(1)
---
thanks for proving my point... Your word vomit is just a proof of your prejudice ;)
---
I think the proof of my prejudice was actually when I wrote "I am biased towards the mother's side...". Both sides of this argument are biased towards their own side, that's why it's such a red hot issue.
(2)
---
Fubar said " If this was an open and shut Sharia case, I'm perplexed as to why the Bahrainis are so supportive"
Correction:The case was published in 1 Arabic bahraini newspaper only ( serves the agenda of the editor & his sect ), most posts were pro-Qatari court decision. This was expressed in many Bahrain public forums
If you happened to read Arabic(and i assume you don't), I suggest you read the posts…
---
I said 'so supportive', not 'unanimously supportive'. My point is that if this is such a clear and unambiguous case, why has it been so devisive, even amongst Muslims, whom I would have assumed would have all taken the same, religious, side?
If you'd like to address any of my points in a substantive way, you are welcome, but if you prefer ad hominem attacks, that's fine too.
Genesis:
Two comments on your two posts.
(1)
---
thanks for proving my point... Your word vomit is just a proof of your prejudice ;)
---
I think the proof of my prejudice was actually when I wrote "I am biased towards the mother's side...". Both sides of this argument are biased towards their own side, that's why it's such a red hot issue.
(2)
---
Fubar said " If this was an open and shut Sharia case, I'm perplexed as to why the Bahrainis are so supportive"
Correction:The case was published in 1 Arabic bahraini newspaper only ( serves the agenda of the editor & his sect ), most posts were pro-Qatari court decision. This was expressed in many Bahrain public forums
If you happened to read Arabic(and i assume you don't), I suggest you read the posts…
---
I said 'so supportive', not 'unanimously supportive'. My point is that if this is such a clear and unambiguous case, why has it been so devisive, even amongst Muslims, whom I would have assumed would have all taken the same, religious, side?
If you'd like to address any of my points in a substantive way, you are welcome, but if you prefer ad hominem attacks, that's fine too.