this is just what i was saying. obviosu anyway with Babar Ahmed - the union should get their act together on this.

So, is Ruth Kelly going to order vice-chancellors to clamp down on Opus Dei...?

I think we should be told.

Indeed, our union's blind support of Babar Ahmed was embarassing at best, bordering on treason at worst. The guy ran a website inciting Jihad on British soldiers!

innocent until proven guilty of course. but theres no use brushin this under the carpet - all religious societies should be made accounable. especially the islamists and evangelist christians - theyre causing all this trouble. make them mor accountable before they blow up our union or something.

To be honest, it's an embarassment religious societies are so popular at IC - we're supposed to be a world-reknowned centre for intellectualism and free thought, not a breeding ground for mindless and irrational superstition.

quite right DoC. the unions lax attitude is helping these nutters spread their bile. get your act sorted b4 the goverment reduces our freedoms.

plug:

you too can join the freethinking society, set up to promote humanist thought, free of dogma, free of the causes of dogma...

there's nothing wrong with faith, it's just the ramming it down other people's throats that gets me. Religion has been the number one cause of conflict for millennia!!

This is not the greatest surprise tbh. What is a surprise is the belief that the union's support for Babar Ahmed was "blind".

I understand why Andre says this (and I sympathise with the notions behind this), however, perhaps he should look into the details of how the motion to support Babar's campaign was passed at council.

If the Guardian really has evidence that there are terroists at Imperial then they should be giving their evidence to the police not using it to make senationalist and irresponsible headlines.

I assume what the Guardian has actually done is to look at the list of top universities following on from Ruth Kelly's remarks and assumed that as Oxford and Cambridge only take people from white upper middle class backgrounds (a typical narrow minded view point shown over and over again in the press) she must be aiming her comments at Imperial.

And once again (and I would have thought we would all know this by now), ICU supported Babar Ahmed's right to a free and fair trial, the same as everyone is entitled to.

Indeed, tom t, we cannot deny people the right to their own personal faith. It doesn't stop me however from being embarassed to call the human race an intelligent and civilised species when so many of us still go around deciding the direction of our lives based primarily on medieval superstitions which really do not amount to much more credibility-wise than those of witches, wizards and ghosts. Especially with the massive body of scientific knowledge humanity has collectively attained.

This is not a surprise at all. The Islamic society at Imperial has been hosting events that priase, glorify and at best apologise for Islamic terrorism across the world. The socierty is a hotbed for extremism and the Union is not only reluctnat to do anything about their subversive activites but is in some cases in connivance with them, indeed a few years back the Union gave the Islamic society the award of society of the year. That a member of the society is awaiting trial for inciting terrorism and murder is not surprising giving the plethora of speakers and events held by Imperial's very own taliban. Dr. Azzam Tamimi was inviteds by the society on more than ome occassion and is known to be the UK spokesman for the Hamas terrorist organisation and has been filmed -shown on the recent BBC panorama documentary- making racist, antisemtic speeches and inciting terrorism and "jihad". The society has invited members of the international solidarity movemenet- an organisation that has links with the two British homicide bombers who murdered Israeli civillians in a Tel Aviv Bar, has invited George galloway and yvonne ridley- and other extremists. While most decent people are appalled that extremists like Galloway should be given a platform that is of course no reason to close down a society- that would be more like something that would happen in the 22 Arab muslim dictatorships, however that the society must be investigated for its incitemsnt, its fundraisning activities should be very closely scrutinised and until a throrugh review of all its activites is made it should be suspended. That people like tom t have the gall to get up here and preach about fair trials really takes teh biscuit. Barbar, our friendly decapitation videos webmaster, will receive a fair trial since he is going to America the freest country on the world and not one of the numerous opressive Arab regimes that Mr t and his communist ilk support (let alone their former hero the now defunct light unto the nations , the glorious "free" 100million murdered gulag loving Soviet state).

Indeed it is the infiltrations of such extreme socialists in the union that has allowed funds to be abused in order to raise money for such terrorists, a remedial step might be for the Union to set up a fund for victims of islamic terrorism in Bali, Tel aviv, Madrid and even London or perhaps a campaign for women's rights in the Islamic world. Perhaps a better start would be for the union to expunge itsleves of such dangerous socialist extremists- let us not forget that only 60 odd years ago what such national socilaists did in Europe...

It is continuously surprising - and disappointing - to find people with zero understanding of anything at an institution as respected as Imperial. Or at least in its online forums.

Linking Communism to terrorism? Linking Nazism to Socialism? America, home of Concentration Camp X-Ray and indefinite detention without trial, the freeest nation of the world?

Should we be amused, or worried about IC's admission standards?

I'd choose America anyday over any nation governed by the sort of people who sanction this kind of thing: http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/the_controverzy.html.

I think muslim arab nations should sort their own appalling human rights records out first (inspired mostly by the contents of such documents as the Quran) before they condemn minor, small-scale violations by a country that is struggling to defend itself against brainwashed lunatics who will forsake even the lives of them and their family to kill innocents.

It's easy to point at the US because they actually care about their international image! We should be focussing our attentions on countries like Iran if we're actually interested in human rights, not just convenient human rights.

Don't get me wrong- I have no problem with an attack on crazy Islamic extremists. What I do have a problem with, however, is ignorant individuals with a total lack of understanding of the tenets and principles of Islam to slander the entire religion, based on the actions of an extreme minority.

Quote: "...perhaps a campaign for women's rights in the Islamic world."

I agree that in parts of the world, women are oppressed. But to generalise this to the whole of the Islamic world is a complete and utter fallacy. This is an ignorant statement, given that Islam gives more rights snd respct to women than any other civilisation. I personally have had enough of sanctimonious people informing Muslim women that "sweetie, just though I'd let you know, did you know you were being oppressed. Yes it's true, you are!". Instead of assuming that Islam gives Muslim women no rights and believing the propaganda of the Western media, maybe someone should be asking the Muslim women if they feel oppressed or not. FYI: Islam liberates women.

I'm new to Imperial, therefore I don't have enough knowledge of the Islamic Society's goings-on to make a fair assessment to how much they show support Islamic extremism. However, to George Galloway and Yvonne Ridley as examples of "extremists", is slander, they are respectable speakers and I don't see how inviting to them to give a talk at Imperial shows any evidence of pandering to Islamic extremists.

I am appalled that people hold such opinions at one of the most academic and respectable institutions in the the U.K. This thread is not an attack on Islamic extremists, but has been used to defame and slander the name of Islam itself.

Also someone is very confused and cannot differentiate between what is Islamic extremism, socialism, and communists. Also, can someone tell me why is it so difficult for people to tell the difference between ordinary Muslims and terrorists, or between extreme interpretations of the Islamic faith and Islam itself?

Quote: "To be honest, it's an embarassment religious societies are so popular at IC - we're supposed to be a world-reknowned centre for intellectualism and free thought, not a breeding ground for mindless and irrational superstition."

If you really believe in free-thinking, then please, do try and think outside of the box.Why do people who adovacte free-thinking always slander relgion? Surely being a free-thinker, you should consider all ideas and philosophies? I'm sure you support all free-thinking and freedom of expression and opinion, apart from those ideas that you don't persoanlly agree with...

I would not have expected the low-grade opinions of a typical Daily Mail reader to appear on an IC forum. People here need to educate themselves about Islam, before they feel they have the right to slander something they no absolutely nothing about.

QUOTE: "If you really believe in free-thinking, then please, do try and think outside of the box.Why do people who adovacte free-thinking always slander relgion? Surely being a free-thinker, you should consider all ideas and philosophies? I'm sure you support all free-thinking and freedom of expression and opinion, apart from those ideas that you don't persoanlly agree with..."

Do you consider ideas such as witches and wizards? No, probably not. There is just as much evidence for their existence as there is for the truth of Islam (or any of the other of the main organised religions) and to hold what they say as anything other than the product of humans with over-active imaginations is quite ridiculous if you think about it logically. Are we too consider every idea anyone's ever add? To be honest, we don't have time. We have to consider only the most likely philosophies, which are those for which we have a rigorous logical structure and a relative mountain of evidence, such as those of science without supernatural entities. I'm not saying that some of these religions don't have good things to offer - indeed some of what they say might be good life advice, but to actually believe it is the word of some supernatural god is to me, bordering on the insane.

In 99% of cases, if you are brought up in a Christian household, you will turn out to be a Christian or not religious. If you are brought up in an Islamic household, you will turn out a muslim or maybe less often (the prescribed punishment for apostacy in Shariah is death IIRC), not religious. Do the religious people out there honestly think they would not be just as devout an X if they were brought up in a household with X as their religion? I don't deny that conversions happen, but they are not exactly common and are often in order to marry someone of another religion (i.e. not really because you 'found' that religion in the purest sense of the word).

We may call ourselves 'free-thinkers' but we are still constrained by the duration of our lifetime, and hence have to discount the most unlikely explanations for our existence or we would have an infinity of possibilites to investigate!

Doc Student, I think you should read your articles before you post them (not just the abstract):

"The U.S. executed nine juvenile offenders during this period... Thus, the U.S. has not only been the world’s leading executioner of minors, but has put to death twice as many as has Iran in this period."

Quote:

I don't deny that conversions happen, but they are not exactly common and are often in order to marry someone of another religion (i.e. not really because you 'found' that religion in the purest sense of the word).

This one statement is false and therefore invalidates the rest of the discussion. Statistics tell us otherwise: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and is rapidly catching up with Christianity to be the world's biggest organised religion (don't forget it's also some centuries younger than Christianity). I also personally many people who have converted to Islam in the purest sense (i.e not for marriage, but because they believe it to be the right path).

Just because you may not know of any personally does not mean that they do not exist.

I don't have a problem with people not believing in God as I believe sprirituality is a very deep and personal thing. However, I cannot agree with people ridiculing and mocking the religious convictions of others and I cannot understand why people feel the need to do that. Telling someone that their beleifs are supernatural is just as bad as ramming religion down someone's throat and makes you just as bad as the people you claim to abhor.

Quote: the prescribed punishment for apostacy in Shariah is death IIRC

Maybe in some Islamic countries this does occur, but British Muslims make an acitve choice to follow their religion, and don't do so for fear of being put to death.

I am a scientist but I also believe that at times some scientists can be quite dogmatic. I know this may seem a moot point to you, but I personally believe that there is plenty of evidence to support Islam, religion and belief in God as a philosophy. Ok, obviously not everything in religion can be explained rationally because its given that its based on faith and personal convicitons. However, as far as organised religions go, I believe Islam to be the most rational and logical amongst the world religions. I know however, that this a moot point because there is no way to convince you of this unless you choose to look into it yourself....

Personally I think its far more logical to believe in an absolute Creator than nothing at all, but there's a time and a place to discuss that and it's not here...

Indeed, I don't agree with the US' execution of minors (or indeed the death penalty full-stop), but the US didn't execute them for the crime of being gay! I think there's a big difference in terms of human rights between minors being executed presumedly for first degree murder and minors being executed publically for homosexuality...

I think anyone with any common sense can see that there are far greater human rights problems in countries like Iran than there are in the US (that's not to say that the US is great when it comes to human rights). Why do a lot of these activists tend to focus primarily on the US and not on these other countries who are clearly far worse when it comes to human rights? I wonder how many members of the IC Islamic Society were at the Iranian Embassy protesting against the aforementioned public hangings in August - not many I would hazard a guess. But enough of them turn out on the streets of London to support one man whose life is arguably in far less danger.

DoC student is right- not only do they turn out in their thousands to support Barbar, they also do (and did) to support Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and ultimately Bin laden. Their hatred for America is based on a hatred of western Civilisation and their axis with the Communist/Extreme Left is based on that common hatred as well as their deep anti-semtism. Whoever talks about rights of women under Islam - pixie brain or whatever he is remarkably ignorant. Men can have multiple wives, women must have one husband, men are allowed to beat their own wives (along as it is with the back of a shoe and not more than once a week according to "Sheikh" Yusuf Qaradawi, the leading Islamic "scholar" and Our own Taliban Mayor's big moderate buddy) according to Islamic theology. Female circumsion is still often practiced as is the imposition of the Hijab or the Burkha (headscarf and darf-vader like masked gown respectably) on women across the Islamic world (presumably to fend off the Islamic males who are such animals that they cannot keep their hands of a woman unless she is completely covered) and this guy thinks Islam is tolerant to women. Give me a break!

How many muslims came out onto the streets and protested against suicide murder and terrorism? Answer= Zero. How many against the Coalition's war against Saddam Hussein? Answer- approx 200,000. How many came out to condemn sucide bombing in Britain, on the tube- Answer Zero. How many protested against the war to rid the world of the Taliban? Answer- approx 200,000.

How many muslim spokesman condmen suicide bombing in Israel? Answer- Zero- and that even includes so-called moderates like Iqbal Sacranie!!!

As to comparing Socialism and Nazism,- well they are connected- Nazism, national socialism is an extreme form of Socialism. It is a common mistake to call it Right-wing- it is not, it is a Socialist ideology, seeing the power of the state as paramount...

Galloway, and Ridley are extremists (arguably ridley is mentally ill- suffering from a sever case of stockholm syndrome) but it s not because of these speakers that Islam soc should be investigated , rather it is because of other more blatant advocates of terror, because of campaign its launched where the recipients of funds raised were suspicious at best and it is because, yes an Al Qaeda operative was a member of this Imperial society- a fact not so easy to brush under the carpet even for the most ardent Arabists in the union. It is also high time that those in the Union engaged in such subversive activities- such as the Free the IC terrorist campaign, were subject to some form of enquiry and subsequent sanction.

All activities of Islamic soc must be suspended until further investigation and it si perhaps the role of College itslef and not just the Union. It is also high time that the Union apologise and cancel all campaigns to support the Imperial terrorist.

On the suppression of women:

ALL of the three single-god religions are fundamentally anti-women. Ranging from god punishing them by giving them painful agony during childbirth for all eternity, to unrealistic ideal images / plenty of derogatory ones (virgin conception, seductress or whore). Female circumcision is practiced by region, and not by faith (it's quite common among Christians in certain regions).

What about male circumcision anyway? Why is the faith-based non-consensual mutilation of male genitalia not frowned upon by anyone?

So, on the whole, sensible women (like sensible men) turn their back on faith - all faiths. (Yes, it's a damn pity there are faith-based societies on campus, and religious people. But as long as any of them is allowed, so should all be. Now banning all religion, that would be a good idea! Imagine, no more Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. - just people. They'd have to find something else to frown at each other and fight about...)

On the topic of Saddam: It's kind of hypocritical to claim that the war in Iraq was undertaken to liberate Muslims if 200,000 of them protested against it, and if the people of Iraq are none the happier / more free for it. All the US/UK did was turn a bad situation into a worse one. From impoverished dictatorship to civil war. Congratulations. Now watch as Iraq turns towards Iranian/Taliban-style government. What a big improvement.

On the topic of "minor infractions". Guantanamo Bay is not a "minor infraction". It's a concentration camp. Frankly, if some nation that has been under oppressive rule for its entire history is still under oppressive rule, and still not in alignment with the same culture of what we consider "human rights", then that is less worrying / upsetting than if a nation that has been set up as beacon for an ideaology of freedom and justice turns its back on that ideology and decays towards fascism over the death of 3000 people. Liberal Democracy is by no means perfect, but it's been a growing form of government for a few hundred years now. To watch as the tide turns backwards and not complain and protest is akin to treason to my mind. It's collaboration in a crime against humanity - the slow murder of human rights as we know them.

Finally, on the topic of Babar Ahmad. To the best of my knowledge, he is a UK national. He even stood for MP, so he certainly isn't an American or EU national. The allegations against him aren't about crimes he supposedly committed in the US. So if he's a UK citizen, and allegedly broke laws in the UK, he should be entitled to a UK trial. (Incidentally, didn't they arrest him, then throw out the charges, a year earlier? Isn't the entire point that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him in the UK, that he is, effectively, not guilty beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of probabilities?)

The idea that the US can just demand the extraction of any person in the UK, without presenting evidence, and have them handed over to a nation that declares foreign citizens to have no rights while in their custody is ludicrous. Might as well hand them the key to Britain, give them a list of everyone who protests against American foreign policy and donates money to the Stop the War Coalition, and allow them to turn the Isle of Man into a giant prison for everyone they don't quite like, to be incarcerated indefinitely and tortured occasionally for the amusement of the guards.

And on the Guardian article: It quotes some study by some little university that claims to have found different extremist groups at a variety of other universities. Of course not at the one conducting the study, no....

There's always going to be some idiots. BNP, PETA, Communists, extremist Zionists, extremist Islamists, ... shoot the lot, I say! Might make the place a little more peaceful for the rest of us. (Just kidding. As liberal, I do not advocate the shooting of all the idiots who deserve to be shot, they have a right to be idiotic despite all the trouble that causes.)

God this is makes depressing reading...

DoC Student/Arwa - if you have evidence of wrong-doings within the Islamic Society (and evidence is more than just making statements), I would urge you to take it to the union. Ranting and raving on a public forum is of no help to anyone on either side of the argument.

I could pick holes in lots of arguments, but I don't have the time. So I'll just do a couple:

1) "How many came out to condemn sucide bombing in Britain, on the tube- Answer Zero." - so you asked every single person in Trafalgar Square on the day of the rally following 7/7 what religion they were?

2) The Union is not campaigning to "Free" Barbar Ahmed. They are campaigning for justice - i.e. a fair trial. Personally I opposed the union supporting the campaign - not because of my presumption of Ahmed's guilt or innocence, but simply because I don't believe it is the kind of issue the union should get involved in.

3) You cannot lump George Galloway in the extremist category. Personally I loathe his views and the way he presents himself, but that doesn't mean he should be denied the right to speak. If we don't allow our views to be challenged by someone of a different viewpoint, how can we be sure we are right?

Quote: So, on the whole, sensible women (like sensible men) turn their back on faith - all faiths. (Yes, it's a damn pity there are faith-based societies on campus, and religious people

Umm yeah not true. Do you want me to repeat it? Slowly and carefully?

ISLAM is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's an UNDENIABLE fact. Moreover, the majority of the converts are WOMEN.

Quote:Female circumsion is still often practiced as is the imposition of the Hijab or the Burkha (headscarf and darf-vader like masked gown respectably) on women across the Islamic world (presumably to fend off the Islamic males who are such animals that they cannot keep their hands of a woman unless she is completely covered) and this guy thinks Islam is tolerant to women. Give me a break!

First of all, I am not a guy. FYI, I am a woman, and I am a Muslim. Secondly, I do not deny that female circumcsion and such does not occur within certain cultures but twhat is imprtant to understand, is the difference between Islamic culture and Islam itself. True, there are many Muslims out there that choose to interpretate Islam in a way that suits their own agenda, but what the point is, is that Islam iteself condemns such acts. Just because some Muslims behave in an appalling way does not mean that they are following Islam. It just means, because we have been granted freedom, they choose not to follow Islam.

If you look at Islam itself, the Islam which has not been corrupted by Muslims, then you might realise that no other religion gives women rights like Islam.

We gave women the vote 100 years ago. FYI, Islam gave it 1400 years ago. You might believe the Daily Mail lie that the hijaab is a symbol of oppression; most Muslim women don't. It's in fact a symbol of liberation. Islam gives equal rights to women but unlike western feminism, it also acceots that women are different from men and can never be the same.

Galloway and Ridley are extremists in only your opinion. Not in anyone else's.

If everything on this site was true, then all religions (like witchcraft) would all have been dead. But the evidence is clearly all around you that they quite simply are not. Do you want me to repeat again? THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION IN THE WORLD. MOST CONVERTS=WOMEN. Is that something that you can understand?

greenpixie, you (and many others) counter many criticisms of Islam with phrases semantically similar to "You must differentiate between Islam and people's interpretations of Islam". But, surely what really defines Islam's effect on the world is people's interpretations of it; not some utopian Islamic ideal! That ideal is largely irrelevant unless that ideal is actually being practised in countries like Iran who claim to be muslim. Who's to say that they're interpretation is wrong - the Quran is certainly not a cut and dry text - it's riddled with contradictions and the only way to deduce anything from it is to make reference to one's own interpretations.

I'm afraid that while people from Islamic backgrounds commit crimes and oppress people in the name of Islam, Islam has the problem. Just like Christianity has a problem with people like George Bush.

It's high time muslims really came out and condemned the death culture that is burning a hole through their religion in a more than just token gesture instead of simply countering that 'this is not the face of true Islam' etc. - I'm afraid 'true Islam' seems to be quite a rare thing at the moment!

grenpixie:

What does it prove that Islam grows? Or that women join it? Nothing. Religion is a cancer. Sometimes it grows, sometimes it shrinks. Fortunately for us, Christianity has been slowly dying for quite a while now. If the Third World ever gets out of poverty and into education, other faiths will follow.

From where I'm standing, Islam is no better and no worse than any other religion. Like all religions, it preaches nicety, and like all religions, there's loopholes for people to abuse. Like all other religions, it competes with other faiths, and fosters conflict about something as absurd as the question "which non-existant fiction do you believe in?"

Just look at s**ts like Arwa/Amram, preaching Islamophobia from the rooftops because he's Jewish and full of hatred, or at s**ts like Abu Hamza, preaching anti-Semitism and anti-everyone else from the rooftop because he's Muslim and full of hatred. To me, there is no difference between them. They take their anger and invest it into their religions, and try to convince others to hate, too.

Take away the religion, and there's one less thing to be angry/violent about. There will still be other things for the incredibly stupid / angry, but the key thing about religion is, it is not just for imbeciles. It's much more powerful at brainwashing and reaches a larger number of people. So it allows for a mechanism where stupidity and anger can spread, domino-style. People will fight to the death for some of the s**t they're indoctrinated with as children. The key thing is to stop teaching such large quantities of people the same bulls**t, or they're effectively all sleepers, just waiting for the moment some Ueber-s**t taps into the control mechanism of faith to try and turn them into killers. Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust, Terrorism... all examples of religion being used as catalyst.

Now after religion, the next thing to abolish would be nationalism/patriotism, that other mind control mechanism...

That said, I do believe in treating religions equally, and respecting religious people for their own personalities and not their faiths. So I will oppose any idiot who singles out one religion, or who attacks people for their faiths. I may find faith itself disgusting, but I won't judge anyone for a minor character flaw such as being religious, provided they keep their religion to themselves. Similarly, I find certain sex acts rather revolting, but I won't judge people on their activities in their bedroom. Faith and sex is everyone's private business. Keep it behind closed doors, and I won't ever look down at anyone for it. Do it in public and I'll just frown and avoid that person.

yeh but the real question is where these religoous societies get their money from and how political they are. given taht the babar ahmed case is a poltiical issue - then that shows that the imperial islam society is a political organisation because they have been invovled. religious societies should stay out of politics and promote the good things about faith.

To the pixie woman- it seems that you are eithjer brainwashed or supressed or both, if you really are a woman. To say the hijab is liberating is the biggest load of nonsens i have ever heard- we will impose on you certain dress regulations and if you dont like it then tough! What aboout people born into islam who then decided they dont believe in islam at all. What happenst to them? Well I do. According to "True" Islam they are worthy of death. Indeed if I ,born as a muslim, chose to become a Christian or a jew or an atheist I would be punishable by death. Anyway, I dont really want to get into the rights and worngs of your religion- this doesnt interest me- you can believe in whatever you like as far as I am concerned (indeed that is what differentiates judeo-chrisitan vlaues predominant in America and in Europe (some bits anyway) as long as it has no negative affects upon others. Again, I couldnt care less what "true" Islam says just as I couldnt care less what "true" communism says rather I care about the acts people commit in its name and its effects upon everyone else. The fact remains that Islam today is a force for violence, terrorism, subjugation of women, minorities and genocide across the globe. I could give examples if you really like - they are numerous, kashmir, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, russia, Phillipines etc where Islam is used as a force for genocide against christians jews, hindus and "infidels" or where women are subjected to opression. But what concers us here- on live- is how the Islam soc is behaving and has behaved. That a major Al Qaeda member was a leading member of the society is very worrying, as is the succour and encouragement for terror that the activities of the society seem to give. As to complaining to the Union James- well this has been tried I am told and they have done nothing- partly because they are afraid, partly because some of the Lefty nujjbs support them and partly because they dont want to expose their own huge lack of responsibilty and their abuse of funds .

And on the veil...

I can see both sides on this. <i>"(presumably to fend off the Islamic males who are such animals that they cannot keep their hands of a woman unless she is completely covered"</i>

Well, given that in the predominantly Christian USA, an estimated 40% of women suffer either rape or an attempted rape in their lifetime, it's not just Islamic males who are a problem.

I can see how the people who came up with the idea of the hijab could have had the best intentions - to end the objectification of women. I can see how it could be argued that the hijab allows women to be seen as people, rather than something to lust and drool over. Personally, I am not under the impression that this attempt has worked out too well in practice. It seems to me that all the layers of cloth in the end hide away the person, too, and that many women who do wear the Hijab are less outspoken. However, I will honestly admit that this is an observation from afar, and media-based, and as such possibly inaccurate.

To be frank, I think Muslims can make their own choices on those things. I know Muslim girls who do not wear headscarves. Just like I know Christians who eat Black Pudding or wear mixed fabrics. Live and let live, each to their own.

I don't really want to get involved in this argument, mainly because I can't be bothered to read all the bilious ramblings posted on this board, but I would like to correct a mistaken implication made in an earlier post by Doc Student.

Iran isn't an Arab country! It really irks me when individuals like Doc Student make sweeping statements about the middle-east, suggesting that all nations in that part of the world are "muslim arab nations". Get your facts straight: Iran is a majority Persian country, with the next largest ethnic grouping in Iran being the Azerbaijanis, Persians and Azerbaijanis are not Arabs. Arabs make up a mere 3% of the Iranian population - hardly enough justify calling Iran a muslim arab nation.

This minor mistake does not change what I was saying.

Perhaps you'd like to address the actual points I was making with respect to human rights etc. rather than just picking me up on minor inaccuracies?

Quote: "That people like tom t have the gall to get up here and preach about fair trials really takes teh biscuit. Barbar, our friendly decapitation videos webmaster, will receive a fair trial since he is going to America the freest country on the world and not one of the numerous opressive Arab regimes that Mr t and his communist ilk support (let alone their former hero the now defunct light unto the nations , the glorious "free" 100million murdered gulag loving Soviet state)."

hahahahahahahaha

If you can't back up anything you say, resort to slagging others off, whom you perceive to have different views from your own.

Preach about fair trial? tell me, do, where I have done that. I never knew I had an ilk, and I certainly didn't know it was a gulag loving communist one.

I think the A-levels need serious reform!!

Maybe we could make a programme about life at Uni

'I'm a student, get me out of here!'

iranians=arabs ...eeee...does not compute...does not compute....

The last post wasn't me.

It seems it's not possible to have a proper debate on here without it reducing to immature jokes and pointless nitpicking.

DoC student - maybe you should read your articles before you post and cite them. From your article:

"The U.S. executed nine juvenile offenders during this period; the other countries are each known to have put one juvenile offender to death. Thus, the U.S. has not only been the world’s leading executioner of minors, but has put to death twice as many as has Iran in this period."

What you said (referring to the article):

"I'd choose America anyday over any nation governed by the sort of people who sanction this kind of thing"

Complete self-contradiction i.e. hypocrisy

hmmm - if you can't see the difference between executing people for first degree murder and executing them for consensual sexual intercouse, I feel very sorry for you. I have already stated (the first time you raised this point above) that I don't agree with the death penalty, full-stop, let alone when imposed on minors.

I fail to see how saying that I'd rather live in the US than Iran is hypocritical. I never said and still do not say that America is anywhere near perfect, it's just a hell of a lot more civilised than somewhere like Iran. I fail to see how I have contradicted myself.

The US? Civilised? Youre off your rocker mate. Get educated and then come back. take a year out your degree, go travelling. learn a f***in language.

Obviously not too civilised ureself 'hmm'. DoC student's right US has its own problems and the death penalty is wrong everwhere.

• >Maybe the probelm is that Iran and the US are both run by fanatics who support the death penalty???