|
|
Post by Ave` on Sept 10, 2007 20:55:50 GMT -5
emmm....im not only trapped between 2 races im also in between 2 religion and islam is one of it. What im sure of is that Islam is a peaceful religion and as long as it doenst interfere with you I say let them be just as u let any jewish or catholic or mormons practice their religions.
Btw im curious of your source...it looked ike youre quoting on something. Are you sure it isnt just the tabloits. Even BBc can be bollocks most of the time. Just dont judge a group of ppl by what u read. Im not implying this as you but im sure some of the ppl who read it will.
Id hate to have any of the members here who would read and buys all that and develope hatred over a certain group of ppl. It wouldnt do them justice.
This is very racial btw I would appreciate any mod to do somethign with this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 11, 2007 9:11:05 GMT -5
This is very racial btw I would appreciate any mod to do somethign with this post. i agree...alas, grasping that it's "very racial" is a concept beyond many members of this board.... wait until the western media start carrying on about some bomb plot in the west... it's immeasurably worse when the ignorant get scared..... you'll also see the same posters don't show the slightest interest in bombings if it's not in the west..... all you can do is dig yourself in and go back and forth with a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue but who believe they do (the definition of ignorance) and expose their ignorance.... mind, it could be said that's how i got to diety (over a 1,000 posts).... FYI, many muslims have deleted their accounts....because of the rampant islamophobia....alas...****shurgs**** peace |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 11, 2007 18:06:57 GMT -5
no, for two (amongst other) reasons:
1. the article is very vague...there are lots of different strains of Muslim fundamentalisms....
2. this is not the right place to discuss internal Muslim politics - s***, i pass for knowledgeable, which isn't saying much....and i'm bored of going back and forth on this subject with people who know even less than me, like you and Zoff....
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 12, 2007 5:18:31 GMT -5
which just goes to show....  no religion as old as Islam has an 'explicit' policy - it's all in the interpretation, isn't it? it all depends on who you ask - a concept that Kevin is not capable of grasping... you only scored 80% as against 70% on one internet quizz that was heavily biased towards a conservative Sunni interpretation of Islam.... i may remind you: you've already claimed Sunni and Shiite Islam are the same thing..... to have a meaningful discussion on this subject would require some critical analysis: i.e. even if the Deobandi 'control' half of the mosques in Britain, as MI5, the source of the article, claims, how big are these mosques?....for instance, do they 'control' half of the worshipers or do they just 'control' half of the registered mosques? there may very well be a big difference between the two.... assuming the claim is true, which it very well may not be.... or: which branches of the Deobandi? or are they all being lumped together? and who is financing them? not to mention one would need more than basic knowledge of the Deobandi movement, including its history through to today, as well as knowledge of the Muslim community in the UK and its origins.... also, not all fundamentalists are violent....and they are, just like the neo-nazis, within their rights to spew hateful language if they so wish.... go on, google furiously away to try and address the above points, if possible in a coherent, rational, logical and reasonable manner AND not involving some obscure cleric that does not even have a wikipedia entry nor links to newspaper articles that will contradict your assertions.... obviously, i'm not even asking you to put forth an argument as to why the fundamentalists appear to be doing well...as this would require knowledge of the politics of Muslim movements as well as the nations that gave birth to them as well as those that finance them, which are not always the same.... peace |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 12, 2007 7:16:20 GMT -5
1. the incitement to racial hatred: you actually need to be pretty stupid and call for the death of a racial group (which includes Jews and Sikhs but no other religion in the UK) to be convicted of it....otherwise, you are free to spew as much hate as you want....
trust me - been an anti-racism activist since my teens and it's very difficult to get people convicted of incitement to racial hatred unless, as i said, they are stupid enough to call for the death of certain people....
2. not all fundamentalists are radical nor violent....i already mentioned this kevin, i see you chose to ignore it....
it's always the same, innit? you two desperately jumping to conclusions based on a few newspaper articles....
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 12, 2007 17:54:26 GMT -5
i already knew what the law says: and most fundamentalists' speeches don't fall under the category of "incitement to racial hatred"..... and yes i also know the difference between incitement to racial hatred and incitement to murder - and, as usual, you're missing the point: i'm talking about what exactly needs to be said to be convicted in a court of law.... fact is, someone needs to be pretty close to calling for death of a group of people to be convicted (which is, for example, what happened in the articles you posted) of incitement to racial hatred... difference between what the law says and how it is applied.... as usual, you have failed to see there's a difference between the letter of the law and how it is applied in practice.... and again, as usual, your posts back up my points....it would be funny if you didn't seem to think you're being clever..... a lot of people complain about Kevin and others' posts about Muslims being hateful....fact is, depending on the interpretation, it's free speech....just like you have defended his right to spew hatred in this thread....and that's the way it works in real life too....i think we've been over this many, many, many, times.... and the mods' position has been that his posts are free speech - while a lot of people have said they think it's hate speech.... see, it's not that difficult: even someone of limited intellect like Kevin can get away with spewing hateful generalizations about Islam and Muslims... anyway, Ramadam has started....and i don't feel like dealing with people who attack Islam for sport....peace to all, even those possessed by irrational fear and hate... peace
|
|
|
|
Post by Ave` on Sept 12, 2007 22:00:06 GMT -5
floyd the droid: I cant think of another reason whyd youd post this forum in the 1st place..it just screams *insecurities*
1st of all ..all religion and i mean alll....strive to go back to their roots. That is what u describe in ur ignorant rant as "fundamentalism "
no matter how you try to stop it be afraid of it burn mosques or whatever u do...
it doesnt stop the process.
but there is a way to make things better aka prevent bombing (which is why ur posting here in the 1st place) try not to be islamicphobic...dont oppressed ppl and throw them with ur stupid baseless accusation..just leave them the fck alone why dont u.
*sighs* I feel like bombing ur house already.
can you see how ur helping the issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 13, 2007 5:52:30 GMT -5
****sighs, shakes head**** according to the law, incitement to racial hatred is "threatening, abusive and insulting and stir up (or are likely to stir up) hatred against a racial group." note it's not and/or but AND - therefore one must threaten the group....which can only be, in this context, a threat of bodily harm, innit? which is why it's very rare that people who don't threaten a group with death will be convicted....and why it tends to go hand in hand with a conviction for incitement to murder... and this is what i meant, Z: going back and forth with you is a waste of time because you get hung up on precise wording... presumably because you don't understand the issue at hand or, as seems usually the case, because you're quite simply bored and you think you're being clever..... frankly, it's simply tedious: i don't see why i have to write long posts going into every shade of grey... oh yeah, it's cuz you "expect more of me"....****pukes**** as for Kevin: he's just gotten more careful about how he negatively generalizes about Islam and Muslims....his insinuated conclusion remains the same.... here's just one example before he learnt to be more careful: eurasiannation.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=1143618471and the thread links to other threads where he spews hatred.... i'll dig up some more if i have time this weekend.... peace |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 13, 2007 7:50:43 GMT -5
i've alreay addressed that point in the first page, kevin..... so why don't you give us all a primer on the Deobandi movement, then? here, an article about Tablighi Jamaat, one of the largest Deobandi movements.. www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060819_Tablighi_Jamaat_terrorism.htmnote it's not and/or but AND No, it isn't. It's OR. lol It's a phrase that often crops up in public order offences such as sections 4, 4a and section 5 of the public order act 1986.When it comes to issues of law, the precise wording is what matters, because cases are judged according to the letter, not the spirit. Besides that, at other times the only reason I've become hung up is because you try and subtly twist the wording of things to suit your argument. Just like you did just now when you said it was "and" instead of "or". It makes all the difference. You will make a fallacious statement and pass it off as fact. Then you will use that statement as evidence supporting your other claims, and so on and so forth. Your arguments then look very sturdy, but you take out one brick and the whole house comes tumbling down. frankly, it's simply tedious: i don't see why i have to write long posts going into every shade of grey... You don't. If you stick to subjects you know about. Instead of claiming knowledge of something you clearly know nothing about, and making sweeping incorrect statements, such as in this case; I won't argue with you at all  I just hate to see falsehoods be passed off as fact. still no examplesfair enough - i shouldn't have been lazy and should have gone to re-read the law... my bad.... except how can "harassment, alarm or distress" be proven without an explicit threat of violence (or bodily harm)? back to the old: there's a difference between the letter of the law and how it's applied because of the burden of proof.... how can someone prove they were harassed, alarmed or distressed by someone's words unless their physical safety was threatened? here's the act, not the wiki version: www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=38&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=2236942&activetextdocid=2236959here's the act on harassment, just so you can see what it takes to get a restraining order, which isn't even a conviction for a crime: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/ukpga_19970040_en_1#pb1-l1g2peace
|
|
|
|
Post by ConceptDesign on Sept 13, 2007 9:52:59 GMT -5
The article speaks for itself. Attacking Zoff or insulting Kevin doesn't diminish the facts as they stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Sept 13, 2007 18:08:24 GMT -5
this was a very good show on the bbc about muslim women: www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/thoroughlymodernmuslim.shtml[ This pro-Taliban supporter will, in effect, become the leader of the majority of Muslims in London, whom as I've just elaborated, follow a non-moderate, ultra-conservative ideology. Perhaps not all of them support violent jihad, but with Riyadh ul Haq's glowing appraisal of the Taliban as the "servants of Allah", I would be most concerned about this state of affairs. errr.....i live in london and I am a muslim and I have met many different muslims and none have been taliban supporters.....they r peace loving and facts about the majority of muslims in london... www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/04/23/kurt_muslim_gallup_feature.shtmlThe Gallup organisation is in the middle of one of the largest surveys of its kind to chart the attitudes of Muslims living in Western Europe 69% of Muslim respondents said they strongly identified with their faith and 57% said they also identified strongly with Britain. Amongst the non-Muslim respondents only 48% identified strongly with Britain. In other words, on the surface, there is less of a conflict of identity for Muslims than non-Muslims. Rather than being competing identities, they are seen as complementary In the wake of the bombings on the London Underground London Muslims were as likely to condemn the suicide bombings against civilians as the general public and slightly more likely (81% vs 72%) to find no moral justification whatsoever for using violence for a “noble cause”. |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 13, 2007 18:18:37 GMT -5
Causing harrasment alarm or distress is probably one of the easiest things to prove in court. All that needs to happen is for a 'victim' to come forward and convincingly say they felt harassed, alarmed or distressed. If a little old lady is sitting on a bus and three drunk youths start shouting and swearing. Doesn't even have to be at her, then she may feel alarmed or distressed by their behaviour without being directly threatened. In fact a victim is not even necessary for section 5 public order. It only has to be shown that a person present would be likely to be feel harassment, alarm or distress. So someone standing outside a school playground swearing within the hearing of children could easily be convicted. It's very easy to prove. I've done it many times, this kind of stuff is bread and butter in the West End of London. But now we're moving into more traditional public order offences. Besides, harassment alarm and distress are not necessary for inciting racial hatred.  yes, but one has to prove that hate speech is hateful - and therein lies the problem - while everyone would agree that swearing around children and old ladies may cause the latter distress, not everyone agrees that trying to claim a majority of muslims are fundamentalist or Islam is inherently intolerant over dozens of threads causes "harassment, alarm or distress" to Muslims....although the few Muslim members of the board have complained it has...two even deleted their accounts after they said as much... another has claimed as much in this thread - yet you asked her to "prove it"... so it depends on what a jury may *think* is hateful....the law is biased against minorities because it all depends on what a jury may think is hateful.... people who are already prejudiced against Islam won't understand why attempting to portray Islam in a fundamentalist, and exclusively conservative, light is hateful...the way people are allowed to spam the board with islamophobic, one-sided and negative generalizations despite numerous complaints from a minority is a good snapshot of how laws against hate work in the real world... which is why racists are pretty free to spew hate - unless they make death threats, in which case nearly everyone agrees they are being hateful.... cuz if the majority don't see why the victim should feel harassed, alarmed or distressed by the words, nothing will happen...on this board, the mods don't see why Kevin's endless threads on his google researched finding on Islam can be seen as harassment, or may be alarming or distressful - in other words, hateful... it's not criticism and i'm not asking Kevin to be censored or banned....merely pointing out how easy it is to spew hate against a minority - because the majority are oblivious to the effect it may have on the minority concerned.... here's another case on hate crimes, this one in the US: BIG CREEK, W.Va. - Six white suspects accused of torturing a young black woman for days in West Virginia will not face federal hate crime charges, Justice Department officials told NBC News on Wednesday.
At one point, an assailant cut the woman’s ankle with a knife and used the N-word in telling her she was victimized because she is black, according to the criminal complaints. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20737211/peace |
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Sept 13, 2007 18:25:42 GMT -5
www.jamaat.org/islam/WomanDivorce.htmldivorce: 'If the wife seeks divorce against the wishes of the husband she may take her case to the court and obtain divorce.' 'An instance was reported at the time of the Prophet when a woman came to him saying that although her husband was a good man and she had no complaint against his treatment, she disliked him greatly and could not live with him. The Prophet directed that she should return to the husband a garden which he had given to her as her dowry, as the condition of her divorce.' women and working: www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/ToBeaWoman/articles/2005/05/01.shtmlMuslim woman can work, be educated, have a voice, give of herself, and give to society.
|
|
|
|
Post by xandra on Sept 14, 2007 1:30:29 GMT -5
oh man... since when do you care about women's rights?
|
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Sept 14, 2007 8:29:53 GMT -5
errr.....i live in london and I am a muslim and I have met many different muslims and none have been taliban supporters.....they r peace loving Can you provide an "on-the-ground" analysis of the Deobandi, and your affiliations if possible? I am curious as to why someone like Riyadh ul Haq would be chosen as the future leader of such a large, mainstream Islamic community. Indeed. But a woman must go through the convuluted process of seeking legal permission, which is not always forthcoming as in many cases a woman must prove abuse. Remember, Mohammed (pbuh) said it was lawful to beat your wife as long as you don't leave a mark. Koran 4:34 (translated by Shakir)On the otherhand, all a man has to do to initiate a divorce is verbally utter the talaq three times. The legal and financial obstacles for a divorcing woman are very substantial. Muslim woman can work, be educated, have a voice, give of herself, and give to society. Yes, there are examples of individual women working throughout Islam's history, but the norm is for the woman to stay at home and protect her honour. If a woman must work, there are restrictions in place. Anyway, there is a specific fatwa on this that I have already mentioned, stipulating the conditions a woman can only work, i.e. only if her husband is impoverished, and she protects her chastity. The fatwa suggests if a husband earns enough income or if there is no necessity, a woman cannot work. Since this is a sharia-based judgement, it cannot be easily disputed unless you are a mufti yourself. deobandi? how r they mainstream most muslims would have never have heard of such a movement.....Islam is not heirarchical...most muslims would not have even heard of Riyadh Ul Huq....this movement is not mainstream.... look at the facts....more muslims condemned violence than non muslims in the wake ofthe london bombings.... regarding women and work....more than 50% of indonesian women work and more than 25% of arabian women.... please don't lie! women can work even if the family is not impoverished.... www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_rights_summary.htm
The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it. why do you keep quoting from deobandi anyway??? in regards to work etc. etc. the Prophet's wife used to be a business woman. www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/divorce.htmThe Prophet advised one Muslim woman, whose name was Fatimah bint Qais, not to marry a man because the man was known for beating women: "I went to the Prophet and said: Abul Jahm and Mu'awiah have proposed to marry me. The Prophet (by way of advice) said: As to Mu'awiah he is very poor and Abul Jahm is accustomed to beating women" (Muslim). regarding beating: www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544256The verse you mention has been greatly misconceived by many people who focus merely on its surface meaning, taking it to allow wife beating. When the setting is not taken into account, it isolates the words in a way that distorts or falsifies the original meaning. Before dealing with the issue of wife-battering in the perspective of Islam, we should keep in mind that the original Arabic wording of the Qur'an is the only authentic source of meaning. If one relies on the translation alone, one is likely to misunderstand it. The word "beating" is used in the verse, but it does not mean "physical abuse". The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush. Generally, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure. He never hit any female"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43) |
|
most muslims would have never have heard of such a movement.....Islam is not heirarchical...most muslims would not have even heard of Riyadh Ul Huq....this movement is not mainstream....