RoP beats schoolboy with clawed hammer

[lala]

Represetative of so many discussions about Islam. Nominated by lala.

ROP beats a British schoolboy to brink of death with clawed hammer

Message 1 of 421 in Discussion
From: Patriotic_Kiwi™ (Original Message) Sent: 10/01/2008 12:30

Schoolboy battered to brink of death with claw hammer in savage attack resembling Tarantino film

A gang battered a schoolboy to the brink of death with a claw hammer in a scene straight out of a Quentin Tarantino film, a court heard yesterday.

Henry Webster, 16, was struck with such force that an imprint of the hammer was left on his skull, fracturing it in three places.

The 6ft 2in rugby player, who needed emergency surgery, still feels the effects of the "savage beating" by 16 Asian youths, Bristol Crown Court was told.

Four teenagers - Wasif Khan, 18, Amjad Qazi, 19, and two boys aged 15 and 16, who cannot be named for legal reasons - deny charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

James Patrick, prosecuting, said: "To those who watched it, it made a sickening sight, the sort of violence you would expect to see in a Quentin Tarantino film - certainly not in a playground in a school."

More at: www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506825&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

[lala]

Message 2 of 421 in Discussion
From: Leadboot Sent: 10/01/2008 12:34
What else do you expect from savages?


(2 recommendations so far) Message 3 of 421 in Discussion
From: Puffin_1 Sent: 10/01/2008 12:58
Savages indeed , but it had s*d all to do with religion .
There are nasty little oiks of all colours and origins out there unfortunately . Google 'savage attack uk' and see how widespread it is .


(1 recommendation so far) Message 4 of 421 in Discussion
From: Psalms112 Sent: 10/01/2008 13:12

To those who watched it, it made a sickening sight

And their reason for not intervening?, or are they part of the sickness, too.


(1 recommendation so far) Message 5 of 421 in Discussion
From: Justmyopinion_still Sent: 10/01/2008 21:09
Why are people involved in violent crime protected with anonymity? I know there's a law that says they should be, but why should they? This is the 19 year old . And why not attempted murder? If I were to hit someone with a claw head hammer (or any hammer) it is reasonable to expect it to cause serious harm at the very least, death very probably.


(1 recommendation so far) Message 6 of 421 in Discussion
From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 10/01/2008 21:12
Wow, yesterday we had Islamic rockets, now we have Islam as a physical force capable of holding and using hammers. Or is it an Islamic hammer?


Message 7 of 421 in Discussion
From: Baloo Sent: 10/01/2008 21:19
It is the Hammer of Peace.


(3 recommendations so far) Message 8 of 421 in Discussion
From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 10/01/2008 21:22
Presumably every time a bloke called Dave beats someone up it's a savage attack by Christianity.

More importantly, WTF. How has the UK got to this stage? Kids fight, it happens, they didn't use to use hammers, knives and guns though.


Message 9 of 421 in Discussion
From: Justmyopinion_still Sent: 10/01/2008 21:25
Did they phone around for outside help as well? Don't recall that.

Let's not confuse what happened with religion: this was a savage attack by thugs with a weapon on a single person, whoever started it, that is the result.

Those who stood and watched were complicit but who amongst us would be the first (and perhaps only one) to help?


Message 10 of 421 in Discussion
From: Leadboot Sent: 10/01/2008 21:29
Ah yes, but these days children have rights. There are also bureaucrats running round to make sure they get them.
Shame really, that responsibility doesnt come with these unearned rights...........


Message 11 of 421 in Discussion
From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 10/01/2008 21:30
I reckon if there were other people around I'd have a go if it was someone with a hammer. On the assumption that other people would join in and help once I got started.


Message 12 of 421 in Discussion
From: Muz™ Sent: 10/01/2008 21:33

Kids fight, it happens, they didn't use to use hammers, knives and guns though.

Kids have always fought using whatever they could get their hands on. There have always been coward cnuts like these who gang up on people because they're weak and cowardly themselves.

On the assumption that other people would join in and help once I got started.

Not in Britain they wouldn't. People aren't allowed to get involved, they end up being arrested themselves.

Those who stood and watched were complicit but who amongst us would be the first (and perhaps only one) to help?

I'd like to say me but, in honesty, probably not. Too many have-a-go types are ending up in hospital or worse these days.


Message 13 of 421 in Discussion
From: Justmyopinion_still Sent: 10/01/2008 21:45
I would like to think that I would help too but am not sure.

What sort of sentence is probable do we think?

ASBO?

Custodial 12 months?

Something appropriate - probably not.


Message 14 of 421 in Discussion
From: Mids Sent: 10/01/2008 21:49
Savages.


(2 recommendations so far) Message 15 of 421 in Discussion
From: la la Sent: 10/01/2008 22:38
Despicable savages. Don't see what religion has to do with it. Just typical PK bigotted bollocks.

Hope the kid gets better.


Message 16 of 421 in Discussion
From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 10/01/2008 22:40
Bristol eh. Full of savages.


Message 17 of 421 in Discussion
From: Policecar Sent: 10/01/2008 22:54
typical braveheart Asian attack. 16 on 1 and the 1 was a fat ginger kid as well.


Message 18 of 421 in Discussion
From: New_Yorker™ Sent: 10/01/2008 23:03

"..deny charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm."

Here it would be charges of attempted murder with a deadly weapon.


Message 19 of 421 in Discussion
From: Baloo Sent: 10/01/2008 23:05
Yeah, but over there it would never have happened as the perpetrators would have been languishing in Guantanamo Bay or some secret torture centre in the Carpathians.



Message 20 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 10/01/2008 23:06
In defence of Asian kids - and this comes from the mouth of a born in Britain black friend of mine - they've put up with nuts for so long they've had enough and are responding in kind. I'm not shifting blame here but pointing out that violence begets violence. British society is and always has been violent. The newcomers are adjusting to survive. As for not using weaponry before that is utter bollocks. Ever heard of 'Mad Axe' Frankie Fraser, now a venerated member of the establishment? He was nothing so unusual.


Message 21 of 421 in Discussion
From: New_Yorker™ Sent: 10/01/2008 23:07

Yeah, but over there it would never have happened as the perpetrators would have been languishing in Guantanamo Bay or some secret torture centre in the Carpathians.

Yes, and that is a very good thing.


Message 22 of 421 in Discussion
From: Baloo Sent: 10/01/2008 23:15

they've put up with nuts for so long they've had enough and are responding in kind.

So, some sort of apology from Whitey is in order then?


(1 recommendation so far) Message 23 of 421 in Discussion
From: MoggyOnSpeed Sent: 10/01/2008 23:23
16 youths attack one 6 ft. 2 in. rugby player, four of them doing the beating up, one with a claw hammer, and still they can't bring him down.

Confirms 2 things:

1. Rugby players are as hard as nails.
2. Asian youths (like this) are cowards and as soft as camel nutse.

Both of which we kinda knew already.


Message 24 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 10/01/2008 23:27

So, some sort of apology from Whitey is in order then?

Not at all. We've always said if they don't like it they can fcuk off Well they've decided to stay. Maybe we should never have colonised India in the first place if we weren't prepared to accept the repercussions.


Message 25 of 421 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 10/01/2008 23:33
What kind of coward needs a hammer and a group of 16 to have a fight with someone?

Although the fact he's a) Asian and b) Muslim, really is neither here nor there. Well apart from to those kind of people.


Message 26 of 421 in Discussion
From: Baloo Sent: 10/01/2008 23:35

Not at all. We've always said if they don't like it they can fcuk off Well they've decided to stay. Maybe we should never have colonised India in the first place if we weren't prepared to accept the repercussions.

Yeah, then we could have avoided all the problems we have with immigrants from Canada, Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, etc., let alone those from within the boarders of the modern state of India.


Message 27 of 421 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 10/01/2008 23:39

I'd like to say me but, in honesty, probably not. Too many have-a-go types are ending up in hospital or worse these days.

Is that because it's those kind of stories that get most publicity which prevents people from intervening?


Message 28 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 10/01/2008 23:41

Yeah, then we could have avoided all the problems we have with immigrants from Canada, Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, etc., let alone those from within the boarders of the modern state of India.

The implication being?...

I honestly don't know what you're getting at.


Message 29 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 10/01/2008 23:45

Too many have-a-go types are ending up in hospital or worse these days.

Streetwise people don't have a go unless there are near-zero chances of injury to themselves. Having a rash 'go' in the part of London I came from would put you in hospital or worse before the day was out.


Message 30 of 421 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 10/01/2008 23:48

Yeah, then we could have avoided all the problems we have with immigrants from Canada, Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, etc., let alone those from within the boarders of the modern state of India.
The implication being?...

I honestly don't know what you're getting at.

I don't get that either.

I don't understand how you can problems with a whole group of immigrants. Individual immigrants maybe, but a whole group?

I'm not quite sure how that fits in here as we don't seem to be aware of the immigration status of the youths involved.

Oh and I agree with the whole anonymity thing. Why do they have to have their identities concealed.


(1 recommendation so far) Message 31 of 421 in Discussion
From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 10/01/2008 23:49
The fact that they were Asian is irrelevent but out of interest, when I was doing A Level politics and we looked at integration n stuff Asians were the most assimilated ethnic group with unemployment and qualifications and things that were basically identical to whites. When did that change, now there's all this talk about masses of unemployed Muslim Asians etc.etc.


Message 32 of 421 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 10/01/2008 23:50

Streetwise people don't have a go unless there are near-zero chances of injury to themselves.

Hmm I've found the opposite is true. Whilst they may not do silly things, like interevning in the above assault if they were by themselves, they are more likely to intervene than somebody who dwells in the suburbs and finds the whole concept of inner cities scary.


(2 recommendations so far) Message 33 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 10/01/2008 23:56

When did that change, now there's all this talk about masses of unemployed Muslim Asians etc.etc.

I think it's a fallacy. I've always found most asians hard-working and civilised, courteous and polite.

I don't think any streetwise person would intervene physically if there was a risk of serious harm, Vania. Maybe stand back and shout threats, distract the attacker, join force with others if they were around. But you don't survive by having a go willy nilly.


Message 34 of 421 in Discussion
From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 00:04
This attack seems to have taken place on school premises. This raises the question of the kind of security that schools should be providing. A large crowd assembled at the tennis courts to watch a fight and nobody from the school staff took any action?


Message 35 of 421 in Discussion
From: Ricklinc Sent: 11/01/2008 00:09

they've put up with nuts for so long they've had enough and are responding in kind

Nice comment. Wonder how widespread that sentiment is. I expect we'll find out.


Message 36 of 421 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 11/01/2008 00:26
I disagree Oneofthe, I've seen it enough times. I think SW people are able to assess whether it's silly to intervene or not. Especially if said SWP is with enough like-minded people.

VHW

I don't think anything has changed. I think what OfThe says is true, but there has always been a difference, in terms of attainment, between Asians, of Pakistani heritage and those of Indian heritage.

I'm not sure where Indian muslims fall, in all of this.


Message 37 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 11/01/2008 00:40

I think SW people are able to assess whether it's silly to intervene or not

Er, I think that's what I'm saying. Considered intervention is the way to go, not willy nilly have-a-go because I'm superman or the Sun says so. An example: one night I saw two blokes beating nuts out of another. Eventually the the one being beaten fell to the ground and one of the other two jumped on him and started banging his head on the pavement. I was alone, but stopped and stood back and said to the attacker that I thought he'd kill the guy if he didn't stop and that it wouldn't be worth it. He stopped banging the guy's head, got up, gave me the once over saying the cnut deserved to die or something like that, and walked away. I called an ambulance. I don't know why they were attacking the man - maybe he was a child molester or something.

In Beziers, a whole crowd of passers by including me watched a maghrebian rob a woman at knife point. No-one did a thing because everyone knew he'd use the knife. No-one was hurt but she lost her purse.


Message 38 of 421 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 11/01/2008 00:45
Sorry one of the, I thought you meant Street wise people would never intervene.

Even the example you give with the knife seems so pointless. The reality is that everybody there intervened, the guy with the knife wouldn't stand a chance. But because everybody thinks they'll be by themself then nobody does anything.

My friend was attacked and beat up in McDonalds near London and not one person did a single thing. Luckily she fought back or God knows what would have happened.


Message 39 of 421 in Discussion
From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 00:54

Considered intervention is the way to go

Where was the school staff when this happened?


Message 40 of 421 in Discussion
From: Mids Sent: 11/01/2008 00:58

Where was the school staff when this happened?

Who knows? Waiting for the risk assessement officer to arrive?


Message 41 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 11/01/2008 01:00

the knife seems so pointless

Ha ha, but yeh, I agree, we need more strength of community and toughness, but the media seems to be discouraging that every inch of the way. By the same token, if I were with someone who was attacked I'd naturally put my life on the line, not because I'm particularly brave but that's the way it is.


Message 42 of 421 in Discussion
From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 11/01/2008 01:03
Waiting for the risk assessement officer to arrive?


Message 43 of 421 in Discussion
From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 01:14

Waiting for the risk assessement officer to arrive?

Schools can be dangerous places. Where were the Community Police, the Real Police, a security firm employed by the school? Anybody?


Message 44 of 421 in Discussion
From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 11/01/2008 01:21
Or even big tough teachers who pack a punch. But that wouldn't work would it. They'd get sued.


Message 45 of 421 in Discussion
From: Mids Sent: 11/01/2008 01:21
I didn't think schools needed to have any more security than the PE teachers. That was all that was needed in my day. Anyway, it looks like the race card was played by the defendents.

Facing questions from defence barristers at Bristol Crown Court, Henry, a former rugby prop forward, insisted there had been no racial tension with his alleged attackers.

Referring to an exchange before the brutal attack took place, Robin Shellard, representing Qazi, said: "I am suggesting that it was shouted to the group - where are your P*** mates?' "Was that what you heard?"

www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/search/display.var.1954381.0.i_did_not_hear_racist_taunts_hammer_attack_victim.php

(1 recommendation so far) Message 46 of 421 in Discussion
From: Vania Sent: 11/01/2008 01:50
IF (and that's a big IF) that's what was said (and I'm errin gon the sign of the accuser as opposed to the accused) then how is recounting what happened equivalent to 'playing the race card'??

[lala]

uk.msnusers.com/News/general.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=2399981&ShowDelete=0&ID_CLast=2400166&CDir=1

Reply
Recommend Message 47 of 421 in Discussion

From: al-leaf Sent: 11/01/2008 01:58
Beacause the f**king savages think that it's ok to thingy someone with a hammer if they called you a Paki.


Reply
Recommend Message 48 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 11/01/2008 02:09
IF (and that's a big IF) that's what was said (and I'm errin gon the sign of the accuser as opposed to the accused) then how is recounting what happened equivalent to 'playing the race card'??

Because I doubt anyone said that so the defendents made it up to try and deflect from them and put up the suggestion that there might have been some provocation. Or to put it simply, played the race card.


Reply
Recommend (2 recommendations so far) Message 49 of 421 in Discussion

From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 11/01/2008 02:15
I doubt anyone said that

Why? It might be true and it might not, how would we know?

Has this board always had such a high proportion of omniscients or is it a new thing for 2008?


Reply
Recommend Message 50 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 11/01/2008 02:18
Why? It might be true and it might not, how would we know?

Call it a gut feeling, lady.


Reply
Recommend Message 51 of 421 in Discussion

From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 11/01/2008 02:22
You know that Hanthingy's Half Hour where he's on a jury? That's you that is.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 52 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 11/01/2008 02:23
Beacause the f**king savages think that it's ok to thingy someone with a hammer if they called you a Paki.

Erm ok.

Because I doubt anyone said that so the defendents made it up to try and deflect from them and put up the suggestion that there might have been some provocation. Or to put it simply, played the race card.

Ok so you've based it on an assumption. As I've said I'm more likely to believe the accuser than someone who attacks someone with the hammer, but neither of us know what happened, so IF it did happen, how is it playing the race card? Surely it's just recounting what happened?


Reply
Recommend Message 53 of 421 in Discussion

From: al-leaf Sent: 11/01/2008 02:24
If they didn't think it had any bearing on the case, why mention it?


Reply
Recommend Message 54 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 11/01/2008 02:26
If they didn't think it had any bearing on the case, why mention it?

<sigh>

Because you recount all things leading up to and including the attack. Any insults exchanged, previous fights etc all come into things.


Reply
Recommend Message 55 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 11/01/2008 02:28
<sigh>


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 56 of 421 in Discussion

From: assegai Sent: 11/01/2008 04:15
Savages indeed , but it had s*d all to do with religion .

Wow, yesterday we had Islamic rockets, now we have Islam as a physical force capable of holding and using hammers. Or is it an Islamic hammer?

I read the article and I did not see any reference to religion or Islamic. Did I miss something or is it just that some posters wish it did (for whtever reason)


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 57 of 421 in Discussion

From: Amazed Sent: 11/01/2008 04:19
Well, look at the title of the thread:

RoP beats a British schoolboy to brink of death with clawed hammer


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 58 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 04:21
Well, look at the title of the thread:

The Daily Mail headline was not virulent enough for our mini-Goebbels.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 59 of 421 in Discussion

From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 11/01/2008 04:56
Because I doubt anyone said that so the defendents made it up to try and deflect from them and put up the suggestion that there might have been some provocation. Or to put it simply, played the race card.

Oh come on. I'd hazard a guess that our poor hard done by 6' 2" ginger kid was a bit of a thug and more than inclined to be mouthy and possibly racist. I love the way these stories get twisted. If he'd never met the gang before and was attacked while sitting in church studying the Bible I might agree it was unprovoked, but it usually takes two to tango. Sure the retribution was a bit over the top, but 'putting someone in hospital' used to be the good ol' British working man's way of justice, why suddenly get all pious and offended over it now?


Reply
Recommend Message 60 of 421 in Discussion

From: Reverend-madfokker Sent: 11/01/2008 04:58
I suppose its relevant if they were yelling "I batter you in allahs name" as they hit him!


Reply
Recommend Message 61 of 421 in Discussion

From: oldmanofthesea2 Sent: 11/01/2008 05:40
As I read it the fight was arranged to be a one to one, but the asians turned up in force and tooled up. The hammer attack happened after the boy had been knocked senseless and subjected to a violent kicking. It was the act of a complete coward.
Bristol like many cities has an underlying problem that will eventually explode. But it is not a black v white problem anymore as the relationship between white and afro-caribean is quite good. Some of my black mates tell me that has been a great deal of tension in St Pauls where reported attacks on elderly black residents by somalis. The younger element have been policing the streets themselves to protect the old.
I find it very strange that some people on this thread seem to justify the attack.


Reply
Recommend Message 62 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 06:08
As I read it the fight was arranged to be a one to one, but the asians turned up in force and tooled up.

The question is why the school authorities don't provde adequate security.


Reply
Recommend Message 63 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 11/01/2008 06:30
Re: Oldmanofthesea

Why are people turning this into a race issue? Kids have fights, nowadays some kids tool up.


Reply
Recommend Message 64 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 11/01/2008 06:30
And as an aside who on earth has justified this attack?


Reply
Recommend Message 65 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 11/01/2008 07:04
I wondered that, Vania .
Saying that we know it happens doesn't mean it's being either approved or justified .



Reply
Recommend Message 66 of 421 in Discussion

From: cathy 1 Sent: 11/01/2008 11:17
Henry Webster, 16, was struck with such force that an imprint of the hammer was left on his skull, fracturing it in three places.

Four teenagers - Wasif Khan, 18, Amjad Qazi, 19, and two boys aged 15 and 16, who cannot be named for legal reasons - deny charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

No of course they didn't mean any harm. They were just messing about and didn't think Henry would take their bit of fun seriously.



Reply
Recommend Message 67 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 11/01/2008 12:26
The question is why the school authorities don't provde adequate security.

My question would be, why should the need for this level of security be required in a school, unless we accept that such people are savages?


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 68 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 12:33
unless we accept that such people are savages

It's not about such people. You may be influenced by the hate- mongering mini-Goebbels who obsessively post about such people, but it's about the times we live in.

We can't just allow people to walk into school grounds. Access has to be controlled. You can't just let a crowd assemble to watch a 'fight'. There has to be CCTV. You need that to be monitored and responded to. The old innocent days, that we grew up in, belong to another era.


Reply
Recommend Message 69 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 11/01/2008 12:38
The court heard how a fight "blew out of nothing" in January last year, after Henry ran into a group of Asian boys in a corridor at Ridgeway School in Wroughton, Swindon.

Sorry, I did'nt realise this was about people walking into a school and beating a pupil senseless. I thought these savages actually attended the school.



Reply
Recommend Message 70 of 421 in Discussion

From: cathy 1 Sent: 11/01/2008 12:40
So describing the boys/savages who did this as 'such people' should be seen as being influenced by hate-mongering mini-Goebbels?

Personally, I would have thought most right minded people would think 'such people' are indeed 'savages' no matter which way you like to look at it.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 71 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 12:44
'such people' are indeed 'savages'

The mini-Goebbels pointed the finger at a particular ethno-religious group, as he obsessively does. If you mean by 'such people' any thuggish adolescents, that's a different thing altogether


Reply
Recommend Message 72 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 12:48
I thought these savages actually attended the school.

The newspaper reports aren't all that clear. Anyway, it seems that a gang of Asian youths came into the school grounds at the end of the school day, some of them possibly pupils and some not. That shouldn't happen. We're looking at the need to control and monitor people coming into school property and respond to incidents.


Reply
Recommend Message 73 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 11/01/2008 12:58
Anyway, it seems that a gang of Asian youths came into the school grounds at the end of the school day, some of them possibly pupils and some not.

Ah, the picture is clearer now. These darling little savages from a particular ethno-religious group felt that in the need for fairness they should call up a bunch of their fellow savages in order to beat up one lad from a different ethno-religious group. Well that makes it OK then. It's all the stupid school's fault for not having armed guards and CCTV.


Reply
Recommend Message 74 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:00
It's all the stupid school's fault for not having armed guards and CCTV.

Don't be such an idiot. It's simply a fact of life that schools need to have adequate security nowadays.


Reply
Recommend Message 75 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 11/01/2008 13:05
Don't be such an idiot. It's simply a fact of life that schools need to have adequate security nowadays.

The fact that I am an idiot and schools need adequate security nowadays are simply your opinions and do not necessarily reflect the truth.


Reply
Recommend Message 76 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:13
simply your opinions and do not necessarily reflect the truth.

Do you consider it desirable that a gang of thugs should just walk into school property and the school staff should, as far as we know, be unaware of what was going on and nobody was in a position to take any action when a pupil was brutally attacked?


Reply
Recommend Message 77 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 11/01/2008 13:16
Up to now I only have your word that this is what happened.


Reply
Recommend Message 78 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:25
Up to now I only have your word that this is what happened.

A full account of what happened is just filtering out as the trial goes on. It looks like staff at the school only reacted after the attack and that there was no adequate monitoring or security.
"The victim is Henry Webster. He stood out. He is 16 and is distinctive. He was 6ft 2in and a rugby player, with bright red hair."

The attack sparked protests at the school last year by parents who believed the attack was racially motivated. They said a gang called the "Asian Invasion" was behind a campaign of bullying at the school, and demanded security guards to protect pupils.

The 1,450-pupil Ridgeway school has a reputation as one of the top-performing state schools in Wiltshire.

Patrick said a fight had been arranged after Henry "barged" into a group of Asian boys in a school corridor. "There was trouble earlier in the day and a fight had been arranged in the school.

"It was to be a fair fight. A one-on-one, or so Henry thought ... As he came into the playground he was attacked by a group. He was knocked to the ground, he was kicked, punched and repeatedly hit over the head with a hammer."

Webster remained conscious throughout the attack.

Patrick told how a large group of Asian males, from Swindon, travelled to Wroughton for the fight, which had been co-ordinated through a sequence of phone calls and text messages.

A message recorded from a phone call between a witness and one of the suspects said: "There's a big fat ginger kid who wants a fight at the school." Another text message said: "Come to the car park at 3.30."

After the attack, teachers were alerted and ambulances arrived at the scene within minutes. Webster was transferred to a head injuries unit at Frenchay hospital in Bristol for emergency surgery.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2237218,00.html



Reply
Recommend Message 79 of 421 in Discussion

From: cathy 1 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:26
If you read down the report it seems the boys were pupils at the same school, but when one of the lads told Henry to meet him outside on a certain day he had thought it was to be a one on one fight. Instead, the defendant, (the charged boy) rang some friends from Swindon. When they arrived the fifteen year old said to his older friends ... "That's him, that's him" and they all started attacking the young rugby player. One of them bashing him with a clawed hammer.

So, it seems the fifteen year old aggressor was not only a cold blooded thug, he was also a coward who couldn't fight his own battles fair and square.



Reply
Recommend Message 80 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:27
The court heard how a fight "blew out of nothing" in January last year, after Henry ran into a group of Asian boys in a corridor at Ridgeway School in Wroughton, Swindon.

After a brief argument, he was asked to meet the 15-year- old defendant at the school tennis courts later that day.



It seems more like an in school event than any outsiders being involved .



Reply
Recommend Message 81 of 421 in Discussion

From: cathy 1 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:29
No, the young asian lad rang his friends from Swindon to come and help him do his dirty work.


Reply
Recommend Message 82 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:32
I wrote #80 before #78 was posted .



Reply
Recommend Message 83 of 421 in Discussion

From: cathy 1 Sent: 11/01/2008 13:34
Yep, me too .... Bert beat me to it!


Reply
Recommend Message 84 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 11/01/2008 14:12
You may be influenced by the hate- mongering mini-Goebbels who obsessively post about such people

Don't want to sound pedantic, but you need either a plural for mini-Goebbels or for the verb post, otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense. If there is only one mini-Goebels, and he needs to have put up posts not a singular post, to be obssessive.

If on the other hand, you mean there are a lot of mini-Goebbels out there, then you need to pluralise Goebbels (mini-Goebbelses? What a horrible looking collection of letters.) Then post, singular, make sense.

That'll teach you to correct my spelling.


Reply
Recommend Message 85 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 14:22
You may be influenced by the hate- mongering mini-Goebbels who obsessively posts about such people

That's the best solution. Keep up the good work!


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 86 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 11/01/2008 14:27
So, it seems the fifteen year old aggressor was not only a cold blooded thug, he was also a coward who couldn't fight his own battles fair and square.

He does have mitigating circumstances though - he belongs to an ethno-religious group who was pointed at by a mini Goebells


Reply
Recommend Message 87 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 11/01/2008 14:35
pointed at by a mini Goebells

There's only one. And watch your spelling. You'll be getting a flaming from New Zealand.


Reply
Recommend Message 88 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 11/01/2008 14:43
Think I'll duck out before that happens. Night all.


Reply
Recommend Message 89 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 12/01/2008 01:19
The plural is Goebblets.


Reply
Recommend Message 90 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mars33 Sent: 12/01/2008 01:42
Is it me or has PK resorted to post-and-run behaviour? I guess it's a duplicate from the other board where they probably have a wank (and stroke) fest over it right now.


Reply
Recommend Message 91 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 03:30
Goebbels was known for his zealous, energetic oratory and virulent anti-Semitism.

Description seems to fit you better Bertrus


Reply
Recommend Message 92 of 421 in Discussion

From: Ricklinc Sent: 12/01/2008 03:37
Bertrus2. Also available as Vania. Log in to http://www.Hebe-hating_delusionals.com for details.


Reply
Recommend Message 93 of 421 in Discussion

From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 12/01/2008 04:07
I seem to recall Vania's attitude to Jews being rather warm and positive, as it happens.


Reply
Recommend Message 94 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 12/01/2008 04:15
Yeah it's just white people she hates...


Reply
Recommend Message 95 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 12/01/2008 04:16
Description seems to fit you better

All racisms are conceptually the same. The Goebblets on here are Islamophobes.


Reply
Recommend Message 96 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 04:32
Islam is a belief system. It's not racist to hate a belief system.


Reply
Recommend Message 97 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 04:33
Otherwise it would be racist to hate

Nazism
Communism
The BNP
The Labour Party

Better luck next time.


Reply
Recommend Message 98 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 12/01/2008 04:42
It's not racist to hate a belief system.

As has been pointed out, Islam did not actually beat a British schoolboy's belief system to the brink of death.


Reply
Recommend Message 99 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 04:51
So what? My point still stands. Get it into your fat muddled Brian


Reply
Recommend Message 100 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 12/01/2008 05:00
My point still stands.

What you hate about the murderous youth is that he believes (maybe) that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his Prophet. You're quite fond of him as a person and hitting somebody with a hammer is no big deal.


Reply
Recommend Message 101 of 421 in Discussion

From: assegai Sent: 12/01/2008 05:05
Well, look at the title of the thread:

RoP beats a British schoolboy to brink of death with clawed hammer

Ok I give up, what the f**k is RoP?




Reply
Recommend Message 102 of 421 in Discussion

From: assegai Sent: 12/01/2008 05:08
but 'putting someone in hospital' used to be the good ol' British working man's way of justice, why suddenly get all pious and offended over it now?

What a crock of nuts. Im British working man, & dont recognise the species you seem to be refering to.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 103 of 421 in Discussion

From: Amazed Sent: 12/01/2008 05:11
RoP is a name some islamophobes use of Islam. It's supposed to be short for Religion of Peace.


Reply
Recommend (2 recommendations so far) Message 104 of 421 in Discussion

From: assegai Sent: 12/01/2008 05:18
Why are people turning this into a race issue? Kids have fights, nowadays some kids tool up.

Well it seems to me, that if this coward only rang people of his own nationality, and only people of his own nationality beat up a kid of another nationality.Then it is reasonable to assume it was a racialy motivated attack.




Reply
Recommend Message 105 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 12/01/2008 05:21
RoP is a name some islamophobes use of Islam. It's supposed to be short for Religion of Peace.

Rubbish. Muslims call Islam the religion of peace. Wtf have islamophobes got to do with it?


Well it seems to me, that if this coward only rang people of his own nationality, and only people of his own nationality beat up a kid of another nationality.Then it is reasonable to assume it was a racialy motivated attack.

Spot on.


Reply
Recommend Message 106 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 12/01/2008 05:32
a racialy motivated attack.

So, what were the 'races' involved?

[lala]

Reply
Recommend Message 107 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 12/01/2008 05:36
Well it seems to me, that if this coward only rang people of his own nationality, and only people of his own nationality beat up a kid of another nationality.Then it is reasonable to assume it was a racialy motivated attack.

That sound quite logical although it might be that it was only people of his own race that had their phones switched and were available to come to the cowardly attack. And "race" rather than "nationality", really


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 108 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 12/01/2008 06:00

Well it seems to me, that if this coward only rang people of his own nationality, and only people of his own nationality beat up a kid of another nationality.Then it is reasonable to assume it was a racialy motivated attack.

Well then if you think that you are incredibly simplistic.

Firstly his nationality is British
Secondly you have no idea if it was racially motivated or not. Getting into an argument with some of a different ethnicity does not, in itself indicate racism.
Having mainly or solely friends of your own ethnic background, is not, in itself, indicative of racism!


Reply
Recommend Message 109 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 07:04
"RoP is a name some islamophobes use of Islam. It's supposed to be short for Religion of Peace."

Some muslims refer to their religon as the religion of peace. Some other people, recognising that Islam is anything but a religion of peace, have co-opted the term and use it ironically.

Variations include the Religion of Pieces.


Reply
Recommend Message 110 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 12/01/2008 07:22
The dunderhead who wrote the title thought 'Schoolboy battered ...' wouldn't trigger instant racist hatred so he claimed that a religion had battered the schoolboy.


Reply
Recommend Message 111 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 07:54
Well, the attackers have all got islamic names, the victim does not.

It's funny, I don't seem to remember gangs of buddhists or hindus being responsible for these kinds of attacks. Not so much about race as about ideology and cultural background.


Reply
Recommend Message 112 of 421 in Discussion

From: assegai Sent: 12/01/2008 08:50
So, what were the 'races' involved?

Aisians & Europeans.


Reply
Recommend Message 113 of 421 in Discussion

From: assegai Sent: 12/01/2008 08:52
Firstly his nationality is British
Secondly you have no idea if it was racially motivated or not. Getting into an argument with some of a different ethnicity does not, in itself indicate racism.
Having mainly or solely friends of your own ethnic background, is not, in itself, indicative of racism!

In my opinion it is you who are being simplistic.


Reply
Recommend Message 114 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 09:01
The Home Office's definition of a racist incident is

'any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'




Reply
Recommend Message 115 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 12/01/2008 09:24
So any accusations against racism regarding posts on this community are legitimate, having received the sanction of the home office. That's set the quality of debate back about 500 years.


Reply
Recommend Message 116 of 421 in Discussion

From: Rubbbitt Sent: 12/01/2008 09:37
"any other person"

Wow! Almost 7 billion people, and if one holds an opinion that an act is racist, then it is. Takes the pressure off avoiding bias though.


Reply
Recommend Message 117 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 10:27
Stupid, huh?


Reply
Recommend Message 118 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 12/01/2008 12:09
if one holds an opinion that an act is racist, then it is

No, it's perceived to be racist. A different thing.



Reply
Recommend Message 119 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 12/01/2008 14:27
I assume, Cob, that 'any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person' is more to do with defining what might prompt a response by the police, i.e. "Officers responded to what was described as a racially motivated assault on Arsesniffer Road at 3am." Beyond that, surely, intention is the key - the Race Relations Act make that plain (here).


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 120 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 12/01/2008 14:35
Reply
Recommend Message 112 of 119 in Discussion

From: assegai Sent: 11/01/2008 19:50
So, what were the 'races' involved?

Aisians & Europeans.




Well at least someone sees the picture



Reply
Recommend Message 121 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 14:58
That's right Lala. For criminal purposes the relevant act is the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which makes certain crimes capable of being racially aggravted, thereby attracting heavier sentencing. Section 28 defines what is 'racially aggravated':

28 Meaning of “racially aggravated”
(1) An offence is racially aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) above—

“membership”, in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;

“presumed” means presumed by the offender.

(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on—

(a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or

(b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.

(4) In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.


Reply
Recommend Message 122 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 12/01/2008 15:01
The Home Office definition is still stupid though as it will result in many more cases being recorded as racist than the offences that will actually be found to have been racially aggravated by the courts.


Reply
Recommend Message 123 of 421 in Discussion

From: jimboTN Sent: 12/01/2008 20:02
What I don't understand is why are people allowed to own clawed hammers. You allow this kind of access to such a dangerous devices? They should be BANNED


Reply
Recommend Message 124 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 12/01/2008 20:47
That's right Lala.

Do I win I prize?


Reply
Recommend Message 125 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 13/01/2008 03:00
You should definitely get a prize of some sort lala, not necessarily for this though


Reply
Recommend Message 126 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 13/01/2008 03:24
They should be BANNED

The claw is for removing nails.


Reply
Recommend Message 127 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 13/01/2008 03:50
It's a common DIY and professional carpenters tool .
If we banned everything that could be used to harm someone we would be in real trouble . Even a silk scarf or a tie can be used to kill .


Reply
Recommend Message 128 of 421 in Discussion

From: jimboTN Sent: 13/01/2008 05:30
Then they should at least be regulated, after you see what can happen if a hammer gets in the hands of a criminal. Only trained people should be allowed to own them, and then only in assigned places. This hammer caused this schoolboy serious injury, it must be stopped.


Reply
Recommend Message 129 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 13/01/2008 05:45
I have to presume you are being cynical .



Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 130 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 05:59
In my opinion it is you who are being simplistic.

Whether you find it simplistic or not, you are fully aware that I am right. I cannot believe you would be as simple-minded as to believe that any argument/dispute/fight between people of different ethnic backgrounds necessarily means racism is involved.

It's funny, I don't seem to remember gangs of buddhists or hindus being responsible for these kinds of attacks. Not so much about race as about ideology and cultural background.

Good God almight, Cobs has to link absolutely everything to religious/cultural background! So if the roles had been reversed and a group of white guys had done this you would try to link it to Christianity and British culture? Bizarre.


Reply
Recommend Message 131 of 421 in Discussion

From: jimboTN Sent: 13/01/2008 08:01
I have to presume you are being cynical .



Ya think,
This is the same rationall that they use for gun-control, blame the hammer, or gun instead of the thugs.
I herd not long ago some US state (New Hamshire? mayby) where the criminal got something like 10 years for killing a man, however they allowed the family of the victom to attend while they melted down the gun used, they gave the gun the death penalty while reforming the thug, are they going to allow the parents of this young man to witness the melt-down of the hammer?


Reply
Recommend Message 132 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 13/01/2008 08:12
What a strange thing to do .

There is a difference between a gun and a hammer though. The intended purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets with the aim of killing , or at the very least disabling , something . The intended purpose of a hammer is to assist in building something . They are tools of a very different trade .

Obviously it's the person behind the impliment that turns it into a disabling tool , and where they are used for criminal purposes it's the user that must carry the blame and not the tool , but it doesn't change the fact that purpose is the difference .


Reply
Recommend Message 133 of 421 in Discussion

From: jimboTN Sent: 13/01/2008 08:24
The purpose of the gun is to mostly punch holes into papper at various distances, and also to help the legal owner protect him/herself from those who would do them harm. Both the hammer and the gun can cause harm only if the holder misuses them.


Reply
Recommend Message 134 of 421 in Discussion

From: Tarrant Sent: 13/01/2008 08:25
#131 Then they should at least be regulated, after you see what can happen if a hammer gets in the hands of a criminal.

In the UK they are regulated.

If you are found in possession of a hammer without good cause you will be charged with an offense.

However, guns have only one purpose, to kill people.




Reply
Recommend Message 135 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 13/01/2008 08:45
So if the roles had been reversed and a group of white guys had done this you would try to link it to Christianity and British culture? Bizarre.

If a gang of white youths had beaten up an Asian kid I'd have thought it was racially motivated.


Reply
Recommend Message 136 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 13/01/2008 08:46
However, guns have only one purpose, to kill people.

...and to start races, scares birds, hit clay-pigeons, kill rats, hit targets.


Reply
Recommend Message 137 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 13/01/2008 09:23
Carrying around hammer in a public place falls foul of possession of an offrensive weapon in a public place without reasonable excuse.

Vania, the fact remains you don't hear many stories of this type involving gangs of hindus (white british are prob more prone to violence culturally than hindus or buddhists). Islam is inherently nasty and violent towards the 'other', so we are not surprised to hear these sorts of stories. For exampe you would not think to go for a nice holiday in Pakistan, whereas you would in India. Cultcha innit?


Reply
Recommend Message 138 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 09:25
Whilst I have no problem with private gun ownership I don't think your cynicism works Jimbo. A hammer has an altogether harmless purpose for existing. I'm not sure the same can be said of guns.


Reply
Recommend (2 recommendations so far) Message 139 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 09:30
If a gang of white youths had beaten up an Asian kid I'd have thought it was racially motivated.

Really? Bizarre.

I'd only think it was racially motivated if the motive was the victims race. If a gang of white youths beat up an Asian kid because the Asian had slept with one of the youths girlfriend/attacked one of the white youth's family members I wouldn't think it was racially motivated.

Strange that people think any altercation between people of different ethnicities must be racially motivated.


Vania, the fact remains you don't hear many stories of this type involving gangs of hindus (white british are prob more prone to violence culturally than hindus or buddhists).

And? I really don't get your point. You say Islam (in a totally non-Islam related story) is to blame because the youths happen to be muslims. By your same logic as you hear about more of this kind of story involving white youths than 'Hindus and Bhuddists' that must mean Christianity is to blame. The fact that you feel everything single thing a muslim does is influenced by their faith leads you to spout a lot of nonsense whenever stories such as the one in post one appear.


Reply
Recommend Message 140 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 09:32
Actually neither appeal to me.

Although I'd be more likely to go to Dubai than Colombia so this is obvious proof that Catholicism is a nasty belief system...


Reply
Recommend Message 141 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 13/01/2008 09:38
That's cos you're vulgar and you got no class vania. Give me colombia any day. Sitting in a load of glass and steel surronded by arseholes isn't my idea of a holiday.

You know I think islam is the asian version of the BNP, so their religion is highly relevant when they beat up a white lad.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 142 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 09:43
That's cos you're vulgar and you got no class vania. Give me colombia any day

I'm not sure how Dubai is vulgar yet dangerous Colombia is 'classy'.

For exampe you would not think to go for a nice holiday in Pakistan, whereas you would in India. Cultcha innit?

Anyway back to your point, as Dubai is more popular and safer than Colombia this points towards Catholicism being a vile belief system.

Weird logic, but it's yours.

You know I think islam is the asian version of the BNP, so their religion is highly relevant when they beat up a white lad.

You seem to like confusing Islam as a belief system with race. Anyway as I said your feelings cause you to spout pure nonsense everytime the subject of Islam/something done by somebody who happens to be a muslim arises.

As far as you are concerned every single thing a muslim person does is because they are muslim, be it fights, cheating on one's spouse, swearing at a teacher etc..

It's laughable it truly is...


Reply
Recommend Message 143 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 13/01/2008 09:46
Dubai's for the modern equivalent of Harry Enfield's loadsamoney. No culture, full of Russian and African hookers and spoilt oil sheiks. Colombia's a real country, with things to discover and see. It's got history and culture.

To my mind islam is the asian version of the BNP. These lads are the equivalent of BNP members.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 144 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 09:50
Dubai's for the modern equivalent of Harry Enfield's loadsamoney. No culture, full of Russian and African hookers and spoilt oil sheiks. Colombia's a real country, with things to discover and see. It's got history and culture.

Nice try at back peddling, but in your own words more people would pick India over Pakistan as a holiday destination because of Islam.

Therefore more people pick Dubai over Colombia because of Catholicism.


Reply
Recommend Message 145 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 09:52

To my mind islam is the asian version of the BNP. These lads are the equivalent of BNP members.

Yes but your mind is rather small and positively under-developed.

Anyway I'll leave you to have another mad rant at 'the muzzies'. In the words of the great Chris Rock, you should never hate anybody Cobs, as whoever you hate, is going to end up in your family.


Reply
Recommend Message 146 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 13/01/2008 09:52
I think you must have slept on your stupid side last night Vania. Relgion is not the only consideration in all cases. Maybe that scientist had a point when he said black people are more stupid.


Reply
Recommend Message 147 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 13/01/2008 09:53
For exampe you would not think to go for a nice holiday in Pakistan, whereas you would in India.

There are more than 100 million, Muslims in India. By far the largest number of Muslims live in Indonesia, with many popular holiday destinations.



Reply
Recommend Message 148 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 13/01/2008 09:53
Seeng as I would never convert to islam i think it highly unlikely a muslim will end up in my family, unless they apostacise and then they'll no longer be muslim so... no problem. We'd just have to hide from her family coming to kill her.


Reply
Recommend Message 149 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 13/01/2008 09:55
yeah but islam is not so strident in those places. Bali's nice, but there were some holiday makers killed there by muslims. you wouldn't go yo sudan or saudi.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 150 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 10:28
I think you must have slept on your stupid side last night Vania.

Your attempts at insults always make me laugh! Particularly when you bemoan the fact that Islam is a 'hate-filled, bigoted belief system' and compare to muslims to BNP members whilst simultaneously into your normal racial/racist stereotypes. Oh dear, do you know the meaning of the word 'hypocrite'.

Seeng as I would never convert to islam i think it highly unlikely a muslim will end up in my family, unless they apostacise and then they'll no longer be muslim so... no problem.

How on earth have you figured that one out? All it would take is for a family member of yours to marry a muslim. When my (muslim) friend married a Greek Orthodox she didn't 'apostacise' and he didn't convert to Islam.
So as the saying goes whoever you hate will end up in your family so try to be less bitter and happier in 2008. You may like it.


Reply
Recommend Message 151 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 10:29
Relgion is not the only consideration in all cases.

Good to see you finally recognise that your earlier comment on India vs. Pakistan was nonsensical.



Reply
Recommend Message 152 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 13/01/2008 11:38
you wouldn't go yo sudan or saudi.

Saudi Arabi? Millions do.

Sudan? It's a wonderful country but, apart from the insurgency in Darfur, there's a general lack of tourist infrastructure.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 153 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 13/01/2008 11:41
you wouldn't go yo sudan or saudi.

But you would go to Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Dubai etc...
I will never cease to get amusement from this man.


Reply
Recommend Message 154 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 13/01/2008 11:57
I don't think Cob gets about much. I would have thought he'd have heard of the Taj Mahal, even if he hadn't been there. Perhaps, we'd better not tell him about India's Muslim heritage in case it sets him agoogling about the Mughal invasion. Then I have to remind him of European history and so on and so on.


Reply
Recommend (4 recommendations so far) Message 155 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 13/01/2008 14:15
the fact remains you don't hear many stories of this type involving gangs of hindus

Muslims make up 2.7% of the religious population, whereas Hindus make up just 1%. So there are more M*zzies around to commit offences. Also, I suspect M*zzies come in for a bit more grief, post September 11th, the Underground bombings and so on, and will be a bit more touchy and prone to react to sleights. Not that that excuses whacking someone with a hammer. And the media is perhaps somewhat more likely to make a brouhaha about cases where M*zzies, or assumed M*zzies, are involved.

For exampe you would not think to go for a nice holiday in Pakistan, whereas you would in India. Cultcha innit?

I wouldn't go to either, frankly, but I don't see Pakistan as being much better or worse than India, present unpleasantness discounted. But India's had its fair share of unrest, violence and political assasination.

Given the choice, I'd go to cold places, because I hate the heat. Sweden would have been high up on the list until Vox tainted it with her presence.

To my mind islam is the asian version of the BNP. These lads are the equivalent of BNP members.

No, they're the equivalent of stupid, violent little thugs. You get them everywhere, in all cultures and religions. Yes, even the blasted Buddhists.


Reply
Recommend Message 156 of 421 in Discussion

From: jimboTN Sent: 13/01/2008 15:44
Whilst I have no problem with private gun ownership I don't think your cynicism works Jimbo. A hammer has an altogether harmless purpose for existing. I'm not sure the same can be said of guns.



You may be right, I'm not very good at cynicism, my point is/was that with every sad story involving a gun there is a push for more gun-control instead of a push for harsher treatment of the criminals. That if the answer for sad stories involving a gun is gun-control then it would only be fair if a sad story involving a hammer should bring more hammer-control, but that is just me.

the main use for my guns is to take to the range to shoot targets,, and a little bull. A hammer just wouldn't be the same. I haven't shot at anything breathing in over 30 years, never human.


Reply
Recommend Message 157 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 13/01/2008 20:56
and will be a bit more touchy and prone to react to sleights.

Are Muslims anti-magician now too? Is there no limit to their intolerance?!


Reply
Recommend Message 158 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 13/01/2008 21:12
Surely you agree David Copperfield and Paul Daniels would be justified targets for a bit of hammer action?


Reply
Recommend Message 159 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 13/01/2008 21:16
I always thought that on of the meanings of 'sleight' was tro insult. I am saddened to learn that it is infact plain old 'slight' that has this meaning. Learn something everyday, don't you?


Reply
0 recommendations Message 160 of 421 in Discussion

Sent: 14/01/2008 00:38
This message has been deleted by the author.


Reply
0 recommendations Message 161 of 421 in Discussion

Sent: 14/01/2008 00:55
This message has been deleted by the author.


Reply
Recommend Message 162 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 14/01/2008 00:56

if it wasn't a race issue?

Not everybody is as passionless as you about the doings of their girlfriends.


Reply
Recommend Message 163 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 14/01/2008 00:59
My bad, I misread Vania's post. Passionless? Come on, Bert, you can do better than that.


Reply
Recommend Message 164 of 421 in Discussion

From: Miss_Lane Sent: 14/01/2008 01:35
"For exampe you would not think to go for a nice holiday in Pakistan, whereas you would in India"

That's your own ignorance seeping through though.

I've had some wonderful holidays in Pakistan, it is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful countries on the planet.


Reply
Recommend Message 165 of 421 in Discussion

From: FunBrucie Sent: 14/01/2008 02:52
I don't know how you can liken the BNP to Islamic extremists who maim and kill people because as far as I know they have not killed anybody.


Reply
Recommend Message 166 of 421 in Discussion

From: FunBrucie Sent: 14/01/2008 02:55
The papers are not allowed to say Mulim anything its Asian now.

[lala]

Reply
Recommend (2 recommendations so far) Message 167 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 14/01/2008 02:57
I presume the link is people with extreme , bigotted and idealised views that are abhorent to most people of their own culture .


Reply
Recommend Message 168 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 14/01/2008 03:45
Pakistan, it is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful countries on the planet.

I was watching a BBC documentary the other day about snow leopards. It had the most stunning views of the snow leopard territory, high in the mountains of Pakistan.


Reply
Recommend Message 169 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 14/01/2008 03:55
This is the documentary about the snow leopard in Pakistan that I was talking about.

The second programme in this amazing series looks at the mightiest mountain ranges, and gives us a world first as the programme brings us astounding images of a snow leopard hunting on the Pakistan peaks.
www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000002364.asp



Reply
Recommend Message 170 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 14/01/2008 04:02
Snow leopards. Beautiful beasts unless you are being pounced upon by them.



www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/15.shtml


Reply
Recommend Message 171 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 14/01/2008 04:07
I watched the documentary about snow leopards. Stunning views.


Reply
Recommend Message 172 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 04:11
I've had some wonderful holidays in Pakistan, it is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful countries on the planet.

Yeah shame about the people.


Reply
Recommend Message 173 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 14/01/2008 06:15
You may be right, I'm not very good at cynicism, my point is/was that with every sad story involving a gun there is a push for more gun-control instead of a push for harsher treatment of the criminals. That if the answer for sad stories involving a gun is gun-control then it would only be fair if a sad story involving a hammer should bring more hammer-control, but that is just me.

Fair point. As the old cliche goes, those who want guns for criminal activities will have no problem obtaining them.

The papers are not allowed to say Mulim anything its Asian now.

Good grief almighty. Would those be the papers that reside inside your head?


Reply
Recommend Message 174 of 421 in Discussion

From: Miss_Lane Sent: 14/01/2008 07:08
"Yeah shame about the people."

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the people.

Or are you going to declare yourself on a country you haven't visited as well?


Reply
Recommend Message 175 of 421 in Discussion

From: Vania Sent: 14/01/2008 07:18
Miss Lane Cobbs is a wind-up merchant! Granted he's not very good at it but come on, have you never noticed that he is often guilty of the things he says he dislikes about muslims?

For the record I've always thought that comments such as 'shame about the people' or 'lovely people' we the remarks of the ignoramous. Surely all countries will have their cool people and their assholes. You can say the culture in X country is warmer and more welcoming to visitors but you'd actually have had to have gone to the country to be able to comment.


Reply
Recommend Message 176 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 14/01/2008 07:20
The papers are not allowed to say Mulim anything its Asian now.

It's unlikely they'd refer to Mulims in any context, as it isn't a word. And watch your apostrophes. You meant "it's Asian now." You could probably have used a comma, as well, but I'm not as picky about commas.


Reply
Recommend Message 177 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 08:57
Surely all countries will have their cool people and their assholes

Yeah, but it's about the ratio of cool people : arseholes. This is a country miss lane which has the sharia hudood laws for adultery and which is currently considering reintroducing the death penalty for apostacy, but in your wooly-headed moral-relativist vacuous head there is 'nothing wrong with the people'.

My arse there isn't.


Reply
Recommend Message 178 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 14/01/2008 09:41
This is a country ... which is currently considering reintroducing the death penalty for apostacy
Actually it's not 'a country' which is 'considering re-introducing' the death penalty but a group of Islamic MPs. Given that religious extremism is rampant in Pakistan, they can expect support for this position. Have you sent your message of support to the Pakistanis who are opposing this outrageous bill? I notice you're too pig-headed to spell 'apostasy' correctly. Why?



Reply
Recommend Message 179 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 09:43
religious extremism is rampant in Pakistan

my point exactly.


Reply
Recommend Message 180 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 09:44
The ratio of cool people to areholes is very low. Ie lots of Islamic religious arseholes and not very many cool people.


Reply
Recommend Message 181 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 14/01/2008 10:01
my point exactly.

Your point is that this is something to gloat over.


Reply
Recommend Message 182 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 10:09
No my point is that it is not a popular tourist destination in spite of its amazing landscape, cos the people are arseholes..


Reply
Recommend Message 183 of 421 in Discussion

From: Miss_Lane Sent: 14/01/2008 10:44
Have you been there cobbrers.

Yes or No answer please?

If "No" I suggest you should refrain from commenting on what Pakistani people are like as you clearly do not know.....


Reply
Recommend Message 184 of 421 in Discussion

From: cathy 1 Sent: 14/01/2008 11:15
For the record I've always thought that comments such as 'shame about the people' or 'lovely people' we the remarks of the ignoramous.

Hummm, well, I can understand your annoyance on some levels, but dismissing someone who uses the description 'lovely people' as the remarks of an ignoramous is I think, rather harsh. I have described certain groups of people that way many times, simply because that has been my experience of them. Of course, that is not to say that every one of them is going to be a 'lovely' human being, far from it .... what I normally mean is that on the whole their outlook and general view on life is happy and peaceful ... and that to me is 'lovely'.


Reply
Recommend Message 185 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 11:52
No I haven't Miss Lane.

I nevertheless hold to my opinion, just as you are entitled to yours. Make as many 'suggestions' as you want, for all the good they will do you.


Reply
Recommend Message 186 of 421 in Discussion

From: Begemot Sent: 14/01/2008 11:53
On what is your opinion based?


Reply
Recommend Message 187 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 12:01
Pakistanis' bigotry.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 188 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 14/01/2008 12:32
...and you , of course , are completely without bigotry ?
You wouldn't dream of classifying a whole race or all members of a religion as arseholes , oh no .



Reply
Recommend Message 189 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 14/01/2008 13:29
Haha well spotted puffin



Reply
Recommend Message 190 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 00:28
still cant believe how Cobbs can speak the truth about the religion of islam and most ppl on this board choose to go against him, why are ppl so blind? maybe they just pretend?

Anyhow i have to say, Cobbs well said for posting the truth.


Reply
Recommend Message 191 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 00:30
if the attackers were muslim then yes i would say the attack was race driven.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 192 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 00:32
btw, did you folks know that al-qaeda are now recruiting white men in this country to be bombers here?
it was in the mail a few days ago.!
bet they are all lefties too !


Reply
Recommend Message 193 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 16/01/2008 05:26
bet they are all lefties too !

You were asleep during the Thatcher revolution, Rip Van Winckle. We are all mortagees now. Read Tony Blair's speech, given at the invitation of President Sarkozy to the conference of France's centre-right ruling UMP party recently, for further clarification.


Reply
Recommend Message 194 of 421 in Discussion

From: Da_†erminator Sent: 16/01/2008 06:01
I bet if it were 16 white youths attacking an Asian kid (for the same reasons) it would be reported as a "racist attack by white youths" ? But obviously as with here not the other way around?

Strange that ?


Reply
Recommend Message 195 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 06:24
I dont get while u thought i was asleep bertrus?
Do u mean like the country is asleep to the biggest threat to christianity in the world itself, that threat being islam! Is that what u mean, kind of!


Reply
Recommend Message 196 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 06:27
Cobbs amazes me with the depth he understands islam. Its all true too what he says. Good to know such ppl are out there in the world. To speak freely the truth.


Reply
Recommend Message 197 of 421 in Discussion

From: omnipresent Sent: 16/01/2008 06:32
Cobbs amazes me with the depth he understands islam

lol


Reply
Recommend Message 198 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 16/01/2008 06:33
I dont get

Rip Van Winkle went to sleep for twenty years, so when he went back to the village he had no idea that the world had changed. People who go on about 'leftists' don't know they're practically extinct. We're all mortgage holders, or most of us. Mortgagee has replaced left/right, for practical purposes.


Reply
Recommend Message 199 of 421 in Discussion

From: omnipresent Sent: 16/01/2008 06:36
Mortgagee has replaced left/right, for practical purposes

You don't half talk some sh*t sometimes...


Reply
Recommend Message 200 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 06:42
Omni can laff. But i dont hear u tellin us all in depth anything bout islam? Go on omni give it a whirl?
' waits'



Reply
Recommend Message 201 of 421 in Discussion

From: Da_†erminator Sent: 16/01/2008 07:20
I thought Cobbs view was realistic assessment. As opposed to an academic fantasy land of social constructs which have no real relevance or application.

And before any of you start, my g/f is Muslim and I am well appraised of all the differing facets of Islam, the good the bad and the ugly.

I do do really wish people would stop apologising in total ignorance (save to attach themselves to a wolly liberal Guardianista identity) for the darker side and agenda of this contemporary cancer of fundumentalism.

DT


Reply
Recommend Message 202 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 16/01/2008 07:30
Haha well spotted puffin

Does she get a prize? If she's getting a prize, I want a prize.

You're posts have been very odd recently, Cob. More so than usual, I mean. I'm tempted to wonder if it is due to a desire to provoke.
Be civil with your little boy,
And beat him when he sneezes.
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases!
- Lewis Caroll
Which make me wonder further, how much of what you post is what genuinely think and how much is affectation? Will the real Cobblers please stand up?

still cant believe how Cobbs can speak the truth about the religion of islam and most ppl on this board choose to go against him, why are ppl so blind? maybe they just pretend?

The only thing that's been established is that Cob doesn't like Pakistanis very much, and even that is questionable. Perhaps he is the one doing the pretending.

I bet if it were 16 white youths attacking an Asian kid (for the same reasons) it would be reported as a "racist attack by white youths" ? But obviously as with here not the other way around?

Yeah, amazing they manaaged to get the kid who got hammmered to toe the line as well. Under oath an all! Truly the powers of the politically correct are boundless!


Reply
Recommend Message 203 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 16/01/2008 07:37
What can I say Lala, sometimes I like to get a little playful.

I think it's fair to say that I don't think Islam is a beautiful religion though, or peaceful.


Reply
Recommend Message 204 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 16/01/2008 07:38
"Yeah, amazing they manaaged to get the kid who got hammmered to toe the line as well. Under oath an all! Truly the powers of the politically correct are boundless!"

Did they? In what way?


Reply
Recommend Message 205 of 421 in Discussion

From: omnipresent Sent: 16/01/2008 07:39
Few religions are beautiful or peaceful.


Reply
Recommend Message 206 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 16/01/2008 07:39
the darker side and agenda of this contemporary cancer of fundumentalism.

Who said anything about fundamentalists being nice and cuddly?

The expressions of hatred on this forum are usually qualified with some mealy-mouthed qualifier about 'Islamists' or 'fundamentalists' but aren't really aimed at the fundamentalists at all. It has been suggested seriously that all mosques in Britain should be closed. That isn't a measure designed to discomfit fundamentalists, but all Mulsims. Other posters salivate at the prospect of annihilating Mecca and Medina - as your girlfriend what she thinks about that.

Cobs maintains the only way to be a good Muslim is to wage violent war of the non-Islamic world and has just written off Pakistanis as 'arseholes.' Again, nothing to do with fundamentalists.


Reply
Recommend Message 207 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 07:49
Lala, cobbs is not pretending. He is deadly serious. He has real passion for getting the truth across to us all. Its no wind up. He speaks the truth from his heart. He knows everything about islam. The ppl who knock him no little. I doubt they even really give a toss. But i know cobbs does.


Reply
Recommend Message 208 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 16/01/2008 07:51
Did they? In what way?

From post #45:
Facing questions from defence barristers at Bristol Crown Court, Henry, a former rugby prop forward, insisted there had been no racial tension with his alleged attackers.

www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/search/display.var.1954381.0.i_did_not_hear_racist_taunts_hammer_attack_victim.php



Reply
Recommend Message 209 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 16/01/2008 07:53
Lala, cobbs is not pretending. He is deadly serious. He has real passion for getting the truth across to us all. Its no wind up. He speaks the truth from his heart. He knows everything about islam.

Oh, now you're taking the piss as well. Stop it, both of you.


Reply
Recommend Message 210 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 16/01/2008 07:56
Btw posting on a mobile on ' web n walk' how cool is that! : )
Tho takes a while to type and keep up its handy i can watch telly at same time : )
Hi cobbs , i love your posts : )


Reply
Recommend Message 211 of 421 in Discussion

From: Da_†erminator Sent: 16/01/2008 08:02
Fundamentaist Turkey style the current AKP ruling party have by the back door stopped Turkish channels broadcasting the Turkish equivelant of an act similar to our Dame Edna Everage, because of their homophobic bigotry and fundamentalist agenda.

They are doing this by the back door by threatening channels who boradcast the act with lifting their broadcasting licenses.

No doubt the wolly apologists will have their excuses.


Reply
Recommend Message 212 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 16/01/2008 08:29
From: omnipresent Sent: 15/01/2008 18:39
Few religions are beautiful or peaceful.

Implicit in that is an admission that Islam isn't beautiful or peaceful.

It also seeks to deflect criticism of Islam in particular by raising a vague and unsupported suggestion that other religions are also somehow calling on their followers to make war on non-believers and force them to live by their laws.

---------

"Cobs maintains the only way to be a good Muslim is to wage violent war of the non-Islamic world "

That is a slight misrepresentation Lala. 'Good muslim' is an undefined subjective term. What I argue is that Islam as it is, as it is supposed to be understood according to Islamic jurisprudence, instructs muslims to make war on 'unbelief'. We should therefore not be surprised when they do.

Some kind of reformation or reinterpretation of religious texts, whereby a literalist reading gives way to a more flexible approach that is compatible with the existence of other non-Koranic belief systems (such as freedom of conscience and expression, democracy, equality before the law), would go a long way to take the antagonistic edge off the ideology.

Unless and until that happens we can expect an ongoing ideological war that will periodically result in acts of violence motivated by Koranic teaching and the (extremely warlike and uncompromising) example of Mohammed himself.

-------------------------

From: la la Sent: 15/01/2008 18:51
Did they? In what way?

From post #45:
Facing questions from defence barristers at Bristol Crown Court, Henry, a former rugby prop forward, insisted there had been no racial tension with his alleged attackers.



This is the defence raising the issue of race while defending ethnic minority clients.

The use of the word 'insisted' is interesting. It implies that it was suggested repeatedly by the defence that there had been racial tension. Why would the defence repeatedly suggest that there was racial tension? To suggest to the jury that the violence may have been provoked by racist words or acts from the victim.

In short, to partially exonerate their clients by suggesting that the violence resulted from racism from the victim.



Reply
Recommend Message 213 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 16/01/2008 13:31
Unless and until that happens we can expect an ongoing ideological war that will periodically result in acts of violence motivated by Koranic teaching and the (extremely warlike and uncompromising) example of Mohammed himself.

Actually, I think a focus on what the lessons of the Koran (meaning including the historical background surrounding the revelations) would accomplish that, as it is difficult to find justification for unprovoked violence in the book.

In short, to partially exonerate their clients by suggesting that the violence resulted from racism from the victim.

Kind of their job to do that, isn't it?



Reply
Recommend Message 214 of 421 in Discussion

From: Da_†erminator Sent: 16/01/2008 19:21
# 212 An excellent cross examination Cobbs

Unlikely to be any coherent re examination.


Reply
Recommend Message 215 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 16/01/2008 20:37
Kind of their job to do that, isn't it?

what to blugger the victim into stating that he instigated the attack by putting words in his mouth..... I like your sense of justice for the perpetrator.


Reply
Recommend Message 216 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 16/01/2008 21:04
Oh, don't act so precious. My 'sense of justice' has nothing to do with it, it is the way the legal system is constituted.


Reply
Recommend Message 217 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 16/01/2008 21:12
by the looks of your post it looks like that you want the whitey-kid to of made a racist remark.


Reply
Recommend Message 218 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 02:28
Unless and until that happens we can expect an ongoing ideological war that will periodically result in acts of violence motivated by Koranic teaching and the (extremely warlike and uncompromising) example of Mohammed himself.

Actually, I think a focus on what the lessons of the Koran (meaning including the historical background surrounding the revelations) would accomplish that, as it is difficult to find justification for unprovoked violence in the book.

-------------

There's a couple of problems with what you have written there. From an historical secular perspective we can say 'Oh, this passage was revealed shortly after the Battle of Badr and is specific to that, it no longer applies'. The devout muslim who believes that the Koran is the immutable word of God will believe that the instruction is a general one to apply for all time as the subject matter (how to interact with non-believers) has not been abrogated by a later verse.

Secondly, the use of the term 'unprovoked'. What constitutes 'provocation' to the devout muslim who believes that Allah is the One True God and his formula for life, Sharia and the Sunnah (the example of Mohammed) the only way to live? Why, the very existence of other modes of living and any and all obstructions to the implementation of Allah's will.

-------------------

In short, to partially exonerate their clients by suggesting that the violence resulted from racism from the victim.

Kind of their job to do that, isn't it?

It is the defence's job to put their client's case, yes. Part of the client's case was that their being the victims of racism caused them to beat the crap out of the victim. The victim denies this. Reading the story, it looks like racism may have been involved, but on the other side, the side involving 16 youths and a claw hammer.



Reply
Recommend Message 219 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 17/01/2008 02:33
Is falsely accusing someone of a different race of racism against you racism?


Reply
Recommend Message 220 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 02:35
No that's the kind of accusation you can throw around with impunity. Surprising it doesn't happen more often


Reply
Recommend Message 221 of 421 in Discussion

From: Oneofthelessergods Sent: 17/01/2008 02:42
Is mentioning racism, racismism?


Reply
Recommend Message 222 of 421 in Discussion

From: Baloo Sent: 17/01/2008 02:54
Is falsely accusing someone of a different race of racism against you racism?

Racist!


Reply
Recommend Message 223 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 04:43
The devout muslim

Your claims to be a mind-reader are not credible, without evidence.


Reply
Recommend Message 224 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 04:46
Not this again. The teachings of Islam are clear. The devout muslim by definition follows Islam.

Or do you have any evidence to the contrary? Perhaps a mosque with lap-dancing drinking and bingo?


Reply
Recommend Message 225 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 17/01/2008 04:48
hehe


Reply
Recommend Message 226 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 17/01/2008 04:48
2 fat allahs eighty eight!

[lala]

Reply
Recommend Message 227 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 04:51
Good one sweet soul!


Reply
Recommend Message 228 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 17/01/2008 04:52
: )


Reply
Recommend Message 229 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 17/01/2008 04:53
a bombs on the floor, twenty four!!


Reply
Recommend Message 230 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 04:55
72 virgins in heaven - 77!

Isn't sharia great? - 88!


Reply
Recommend Message 231 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 05:02
The devout muslim by definition follows Islam.

Islam is not the loony hate-mongering concoction which you claim has turned 1.5 billion Muslims into zombies. The evidence just isn't there. Try Dubai for an antidote to your rabid infection.


Reply
Recommend Message 232 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 17/01/2008 05:03
"The evidence just isn't there."


their silence is the evidence bertrus!
aint zombies quite as well too ?


Reply
Recommend (2 recommendations so far) Message 233 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 05:24
their silence

You've stopped up your ears and don't hear the screams from Darfur, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan. You're heartless as well as brainless.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 234 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 05:27
Islam is not the loony hate-mongering concoction which you claim has turned 1.5 billion Muslims into zombies

Altogether now - 'Ooooh yes it is!'


Reply
Recommend Message 235 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 05:47
yes it is!'

You'd make more sense as a pantomime character, maybe.


Reply
Recommend Message 236 of 421 in Discussion

From: grandadwoof Sent: 17/01/2008 06:13
Before I go to play on Flickr (doing a 100 pics in 100 days thing right now), can* anyone tell me what the fcuk a "Clawed Hammer" might be


* yes, I know, of course someone can... maybe I should've said, "please tell me..."


Reply
Recommend Message 237 of 421 in Discussion

From: mazer Sent: 17/01/2008 06:16
He was a great Belgian boxer


Reply
Recommend Message 238 of 421 in Discussion

From: WetKingCanute Sent: 17/01/2008 06:17
I though he was a French Rap singer


Reply
Recommend Message 239 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 17/01/2008 06:39
Bertrus, im not heartless, i feel sorry for all ppl caught up in wars, do you??
I think you are blind. You only have sympathys for arabs ? I think thats so!
What about the victims of islamic terror attacks bertrus!? You are the one with NO heart!


Reply
Recommend Message 240 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 06:41
A claw hammer is a hammer with two prongs at the back used for prising out nails.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 241 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 06:45
You only have sympathys for arabs ?

You don't hear the screams from Darfur, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan. You don't see the faces.


Recommend Message 242 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 17/01/2008 06:47
Yes i feel sorry for them all. As i said ALL ppl caught up in war.


Reply
Recommend Message 243 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 06:53
You don't hear the screams from Darfur, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan

What, literally?


Reply
Recommend Message 244 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 07:26
literally?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7cOwKHUFuQ


Reply
Recommend (2 recommendations so far) Message 245 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 17/01/2008 07:35
From an historical secular perspective we can say 'Oh, this passage was revealed shortly after the Battle of Badr and is specific to that, it no longer applies'. The devout muslim who believes that the Koran is the immutable word of God will believe that the instruction is a general one to apply for all time as the subject matter (how to interact with non-believers) has not been abrogated by a later verse.

Nope, you say it applies, but only in circumstances that match those in which it was revealed. Hence, apparent contradictions can be resolved by exegesis.

Like you, I find the concept of abrogation very odd. Allah changing his mind several times in twenty years? Given that the idea was developed after the death of Mohammed, it strikes me as a cynical intellectual exercise used to render inconvenient parts of the book irrelevant. Politics, not religion, innit?

Secondly, the use of the term 'unprovoked'. What constitutes 'provocation' to the devout muslim who believes that Allah is the One True God and his formula for life, Sharia and the Sunnah (the example of Mohammed) the only way to live? Why, the very existence of other modes of living and any and all obstructions to the implementation of Allah's will.

Given that the infamous Surah 9 indicates treacherous unbelievers should be given warnings, a period of grace in which to repent and only then put to the sword, and that alliances with non-believers keep their word are to be honoured, the threshold of provokation would seem to be fairly high.

Before I go to play on Flickr (doing a 100 pics in 100 days thing right now), can* anyone tell me what the fcuk a "Clawed Hammer" might be

A fearsome new predator, part tiger, part hammerhead shark. Ain't genetic engineering wonderful?

by the looks of your post it looks like that you want the whitey-kid to of made a racist remark.

Grow up.



Reply
Recommend Message 246 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 07:45
As long as there are talking trees and stones and unarmed stragglers from the battle haven't the wit to hid behind a silent tree, Hamas will triumph.

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).


Reply
Recommend Message 247 of 421 in Discussion

From: grandadwoof Sent: 17/01/2008 11:35
I knew what a Claw Hammer was, cos I'm an engineer...

I asked what a Clawed Hammer was, ffs... like... does it have serious scratch marks or what?


Reply
Recommend Message 248 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 17/01/2008 12:09
You don't hear the screams from Darfur,

ahhhh the muslim scum promoting genocide..... religion of peace no doubt.


Reply
0 recommendations Message 249 of 421 in Discussion

Sent: 17/01/2008 12:20
This message has been deleted by the author.


Reply
Recommend (3 recommendations so far) Message 250 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 12:21

the muslim scum promoting genocide

All involved are what you're calling muslim scum in your sweet Religion of Peace way (is it Christianity?) are Muslims. The insurgents, the government forces and innocent victims of the conflict.


Reply
Recommend Message 251 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 17/01/2008 12:23
I is a Darwinarian


Reply
Recommend (2 recommendations so far) Message 252 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 17/01/2008 12:39
I is a Darwinarian

You have as much understanding of Darwinism as Adolf Hitller.


Reply
Recommend Message 253 of 421 in Discussion

From: inya1lake Sent: 17/01/2008 12:39
All involved are what you're calling muslim scum in your sweet Religion of Peace way (is it Christianity?) are Muslims. The insurgents, the government forces and innocent victims of the conflict.

There's no answer to that, is there?


Reply
Recommend Message 254 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 17/01/2008 13:06
You have as much understanding of Darwinism as Adolf Hitller.

was the 'Blue Planet' or 'Life on Earth' around in Hitler's day ..... no thought not, see I've seen both so kinda makes me more knowlegable..... call it evolution.


Reply
Recommend Message 255 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 13:08
Vertrus, it's not as simple as you put it. Muslims killing muslims. The victims are black africans who practice a form of Islam suffused with animism and sufism. So they are not muslim enough, and they are not arab enough.



Reply
Recommend Message 256 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 17/01/2008 13:17
Lala, there is not meant to be any exegesis in Islam other than that already completed by muslim scholars. The concept of itjihad was shelved at the end of Islam's Golden Age. For example, you will not find any muslim school of jurisprudence that argues that the correct punishment for apostacy is death.

"Given that the infamous Surah 9 indicates treacherous unbelievers should be given warnings, a period of grace in which to repent and only then put to the sword, and that alliances with non-believers keep their word are to be honoured, the threshold of provokation would seem to be fairly high"

Well, we have received and continue to receive such warnings. And seeing as Allah's message is to raise the banner of Islam over the whole world by force if necessary, any of the alliances you speak of can only be temporary. Once the conquest has been achieved, people of the book, but only people of the book, are to be permitted to practice their religion and only under a separate set of laws which render them second-class citizens.

Even in the most generous view of this religion must realise that it embodies and mandates laws that mirror apartheid in South Africa, only a South Africa with designs to rule the world. How nice, or 'holy', is that?


Reply
Recommend Message 257 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 17/01/2008 13:24
Did anyone else have to look up 'exegesis'?


Reply
Recommend Message 258 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 17/01/2008 13:30
not me guv'..... honest


Reply
Recommend Message 259 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 17/01/2008 13:37
Tfft, I thought I was teh only one.


Reply
Recommend Message 260 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 17/01/2008 13:53
Lala, there is not meant to be any exegesis in Islam other than that already completed by muslim scholars.

I am aware of that. Again, does this not smack of an oligarchy trying to cement its position?

Well, we have received and continue to receive such warnings.

Yup, from crack pot extremists who also happen to have the resources to broadcast their message and to put their crazy ideas into practice. Like Frecd Phelps but with better funding.

And seeing as Allah's message is to raise the banner of Islam over the whole world by force if necessary, any of the alliances you speak of can only be temporary.

Would you mind sourcing that for me, please? The inference from Surah 9 is that idolators can be tolerated for as long as they behave themselves.


Reply
Recommend Message 261 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 18/01/2008 00:31
"islam is not the loony hate-mongering concoction which you claim has turned 1.5 billion Muslims into zombies"



you mean they was zombies already : )


Reply
Recommend Message 262 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 18/01/2008 08:47
Lala, the whole belief system is predicated in the idea of there being two worlds - Dar al-Islam (the realm of submission) and Dar al-Harb (the realm of war [on unbelief]) Piracy and raids on infidel nations have been justified on this basis since Islam's emergence. Check out the history of Barbary pirates, just for example.

References in the Koran abound. You cannot have read it without remarking on the repeated (ad infinitum) call on muslims to wage jihad on non-believers and unbelief. The objective is to raise the banner of Islam over the whole world through a combination of da'wa (invitation) and jihad (military warfare).

Just a sample

8: 38 "You tell the unbelievers in case they desist, whatever has happened will be forgiven them. If they persist (in unbelief), they should remember the fate of those who went before them. So fight them until opposition ends and obedience is wholly God's"

8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can bypass the law of God. Surely they cannot get away. Prepare against them what arms and cavalry you can muster, that you may strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God and your own."

8: 65 "O prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred they shall vanquish a thousand unbelievers for they are a people devoid of understanding"

9: 33 "It is he who sent his messenger with guidance and the true faith,in order to make it superior to other systems of belief, though the idolaters may not like it"

9:38 "What has happened to you, O believers, that when you are asked to set out in the cause of God, your feet begin to drag? Do you find the life of the world so pleasing that you forget the life to come? et the profit of the life of this world is but meagre as compared to the life to come. Unless you go out (to wage jihad) God will inflict grievous punishment on you"

9: 111 "God has verily bought the souls and possessions of the faithful in exchange for a promise of Paradise. They fight in the cause of God, and kill and are killed"

9: 122 "It is not possible for all believers to go out and fight.So a part of each section of the population should go to fight in order that the others may acquire an understanding of law and divinity and warn their companions on their return so that they may take heed for themselves. O believers, fight the unbelievers around you, and let them realise that you are firm"

4:89 "[on unbelievers] They wish you to become dibelievers as they are, so that you should become like them. Therefore hold them not as friends until they go out of their homes in the way of God (convert and wage jihad). If they do not, seize them and do away with them"

4: 169 "[on martyrdom, being killed while waging jihad = shahada] Never think think that those who are killed in the way of God are dead. They are alive, getting succour from their lord."

2: 216 "Enjoined on you is fighting, and this you abhor. You may dislike a thing yet it may be good for you"

2:218 "Surely those who believe and those who leave their homes and fight in the way of God may hopefor his benevolence"

2:193 "Fight them til sedition ends and the law of God prevails"

-------------------

I could go on. The book is littered with exhortations to fight 'in the way of God' until 'sedition ends' and 'obedience is wholly to God'.


Reply
Recommend (8 recommendations so far) Message 263 of 421 in Discussion

From: Digitas1 Sent: 18/01/2008 08:51
''I could go on.'' cobbrers.

You will .

Ad nauseum .


Reply
Recommend (4 recommendations so far) Message 264 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 18/01/2008 09:00
Too right I will


Reply
Recommend Message 265 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 18/01/2008 12:51
Cobbs u speak the truth and for that you get called a racist or whatever! Its not racist tho to speak the truth. Even the truth about a religion!
Those who make digs at your posts actually know bugger all on the subject of islam, while you do. It will take months, maybe even years for those who mock u to see the truth too. But in time they will do, thats for sure.
Cobbs knows...
And thats why he will never stop!
And hes not the only one who knows what the future could hold. Jonren and others have warned us


Reply
Recommend Message 266 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 18/01/2008 12:55
Others on this board too have tried to warn you. You will see! Tho u mock now, you will see in the years to come, thats for sure.
Nite .


Reply
Recommend (7 recommendations so far) Message 267 of 421 in Discussion

From: two_OF_seven Sent: 18/01/2008 13:21
I think some foil hats need to be passed out in this thread.


Reply
Recommend Message 268 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 18/01/2008 14:13
Two of seven, digitas1 and others, the information is all right there for you if you weren't too complacent and apathetic to actually look at it.

To be perfectly frank I don't really care if you deride what I post up on here. You can try and delude yourselves that Islam and those who follow it are quite happy for Islam to take a back seat to notions such as democracy, freedom of conscience and expression, plurality and equality before the law. You are wrong, and the future will prove you wrong.


Reply
Recommend Message 269 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 18/01/2008 14:15


Reply
Recommend (5 recommendations so far) Message 263 of 268 in Discussion

From: <NOBR>Digitas1</NOBR> Sent: 17/01/2008 19:51
''I could go on.'' cobbrers.

You will .

Ad nauseum .



Pretending it's not there will not make it go away.




Reply
Recommend Message 270 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 18/01/2008 22:13
The problem with #262 is that it is ignoring context. In each case, you have to deduce which particular group of unbelievers or traitors are in need of smiting and why. Simply taking a general lesson from what were revelations specific to very specific circumstances. Stretching their meaning to cover any unbelivers is to miss the point.

The quotations from Surah 8, for example, relate to the Battle of Badr - so the instructions in it only apply in circumstances similar to those of Badr (no, I don't mean in just the 7th century Arabian desert, but in facing an enemy that has behaved in the same way).

Similarly, the infamous 9:35 only applies to unbelievers who have violated truces and ignored the warning and the period of grace extended. It can't be read as a general instruction to slay all unbelievers willy-nilly, nless one is trying to deceive the ignorant or naive (take a bow, Osama Bin Laden).

One could do the same with Christianity, tear a few quotes out of context and claim they give a general endorsement to whatever action one is intent on carrying out, but it doesn't make it true. For example: Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me" or Luke 22:36 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

A note to Christian members - I am not suggesting that Jesus was advocating the slaughter of non-Christians. I am pointing out how selective, out of context quoting can misrepresent the true intent of a passage.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 271 of 421 in Discussion

From: Tarrant Sent: 19/01/2008 00:13
#270 I am pointing out how selective, out of context quoting can misrepresent the true intent of a passage.

Context is everything.


Reply
Recommend Message 272 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 01:20
And lala, the problem with dismissing general Koranic instructions because of supposed context is that the whole of the Koran has context.

Each bit was 'revealed' during some historic event or other. To say that it applied only to that historical event or context would be to deny the relevance of any of the Koran to how muslims are supposed to behave today. Now, that is clearly not the case.

General instructions, which have not been abrogated, stand - and muslims are supposed to follow them. (Although we can see above, not every muslim is supposed to go out and fight personally).

Anyone reading the Koran, which is supposed to be the immutable word of God, will be struck by the repetitious nature of passages expressing hatred for and antagonism towards the unbelievers, and exhortations to muslims to fight them.

This is nothing like the Christian New Testament so the comparison doesn't really stand. If you really want to talk about context and misrepresentation, it is gross misrepresentation saying that the levels of hostility and violent language about the 'other' in the Koran and New Testaement are at all comparable.

------------------

But my main point is that the context argument does not stand when it comes to general instructions which have not been abrogated.

If the context argument did stand, none of the Koran would be applicable to muslims today.

-------------




Reply
Recommend Message 273 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 19/01/2008 03:58
the Koran, which is supposed to be the immutable word of God

Only a complete idiot would take such a view in the face of the evidence.




Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 274 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 19/01/2008 04:00
Only a complete idiot would take such a view in the face of the evidence.

ahaaa the ole it came to me in a dream theory


Reply
Recommend Message 275 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 04:06
Only a complete idiot would take such a view in the face of the evidence.

Or a muslim. Same thing really.



Reply
Recommend Message 276 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 19/01/2008 04:15
Or a muslim.

You're on the same list as idiotic Muslims. Are you claiming to be Benazhir Bhutto, President Mushareff or anybody specific, s opposed to your inflatable rubber doll personal hate figure?


Reply
Recommend Message 277 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 04:29
I have no idea what you are wittering on about. Neither, I suspect, do you.


Reply
Recommend Message 278 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 19/01/2008 04:49
I have no idea what you are wittering on about.

I can believe your cluelessness. Need any help?


Reply
Recommend Message 279 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 04:55
That is very kind but coming from you I don't think it would serve any useful purpose.


Reply
Recommend Message 280 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 19/01/2008 05:37
I don't think it would serve any useful purpose.

I could try to explain in terms that you might understand.


Reply
Recommend Message 281 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 05:42
Past (and present) experience tells me that this is not possible.


Reply
Recommend Message 282 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 19/01/2008 05:47
experience tells me that this is not possible.

Look to the future. But then, you see the future as full of talking trees behind which unarmed Jewish stragglers from Armageddon will be hiding, waiting for the coup de grace, when they might have been safe behind the silent trees.


Reply
Recommend Message 283 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 05:47
You prove my point for me.


Reply
Recommend Message 284 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 06:02
"Anyone reading the Koran, which is supposed to be the immutable word of God, will be struck by the repetitious nature of passages expressing hatred for and antagonism towards the unbelievers, and exhortations to muslims to fight them."

The only sensible conclusion from this, for the devout muslim, is that God hates unbelievers and wants muslims to wipe them out. At best People of the Book are to be subjugated.



Reply
Recommend Message 285 of 421 in Discussion

From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 19/01/2008 06:05
Might be worth the world's Jews learning to recognise the Jewish tree, and indeed ensuring there are some around to hide behind. Are there any atheist trees I should be on the lookout for?


Reply
Recommend Message 286 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 06:16
As I've pointed out to Bertrus on many occasions, it isn't relevant whether you or I as non-muslims believe in or approve of the prophecy but whether muslims do. Next question?

[lala]

Recommend Message 287 of 421 in Discussion

From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 19/01/2008 06:18
Can I ask the same question as it wasn't answered? Is it just Jews who have their own tree?


Reply
Recommend Message 288 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 06:22
Apparently so.


Reply
Recommend Message 289 of 421 in Discussion

From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 19/01/2008 06:27
How very discriminatory.


Reply
Recommend Message 290 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 06:29
Hey don't shoot the messenger!


Reply
Recommend Message 291 of 421 in Discussion

From: VikingHumpingWitch Sent: 19/01/2008 06:32
I wasn't suggeting it's your fault. Who'd have thought the Muslims give Jews the special dispensations though. (Though the Koran does say that as monotheists they and Christians are alright, Christians don't get their own tree.)


Reply
Recommend Message 292 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 19/01/2008 06:38
I don't think christians are specifically targeted for genocide. Christians are preferable to Jews, according to the Koran. Jews are 'as apes and pigs despised' and perhaps even literally turned into apes and pigs, whereas christians

5: 82 "You will find the Jews and idolators most excessive in hatred for those who believe; and the closest in love to the faithful are the people who say 'we are the followers of christ' because there are priests and monks among them and they are not arrogant."


Reply
Recommend Message 293 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 19/01/2008 12:19
it isn't relevant whether you or I as non-muslims believe in or approve of the prophecy but whether muslims do.

Obviously, they don't.


Reply
Recommend Message 294 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 19/01/2008 14:13
Each bit was 'revealed' during some historic event or other. To say that it applied only to that historical event or context would be to deny the relevance of any of the Koran to how muslims are supposed to behave today. Now, that is clearly not the case.

That was not what I wrote, and if you honestly believe that was what I was trying to impart, then you're far less intelligent than I thought. If, on the otherhand, you are deploying some lawyery tricks, please desist.

The instructions given in the Koran give instruction to Muslims. The Muslim seeking guidance should look closely at the historical context of each revelation and see which his own circumstances parallels most closely, and be guided by the instructions issued through that revelation. That's why it is important to understand the context of each revelation - simply taking them at face value, as is done by the Bin Ladens and the agitators of this world, is deeply stupid.

Anyone reading the Koran, which is supposed to be the immutable word of God, will be struck by the repetitious nature of passages expressing hatred for and antagonism towards the unbelievers, and exhortations to muslims to fight them.

Maybe so, but each time that it refers to 'unbelievers' it is referring to a specific group of unbelievers, who are in opposition to Muslims. It shouldn't be read it as refering to all 'unbelievers' in general, without reference to circumstance or context. Being ordered to take up arms against one set of heathens does not mean a general war on the unGodly. Surah 9 is quite clear in this, indicating that the Muslims are to fight against rebels who have broken their bond. Those who have not done so are to be left unmolested.

Again, Surah 8 relates to a specific context. While a lesson can be extrapolated from it, it isn't a general injunction to smiting and slaying. Those seeking to justify preconceived agenda by invoking a skein of holy writ might choose to see things differently, of course, but they are wrong.

But my main point is that the context argument does not stand when it comes to general instructions which have not been abrogated.

There are no general instructions to smite all unbelievers, however. That's the point. There are instructions to make war on people who have behaved in specific ways. Even at its most aggressive, the Koran is clear that action is to be targeted only against specific, identified enemies.

If the context argument did stand, none of the Koran would be applicable to muslims today.

Only if you insist on taking an absurdly extereme position. People who aren't insane can see that the Koran can act as a model for behaviour, without the those seeking guidance having to eat, dress and live like a 7th century camel fancier.


Reply
Recommend Message 295 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 19/01/2008 14:15
The only sensible conclusion from this, for the devout muslim, is that God hates unbelievers and wants muslims to wipe them out. At best People of the Book are to be subjugated.

That conclusion is only 'sensible' if you have decided on it beforehand, and are intent on thinking it, regardless.


Reply
Recommend Message 296 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 20/01/2008 03:57
Lala, it's a sunday and i don't propose to spend any amount of time on this today and rehearse old points.

simply taking them at face value, as is done by the Bin Ladens and the agitators of this world, is deeply stupid.

It's not only bin laden as well you know

------------

From: la la Sent: 19/01/2008 01:15
The only sensible conclusion from this, for the devout muslim, is that God hates unbelievers and wants muslims to wipe them out. At best People of the Book are to be subjugated.

That conclusion is only 'sensible' if you have decided on it beforehand, and are intent on thinking it, regardless.

The same goes for the context argument, in the face of all the evidence across the world



Reply
Recommend Message 297 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 20/01/2008 04:04
Sunday ?

You aren't in the uk then ,cobbrers .


Reply
Recommend Message 298 of 421 in Discussion

From: yord Sent: 20/01/2008 04:04
isnt it Saturday


Reply
Recommend Message 299 of 421 in Discussion

From: yord Sent: 20/01/2008 04:05
feck , I could have put the bin out a day early there


Reply
Recommend Message 300 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 20/01/2008 04:17
Nah I'm pretty sure it's Saturday .
My fella is listening to the local footy on the radio.


Reply
Recommend Message 301 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 20/01/2008 04:19
It's the weekend then! OK? I'm a little hungover and scatter-brained today alright!


Recommend Message 302 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 20/01/2008 04:20
awww


Reply
Recommend Message 303 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 20/01/2008 13:50
The same goes for the context argument, in the face of all the evidence across the world

The difference is that I'm not trying to explain away all Muslims behaviour by reference to their Holy book. There are plenty of other factors feeding the violence and disorder around the world. Religious fundamentalism is a symptom of these issues, not a primary cause - though I'll grant it may then create a feedback loop and become a cause of further problems, leading to more extremism.


Reply
Recommend Message 304 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 21/01/2008 04:35
Lala, not every muslim is gonna be on exactly the same page at exactly the same time. That is why I aim to restrict myself to the religion and how it's supposed to be viewed rather than focus on this or that alcohol-drinking lesbian muslim aberration.. Although of course a devout muslim by definition is one who adheres to the dictates of the faith and seeks to implement its instructions.

Now you and I seem to have two points of disagreement:

1. I think the Koran read as it is supposed to be read according to mainstream interpretations inevitably sets the Ummah on a collision course with all non-muslim societies laws and systems of government, and seeks to replace such systems with sharia. You can see this process at work in many countries in different regions of the world.

2. You think religious fundamentalism results from violence and disorder reather than being an political objective in itself. Lala, implementation of Islam and Islamic law is a political objective and a personal obligation on the devout muslim. To not adhere to these ideas is to be, in the eyes of Islam as it is currently understood, a heretic.

------------------

Again, if you were a muslim and you read your Koran, and you saw the repeated expressions of enmity for unbelievers IN GENERAL, with christian jews and idolaters being mentioned in particular, and exhortations to muslims to fight and kill or subjugate them under Islamic law, the only sane conclusion would be that Allah hates non-muslims and wants muslims to kill them off or bring them under Islamic control.

This is the only possible conclusion unless you start denying and questioning fundamental Islamic principles (such as Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, the Koran being the immutable word of God, jihad, dhimmi, jizya) which, as we all should know by now, are not be questioned.

Lala, you attempt to describe a sort of house-trained Islam, but it's not one that corresponds to the political reality.


Reply
Recommend Message 305 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 21/01/2008 21:48
That is why I aim to restrict myself to the religion and how it's supposed to be viewed rather than focus on this or that alcohol-drinking lesbian muslim aberration.. Although of course a devout muslim by definition is one who adheres to the dictates of the faith and seeks to implement its instructions.

The issue being that you are interpreting your own subjective - and hyper-negative - version of Islam as "how it's supposed to be viewed." You're ignoring any idea that conflicts with your preferred view of the religion. While you're right in saying "a devout muslim by definition is one who adheres to the dictates of the faith and seeks to implement its instructions," your pretty much making that mean what you want it to mean.

I think the Koran read as it is supposed to be read according to mainstream interpretations inevitably sets the Ummah on a collision course with all non-muslim societies laws and systems of government, and seeks to replace such systems with sharia. You can see this process at work in many countries in different regions of the world.

The issue being that while you say you're taking a "mainstream" interpretation, you're actually presenting a fundamentalist viewpoint, because that's the one that suits your own view of the religion. Mainstream Muslims are all about you, getting on wityh their lives and not blowing themselves.

You think religious fundamentalism results from violence and disorder reather than being an political objective in itself. Lala, implementation of Islam and Islamic law is a political objective and a personal obligation on the devout muslim. To not adhere to these ideas is to be, in the eyes of Islam as it is currently understood, a heretic.

Again, you're assuming your preferred interpretation is correct. You're accepting the fundamentalist thesis. You point to instances of terrorism, of violence and disorder, and say "Here! Here is the proof of the true nnature of Islam!" But you ignore the vast majority of the 1 billion muslims in the word - the Islamists - who don't fit into your view of the religion. There are about 1.5 million Muslims in Britain. If they were anything like what you say Muslims should be, the country would be in flames.

There are places where there is violence and war where Muslims are responsible. There are also places where Muslims are, and there is no violence. There are also places where there are no Muslims, and there is still violence. In britain, Muslims are relavively quiescent because they lkive in a society where quiescence is the norm. There is relatively little ethnic tension in Britain. There is no fascistic or theological dictatorship. While there are wealth disparities, the obscenely rich tend to do their own thing so it is possible for the rest of us to ignore them and not be tormented with too much resentment. So without the far greater social problems in other countries, Islam takes a relatively benign form. Just as British Christianity does.

Religious fundamentalism florishes in riven societies. As a very wise man once put it,
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

(Here)



Reply
Recommend Message 306 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 21/01/2008 21:55
the vast majority of the 1 billion muslims

1.5 billion (adherents.com)


Reply
Recommend Message 307 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 21/01/2008 22:03
No no no Lala. You are doing the subjective interpretation. I am not. The exegesis you were speaking of the other day has already been completed by Islamic scholars - it is called Tafsir. There are minor variations within it but the central themes and ideas remain.

I chanced across an interesting website yesterday. You can perhaps use it to test your context interpretation of the Koran.

Check out Surah 9 for example. You say this surah - the sword verse - is not general. Check out Tafsir.com to examine this theory of yours.

Lala, what would it take for you to admit you are wrong? Please go to the website www.tafsir.com/Default.asp. There is a drop-down menu for each of the Surahs with explanations of the themes contained with in them.

Please check Surah 9 on the site and then come back and discuss it with me.


Reply
Recommend Message 308 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 21/01/2008 22:04
For example, how to deal with idolators. The rules governing treaties etc. My reading is that the treaties are to enable idolators to escape or convert. I'd be interested if you can offer an alternative interpretation after reading Tafsir.com.


Reply
Recommend Message 309 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 21/01/2008 22:42
The problem with the Tafsirs is that many of them are written long after the revelations of the Koran - they are attempts to shape the message of the book to suit political ends. hence Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim can claim 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term" - but he was writing in the 14th century, and trying to justify political-military actions through the Koran. hence the system of Abrogation (get rid of all those pesky, peaceable bits) and the freeze on theocratic thought. An interpretation had been found that suited the ruling class, that allowed them to pursue their political goals (military conquest, generally). It suited them, just as it suits you, to interpret the verses as refering to all non-Muslims, as opposed to non-Muslims who had chosen to break treaties with the Muslims. It isn't the only viable interpretation of the text however.

Muslim scholars and jurists do need to review the tafsirs and the intellectual freeze they've been working under. There are signs that this is happening - consider the stance of S.A. Rahman, formerly a chief justice of Pakistan, or Abdullah Saed, on apostacy.


Reply
Recommend Message 310 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 21/01/2008 23:37
Lala, the link I provided you with is to the Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

"Tafsir is an arabic word تفسير which is derived from the root 'fassara' which means to "explain" or to "expound". It is best understood as 'explanation' or 'interpretation' of the Qur'an.

Tafsir in the language of the scholars means: explanation and clarification.

It aims at knowledge and understanding concerning the book of Allah, to explain its meanings, extract its legal rulings and grasp its underlying reasons. Tafsir explains the 'outer' (zahir) meanings of the Qur'an.

Someone who writes tafsir is a 'mufassir' مفسر which comes from the plural مفسرون mufassirūn.

Ibn Kathir born in 1302 H was scholar of History and a mufassir (Qur'an commentator) . He was renowned for his great memory regarding the sayings of Muhammad and the entire Qur'an.

Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary of the Qur'an named Tafsir ibn Kathir which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation. Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today. This site introduces the reader to one of the most Authentic books for explaining the Quran using both arabic and english text to grasp the understanding of the Quran."

This is a mainstream and popular Tafsir. Isn't it Lala? So once again we see that your subjective contextual interpretation is not accepted in the muslim mainstream.

The system of abrogation is not 'in order to get rid of the peaceful bits', but the only possible explanation for Allah seeming to contradict himself. IE what he says later overrules what he said earlier.

"It suited them, just as it suits you, to interpret the verses as refering to all non-Muslims, as opposed to non-Muslims who had chosen to break treaties with the Muslims. It isn't the only viable interpretation of the text however"

It is not a question of it suiting me. It is the reality. Have you looked at this particular Tafsir's explanation of Surah 9? Do you admit it flatly contradicts your interpretation?



Reply
Recommend Message 311 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 21/01/2008 23:42
Ok Lala, if you refuse to engage properly on this Tafsir by claiming it is in some way corrupted or not accepted in the muslim mainstream, would you direct me to a more popular or well known Tafsir that corresponds with your take on Islamic teaching?


Reply
Recommend Message 312 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 22/01/2008 00:14
This is a mainstream and popular Tafsir ...

A website set up to describe the thought of Ibn Kathir is going to say it's important and influential, though. Id suspect his thought have about as much relevance to the the average Muslim as the ruminations of the Vatican from the same time period. I'm not suaying that he is not a major figure, or that his thought has not had influence. But I suspect he's about as important to the average M*zzie as Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo is to your average Chr*stian.

I didn't claim it was "in some way corrupted" - I'm sure it is a perfectly precise and accurate of the rendering of Ibn Kathir's thought. It is just that that thought was aimed at arriving at an interpretation that suited the needs of the ruling class of the 14th century.

I'd cheerfully admit that the thought of Ibn Kathir and Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim "flattly contradict" mine, but that isn't really the point. They are still interpretations of the text, and obviously a product of their own time, designed to suit then current needs. That they are influential merely shows that the current ruling class in the Muslim world have found them useful still - Marx's "opiate of the people" reversed. It serves the rulers of the Islamic world to instil hostility and xenophobia in their people, and they use an inpretation of Islam that encourages that.

Again, abrogation is not the only possible explanation for ALlah seeming to contradict himself. It was the one that suited best, and so it was adopted. Rather than simply say "Whole parts of the Koran are simply not right" (what happened to the immutable word of God?), it would be at least as logical (as far as logic can be applied to any religion) to say that the apparent contradiction arises from our human inability to interpet the word of Allah correctly. Hence the need to understand the precise circumstances surrounding revelations, so that their model can be followed accurately.


Reply
Recommend Message 313 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 00:27
"I'd cheerfully admit that the thought of Ibn Kathir and Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim "flattly contradict" mine, but that isn't really the point"

That's the first point. The second is that Ibn Kathir Tafsir is mainstream and popular. Show me another that corresponds to your perspective.

(By the way the xenophobia and hostility are all too apparent in the Koran. You'd have to perform some nifty Tafsir gymnastics to make them seem abstract and redundant)

And abrogation is the only way to deal with verses that contradict each other. What is more, the principle is laid down in the Koran. Thought you would know this, considering your in-depth knowledge lala

2: 106 "When we cancel a message or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar"

16: 101 "When we replace a message with another - and God knows best what he reveals - they say: 'You have made it up;' yet most of them do not know"

An article on abrogation in a respected literary journal

www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3414&sec_id=3414

---------------

Lala, time and again you wriggle and squirm and are unable to provide any evidence for your assertions. It's all personal opinion (which is demonstrably wrong). If I am wrong in this, please start substantiating what you argue.




Reply
Recommend Message 314 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 22/01/2008 00:29
Though even Ibn Kathir acknowledges Surah 9 is aimed against treaty breakers:
"These Ayat encourage, direct and recommend fighting against the idolators who break the terms of their covenants, those who tried to expel the Messenger from Makkah. Allah said in other Ayat,"
(Here)



Reply
Recommend Message 315 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 22/01/2008 00:34
And abrogation is the only way to deal with verses that contradict each other. What is more, the principle is laid down in the Koran. Thought you would know this, considering your in-depth knowledge

It's patently siully to suggest that it is the 'only way' to deal with contradictions, when I've just suggested another. Again, it is a means to an end - by removing the need to observe verses that aren't useful. I would also point out that ALlah didn't cause the verses in question to be thrown into oblivion, so one would assume that he wanted them to be in the Koran. Which would suggest, in turn, that he wanted them obeyed.


Reply
Recommend Message 316 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 22/01/2008 00:42
He also acknowledges the continued existance of idolators, by specifying that they are to be banned fromt the precints of Mecca:
Allah commands His believing servants, who are pure in religion and person, to expel the idolators who are filthy in the religious sense, from Al-Masjid Al-Haram. After the revelation of this Ayah, idolators were no longer allowed to go near the Masjid.
(Here)
This only makes sense if they aren't all dead, and expelled. Clearly, the injunction for slaying and expelling refers to the treaty breaking oiks, not the well behaved ones.



Reply
Recommend Message 317 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 00:44
No Lala, it concerns the rules concerning treaties in general. Treaties last for 4 months maximum, unless they are with Muhammed personally, in which case they last until the end of their specified term.




Existing Peace Treaties remained valid until the End of Their Term


This is an exception regulating the longest extent of time for those who have a general treaty - with out time mentioned - to four months. They would have four months to travel the lands in search of sanctuary for themselves wherever they wish. Those whose treaty mentioned a specifec limited term, then the longest it would extend was to the point of its agreed upon termination date. Hadiths in this regard preceeded. So anyone who had a treaty with Allah's Messenger , it lasted until its specific termination date. However, those in this category were required to refrain from breaking the terms of the agreement with Muslims and from helping non-Muslims against Muslims. This is the type whose peace agreement with Muslims was carried out to its end. Allah encouraged honoring such peace treaties, saying,


[إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ]


(Surely, Allah loves those who have Taqwa) [9:4], who keep their promises.


[فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَءاتَوُاْ الزَّكَوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ ]


-----------------------------

Here is the relevant bit

(5. So when the Sacred Months [4 month s]have passed, then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.



But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah [zakah is the tax paid by muslims, so this means they convert, a dhimmi would pay JIZYA] then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

[So this verse says slay unbelievers after treaties expire unless they convert]

----------------

However, if the unbelievers seek safe passage they are to be given it after hearing of Allah's message (Islam)

Allah said to His Prophet, peace be upon him,


[وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ]


(And if anyone of the Mushrikin), whom you were commanded to fight and We allowed you their blood and property,'


[اسْتَجَارَكَ]


(seeks your protection), asked you for safe passage, then accept his request until he hears the Words of Allah, the Qur'an. Recite the Qur'an to him and mention a good part of the religion with which you establish Allah's proof against him,


[ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ]


(and then escort him to where he can be secure) and safe, until he goes back to his land, his home, and area of safety,


[ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ]


(that is because they are men who know not.) The Ayah says, `We legislated giving such people safe passage so that they may learn about the religion of Allah, so that Allah's call will spread among His servants. Ibn Abi Najih narrated that Mujahid said that this Ayah, "Refers to someone who comes to you to hear what you say and what was revealed to you (O Muhammad). Therefore, he is safe until he comes to you, hears Allah's Words and then proceeds to the safe area where he came from.'' The Messenger of Allah used to thereafter grant safe passage to those who came to him for guidance or to deliver a message. On the day of Hudaybiyyah, several emissaries from Quraysh came to him, such as `Urwah bin Mas`ud, Mikraz bin Hafs, Suhayl bin `Amr and several others. They came mediating between him and the Quraysh pagans. They witnessed the great respect the Muslims had for the Prophet , which astonished them, for they never before saw such respect for anyone, kings nor czars. They went back to their people and conveyed this news to them; this, among other reasons, was one reason that most of them accepted the guidance. When Musaylimah the Liar sent an emissary to the Messenger of Allah, he asked him, "Do you testify that Musaylimah is a messenger from Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' The Messenger of Allah said,


«لَوْلَا أَنَّ الرُّسُلَ لَا تُقْتَلُ لَضَرَبْتُ عُنُقَك




(I would have cut off your head, if it was not that emissaries are not killed.) That man, Ibn An-Nawwahah, was later beheaded when `Abdullah bin Mas`ud was the governor of Al-Kufah. When it became known that he still testified that Musaylimah was a messenger from Allah, Ibn Mas`ud summoned him and said to him, "You are not delivering a message now!'' He commanded that Ibn An-Nawwahah be decapitated, may Allah curse him and deprive him of His mercy. In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, to negotiate a peace treaty, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary.

------------------

Therefore infidels who are being beaten effectively have the choice of accepting Islam, being killed or being exiled. In addition, people of the book may be offered the status of dhimmi within the Islamic state.

This Surah explains what the jizya represents:

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace


Allah said,


[حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ]


(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,


[عَن يَدٍ]


(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,


[وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ]


(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,


«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»


(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''



Reply
Recommend Message 318 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 00:48
"It's patently siully to suggest that it is the 'only way' to deal with contradictions"

It's the only way to reconcile a perfect God and contradictions in the Koran. What'd be pretty silly is to say 'What he really meant to say is what he said earlier'.


Reply
Recommend Message 319 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 22/01/2008 00:49
That was a very long cut and paste which did nothing to disprove my point.

Now I'm going to bed.


Reply
Recommend Message 320 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 00:53
You also claimed earlier that it is not incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically, across the world. Again, WRONG:

Islam is the Religion That will dominate over all Other Religions


Allah said next,


[هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ]


(It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth.) `Guidance' refers to the true narrations, beneficial faith and true religion that the Messenger came with. `religion of truth' refers to the righteous, legal deeds that bring about benefit in this life and the Hereafter.


[لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ]


(to make it (Islam) superior over all religions) It is recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said,


«إِنَّ اللهَ زَوَى لِي الْأَرْضَ مَشَارِقَهَا وَمَغَارِبَهَا، وَسَيَبْلُغُ مُلْكُ أُمَّتِي مَا زُوِيَ لِييِمنْهَا»


(Allah made the eastern and western parts of the earth draw near for me [to see], and the rule of my Ummah will extend as far as I saw.) Imam Ahmad recorded from Tamim Ad-Dari that he said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying,


«لَيَبْلُغَنَّ هَذَا الْأَمْرُ مَا بَلَغَ اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ، وَلَا يَتْرُكُ اللهُ بَيْتَ مَدَرٍ وَلَا وَبَرٍ إِلَّا أَدْخَلَهُ هَذَا الدِّينَ، يُعِزُّ عَزِيزًا وَيُذِلُّ ذَلِيلًا، عِزًّا يُعِزُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْإِسْلَامَ وَذُلًّا يُذِلُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْكُفْر»


(This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects Islam). Might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people) and disgrace with which Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people).) Tamim Ad-Dari [who was a Christian before Islam] used to say, "I have come to know the meaning of this Hadith in my own people. Those who became Muslims among them acquired goodness, honor and might. Disgrace, humiliation and Jizyah befell those who remained disbelievers.''

The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas


Allah commands the believers to fight the disbelievers, the closest in area to the Islamic state, then the farthest. This is why the Messenger of Allah started fighting the idolators in the Arabian Peninsula. When he finished with them and Allah gave him control over Makkah, Al-Madinah, At-Ta'if, Yemen, Yamamah, Hajr, Khaybar, Hadramawt and other Arab provinces, and the various Arab tribes entered Islam in large crowds, he then started fighting the People of the Scriptures. He began preparations to fight the Romans who were the closest in area to the Arabian Peninsula, and as such, had the most right to be called to Islam, especially since they were from the People of the Scriptures. The Prophet marched until he reached Tabuk and went back because of the extreme hardship, little rain and little supplies. This battle occurred on the ninth year after his Hijrah. In the tenth year, the Messenger of Allah was busy with the Farewell Hajj. The Messenger died eighty-one days after he returned from that Hajj, Allah chose him for what He had prepared for him [in Paradise]. After his death, his executor, friend, and Khalifah, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, became the leader. At that time, the religion came under attack and would have been defeated, if it had not been for the fact that Allah gave the religion firmness through Abu Bakr, who established its basis and made its foundations firm. He brought those who strayed from the religion back to it, and made those who reverted from Islam return. He took the Zakah from the evil people who did not want to pay it, and explained the truth to those who were unaware of it. On behalf of the Prophet , Abu Bakr delivered what he was entrusted with. Then, he started preparing the Islamic armies to fight the Roman cross worshippers, and the Persian fire worshippers. By the blessing of his mission, Allah opened the lands for him and brought down Caesar and Kisra and those who obeyed them among the servants. Abu Bakr spent their treasures in the cause of Allah, just as the Messenger of Allah had foretold would happen. This mission continued after Abu Bakr at the hands of he whom Abu Bakr chose to be his successor, Al-Faruq, the Martyr of the Mihrab, Abu Hafs, `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him. With `Umar, Allah humiliated the disbelievers, suppressed the tyrants and hypocrites, and opened the eastern and western parts of the world. The treasures of various countries were brought to `Umar from near and far provinces, and he divided them according to the legitimate and accepted method. `Umar then died as a martyr after he lived a praise worthy life. Then, the Companions among the Muhajirin and Ansar agreed to chose after `Umar, `Uthman bin `Affan, Leader of the faithful and Martyr of the House, may Allah be pleased with him. During `Uthman's reign, Islam wore its widest garment and Allah's unequivocal proof was established in various parts of the world over the necks of the servants. Islam appeared in the eastern and western parts of the world and Allah's Word was elevated and His religion apparent. The pure religion reached its deepest aims against Allah's enemies, and whenever Muslims overcame an Ummah, they moved to the next one, and then the next one, crushing the tyranical evil doers. They did this in reverence to Allah's statement,


[يَأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِّنَ الْكُفَّارِ]


(O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you,) Allah said next,


[وَلِيَجِدُواْ فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً]


(and let them find harshness in you), meaning, let the disbelievers find harshness in you against them in battle. The complete believer is he who is kind to his believing brother, and harsh with his disbelieving enemy. Allah said in other Ayah,


[فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِى اللَّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى الْكَـفِرِينَ]


(Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers...)[5:54],


[مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّآءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَآءُ بَيْنَهُمْ]


(Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are severe against the disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.)[48:29], and,


[يَأَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ جَـهِدِ الْكُفَّـرَ وَالْمُنَـفِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ]


(O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them.)[9:73] Allah said,


[وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ]


(And know that Allah is with those who have Taqwa), meaning, fight the disbelievers and trust in Allah knowing that Allah is with you if you fear and obey Him. This was the case in the first three blessed generations of Islam, the best members of this Ummah. Since they were firm on the religion and reached an unsurpassed level of obedience to Allah, they consistently prevailed over their enemies. During that era, victories were abundant, and enemies were ever more in a state of utter loss and degradation. However, after the turmoil began, desires and divisions became prevalent between various Muslim kings, the enemies were eager to attack the outposts of Islam and marched into its territory without much opposition. Then, the Muslim kings were too busy with their enmity for each other. The disbelievers then marched to the capital cities of the Islamic states, after gaining control over many of its areas, in addition to entire Islamic lands. Verily, ownership of all affairs is with Allah in the beginning and in the end. Whenever a just Muslim king stood up and obeyed Allah's orders, all the while trusting in Allah, Allah helped him regain control over some Muslim lands and took back from the enemy what was compatible to his obedience and support to Allah. We ask Allah to help the Muslims gain control over the forelocks of His disbeliever enemies and to raise high the word of Muslims over all lands. Verily, Allah is Most Generous, Most Giving.


[وَإِذَا مَآ أُنزِلَتْ سُورَةٌ فَمِنْهُمْ مَّن يَقُولُ أَيُّكُمْ زَادَتْهُ هَـذِهِ إِيمَـناً فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ ءامَنُواْ فَزَادَتْهُمْ إِيمَـناً وَهُمْ يَسْتَبْشِرُونَ وَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِى قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ فَزَادَتْهُمْ رِجْسًا إِلَى رِجْسِهِمْ وَمَاتُواْ وَهُمْ كَـفِرُونَ]


(124. And whenever there comes down a Surah, some of them (hypocrites) say: "Which of you has had his faith increased by it'' As for those who believe, it has increased their faith, and they rejoice.) (125. But as for those in whose hearts is a disease, it will add Rijs (doubt) to their Rijs (doubt); and they die while they are disbelievers.)



Reply
Recommend Message 321 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 00:55
It dealt with all your points and gave you some new ones to contend with, take it to bed with you.

---------------

Either you are saying this Tafsir is not mainstream or popular, or you concede that jihad and subjugation of the infidel is central to mainstream Islam.


Reply
Recommend Message 322 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 01:04
On the topic of abrogation - you say that is not the only way it is possible to reconcile contradictions in the Koran; do you accept that that is how it is agreed by muslims to reconcile them?


Reply
Recommend Message 323 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 22/01/2008 02:35
anyone know how the court case is going ?


Reply
Recommend Message 324 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 03:35
Tafsir is not mainstream or popular

Meanwhile, despite an insane belief in the compulsive voodoo-like power of the Holy Scriptures, the upholders of Judaeo-Christian values permanently threaten and attack Muslims and hold thousands of Weapons of Mass Destruction capable of bringing all human life to an end.


Reply
Recommend Message 325 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 04:49
Dear oh dear oh dear.


Reply
Recommend Message 326 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 04:51
Dear oh dear oh dear.

Did your nutty views come into the nutcracker of reality?


Reply
Recommend Message 327 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 04:53
Weapons of Mass Destruction capable of bringing all human life to an end.

.........but to date I am sure you would concede that this has not happened (as we are all still here) and you are widely speculating as to what Christians may or may not do.


Reply
Recommend Message 328 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 04:56
They're not my nutty views Bertrus, they're the nutty views of Islam. Don't shoot the messenger!


Reply
Recommend Message 329 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 04:56
this has not happened

The threat is there and the threat comes from the champions of Judaeo-Christian values (and others).


Reply
Recommend Message 330 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 04:59
Don't shoot the messenger!

You are the loony, thundering about the terrible threat from the militarily impotent Islamicists, and the benevolence of the massively threatening upholders of Judaeo-Christian values.


Reply
Recommend Message 331 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:00
.........but it has not happened and you are speculating as to what Christians may or may not do with these weapons................

[lala]

Reply
Recommend Message 332 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:04
you are speculating

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty demands nuclear disarmament from nuclear weapons states. The US/UK (and others) have agreed to nuclear disarmament. Since they're going in exactly the opposite direction it's not a matter of speculaiton that they heading towards nuclear war.


Reply
Recommend Message 333 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:05
So when do you expect war to break out?


Reply
Recommend Message 334 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 05:10
I never thought of myself as 'thundering' - I take that as a complement. I always thought I was just being patient and dogged, countering the arguments put before me with arguments backed up by references within the canon of Islamic scripture.

By contrast, all you can say is 'loony'.


Reply
Recommend Message 335 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:10
when do you expect war to break out?

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."




Reply
Recommend Message 336 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:13
countering the arguments put before me with arguments backed up by references within the canon of Islamic scripture.

The insanity consists in believing that Holy Scripture has a compelling magical power which turns all adherents of the religion into zombies.


Reply
Recommend Message 337 of 421 in Discussion

From: oldmanofthesea2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:15

and the benevolence of the massively threatening upholders of Judaeo-Christian values.

If we are talking about nuclear weapons what the fek have they got to do with Judaeo-Christian values. Rememember the commandment Thou shall not kill. Not Thou shall not kill unless its an infidel and if you kill enough of them you go to paradise.

Also nuclear weapons are held by Pakistan a principly Moslem country. India a principly Hindu country. China and France principly secular countries.


Reply
Recommend Message 338 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 05:15
You really have a mental block when it comes to understanding the nature of Islam, don't you?


Reply
Recommend Message 339 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:15
But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

So you don't know, you are just speculating.


Reply
Recommend Message 340 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:19
you are just speculating.

Not about the occurence of a nuclear incident.


Reply
Recommend Message 341 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 05:21
?


Reply
Recommend Message 342 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:23
Rememember the commandment Thou shall not kill.

Another Jew.

Also nuclear weapons are held by Pakistan a principly Moslem country.

Mushareff is our staunch ally. Of course, if democracy breaks out that will put a different complexion on things. That's why the United States is the most powerful force on the planet to prevent democracy.


Reply
Recommend Message 343 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:24
Not about the occurence of a nuclear incident.

As you are so certain can you let me know when its going to happen. Just so I can be prepared and all that.

Many thanks for the information I will receive that is not sheer speculation on your part.


Reply
Recommend Message 344 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:27
you are so certain

The nuclear states are committed to nuclear disarmament. They are going in the opposite direction. It is, therefore, a reasonable conclusion that they are prepared to accept nuclear attacks rather than make them impossible by disarming.


Reply
Recommend Message 345 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 22/01/2008 05:32
Lets scrap the army altogether. Then all the other countries would follow suit and there'd be no more wars.


Reply
Recommend Message 346 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:39
a reasonable conclusion that they are prepared to accept nuclear attacks rather than make them impossible by disarming.

So you are speculating as you have yet to:
1. Inform me when I can expect the world to end; and
2. You have no proof that Christians (who are the others you refer to? Are these others also religious people) are planning to use nuclear weapons.


Reply
Recommend Message 347 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:44
planning to use nuclear weapons

If they are not planning to use nuclear weapons, they can dismantle them.


Reply
Recommend Message 348 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:45
they can dismantle them.

Why?


Reply
Recommend Message 349 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:51
Why?

Because they have agreed to do so. Perhaps you've never heard of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Reply
Recommend Message 350 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:53
When are they going to use them?


Reply
Recommend Message 351 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 05:54
When are they going to use them?

At an opportune moment.


Reply
Recommend Message 352 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:55
Why do Christians want to destroy the world? (Who are these others that you refer to?)


Reply
Recommend Message 353 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 05:56
At an opportune moment.

Can you be more specific? I would just like to be prepared for when it happens. Who exactly are they going to target? Non-Christians?


Reply
Recommend Message 354 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 06:00
Can you be more specific?

You are more than a trifle insane. The question as to the opportune moment has to be addressed to the military and political powers in the countries which have nuclear weapons. Do a little research on the subject and give us your conclusions.


Reply
Recommend Message 355 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 06:01
I do apologise but I am going home now.

I will be vigilant and watch out for all the Christians (or those that look like Christians) with bulges in their pockets that may (or may not be) nuclear weapons, as they may (or may not) use them on me as I may not look very Christian to them and so may probably be a target.


Reply
Recommend Message 356 of 421 in Discussion

From: Greenergrass Sent: 22/01/2008 06:03
Do a little research on the subject and give us your conclusions.

Okay. Off to use Wikipedia. The font of all your knowledge.

As for being insane - Well I could be one of those mad Christians...........


Reply
Recommend Message 357 of 421 in Discussion

From: Reverend-madfokker Sent: 22/01/2008 06:03
so how did we get to nukes from claw hammers?? I can guess who, but , well no matter!


Reply
Recommend Message 358 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 06:09
Off to use Wikipedia.

Try the Pentagon.


Reply
Recommend Message 359 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 06:11
Christians) with bulges in their pockets

Try the Pentagon. They may not all be Christian, but they are committed by their political masters to upholding Judaeo-Christian values.


Reply
Recommend Message 360 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 22/01/2008 08:53
You also claimed earlier that it is not incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically, across the world. Again, WRONG:

Again, untrue. I have made no such claim. Is this how you do things in court?
"Your honour, now that my client has given a watertight alibi ..."
"He actually said he was guilty as Hell."
"Now that you've just confirmed your unshakeable belief in his innocence ..."
Either you are saying this Tafsir is not mainstream or popular, or you concede that jihad and subjugation of the infidel is central to mainstream Islam.

I find your attempts to frame the debate in terms favourable to youreself amusing. Obvuious, but amusing.

Whether of not the Tafsir is "popular and mainstream" (is is a bestseller in Tehran and Islamabad? Are they a sort of Islamic Harry Potter?) isn't relevant, becaus, regardless, they are a political interpretation. Their "popularity" arises from their promulgation by the ruling class in Islamic countries - they advance the version that suits their interests best. As rulig classes tend to be interested in conquest and power, they were interested in a version of Islam that was seen to promote that.

On the topic of abrogation - you say that is not the only way it is possible to reconcile contradictions in the Koran; do you accept that that is how it is agreed by muslims to reconcile them?

Absolutely. I accept that it has been promoted as the correct way of adressing the issue, as it is the one that was expedient for the ruling class in Islamic society at the time it was devised.

I will assume nothing of substance was put forward in the ensuing squabble between you and Bert.


Reply
Recommend Message 361 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 22/01/2008 10:23
I will assume nothing of substance was put forward

I'm afraid the poor fellow believes, or pretends to, that the Scripture has a magic, compelling power that overwhelms all human impulses and forces Muslims to act as it decrees, despite a total lack of real world evidence to that effect and the abundant, daily record of those with Judaeo-Christian values ruling the roost.


Reply
Recommend Message 362 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 23/01/2008 03:30
From: la la Sent: 21/01/2008 19:53
You also claimed earlier that it is not incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically, across the world. Again, WRONG:

Again, untrue. I have made no such claim

---------------------

So you are agreeing that it is incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically across the world. Good, we are making progress.

--------------------

Either you are saying this Tafsir is not mainstream or popular, or you concede that jihad and subjugation of the infidel is central to mainstream Islam.

I find your attempts to frame the debate in terms favourable to youreself amusing. Obvuious, but amusing.

Whether of not the Tafsir is "popular and mainstream" (is is a bestseller in Tehran and Islamabad? Are they a sort of Islamic Harry Potter?) isn't relevant, becaus, regardless, they are a political interpretation. Their "popularity" arises from their promulgation by the ruling class in Islamic countries - they advance the version that suits their interests best

---------------------

Interesting to see you trying to splice Islamic belief with your own cod-marxist theory. The fact is that this Tafsir is mainstream and established. To see how muslims are supposed to, and do, interpret the Koran, read it. There are bvery few more moderate interpretations with any following or respect and plenty more which are even more strident and aggressive.

--------------------

On the topic of abrogation - you say that is not the only way it is possible to reconcile contradictions in the Koran; do you accept that that is how it is agreed by muslims to reconcile them?

Absolutely.

-------------------

Then you also have to agree that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by the sword verses.



Reply
Recommend Message 363 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 23/01/2008 08:12
So you are agreeing that it is incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically across the world. Good, we are making progress.

I merely point out that I haven't offered any comment on whether or not it is "incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically across the world," and it is rather unsporting of you to claim otherwise. We aren't in court just now, so lets stick to the truth.

But, since you've brought it up, strengthening and advancing your religion is incumbent on all religions. Note the parable of the Talents. Tthat countries where Islam and Christiansity, and on a smaller scale, Judaism, are predominant, interpret this as meaning they can conquer and exploit other peoples, tells us something about the political and chauvinistic views of these cultures.

The fact is that this Tafsir is mainstream and established. To see how muslims are supposed to, and do, interpret the Koran, read it. There are bvery few more moderate interpretations with any following or respect and plenty more which are even more strident and aggressive.

Mainstream and established because they have been promulgated by the ruling class, who are very good at oppressing opposing views. Similarly, strident and opressive views of Christianity have held sway at various times and in various places. Ask any Cathar. We don't do that any more because our societies have reached a point where it is easier to invite dissidents into the big democratic tent, than burn them at the stake.

In a similar vein, Islamic countries have probably spent as much time smiting and oppressing their own internal dissidents as they have waging war against their neighbours. Holding onto power is even more important than taking it away from your neighbours.

You might say I'm being cod-Gramscii. So that's cod-Marx, cod-Althusser and cod-Gramscii, all on one thread. If things get any more fishy, someone will accuse me of trawling.

Then you also have to agree that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by the sword verses.

So you agree there exist "earlier peaceful verses"?

You seemed to forget this part of my comment. Accidentally, of course: I accept that abrogation has been promoted as the correct way of addressing the issue, as it is the one that was expedient for the ruling class in Islamic society at the time it was devised.

Similarly, when Christian-dominant societies are looking for an excuse for smiting and slaying, they cheerfully ignore the bits about loving thy neighbour and forgiving seven and seventy times, and home in on the old testament stuff. Same principle, in reverse. The word, in both cases, is hypocrisy.


Reply
Recommend Message 364 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 23/01/2008 08:31
Incidentally, I while checking on the progress of the lead story, I came across this little gem, on a website I can't link for obvious reasons:
"I very much doubt if the vicious attack on this schoolboy would have even reached court if it were not for the help and support of the BNP ! "
Only one response is appropriate. Here is is:




Reply
Recommend Message 365 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 24/01/2008 04:14

So you are agreeing that it is incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically across the world. Good, we are making progress.

I merely point out that I haven't offered any comment on whether or not it is "incumbent on muslims to advance Islam politically across the world

-------------

Well either they are or they aren't? If you don't deny that they are the implication is that they are. You've had an opportunity address this and I've provided you with Koranic instructions that they are and that this issupposed to be achieved through jihad. Members of other faiths may look after their faiths but they are not instructed to do so through violence and subjugation.

----------------

The fact is that this Tafsir is mainstream and established. To see how muslims are supposed to, and do, interpret the Koran, read it. There are bvery few more moderate interpretations with any following or respect and plenty more which are even more strident and aggressive.

Mainstream and established because they have been promulgated by the ruling class

And what kind of ruling class are we talking about here? - That's right, the religious rulung class. Can you point me to any significant movements that are challenging the ideology of this 'ruling class'?

---------------

Then you also have to agree that earlier peaceful verses are abrogated by the sword verses.

So you agree there exist "earlier peaceful verses"?

Most certainly - and they have been abrogated.

"as it is the one that was expedient for the ruling class in Islamic society at the time it was devised"

'Is' or 'was'? The doctrine is still applied and everyone agrees that it still applies. Once again, where are the movements challenging the doctrine?

-----------------

Basically Lala, you're arguing from an ever-shrinking position. Let's deal with the world as it is. The current interpretation is that the earlier peaceful verses have been abrogated by the sword verses. There is not meant to be any further exegesis of Islamic texts other than the Tafsirs already completed. (The concept of itjihad was shelved and established Tafsris not to be questioned.)

The manstream and popular Tafsirs (interpretations) instruct muslims to attack the non-muslim systems of belief and raise the banner of Islam over the entire world 'until obedience is wholly to God'. Non-muslims who are people of the book may live under the Islamic state as long as they pay the jizya tax, which is meant to be a mark of humiliation and disgrace as the kuffar hve had the opportunity to embrace the truth (Islam) and instead 'cover' or 'conceal it. This is the literal meaning of 'kufr'.


Reply
Recommend Message 366 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 24/01/2008 09:28
Well either they are or they aren't? If you don't deny that they are the implication is that they are. You've had an opportunity address this and I've provided you with Koranic instructions that they are and that this issupposed to be achieved through jihad. Members of other faiths may look after their faiths but they are not instructed to do so through violence and subjugation.

All of which, as I think I may have said some time ago, a politically motivated interpretation. Your admission that there are peaceful verses and instructions in the Koran, which have been abrogated by a bit of theological sleight-of-hand, proves this. It suited the interests of the ruling elite to promote an aggressive version of Islam, because by directing opposition outwards ("Hate the people in the next valley, not your chief!") they can maintain their hold on power.

I'd also wonder how much impact a century of crusades had made on the formulation of 14th century Muslim thought.

And what kind of ruling class are we talking about here? - That's right, the religious rulung class. Can you point me to any significant movements that are challenging the ideology of this 'ruling class'?

The ruling elite shape the religion to suit their needs. As is always the case. Hence in Apartheid South Africa, religious justification was sought for racist policy, and in Elizabethan England, burning Catholics at the stake was judged okay, scripturally. Or those pesky crusades I mentioned a moment ago. Damn me, it seems you can twist this religion thing to say whatever you want it to say. And if you happen to be a king, caliph or other sort of big cheese, you can get other people to believe it as well.

Most certainly - and they have been abrogated.

Excellent. As you are fond of saying, we're making progress. You would agree that a ruling elite would opt for a system of exegesis that suited their interests?

'Is' or 'was'? The doctrine is still applied and everyone agrees that it still applies. Once again, where are the movements challenging the doctrine?

Still is of course. "Was" in that context referring to the orignal decision to abrogate rather than resolve the contradictions.

As for the 'movements challenging the docctrine,' I mentioned SA Rahman a while back. Former Chief Justice of Pakistan, who based his opposition to the death penalty for apostacy on the "No compulsion in religion" verse, which was supposedly abrogated.

Basically Lala, you're arguing from an ever-shrinking position. Let's deal with the world as it is. The current interpretation is that the earlier peaceful verses have been abrogated by the sword verses. There is not meant to be any further exegesis of Islamic texts other than the Tafsirs already completed. (The concept of itjihad was shelved and established Tafsris not to be questioned.)

Actually, I'm quite comfortable where I am. If anything, I think my position is getting stronger as you hurl your troops against it, only to see them cut to pieces in the killing fields of my reason. So, I'll subjugate you and make you pay Jizyah.

Your points re abrogation, unquestionability of the Koran, 14th century Tafsirs and the like have all been dealt with several times, but I don't suppose this will be the last time.

Anyone else actually still following this thread?


Reply
Recommend Message 367 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 24/01/2008 10:50
Yea i am


Reply
Recommend Message 368 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 25/01/2008 03:43
"Your admission that there are peaceful verses and instructions in the Koran, which have been abrogated by a bit of theological sleight-of-hand, proves this"

----------------------

I've never denied that there are peaceful verses, it's always been my case that they have been abrogated. You're the one having to do the conceding. As in 'the peaceful verses have by the doctrine of abrogation been superceded by the sword verses'.

-----------------------

"It suited the interests of the ruling elite to promote an aggressive version of Islam"

Unless you can point me to where the religious establishment has changed this aggressive version, your sentence should read 'It suits the interests...'

------------------------

The conclusion from all of this? The mainstream accepted version, promulgated by the religious elite and accepted by the vast majority of followers of Islam is 'aggressive'.

Thank you Lala, that is all.


Reply
Recommend Message 369 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 25/01/2008 03:46
In order to make it 'peaceful' you would have to (successfully) challenge the central precepts of the faith (Dar al-Harb, Dar al-Islam, Jihad, jizya and dhimmitude, rules on religious plurality, freedom of conscience and apostacy) and the way in which the scriptures are, according to Islamic doctrine, meant to be read.




Reply
Recommend Message 370 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 25/01/2008 05:07
apostacy

What's the point of the deliberate misspelling?


Reply
Recommend Message 371 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 25/01/2008 07:21
You're the one having to do the conceding. As in 'the peaceful verses have by the doctrine of abrogation been superceded by the sword verses'.

Something I'm quite happy to conceed as long as it is understood that abrogation was a political motivated choice and not, as you claimed, the only possible way of resolving Koranic contradictions.

Unless you can point me to where the religious establishment has changed this aggressive version, your sentence should read 'It suits the interests...'

No problem at all with your re-wording there, by and large. There are some parts of the Muslim world where democracy is starting to shake the theocracy, but there are more where it is strong. And even in places where there is reform, there are conservative movements, waving their burquas and banning kites.

Christian countries were quite similar in someways, until upward pressure persuaded the elite to start insitituting democratcy - giving a little so as to keep a lot. Unfortunately, the west's tendency to support despicable despots in Islamic countries strengthens these regimes and slows the process of change. Their talk about democracy is about as genuine as the religious justification proclaimed by their predecessors.

The conclusion from all of this? The mainstream accepted version, promulgated by the religious elite and accepted by the vast majority of followers of Islam is 'aggressive'.

Now that we've established that, you need to consider other cultures, faiths and countries in the same light. Inspite of the admireable message of the carpenter, Christian countries have shown themselves to be every bit as beastly as Islamic cultures. The whole history of humanity, alas, has been about hating and killing the people in the next valley, regardless of what your faith might say.

If Christianity can be bent to encompass imperialism, slavery, slaughtering Catholics, slaughtering Protestants, slaughtering Muslims, slaughtering Jews, slaughtering Cathars and all the rest, then it should be clear that religion isn't too important - except as another means of seperating people into 'Them' and 'Us.'

I would also point out, however, that the vast majority of Muslims, like the vast majority of Chritiants and even Scientologists, are less batty and unlikeable than their leaders.

My stout squares have repelled the Imperial Guard and the day is mine.


Reply
Recommend Message 372 of 421 in Discussion

From: Tarrant Sent: 25/01/2008 07:47
#371 If Christianity can be bent to encompass imperialism, slavery, slaughtering Catholics, slaughtering Protestants, slaughtering Muslims, slaughtering Jews, slaughtering Cathars and all the rest, then it should be clear that religion isn't too important

It can't.

All of these things were justified by lies.

There is no justification in Jesus' teaching for any of this.


Reply
Recommend Message 373 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 25/01/2008 09:05
Lala, shame you have resorted to puerile language.

You're the one having to do the conceding. As in 'the peaceful verses have by the doctrine of abrogation been superceded by the sword verses'.

Something I'm quite happy to conceed as long as it is understood that abrogation was a political motivated choice and not, as you claimed, the only possible way of resolving Koranic contradictions

- The abrogation technique for resolving contradictions within the Koran may have in part been political but it is also the least problematic way of resolving those contradictions.

Can you think of way of arguing (convincingly) that God meant what he eaid earlier rather than later? (If one believes in a God) Surely it's within his power to send another prophet to correct what were essentially his last messages to Mohammed if he didn't really mean 'Make war on the unbelievers'? So the muslim thinks, in the absence of an explanation to the cntrary or a further prohpet sayin 'no' that his religion instructs him to advance Islam politically over other religions and other systems of government/belief.

----------------

And what kind of ruling class are we talking about here? - That's right, the religious rulung class. Can you point me to any significant movements that are challenging the ideology of this 'ruling class'?

The ruling elite shape the religion to suit their needs ... And if you happen to be a king, caliph or other sort of big cheese, you can get other people to believe it as well.

- This is a misrepresentation of the true situation. Islam is not a hierarchical religion - there is not some pope equivalent at the top saying make war on the unbelievers. The primary source, as it is supposed to be read, says so. If you read the Koran with the doctrine of abrogation in mind, as muslims are supposed to accordin to the principles of the faith, it says make war on the unbelievers and subjugate them.

-------------------

Unless you can point me to where the religious establishment has changed this aggressive version, your sentence should read 'It suits the interests...'

No problem at all with your re-wording there, by and large. There are some parts of the Muslim world where democracy is starting to shake the theocracy, but there are more where it is strong. And even in places where there is reform, there are conservative movements, waving their burquas and banning kites.

- Be interesting if you can substantiate your assertions with some examples. The only movements within the muslim world that make any impact are the purist literalist ones which read the Koran in the way I've described - the way that it is specified for them to read it. IE to get rid of forms of shirk (polytheism) within Islamic countries.

Polytheism in this context means adherenece to any other system of belief and governance that is not sharia (democracy, freedom of conscience and expression all fall foul of this rule.).

---------------

The conclusion from all of this? The mainstream accepted version, promulgated by the religious elite and accepted by the vast majority of followers of Islam is 'aggressive'.

"Now that we've established that..."

- You speak as though you were argung that, whn in actual fact you were arguing the opposite. You've actually been forced to concede this after much toing and froing.

"...you need to consider other cultures, faiths and countries in the same light. In spite of the admireable message of the carpenter, Christian countries have shown themselves to be every bit as beastly as Islamic cultures. The whole history of humanity, alas, has been about hating and killing the people in the next valley, regardless of what your faith might say."

I will pick you up on the 'regardless of what your faith might say' comment. It is not regardless of what Islam says that Islamic regimes kill apostates or turn a blind eye to their murder, it is not regardless of Islam that muslims wage jihad and launch suicide attacks to become shahadas. It is because of Islam!!!!!

There are very few 'cuddly' verses in the Koan and they were from an earlier time in the life of Mohammed. To make Islam fit a nice tolerant pluralistic mould fit for today, you're basically gonna have to rewrite the whole thing.


Reply
Recommend Message 374 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 25/01/2008 09:28
Nowt cuddly at all ! Tarrant you must know that you aint seen any christian suicide bombers as yet. Plus we dont lop off your heads for anything either. Are u a christian btw?


Reply
Recommend Message 375 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 25/01/2008 09:29
Its not a civilised thing christians would do


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 376 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 25/01/2008 12:04
you aint seen any christian suicide bombers as yet

The Axis of Evil beheads, dismembers, blows to smithereen with the latest technology.


Recommend Message 377 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 25/01/2008 21:28
Lala, shame you have resorted to puerile language.

Is this very clever irony or absolute idiocy? I seem to recall you making some vastly funny quip about "black people being thick" a couple of hundred posts ago. Oh, how we laughed. So if you're remotely serious, please go and insert head in arse.

The abrogation technique for resolving contradictions within the Koran may have in part been political but it is also the least problematic way of resolving those contradictions.

Whether or not it is the least probblematic isn't really relevant. Why should the path of rigteousness be easy? It was, as I said, and you accept, politically expedient. It let people seeking to build their wealth and power to build their wealth and power.

Can you think of way of arguing (convincingly) that God meant what he eaid earlier rather than later? (If one believes in a God) Surely it's within his power to send another prophet to correct what were essentially his last messages to Mohammed if he didn't really mean 'Make war on the unbelievers'?

It is very easy to do so. It goes something like this: the Koran serves as a guidebook and model for how a Muslim should behave in all situations. So it contains revelations, which, if interpreted correctly, can be applied to all circumstances. So the original Muslim community experienced a range of different situations - subordinate, beseiged, defeated, victorious and so on. This would show all who came after them how to behave - if they lived in a place where Muslims were the minority, they should behave in this way, and if they live in a place where Muslims are dominate, that way. If confronted by treachery, they are permitted such and such a response. Where they encounter good faith, they are required to repay it with good faith. And so on.

This makes sense, as Allah declared that he would cause unimportant verses to be lost. If they have survived and made it into the Koran, it is clearly part of Allah's will, and they should be heeded.

The primary source, as it is supposed to be read, says so. If you read the Koran with the doctrine of abrogation in mind, as muslims are supposed to accordin to the principles of the faith, it says make war on the unbelievers and subjugate them.

You're regressing. The phrase 'as it is suppsoed to be read' is nonsense, as the decision to read it in that particular way was a politically inspired decision.

Muslims leaders, post Mohammed, could have said, "Mo (PBUH) got it all wrong. he got too agressive, all this stuff about smiting the unbelievers. That's why Allah denied him a victory at Tabuk and killed him off soon after. The only important revelations are the early ones, a good Muslim should only heed the early stuff. Kinda like Starwars - watch the early films, don't ever watch the later 'prequels'."

But that wouldn't have been much use to them, as they wouln't have been leaders for very long.

Be interesting if you can substantiate your assertions with some examples. The only movements within the muslim world that make any impact are the purist literalist ones which read the Koran in the way I've described - the way that it is specified for them to read it.

Indonesia is somewhat less fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia. Pakistan was making some progress until Musharraf decided that this democracy thing wasn't a good idea. The CIA / SIS funded fundies in the 80s have also proved to be a bit of a problem as well. I'm sure Bert will testify to the wonders of UAE, or whichever tinpot little oil fiefdom he's besotted with.

Incidentally, don't you think it a bit odd that as late as the 14th century, theologians were still arguing about the correct interpretation of the Koran (as shown by the Tafsir you linked earlier), and, as soon as a version at least giving some justification to war-mongering was posited, debate about the meaning was verboten immediately afterwards?

You speak as though you were argung that, whn in actual fact you were arguing the opposite. You've actually been forced to concede this after much toing and froing.

Incorrect. You've been arguing, continually, that the interpretation of the Koran you're putting forward is the only possible one, and the one absolutely and inescapably obvious from the text itself.

I've pointed out that this is not the case, that different interpretations are possible, and that the interpretation that most suited the political needs of the elite was the one that gained precedence - as they had the power and inclination to stamp out alternatives. As seen in Christian countries up until a couple of centuries ago.

Though go into the wrong pub in Glasgow and you'll find out that 'stamping out' is very much still the done thing. And I don't mean that metaphorically.)

It is not regardless of what Islam says that Islamic regimes kill apostates or turn a blind eye to their murder, it is not regardless of Islam that muslims wage jihad and launch suicide attacks to become shahadas. It is because of Islam!!!!!

When the same thing happened in Christian societies was it because of Christianity?


Reply
Recommend Message 378 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 25/01/2008 22:25
You Still have not seen Christian suicide bombers yet Bertrus. I did say suicide bombers! Pls dont twist things with your answer :-) christians are not taught by there god to kill, unlike the muslims who kill FOR their god allah. Im a christian and have christian values. I would not press young christians to use themselves as bombs with the aim to wipe out others of different religions.


Reply
Recommend Message 379 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 25/01/2008 23:54
Christian suicide bombers

Suicide bombing is crazy. You'd have to be even more crazy than that to suicide bomb when you could destroy families in their homes from the safety of a high-flying war plane or by sending a missile.


Reply
Recommend Message 380 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 26/01/2008 01:42
You are going off the track again Bertrus. Do u agree that there is no christian suicide bombers as yet ?
Yes or No


Reply
Recommend Message 381 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 26/01/2008 01:56
Also i see u say suicide bombing is crazy. So that means u think muslims are crazy too ( for they have been the suicide bombers) thanks for that info Bert. Now plz, yes or no to my question in my previous post!
??


Reply
Recommend Message 382 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:20
u think muslims are crazy too

There are 1.5 billion Muslims. Do more Christians than Muslims commit suicide?


Reply
Recommend Message 383 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 26/01/2008 03:29
Just a yes or no to my question please Bertrus.
Yes or No ?


Reply
Recommend Message 384 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:32
Unfortunately there are many more ways to kill those who you deem to be your enemy than blowing yourself to pieces .
Killing is wrong , whoever does it and however they do it .


Reply
Recommend Message 385 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:36
Killing is wrong , whoever does it and however they do it

You should change your name to the Voice of Reason, Puffin.


Reply
Recommend Message 386 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 26/01/2008 03:38
Killing is wrong , whoever does it and however they do it .


What about in self-defence?


Reply
Recommend Message 387 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 26/01/2008 03:39
You refuse to answer a simple question Bertrus.


Reply
Recommend Message 388 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:43
When you defend yourself at actual point of danger then you havn't set out with the intention to kill .
If it is purely self defence then your intention still isn't to kill but to prevent harm to yourself , or other vunerable people on the spot, who are in danger . If you should kill accidentally during that defence then it's a tragic accident , not killing intentionally .


Reply
Recommend Message 389 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:45
I don't prescribe to pre-emptive 'defence'. That isn't defence , it's attack .


Reply
Recommend Message 390 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 26/01/2008 03:45
So killing is ok as long as its in self-defence?


Reply
Recommend Message 391 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:46
What about in self-defence?

The Israeli Army steaming into Occupied Territory with tanks, missiles, helicopter gunships and bombs is in support of the colonisation of Palestine by foreign immigrants. It's rather like calling the British Empire 'self-defence'.

[lala]

Reply
Recommend Message 392 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 26/01/2008 03:48
I don't prescribe to pre-emptive 'defence'.

Fortunately, the law does.


Reply
Recommend Message 393 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 26/01/2008 03:49
The Israeli Army steaming into Occupied Territory with tanks, missiles, helicopter gunships and bombs is in support of the colonisation of Palestine by foreign immigrants. It's rather like calling the British Empire 'self-defence'.

You've got OCD, haven't you?


Reply
Recommend Message 394 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 26/01/2008 03:50
Bertrus Please answer the question . There has been No Christian Suicide Bombers yet!
Yes or No ?


Reply
Recommend Message 395 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:54
You've got OCD, haven't you?

I'm commenting on events. The obsession is that of supporters of the Jewish State who, against the tide of reality, see the establishment of a racist state as a 'good' thing.


Reply
Recommend Message 396 of 421 in Discussion

From: Puffin_1 Sent: 26/01/2008 03:54
I'm a pacifist , Mids . I always have been .
I know it's not a widely held position and I neither presume nor expect anyone else to think as I do . It's an entirely personal position .
I can't help but feel that the world would be a safer place if everyone thought the same but I'm realistic enough to know that they dont and that , until they do (probably never) then people, and countries , will continue to do what they think is best for their own self interest .


Reply
Recommend Message 397 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 26/01/2008 03:55
The obsession is that of supporters of the Jewish State who, against the tide of reality, see the establishment of a racist state as a 'good' thing.


What's that got to do with me asking Puffin if killing in self-defence is right or wrong? My question had nothing to do with Israel. You're doing that stuck record thing again.


Reply
Recommend Message 398 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 04:14
My question had nothing to do with Israel.

What has it to do with?


Reply
Recommend Message 399 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 26/01/2008 04:24
I know it's not a widely held position and I neither presume nor expect anyone else to think as I do . It's an entirely personal position .
I can't help but feel that the world would be a safer place if everyone thought the same but I'm realistic enough to know that they dont and that , until they do (probably never) then people, and countries , will continue to do what they think is best for their own self interest .

Fair enough but under British law, if you reasonable grounds to think someone is going to attack you, you can atack first in defence. You're not obliged to wait until you're attacked. You're not even obliged to run away. You can just stand there and belt them one.


Reply
Recommend Message 400 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 04:27
if you reasonable grounds to think someone is going to attack you, you can atack first in defence.

'Reasonable ground'? They looked at you funny?


Reply
Recommend Message 401 of 421 in Discussion

From: Mids Sent: 26/01/2008 04:58
'Reasonable ground'? They looked at you funny?

Probably not that on its own. I doubt a magistrate or a jury would agree that that was good grounds for hitting someone.


Reply
Recommend Message 402 of 421 in Discussion

From: Muz™ Sent: 26/01/2008 05:10
What has it to do with?

OCD and deliberately obtuse. A nice combination.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 403 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 05:16
OCD and deliberately obtuse. A nice combination.

What non-obsession are you pursuing? Some vapid abstraction with no real world application ?


Reply
Recommend Message 404 of 421 in Discussion

From: Da_†erminator Sent: 26/01/2008 07:10

if you reasonable grounds to think someone is going to attack you, you can atack first in defence.

'Reasonable ground'? They looked at you funny?

Possibly yes, as long as you had the honestly held belief that you were about to be attacked and provided the responce was reasonable and proprtionate to the threat posed and in regard to "ALL" the circumstances.

A nutter for example can "look at you funny" not enough on its own.... but if he were also to pull out a knife, then you could lawfully smash him in the face with your fist before he had the chance to raise the knife toward you.

dude


Reply
Recommend Message 405 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 26/01/2008 09:10

The abrogation technique for resolving contradictions within the Koran may have in part been political but it is also the least problematic way of resolving those contradictions.

Whether or not it is the least probblematic isn't really relevant. Why should the path of rigteousness be easy? It was, as I said, and you accept, politically expedient. It let people seeking to build their wealth and power to build their wealth and power.

----------------------------------

I did not accept it was politically expedient. That is your interpretation. I said it may have been partly. My argument is that it is theologically expedient.

Can you think of way of arguing (convincingly) that God meant what he eaid earlier rather than later? (If one believes in a God) Surely it's within his power to send another prophet to correct what were essentially his last messages to Mohammed if he didn't really mean 'Make war on the unbelievers'?

It is very easy to do so. It goes something like this: the Koran serves as a guidebook and model for how a Muslim should behave in all situations. So it contains revelations, which, if interpreted correctly, can be applied to all circumstances. So the original Muslim community experienced a range of different situations - subordinate, beseiged, defeated, victorious and so on. This would show all who came after them how to behave - if they lived in a place where Muslims were the minority, they should behave in this way, and if they live in a place where Muslims are dominate, that way. If confronted by treachery, they are permitted such and such a response. Where they encounter good faith, they are required to repay it with good faith. And so on.

This makes sense, as Allah declared that he would cause unimportant verses to be lost. If they have survived and made it into the Koran, it is clearly part of Allah's will, and they should be heeded.

----------------

Sorry Lala but that is just so much bollox. Abrogation is the doctrine according to which the Koran should be read. You've conceded as much in the foregoing paragrahs. 'There is no compulsion in religion'? In what Islamic state is that adhered to? It has been abrogated. Let's deal with the political reality here. The arguments you are positing only have any kind of influence in your own head.

------------------------

The primary source, as it is supposed to be read, says so. If you read the Koran with the doctrine of abrogation in mind, as muslims are supposed to accordin to the principles of the faith, it says make war on the unbelievers and subjugate them.

You're regressing. The phrase 'as it is suppsoed to be read' is nonsense, as the decision to read it in that particular way was a politically inspired decision.

Muslims leaders, post Mohammed, could have said, "Mo (PBUH) got it all wrong. he got too agressive, all this stuff about smiting the unbelievers. That's why Allah denied him a victory at Tabuk and killed him off soon after. The only important revelations are the early ones, a good Muslim should only heed the early stuff. Kinda like Starwars - watch the early films, don't ever watch the later 'prequels'."

But that wouldn't have been much use to them, as they wouln't have been leaders for very long.

--------------------

The phrase 'as it supposed to be read' is very far from irrelevant. It is the very crux of the matter. Your theory that someone else could have come along and rewritten the religion and the laws by which the scriptures are supposed to be read is a red herring, apart from it being very questionable that this could have occurred. "Kinda like Starwars - watch the early films, don't ever watch the later 'prequels'."" More puerile stupidity. Your explanation for how muslims should stick to the early verses and ignore the later simply doesn't wash. It doesn't make ahy kind of sense, doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. On what basis do you assert, and hope to convince muslims, that this is the way to read the faith?

------------------

Be interesting if you can substantiate your assertions with some examples. The only movements within the muslim world that make any impact are the purist literalist ones which read the Koran in the way I've described - the way that it is specified for them to read it.

Indonesia is somewhat less fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia.

'Less fundamentalist'? So are you saying it is a little bit fundamentalist? Or what?

"Pakistan was making some progress until Musharraf decided that this democracy thing wasn't a good idea."

What? Absolute rubbish!

"Incidentally, don't you think it a bit odd that as late as the 14th century, theologians were still arguing about the correct interpretation of the Koran (as shown by the Tafsir you linked earlier), and, as soon as a version at least giving some justification to war-mongering was posited, debate about the meaning was verboten immediately afterwards?"

Not really. The religion and its interpretation were in their infancy. Once a cogent explanation was reached, the shutters came down. This was after all the unadulterated word of God directly transcribed by Mohammed, rather than mere third account reportage from the apostles. The cogent explanation of the criptures still stands and that is now the political/theological reality of Islam.

You speak as though you were argung that, whn in actual fact you were arguing the opposite. You've actually been forced to concede this after much toing and froing.

Incorrect. You've been arguing, continually, that the interpretation of the Koran you're putting forward is the only possible one, and the one absolutely and inescapably obvious from the text itself.

----------------------

It is the one inescapably obvious from the text. Lala, try as he might, can come up with alternative explanations but frankly they don't wash!

-----------------------

I've pointed out that this is not the case, that different interpretations are possible, and that the interpretation that most suited the political needs of the elite was the one that gained precedence - as they had the power and inclination to stamp out alternatives. As seen in Christian countries up until a couple of centuries ago.

----------------------

Different explanations are possible, but highly impropable as they are not cogent. Which is why they stubbornly refuse to take hold in the muslim world. You'r pissing in the wind!

------------------------

It is not regardless of what Islam says that Islamic regimes kill apostates or turn a blind eye to their murder, it is not regardless of Islam that muslims wage jihad and launch suicide attacks to become shahadas. It is because of Islam!!!!!

When the same thing happened in Christian societies was it because of Christianity?

-----------------

Depends what you mean by 'because of christinity'. If you mean did they stem from Christian teaching then the answer is absilutely not.



Lala, you are flounndering. Nothing you have said amounts to a cogent counter-argument to the idea that Muslims are, according to the precepts and doctrines of their own faith, supposed to read the koran with the principle of abrogation in mind, whereby earlier peaceful verses are superceded by later warlike verses.

Your idea is unlikely in theory and non-existent in practice. And YOU KNOW IT!



Reply
Recommend Message 406 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 26/01/2008 10:53
non-existent in practice.

Have you noticed that the folks with the Judaeo-Christian values are wrecking Iraq and Afghanistan?


Reply
Recommend Message 407 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 26/01/2008 14:07
Sorry Lala but that is just so much bollox. Abrogation is the doctrine according to which the Koran should be read ... Let's deal with the political reality here. The arguments you are positing only have any kind of influence in your own head.

Eh? You asked me to "think of way of arguing (convincingly) that God meant what he eaid earlier rather than later." I obliged, outlining a possible alternative to abrogation as a means of interpreting the Koran. You didn't ask me to "deal with the political reality," so why you're sudddenly ranting about it is beyond me.

Abrogation is the doctrine according to which the Koran should be read. You've conceded as much in the foregoing paragrahs.

This is pure fantasy. I conceded nothing of the kind. I agreed that the doctrine of abrogation exists. That's undeniable. But that's at least a million miles from saying (as you're claiming I do) that "Abrogation is the doctrine according to which the Koran should be read." I've indicated that I think it was adopted as a political expediency, to allow the ruling elite to indulge their desire for war and conquest.

'There is no compulsion in religion'? In what Islamic state is that adhered to? It has been abrogated.

Pakistan had no legal death penalty for apostasy, though they are considering one. That unfortunatel development is likely a consquence of the CIA/SIS funding of the Islamist opponents to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. So for decades, one of the world's largest Islamic countries has tolerated apostasy. Hopefully, they will continue to do so.

Anyway, whether or not it has been abrogated is irrelevent, as adopting the policy of abrogation is a politically motivated decsion.

The phrase 'as it supposed to be read' is very far from irrelevant. It is the very crux of the matter. Your theory that someone else could have come along and rewritten the religion and the laws by which the scriptures are supposed to be read is a red herring, apart from it being very questionable that this could have occurred.

Again, you are claiming that a political decision to adopt a policy adrogating inconvenient parts of the Koran - the immutable word of Allah - is the only way to read the book. It isn't. It is the generally accepted way, because the powers that be in Islamic societies have said so for hundreds of years, because it suits there needs.

"Kinda like Starwars - watch the early films, don't ever watch the later 'prequels'."" More puerile stupidity.

Again, I follow your lead. If you don't like silliness, and hunger for a pure debate, don't go about making "Blacks is thick" type comments.

Your explanation for how muslims should stick to the early verses and ignore the later simply doesn't wash. It doesn't make ahy kind of sense, doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

I haven'yt suggested that the earlier verses should abrogate the later verses. I presumed that you had enough intellectual acuity to see this, so I assume you are jsut blustering now.

I have argued that an alternative interpretation would hold that every part of the Koran is relevant - no part is abrogated or to be ignored. Muslims should examine the circumstances surrounding the revelations, and use them as a model of how to react, depending on what circumstances they find themselves in. Living as a minority in a non-Muslim country? Look to the early books. Living in a Muslim country? Look to the later books. Find that non-Muslims have broken their alliances and are uniting against you? Look to Surah 9.

Is that really that difficult to grasp?

What? Absolute rubbish!

See above.

Different explanations are possible, but highly impropable as they are not cogent. Which is why they stubbornly refuse to take hold in the muslim world.

You've just contradicted what you said earlier - that it "is the one inescapably obvious from the text". If that were the case, then "Different explanations" would not be possible, due to the "inescapable" true explanation shining through.

Whatever, the alternatives "stubbornly refuse to take hold" because they don't match they don't match the ppolitical needs of the oligarchy - a xenophobic, militant population, directing their suspicions outwards is far more manageable than one asking awkward questions like, "why can't we have some of that democracy and pop music?"


Reply
Recommend Message 408 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 26/01/2008 14:19
Oh, and contemplate this. With regards the death penalty for apostasy, according to the Telegraph, "out of the 57 Islamic states in the world today, seven have a legal code that punishes Muslims who leave the religion with death."

Obviosuly, it is a bad thing that any of them do. But 49 out of 57 states are relatively sane on the issue. (Soon, perhaps to be 48).


Reply
Recommend Message 409 of 421 in Discussion

From: cobbrers Sent: 26/01/2008 16:10
The only blustering is coming from you Lala. Why divert attrention from the topic of this thread by referring to some statement you accuse me of making on another thread. Are we debating this topic seriously or aren't we?

The bottom line is that you have accepted that the reading of the koran which adheres to abrogation is mainstream, a political reality in the muslim world and in the muslim mindestb generally. Now you can posit all kinds of theories about how it COULD be interpreted another way, but it seems to me that this theory

a) doesn't work on a theological level; and

b) is very far from the real situation.

----------

The conclusion from this is that Islam, as understood by the muslim world, commands jihad to make Islam superior to other systems of belief. You've had to admit as much during the course of this discussion. Your only caveat seems to be that it would be possible for another interpretation to be put on the Koran. Sure, many things are possible. Just highly unlikely, pretty much impossible. Firstly politically we don'y see any such interpretaion; secondly, the content and tenor of the koran coupled with the God given formula of abrogation means it cannot bear the interpretation you put on it.

You are talking about a hypothetical scenario. I am talking about the reality.


Reply
Recommend Message 410 of 421 in Discussion

From: Ricklinc Sent: 26/01/2008 21:31
As interesting as it might be to argue the koran, it's pointless. Your opinions mean nothing. What matters is what some nut in a cave thinks of it all. Or some rabid mullah preaching to impressionable kids. If you've found a loophole in the kill infidels chapter than that's nice. But islam is not a county court judgement and nobody would be impressed.


Reply
Recommend Message 411 of 421 in Discussion

From: la la Sent: 26/01/2008 21:35
The only blustering is coming from you Lala. Why divert attrention from the topic of this thread by referring to some statement you accuse me of making on another thread. Are we debating this topic seriously or aren't we?

It was on this thread, actually, reply #146, to whit:

Reply
Recommend Message 146 of 409 in Discussion

From: <NOBR>cobbrers</NOBR> Sent: 13/01/2008 09:52
I think you must have slept on your stupid side last night Vania. Relgion is not the only consideration in all cases. Maybe that scientist had a point when he said black people are more stupid.


So forgive me if I regard your exhortations for mature argument as phoney.

a) doesn't work on a theological level; and

It works perfectly well on a theological level. It just isn't politically suitable.

b) is very far from the real situation.

It isn't all that different from the real situation of the majority of Muslims, who don't go about Jihading and are quite happy to get on with their lives. So I don't accept that it is "in the Muslim indset generally" - unless we're talking about theological ideals of a Muslim mindset, but since you're insistant on addressing the "real situation" I assume not.

Occasionally Muslims might get worked up by their leaders to make war on the people of the next valley - usually their co-religionsists, rather than non-Muslims - but that is human nature. A general understanding of history would show this is the case - at which point, your argument disappears. There is nothing remarkable in agression. Your thesis, that Muslims are driven to some violent end by their dogma, is nonsense.

The conclusion from this is that Islam, as understood by the muslim world, commands jihad to make Islam superior to other systems of belief. You've had to admit as much during the course of this discussion.

The qualifiers that you've loaded that sentence with render it further from youre position than from mine. You've been arguing that there is an "inescapable" incitement to wage war on the unbelievers. I've argued that that interpretation is was (and largely still is) the one that was politcally expedient to the oligarchs in control of Muslim societies.

As was the case with Christianity just a hundred or so years ago. Heard of the British empire? Taking up the "White man's burden"? Same thing - an excuse to conquest and pillage.

Your only caveat seems to be that it would be possible for another interpretation to be put on the Koran. Sure, many things are possible.

My caveat is that your position is mince. For the reasons given above.

Firstly politically we don'y see any such interpretaion; secondly, the content and tenor of the koran coupled with the God given formula of abrogation means it cannot bear the interpretation you put on it.

Historically, sny such interpretation would have been short lived, and would not have been much celebrated - the winners gwrite the history books, remember? It is unlikely that these winners - particularly if they were theocratic oligarchs - would given much attention to contrary movements - they'd have meted out the (non-Koranic) penalty for apostasy and exunged them from history.

In more recent times, there is evidence of more thoughtful interpretations, as mentioned earlier - SA Rahman's defence of religious freedom, and even apostasy, in Pakistan, for example, and the 48/57 Mulsim states where apostasy is not a capital crime.

Finally, and for the 9997th time - abrogation is not a 'God given formula.' It was a politically inspired move, allowing Muslim leaders post-Mohammed to wage war. They say it is God given, but that is only a fig leaf for the political reality.


Reply
Recommend (1 recommendation so far) Message 412 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 27/01/2008 01:01
What matters is what some nut in a cave thinks of it all. Or some rabid mullah preaching to impressionable kids

Clearly, that's not 'what matters' to the exclusion of non cave-dwellers and non rabid mullahs. If it did, the world would be a quite different place. Muslims would be attacking us and not us them.


Reply
Recommend Message 413 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 27/01/2008 01:56
"You are going off the track again Bertrus. Do u agree that there is no christian suicide bombers as yet ?
Yes or No"



thanks for answering this oh so difficult queation Bertrus.


Reply
Recommend Message 414 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 27/01/2008 01:56
or NOT answering it should i say : )


Reply
Recommend Message 415 of 421 in Discussion

From: Bertrus2 Sent: 27/01/2008 04:28
Ichizo Hayashi was from a devoutly-Christian academic family. He read the Bible every day. At that time, family members used to send soldiers a Japanese flag with messages on it. Hayashi’s mother and sister both wrote passages from the Bible on the flag they sent him.



He started his diary after being drafted into the military, and he titled it “A Sun and Shield,” from Psalm 84:11, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield.”



Seven weeks before his death he wrote:



How fortunate I am that I believe in God, whom my mother believes in. My mind is at ease when I think that God takes care of everything. God would not make my mother or myself sad. I am sure God will bestow happiness upon us. Even [though] I will die I dream of our lives together…I know my country is beautiful…My earnest hope is that our country will overcome this crisis and prosper. I can’t bear the thought of our nation being stampeded by the dirty enemy. I must avenge [it] with my own life.



Reply
Recommend Message 416 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 29/04/2008 21:42
Ta lala. This is the thread where Bertrus would not answer the question i asked him ' there are no christian suicide bombers as yet Bert? '



Reply
Recommend Message 417 of 421 in Discussion

From: Stiffie-ok Sent: 29/04/2008 22:11
anyone kniow what happened in the court case


Reply
Recommend Message 418 of 421 in Discussion

From: peaceheretic37 Sent: 29/04/2008 23:51
I don't know but want to know when sentencing is.

I believe that both of the two men who were accused each other of wielding the actual hammer have been found guilty but that only one of them is being held in custody, Wasif Khan. Whereas the court reports available indicate that it was just as likely that his accuser, former friend and local imam's son, Amjad Qazi, actually weilded the hammer.

I know that Wasif Khan is being held in custody pending sentencing while Amjad Qazi, though found guilty, is free. That indicates that Wasif Khan has been judged by the court to have actually weilded the hammer. And yet even Amjad Qazi's defence conceded in court that Qazi had told a lot of lies.

I know that in his evidence to court - already posted on this board - Wasif Kan said he had been scared to tell the truth because of pressure from the Swidon Asian community. Very disturbing.

I know that every time I try to find out when Bristol Crown Court will pass sentence Google finds too many BNP sites. That's very disturbing, too. But they are not concerned about the disturbing possibility of an innocent man taking the fall for someone else - but naturally more concerned with what political capital can be milked from this vicious attack which has already been a pure-gold-gift to the BNP.



Reply
Recommend Message 419 of 421 in Discussion

From: sweet_soul Sent: 29/04/2008 23:54
and in the news today. a different story i know....



Mosque victim 'clubbed senseless'

The fight started near a Costcutter store in Milton Keynes

A murder trial jury have heard how a long running dispute at a mosque in Milton Keynes led to an 18-year-old man being "clubbed senseless".

Atiq Rehman was attacked with a snooker cue, causing severe head injuries, and died two days later on 17 May 2007.

Luton Crown Court heard Bilal Zaman, 21, and Usman Ali, 20, of Cambridge Street, Wolverton, pleaded guilty to murder and are awaiting sentence.

Ghur Rehman, 26 and Haroon Awan, 22 also of Cambridge Street, deny murder.

Prosecutor Ben Gumpert said the prosecution did not suggest that Ghur Rehamn and Mr Awan they were main players, or that they were armed at any stage.

'Violent dispute'

"But we say they were part of a joint enterprise and must bear responsibility for what occurred when this man was clubbed senseless," he said.

The prosecutor said Atiq Rehman, who is not related to the defendant with the same name, was attacked on 15 May last year at The Square at Wolverton.

Explaining the background he said: "In late 2006 the community who attended the mosque at Wolverton had become divided following a disagreement as to how the mosque should be run.

"We are not concerned with the basis of that dispute but it led to a number of incidents where violence was used."

He said after Friday prayers on 12 January 2007 there was an incident involving a large number of people and weapons including knuckle dusters and knives and some people were seriously injured.

'Attacked and kicked'

On 15 May, Atiq Rehman was playing snooker when he realised some of the opposing group were outside and were armed. He sought refuge in a nearby Costcutter shop but was dragged outside.

"He was attacked and kicked but managed to get up and run off towards the Christian Foundation which is where he was attacked again," said Mr Gumpert.

He said the two accused where not physically involved in the attacks outside the shop.

But he alleged Mr Ghur Rehman was involved inside the shop and Mr Awan was acting as a look out.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7372323.stm




is this what they call going clubbing?


Reply
Recommend Message 420 of 421 in Discussion

From: peaceheretic37 Sent: 10/05/2008 03:38
1:57pm today - Sentenes: Five members of Asian gang jailed.


Reply
Recommend Message 421 of 421 in Discussion

From: peaceheretic37 Sent: 10/05/2008 05:10
Wasif Khan and Amjad Qazi who accused each other of weilding the actual hammer used in the attack, and who have both been found guilty, are due to be sentenced later today : -

www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/display.var.2260296.0.school_criticised_as_wroughton_hammer_attackers_are_jailed.php