Living with the Enemy on SBS

[ufo_investigations]

I just watched LIVING WITH THE ENEMY on SBS.  The story about Ben the Aussie going to live with Lidia and Ahmed the muslims. Lidia is an Aussie and was raised Catholic and converted to Islam. Ahmed was born in Saudi Arabia.

What did I learn?

- Muslim women wont shake hands with a male person their not related to. (Very rude).

- When husband and wife muslims pray in their own house, the wife has to pray behind her husband. (Women are not treated as equals even in their own house).

- Christians are not allowed to visit Mecca in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because you have to be muslim to be allowed.

- Mosques can be built all over Australia but we can't build a Church in Saudi Arabia.

- The Quran tells muslims to kill people.

- In the mosque women are behind the curtain at the back. It's their own area. Why? Because the men have to be in a different section. Why? To give women privacy. This is the reason they cited. The real reason I believe is not to cause desire in the men.

- When they went shopping they visited a halal butcher to buy lamb shoulder. Ben wasn't consulted. What if he wanted pork chops?

- They went to Bondi to do an "Aussie thing called surfing". Lidia went swimming in her full Islamic clothing then when she came out of the water she placed a towel around her depicting the Australian flag.

[bushies.girl]

Each to their own, have no interest in it at all

[tall_bearded01]

I do not understand the intent behind your post.

Are you saying that you accept that countries have a legitimate right to place restrictions on where a person can go with the exception of religious grounds? That is the Government, any Government, can restrict access to areas on the grounds of political expediency, environmental impact, even public safety, but they can’t restrict access on the basis that the site is religiously sensitive.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

I do not understand the intent behind your post.

Are you saying that you accept that countries have a legitimate right to place restrictions on where a person can go with the exception of religious grounds? That is the Government, any Government, can restrict access to areas on the grounds of political expediency, environmental impact, even public safety, but they can’t restrict access on the basis that the site is religiously sensitive.

---

What do you think Saudi Arabia does?

Christians, Jews, Atheists and others are not allowed to visit Mecca. They argue that Mecca is religiously sensitive to Muslims and all other peoples would cause great offense because everyone else is considered an infidel and they hate us.

[tall_bearded01]

And your point is

That is, if you read my earlier posts, you would see that my last past (before this one) was a nature extension (culmination) of what went before. That is, you among others, appear to object of the decision by the Saudi Government to close off to Mecca to all non-Muslims, and I for one couldn’t fathom as to why.

So in previous posts I put the proposition that all Governments, Including our own, place restrictions on where a person can and cannot go, and I would assume by your, and others, past comments you/they accepted that governments have a legitimate right to do exactly that.

So the question remains, if you accept that a Government can deny access on a multiplicity of grounds, including military, environmental, and public safety to name but a few, why can’t a country do the same on religious grounds.

[azureline**]

Who watched last nights episode? about the legalisation of marijuana? I only got up to where they were about to reveal the gy's test results.

I do hope they haven't ruined the "supply" of the tincture for  medical use etc.

[raptor_rebooted]

you're right.  i don't live in the real world.

in my world i dont like governments

discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, religion

or gender.  you may say i'm a dreamer...

my bad.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

And your point is

That is, if you read my earlier posts, you would see that my last past (before this one) was a nature extension (culmination) of what went before. That is, you among others, appear to object of the decision by the Saudi Government to close off to Mecca to all non-Muslims, and I for one couldn’t fathom as to why.

So in previous posts I put the proposition that all Governments, Including our own, place restrictions on where a person can and cannot go, and I would assume by your, and others, past comments you/they accepted that governments have a legitimate right to do exactly that.

So the question remains, if you accept that a Government can deny access on a multiplicity of grounds, including military, environmental, and public safety to name but a few, why can’t a country do the same on religious grounds.

---

I'm going to explain why I object to the Saudi Government ban on non-muslims:

Muslims insist that Islam is "The Religion of Peace" and "Love" "Tolerance" "Friendship" and it is the, quote "Allah the Most Merciful".

Really? You believe this?

Muslims believe that anyone that is not a muslim is an infidel. They hate all infidels. The Quran is full of hatred toward infidels. Islam teaches Muslims not to integrate with infidels. Islam is the only religion that bans peoples from other faiths from entering their place of worship. This tells me they have zero tolerance, no acceptance, no compassion. "The Religion of Peace"? yeah right!

[karliandjacko]

---

@ufo_investigations wrote:

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

And your point is

That is, if you read my earlier posts, you would see that my last past (before this one) was a nature extension (culmination) of what went before. That is, you among others, appear to object of the decision by the Saudi Government to close off to Mecca to all non-Muslims, and I for one couldn’t fathom as to why.

So in previous posts I put the proposition that all Governments, Including our own, place restrictions on where a person can and cannot go, and I would assume by your, and others, past comments you/they accepted that governments have a legitimate right to do exactly that.

So the question remains, if you accept that a Government can deny access on a multiplicity of grounds, including military, environmental, and public safety to name but a few, why can’t a country do the same on religious grounds.

---

I'm going to explain why I object to the Saudi Government ban on non-muslims:

Muslims insist that Islam is "The Religion of Peace" and "Love" "Tolerance" "Friendship" and it is the, quote "Allah the Most Merciful".

Really? You believe this?

Muslims believe that anyone that is not a muslim is an infidel. They hate all infidels. The Quran is full of hatred toward infidels. Islam teaches Muslims not to integrate with infidels. Islam is the only religion that bans peoples from other faiths from entering their place of worship. This tells me they have zero tolerance, no acceptance, no compassion. "The Religion of Peace"? yeah right!

---

Give up the fear mongering already. Not all muslims hate other people. Most Australian muslims are here because they don't want to live in the sort of world that promotes such bigotry.  They want a peaceful life for them and their children.  Labelling all muslims as fundamently flawed is like labelling all Christians as the same because of how the Westboro Baptists or the Exclusive Brethren demonstrate extreme practices.

[azureline**]

are you Muslim? and you speak for all Muslims?