My Opinion

nothing but my opinion

Why the Quran is Not from Allah: 10 Reasons

QuranThe Quran makes a great deal of cases about itself. It says that it is the ideal and upright disclosure of God to man, and that it is important to the point that it has existed endlessly on tablets in paradise.

Faultfinders assert that it is a seriously masterminded gathering of citations from one man, go off as the expression of God to a guileless crowd in a primitive society. At the point when blamed for being a lunatic, for instance, Muhammad would go into his tent and afterward develop with a pearl 'from Allah' like, "You (Muhammad) are not a madman" (68:2). The general population would then take this as evidence that he was most certainly not.

A few Muslims say that the Quran would not be accepted by such a large number of today in the event that it were not valid. In any case, conviction does not make truth – especially when it must be indecently implemented with segregation, mutilating and demise.

Truth be told, most Muslims have never perused the Quran, a book they (in any case) will murder and pass on over. Their conviction depends on what they get notification from different Muslims, especially as they are growing up.

A target peruser would probably reason that the Quran is less a result of awesome root than Muhammad's creative energy and the conditions in which he got himself.

Here are ten quick cases:

  1. As specified, regardless of being a little book, the Quran should be the immortal, unchangeable expression of God. Why might God utilize valuable and significant space on the individual existence of one man - a similar one who happens to portray the "disclosure"?

    Consider verse 33:53:

    O you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, except when leave is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without sitting for a talk. Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth.

    That must be deified on a tablet in paradise?

    Significant bits of the Quran (especially suras 33 and 66) are similarly self-serving and address the sex, cash or regard from his spouses to which Muhammad is entitled. Additionally, a few such sections are redundant.

    Couldn't Allah have thought about a more critical message for humanity than letting us know (a few times over) that Muhammad may lay down with a boundless number of ladies?

  2. The Quran says that composed duplicates of the Bible (Torah and Gospel) existed at the season of Muhammad (29:46, 3:3, 3:78) and a considerable number verses "affirm" that those duplicates are valid (regardless of the possibility that the Jews and Christians were later blamed for misconstruing them "with their tongues"). Parts of the Quran clearly depend on the Bible for culmination and numerous verses demand that the Word of God can't be changed or debased.

    Here's the issue:

    There are several New Testament original copies that pre-date the season of Muhammad, all found at various times and better places by various individuals. There are hundreds a greater amount of the Torah. All concur splendidly with the current adaptation of the Bible, which repudiates the Quran.

    In the meantime, not a solitary duplicate or part of either the Torah or Gospel from any period has ever been discovered which veers off in a way that concurs with the Quran.

    How is that the "genuine" Bible - the one that as far as anyone knows affirms the Quran - never made due in any shape, while such a large number of "defiled" duplicates did?

    Is it safe to say that it isn't more probable that Muhammad basically made it up as he came and later blamed Christians and Jews as a main story for his own particular missteps?

  3. Not at all like the Old Testament prophets, Muhammad described negligible safeguards of his claim as a prophet (and even his own particular rational soundness) that are strikingly excess.

    For instance, no less than 8 entries (83:13, 27:68, 46:17, 16:24, 6:25, 26:137, 25:5 and 23:83) say that "Allah's messenger" is blamed for rehashing "tales of the ancients," yet that any individual who doesn't trust him will smolder in Hell. Is there any good reason why allah wouldn't simply say it once and afterward utilize the rest of the space for something all the more illuminating?

    Isn't this a greater amount of what one would anticipate from an excessively cautious poseur than from an interminable disclosure of God to man?

  4. The Quran says that it is "clear", yet then says somewhere else (3:7) that lone Allah comprehends the importance of a few verses (which makes one wonder of why they are there). It says that it clarifies "all things" (16:89), however then advises Muslims to take after the case of Muhammad (33:21) - without saying what that is.

    In down to earth terms, it is difficult to comprehend the Quran without references to outer sources, for example, the Hadith and Sira (generally laid out in voluminous commentaries). However these sources are regularly conflicting and never concurred on.

    Indeed, even in the Quran, passionate Muslim researchers induce drastically extraordinary implications from similar verses. For instance, most elucidations of 38:33 say that Solomon sliced at his own steeds, disjoining their legs and necks. Notwithstanding, some contemporary interpreters, including a standout amongst the most regarded (Yusuf Ali) say that Solomon truly just ignored his hand their bodies affectionately.

    Additional disturbing (and shockingly more run of the mill) are verses like 5:33, which orders killing the individuals who "wage war on Allah"... without truly clarifying what this implies.

  5. The Quran tells Muslim men that they may engage in sexual relations with ladies caught as slaves. Far more terrible: the entry is rehashed in four better places. By differentiation, there is not a solitary verse that advises Muslims that they are to supplicate five times each day.

  6. The Quran confounds Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the sister of Aaron (and Moses) in Sura 19.

    In spite of tormented rational theology, the least difficult and most evident clarification is that Muhammad was mixed up. This would likewise clarify why the Quran that he described wrongly expresses that Christians revere the Virgin Mary as a divine being (5:75, 5:116) when they never have.

  7. Regardless of being a moderately little book, the Quran contains pointless repetitions. Moses is specified 136 times. A few sections of misquoted Bible stories are almost word-for-word indistinguishable (e.g. Suras 20 and 26).

    Why might God squander space saying basically a similar thing in regards to something dark when he could have offered clear good standards about peace, resistance (or sex with youngsters)?

  8. Such an extensive amount the Quran is committed to repetitive cases and dangers about Muhammad's status as a prophet, yet there is not a solitary unique good esteem. No place does it advise men not to assault ladies or forgo sex with kids. Actually, it gives men consent to assault their slaves and suggests that sex with kids is passable (verse 65:4).

    Wouldn't a flawless book show consummate ethical quality?

  9. Verse 5:3 says that the Islamic religion was "perfected" and "finished" on "this day", yet 249 more verses tail it, including two extra Suras (9 and 110).

    Additionally, how could the Quran be interminable if sometime in the past it was not finished?

  10. Verse 27:91 peruses "For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this city." If these are the expressions of Allah, then it would imply that somebody is "commanding" him to serve another god. The verse just bodes well if Muhammad is talking from his own particular point of view.

    (This would likewise clarify why "Allah" guarantees to Allah in no less than seven different verses).

Timeless... unchangeable... perfect?
Mmm... maybe not.

 

Should the Burka get banned in all Western societies without exception?

BurquaIn the Quran, there are only two passages that indicate the veil of the Muslim women. However, without precise specifications, how exactly this has to look. Everything else has been added in the course of time by Islamic theologians and women's conspirators, and served only to keep the woman in check and make her more controllable.

The most important question should be: What does it matter, whether this is so in the Quran or not, and whether this is true in Islamic law as prescribed?
Freedom of religion does not mean having to tolerate inhuman and anti-democratic matters in the name of religion because this has been demanded since 1400 years by a religious founder and his ideological descendants and is still regarded as exemplary by Orthodox Muslims (Sunnah). In a secular European state, universal human rights are the basis of our ways of thinking and laws, and the main reason why European states became democratic. Also blind adherence to Islamic rules is not contemporary. If reason and individual freedom are rejected as pagan by orthodox Muslims, the logical consequence must be: The modern democracy based on reason and freedom is also rejected by them.

The insistence on the traditions such as the burqa is the inroads within a European State in a reactionary Islamic parallel society. Needless to say, how little our concept of human rights is similar to an islamized conception of the same. We are so far that the women finally found their equitable place next to the man. At the same time, however, accepting burquas or other whole body veils can only be regarded as a mockery of all achievements in the area of women's rights. Already the sight of this form of concealment can cause in an enlightened man only misunderstandings and violent shaking of the head, since our modern image of freedom strongly contradicts it.

The modern European has its own history, which also speaks of a dark time, in which the "voluntary" submission to the Christianity of the churches was so advanced that almost all of the ancient knowledge from Plato to Pythagoras fell victim to it. It was hard to believe that there was an era when Islamic caliphs attempted to reconcile the Hellenistic secular knowledge with Islam (but eventually failed because the dogmatism of Islamic orthodoxy prevailed against reason and Reversed everything). But what is happening today, almost one thousand years later, no longer corresponds to this enlightened image of the caliph from this ancient time. Even today dogmatism is preferred to reason and a strong turn to Islam is preached. What is supposed to mean the salvation of Islam has always led to its decline in history and is now intended to lead to the rise of Muslim countries. The Islamic countries are scientifically and economically on the ground despite huge revenues from the sale of oil and their location on geostrategically important routes and seem to be incapable or unwilling to allow these billions of income to benefit science and their own population. As is often the case in Islamic history, wealth is divided within the ruling class. Magnificent palaces and mosques often adorn the cityscape. What the average Muslim can experience of this richness is the prayer among the vaults of the material wealth of decorated mosques.

In order to obscure this social injustice and the failure of Islamic societies, an external enemy gets used, which is sometimes rightly called, but often wrongly, as the cause of all existing problems. This is only to be explained by an anti-knowledge and authority, which alone recognizes the Islamic discourse as the only authority and fights discourses as "foreign" and liberal, Islam-threatening ideas. Thus the oppressed by the Islam becomes the greatest advocate of his own oppression, without understanding it. The fanatical belief in the inviolability of Islam makes him a blacksmith and a preserver of his own misery. The lack of rational thought led to a lack of self-critical thought makes him incapable of recognizing this.

The expansion of Islam over the whole world was the goal of Muhammad already 1400 years since he viewed Islam as the successor religion of all monotheisms known to him. Never was it as easy as today, one could think of spreading such an intolerant movement. And this, although the people (in the West) were never as enlightened as they are today. In the middle of Europe, a pretext for why this is to be tolerated is the reason why Islam is said to be good, although history could never confirm this. The criticism of Islamic imperialism and its goal of bringing Western societies under its influence is generally regarded as racism or "Islamophobia" - which seems completely absurd in the historical context. Several Western groups and ideologies based in Europe seem to have found an ally in Orthodox Islam, which has been lost in recent decades. In order to combat the alleged US imperialism, for example, Islamism is preferred as a partner, who now speaks openly about the world as soon as the chances for it exist. But there will not be much left of democracy, freedom of opinion and freedom of religion. The only common ground between Islamic and European anti-Western ideologies is the common enemy image. There can be no question of common values, since they do not exist.

It is worth pointing out the particularly high interest of the policies of various European countries with a relatively high proportion of Muslim immigrants who can play a decisive role in democratic elections. Once again, Orthodox Islamic associations, which are entitled to represent the Islamic municipalities, are once again the contact point. As a clientele they are granted a certain immunity in the form of religious propaganda. In order to win the Muslims votes, they are hardly openly criticized, even if there are obvious reasons for this. Thus the attempt to procure the majority necessary in democracies is weakened very consciously. This in turn means that trust in democracy is dwindling.

So why it is important to pronounce a burqua ban is now clear. As a visible element of Orthodox Islam, a prohibition would be an important sign. A clear denial of intolerance. A rejection of the obvious suppression of the (Muslim) woman and the religious immaturity of the Muslims, which here too are increasing proportionally and, as the majority creator of various parties, this rampant backwardness can spread unhindered to the whole society. As a further step, it will be necessary to provide the large group of secularized people from Islamic countries of origin with the possibilities and the help to organize and decisively oppose Islamic orthodoxy together with the enlightened Europeans. Up to now, these aid is only guaranteed to the Islamic associations, since religion, however serious it may be, enjoys state protection and is given an inviolable status in our democracies through the so-called "blasphemy paragraphs". Although it is usually no racism to reject intolerant religious representatives, Islam criticism is today used synonymously with racism and agitation and rejected.

Anti-Western racism among Muslims is widespread and leads to the secular "Muslims" being prevented from joining together with secular Europeans and forming a broad front. The most intolerant representatives of Islam are only too glad to rely on the "racism" against Europeans, in order to suppress any criticism of their approach and to prevent a necessary shoulder closure among the secular ones. With the pretext of racism, they live their own racism against Western, because non-Islamic ways of thinking. If they do not drive a wedge between people, they lose their own importance.

This assumption of racism is seldom questioned and gladly taken up by "anti-racist" groups in politics and media. These groups live from racism. If there were no racism, these groups would not exist, and they would lose their importance. All their campaigns are based on real but often also invented racism. For example, the already mentioned equality of all Islamic criticism with racism. In some cases even the self-evident requirement of a burqua ban is declared a racism.

As long as burqas and other conflicting symbols of extremist thinking are not get prohibited, they continue to remain as propaganda instruments of dubious groups, which are used only as pretexts and overshadow really important debates, while they at the same time they are weakening the democracy.

Alone in a so long to debate why the burqa, the symbol of backward thinking, should be prohibited at all, should show us that the anti racism debates of the "anti-racists" and Orthodox Islam societies drifted off already long ago in the absurd and is missing any enlightened thinking. That are only apparent debates and red herrings. Those who are boundlessly tolerant of accepting even the most intolerant ideas will ultimately only promote intolerance and give up tolerance.

If a man is not able to stand the view of a woman, he should wear blindfolds and not the woman a veil!!!

 

The Quran: Fantasy and Reality

QuranAlmost everything get found in the Quran: compassion and hate; Peace and violence; Tolerance and intolerance; Forgiveness and revenge; Coexistence and expulsion of other believers. By using the Quran, any assertion can either be defamed or disproved. This is also known from the Bible: as better one is familiar with one or another holy script, as better he would be able to underline his arguments with the appropriate quotation.

It begins with a historical classification and explains the emergence and spread of the Holy Scriptures of the Muslims. The Quran, composed of 114 chapters (sections with a different number of verses), is divided into a Mecca and a Medina period. That first one produced the peaceful verses and the one have produced the violent passages, is not quite true, the sections are only a rough classification. Muslims believe that the Quran was dictated to the Prophet Muhammad by an angel (Gabriel) as the direct word of Allah. Unlike the Bible his chapters follow no thematic or narrative structures.

The Quran is a work that is strongly embedded in its period of development: the respective political and social circumstances influenced the "recitations" of Muhammad (he did not write them down, but dictated them). However, as more time passed from the time of the Prophet as more untouchable became the Quran.

Statements and regulations were no longer subject to necessary revelations. In addition to this, different from the Jewish and Christian sacred texts, which are regarded as revelations but which were written down by men (...), believing Muslims are taking the Quran as an "eternal book", available in the same language and with the same content since creation, and has been kept with God.

The Quran arose in several phases, which brought a more or less quarrelsome or even xenophobic orientation in the Holy Scriptures according to the situation in which Muhammad and his community found themselves. Many, detractors and proponents of Islam, nevertheless "understand these divergent passages not as a mirror of their period of origin."

Most of the Quran's rules are concrete responses to certain events of the past. One can say that Allah did not create Mohammed according to his model, but Muhammad had put those sentences that were just fitting for him in his particular life situation into the mouth of God.

The prophet had changed his attitude towards the "unbelievers" several times. As more women Mohammed had, as more the principle of equal rights disappeared which has been available in former chapters. It also looks that Mohammad has been shaming himself about his much younger wives as he has been coming in the age of 60, because at this time he started with the topic of veiling for women.

Only when we understand the Quran as a human work with everything that belongs to humans than then the negative aspects of violence can get neutralized and the positive aspects of the spiritual passages that the faithful believers need to feel comfort and love can get emphasized.

 

The Top 5 Excuses from the Muslims

File:Suicide Bomb VestWhenever a suicide bomber blows himself and other innocents by yelling Allahu Akbar and having the Koran in one hand and an ax in the other one, Muslims always use the same and easily refutable standard excuses.

By using these standard excuses the stubborn Muslims even oversee that their religious duty is to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. As nobody in the Western World is so stupid and provides himself under a religious dictatorship this religious duty can get only fulfilled by force.

These brainwashed and uneducated Muslims even not get it that they are getting contradicted by their idiotic Imams, who are praying for the terrorists and who are calling their believers to murder.

Under these conditions, these idiots are expecting that others are more stupid than themselves and are believing the following excuses:

  1. This has nothing to do with Islam

    With what does it have to do? Maybe with a beekeeper club? But certainly not with Islam. That the assassins are regular guests in mosques, know more about Islam than the hobby-Muslim next door, that does not matter. It has nothing to do with Islam, because it is not allowed to have for unbelievers something to do with Islam. If you continue annoying, you get marked as Islam hater and for the reason that the word comes from hate, you are already nothing worth and stamped as stalker. The Muslim goes to the next mosque for shaking hands with gay haters, Antisemites and Islamists. Every vote counts. This is true democracy.

  2. These are not true Muslims

    A standard phrase, which you can always hear in pubs and bars when you drink with Muslims one over the thirst. As we all know, Mohammed has preserved his revelations (nicer words for lies and hate speech) in pubs, and was presumed to be dead drunk. How many true Muslims nowadays drink more than they pray? So, in the future, one may continue to listen to the hobby drinkers in the future, that the one who drinks nothing, pursues no gamble and otherwise tries to live as Islam compliant as possible, can not be a true Muslim. If a beer drinking and Shisha smoking Muslim says it, then that is just like that. The fact that the IS, Hamas, the Taliban and other Islamic pacifists rightly justify this prosecution of particularly different Muslims, we would rather not mention. This would be anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim racism and only evil Nazis do. So keep your mouth shut and continue to be good.

  3. This kind of Muslims don't exists

    It is true that the majority of the Muslims form the idea that Muhammad's life should be imitated and the Muslims will take over the world, as Muhammad envisaged. If one imitates the life from Muhammad and cuts off the head from others then it has at first nothing to do with the Islam, at second is this one not a real Muslim and at third such Muslims don't exist. So you can run a double strategy that you deny at the same time that it has not been Muslims at all, but because you do not always come through, such Muslims simply do not exist. So you can excuse himself on a different and less beautiful flow of Islam.

  4. Islam is peace

    Nobody is interested in that the core of Islamic ideology actually means submission. If it is for example interesting for a girl, her brother will exorcise her until she will subjugate herself. Here, the brother forms, that he is Islam, because in fact, Islam is the pretext for a transient wannabe macho, in order to exert power on others. Preferable against weaker ones because against stronger ones will it be hard to win. Who knows, if the 40 cousins have time to beat the one guy?

    It is simple a fact that all countries with a Muslim majority and religious parties are acting in a pacifist way. At least, when you're on drugs and can spot colorful lights in the air. Saudi Arabia beheads, Iran is stoning, Turkey locks away for years, Afghanistan is stoning too (but in even uglier clothing), Indonesia takes the truncheon, Egypt genitally mutilated over 90% of girls and women. Apart from these few exceptions, any Islamic society is truly peaceful and tolerant. Who denies that Islam means peace, must simply be reminded by force. It finally serves a good cause, the world peace.

  5. You son of a bitch, I fuch your mother

    For everything, for which there is (no) excuse, or the old excuses do not work because of the more educated Islamic critics, this sentence fits. But as you hear it from every fourth Muslim and not from all (there are indeed a lot of Muslims that you like), these are only isolated cases.

 

Intelligence is not available for purchasing - even not for a Sheikh

Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-LuhaidanThe Saudi Arabian Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Luhaidan needs to be happy that stupidity does not hurt, because otherwise he would yell day and night.

The useless Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Luhaidan, a Private Attorney General and the Psychological Advisor of the Psychological Association in the Gulf states, stated:

Driving could have a reverse physiological impact. Physiological science and functional medicine studied this side [and found] that it automatically affects ovaries and rolls up the pelvis. This is why we find for women who continuously drive cars their children are born with clinical disorders of varying degrees.

Such a statement shows the missing and miserable education from Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Luhaidan. I wonder myself how he is able to survive with such a mental illness, which seems to be a result of inbreeding and child marriage. Buy the way in the civilized world gets a sexual interaction between an adult and a minor called and prosecuted as a rape. Only in stone age cultures is such an interaction between adults and minors allowed.

Arabic newspaper Sabq reported in this case:

Al-Luhaidan stated that in the days of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), muslim women who were his companions used to ride horses and camels as means of transportation but never rode alone and were always accompanied by a ‘mahram’.

Al-Luhaidan further explained that there are exceptional cases that allow women to drive in Saudi Arabia such as when a husband is driving accompanied by his wife and daughter and an accident occurred. It is then allowed for women to drive due to the urgency of the situation.

Al-Luhaidan added that driving could have a reverse physiological impact on women and could affect her ovaries and push the pelvis higher as a result of which their children are born with clinical disorders of varying degrees.

He further stated that 33% female drivers caused car accidents in Arab countries as opposed to 9% male.

If I read such statements then I think that I need to include into my next prayer: "Oh God, please throw brain from heaven. Here are some people who need it very urgently".

The kingdom "reduces women to the status of children, unable to make important decisions about their lives," Human Rights Watch said in a statement and Amnesty International said that the driving ban is "discriminatory and demeaning to women and must be overturned immediately".

Here is a video about this sensational proof of missing intelligence:

Transcription of the video:

a saudi arabian sheik as noted a study from a religious organization indicating
that women in Saudi Arabia shouldn't drive because they don't damage their
pelvis and their
ovaries these are simple have to bear children I mean that's the only thing
they're good for
so we can't have them driving in cars that's terrible
up now of course this study has absolutely no
scientific research or scientific merit but the ship did say
that yet of course physiological signs and functional medicine study decided
found that
automatically affects over reason rules up the pelvis
I roles up but I love for me to get pregnant this is crazy
this is why we find for women who continuously drive cars their children
are born with clinical disorders a varying degrees
well look this he's very very scientific its varying degrees of disorder
okay so let me take your chances you roll your ovaries and pelvis
you never know what comes up when america little difference over there K
he said the Rebbe is the only country in the world that doesn't allow a manager I
know it's incredible I mean you have so many other countries that
severely violate human rights and especially women's rights
yet Saudi Arabia still the only country that doesn't allow women to drive any
women have been protests in Saudi Arabia for the last four years
for the ability to drive and some have been arrested someone has dealt with
lashings as a result and I hope we continue to fight back
but I just find it laughable that anyone in Saudi Arabia would take this study
from a religious organization seriously no one's buying it oh why would even try
so several things on that first will the person you're alluding to shine my
just the Neo's 34 who sent us that 10 lashes they whipped her
for the grave offense of driving a a car
but that was all the way back in 2011 okay so just two years ago that happen
and then the Saturday be amazingly
only finish the 130 other 134 countries
on gender parity cheeses who's worse on gender parity the Saudi Arabia
so that's amazing but so in order to avail this
if you will a.m. the the cloak of sigh so they could say like alter scientific
study
over a sprawling over is gone damage trade
they brought in former professor at King Fahd University so you know is that
biased
come also be he didn't think I'm opposed to be the guy was valued at over so
there's that they're fucked
didn't well in order to get pregnant I guess they're packed
pedicure a it's a 0 this is the same
alleged for professor who earlier had testified that
well if you allow women to drive obviously we will have increases in
prostitution
pornography and homosexuality and that's usually how it works he's got got a
point there
whenever I see a woman driving I lean over to bob and I see guys wanna make
out
you how insane is that
if you let women drive well obviously
dudes will turn your no but thank you how easily emasculated and how terribly
weak
the men in saudi arabia I mean I'm sure there are men in saudi arabia that are
in favor of allowing women to drive
I'm talking about the religious leaders that are so scared the think that if
they give their women a little bit of freedom
there immediately gonna do crazy shit because they're so unhappy with the
relationships they have with these pathetic losers
if they think they'll turn to prostitution doctor for Tyree because I
was they would want guys who wanna porn
and then a it's a will lead to more divorces another thing by
alleged professor sue be %uh okay and
and then ultimately they'll turn to other women because I like well
obviously since we're pathetic
and we can never keep a woman all this week keeper literally wrapped up
and literally in the home so she can even runaways Cape to the mall
okay but will obviously she leave us cuz we suck
an that's what the leadership saturday via saying love course among the young
Saudi Arabia
as in a lotta countries they rebel against the speakers so
they find it out as outrageous as we do an egg I have to live in it let not just
the women but the men as well
I'll but this is it that to catch it in science
is whole larisa layers in just one final thing that they like to fear monger
about within 10 years the ban being lifted
the report's authors others claimed there would be
quote no virgins in the Islamic Kingdom
I you thought I it's
in space I'm not sure they understand what the word virgin its
you see when I what happens as soon as the baby is born
feel like ten years ago we let somebody drive
I expect
hug every no more purchase its its it's absurd on two fronts yes because of what
you're saying
and also because I mean it lot just the idea that
being able to drive is gonna convince women to go out there and just have sex
with everyone
and that's the only word that they have if they're not virgins well then they're
worthless
right that's the only thing that you should emphasize about that and one
final point
apparently they believe that they're wrong that
if you if they do not restrict your freedom
that you will choose an alternative path if they believe that if you're
completely free
then you would follow the path that they have laid out the mission be worried
about cars or kinda clothing et cetera
women would naturally be just as religious as Saudi Arabia wants them to
be there were following the path of God et cetera right
apparently you think well they're not going to do that cuz obviously were
wrong
and so we can allow them to have any freedom
because if we do then they'll realize were jackasses and then what was in
there was any more
can you imagine not being able to go anywhere unless you have some sort of
like chauffeur
or some some guardian who like takes you to where you need to go
and a look super final point that's exactly
the subjugation that they desire that everything that a woman does she must
check with either husband her father
her brother like so you must get permission for
every single thing you do and
to these prophetic guys editors
interim leadership is an area where they think well
I mean that's only going get them to ever love us right
I like if we give them a choice they obviously wouldn't choose us
so weak

Here another video about the same case: