place more than 90 years ago In fact----regarding the issue of GLOVES for muslim women in Saudi Arabia-----it is ---for me-----not an issue If Saudi Arabia wants to have such a law----fine with me. It is a good precedent -----it allows for DRESS CODE laws all over the world including "NO HIJAB" laws in civilized lands. I did not start the useless thread

Once again the point sails over your head. It doesn't matter what the TIME PERIOD is -- we're seeing an example of moral policing, just as in the other case, and neither one has anything to do with "religion".

wrong again-----BOTH do