Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
15 days in jail and deported.
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Tesco in Disguise
Where do we go from here?
but buz, what if the majority of the population also thought that the rules were barbaric, and wanted them changed, appealing to outsiders to fight for their cause? (not applicable in the sudan case, obviously) do you think that countries should never invade sovereign states, no matter what?
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
No you are right....we are all going to die anyway and probably at the hands of darkies so why worry?
Actually I was on a Bus two behind the one that blew up at Russel Square, so perhaps due to that experience I should be a screaming Nazi and want all darkies put to death just in case....what do you recon?
The Large One
Who's Next?
For me, the central point of this sorry charade is not strictly to do with whether we find the Sudanese law repugnant, it's the very liberal and lax, and often highly flexible interpretation by the Sudanese of their own laws as to what constitutes insulting Islam.
There have been many Islamic scholars on who have disagreed with Sudan's stance on this, believing that, although naming a person after the prophet is not considered insulting, naming a non-person after it is effectively the same creating an idol, which is considered blasphemous. However, say the scholars, the name Mohammed existed long before the start of Islam as a religion, so how could it be blasphemous?
The principle reason that the British government is getting so publicly involved to the extent it is is down to what it perceives at the political rather than religious motivation behind Sudan's actions. Witness the fact that Sudan's ambassador has now twice been summoned to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to explain himself to them. In other words, there is a far weightier dimension to all of this than merely naming a sodding teddy bear Mohammed. This is merely an excuse.
There have been many Islamic scholars on who have disagreed with Sudan's stance on this, believing that, although naming a person after the prophet is not considered insulting, naming a non-person after it is effectively the same creating an idol, which is considered blasphemous. However, say the scholars, the name Mohammed existed long before the start of Islam as a religion, so how could it be blasphemous?
The principle reason that the British government is getting so publicly involved to the extent it is is down to what it perceives at the political rather than religious motivation behind Sudan's actions. Witness the fact that Sudan's ambassador has now twice been summoned to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to explain himself to them. In other words, there is a far weightier dimension to all of this than merely naming a sodding teddy bear Mohammed. This is merely an excuse.
That's as maybe, but your moral absolutism seems to have suggested that Tede's attitude is abhorrent. It's not. Tede has not once condoned these laws or suggested that they are just - so isn't it time to climb down from your moral high horse?
I agree with most of your feelings on 'unjust and barbaric' laws in other countries, but I fail to see what you're expecting us as a nation state to do.
*Sigh* Buzzer your pedantry and insult flinging is getting boring now. I have neither my knickers in a twist nor have thrown my toys out of any pram, but as you seem to like reading your own meaning into peoples words and posts - then be my guest and carry on...
Last edited:
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
Nazi
Betcha look great in Thigh length leather boots
Oi you - I'm as confused about this as you are - no need to add boots to the mix
He's deleted his last torrent of abuse then? odd...
Amnesty International may disagree with you there. As far as the death penalty is concerned AI rank the US alongside China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia as one of the world's worst abusers of human rights.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
oh the voice of reason pukes forth again.
Pot and kettle. Tede, pot and kettle.
You've accused me of calling you a nazi sympathiser, of being a fool, of all sorts. Yet you're the one who wants an apology and I'm the insult flinger.
and I deleted that post as I thought this had gone on long enough.
Bollocks. - Apology enough?
I don't suppose I could wangle an apology from you for all your cloying smugness, could I?
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
Oi you - I'm as confused about this as you are - no need to add boots to the mix
He's deleted his last torrent of abuse then? odd...
mmmmmmm....thigh length boots on Canary Wharf women.........
Interesting picking and choosing from the article there. What it actually says is that 40% of the 500 British Muslims interviewed (from a population of 1.5 million) would support the introduction of Islamic law in predominantly Muslim areas. Two hundred people, in other words.
I notice you've also chosen not to mention the 91% who, in the same poll, dsecribed themselves as being loyal to Britain.
Why would you say that.......
Dont you like the truth to get in the way of your own closed views.....
I would of thought that you would of wanted to know this, then you can be better informed.......and make better judgement calls.
Strange..........
Why is it you guy's cant help but shout the word racist when an informative bit of information is offered.............
Which part of that poll do you find alarming....or do you still subscribe to your own made up version of 99.9999% of Muslims dont agree with Sharia Law and are as 'Western' as the rest of us...
I'm the voice of reason.
butchy
Well-known member
But their laws and punishments are undemocratic...but thats ok though because they are enforcing them with an iron fist, just as every tyrannical and fascist regime does.
But you did agree with gullys calling me a nazi sympathiser and you are flinging insults? So why shouldn't I be seeking an apology?
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
Why would you say that.......
Dont you like the truth to get in the way of your own closed views.....
I would of thought that you would of wanted to know this, then you can be better informed.......and make better judgement calls.
Strange..........
Why is it you guy's cant help but shout the word racist when an informative bit of information is offered.............
Which part of that poll do you find alarming....or do you still subscribe to your own made up version of 99.9999% of Muslims dont agree with Sharia Law and are as 'Western' as the rest of us...
With all due respect, if I wanted to find out about Muslim beliefs and the application of such, I would go and talk with my work colleagues, who are very well representative of the muslim creeds. we have Sunnie's, Shi-ites, and those who just regard them as good honest Muslims. In fact we also have some pretty radical gays and galls who are very outspoken( and I work for an American company).....I wouldnt't really base my views on somebody that posts on an internet message board, and certainly not yours.....although I would certainly fight to protect your right to hold those views.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
because I never ever ever ever ever called you a nazi sympathiser nor did I say I agreed with BigGully calling you a nazi sympathiser.
I said that following your logic I could see why a similar person holding similar views back in the 1930s would say that there's nothing we could do about the situation as it's another country and it's their laws. That is all. As a matter of fact, the only person who has called you a nazi sympathiser is YOU. BigGully called you compliant and there is a huge gulf between a Pontius-Pilate like washing your hands of the matter and actually sympathising. You've chosen to construe it how you want. Ironic really, considering you've accused me of twisting your words.
There is no nazi sympathies there. The insults I am flinging are of you getting stroppy and throwing your toys out the pram. You in return have rather patronisingly told me to keep up, that I'm a fool etc etc. All pretty low-level stuff.
So, no. You don't need an apology.
No thats a misinterpretation of what my view is.....
Those polls are an accurate indicator to peoples views as are used by political parties. There is a 1 or 2% inaccuracy.
Your indifference at getting a number of 200 out of 500 'normal' Muslims who wish Sharia Law introduced amazes me, as for them wanting this within predominately Muslim areas is obvious.
Do you know what Sharia Law is...its quite a spiteful and brutal Law that has no place anywhere in the Western World.
Yes 90% say they are loyal to England but what kind of England when 20% have sympathy for the London Bombers and 40% wish to impose Sharia Law. Its neither an England I view or wish to subscribe to.
I prefer an England that has proportionate punishment, a tolerant society that allows different views and opinions and absolutely no religion bigotry.
Hold on Guys I never said that anyone was a Nazi Sympathiser......
The argument could and still does have some parallels to the pre-war 1930's Germany where some people were saying that because its a law then there should not be any comment about that conduct.