The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The case for the defence - blame the cultural bogeyman > Comments

The case for the defence - blame the cultural bogeyman : Comments

By Waleed Aly, published 25/10/2005

Waleed Aly argues blaming cultural background and religion for criminal acts is an excuse for barbarism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All
The irrational Reason is at it again - The justification given by the lawyers of MSK is based in their religious culture - Pakistani Islam. Of course all persons not Muslim cannot have the slightest intellectual insight into the deep and meaningful religion of Islam, only indoctrinated muslims according to the "irrational". No wonder rape and murder is justified in the cause of Allah and terrorists rewarded with doe-eyed virgins because only Muslims understand the Qur'an. Western women are unintelligent sluts who are akin to slave girls when captured. You should know that B-D. Muslims have a superior intellect and understanding of the divine revelation - hogwash.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 28 October 2005 10:07:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that, Reason. Certainly a sane prophylaxis for the vituperous invective that followed it, about which no more should be said - I've noticed that it only encourages them :)

Boaz: "Prediction: Mahatma's next post will be "You are beneath contempt and unworthy of serious responses" ?"

Nope David, you're not beneath contempt. Well at least your ideas and boorish way of putting them aren't :)

You did notice the smiley, didn't you?
Posted by mahatma duck, Friday, 28 October 2005 10:59:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr duck,
How do interpret the quacking of the irrational Mr Reason?

Quote, "For God’s sake BD, you never prove or even dent a thing with your continuos ‘insightful’ quotes from a book you know nothing about and a religion you cannot begin to understand through the intractable mindset of your fundamentalist beliefs. For every quote you present, a similar quote appears in the Bible. Get over it.

Moreover, do not use the ‘its actions of Jesus’ that matter and should be compared to Mohammed (PBUH).

Christians use the OT to give context to the message of the Lord Jesus Christ, because it was out of that nationalistic Israeli context that the universal faith in the words of Christ was born; a universal message for every man not based in Abrahamic nationalism.

The OT only applied to Israel, and Islam being decendants of Abraham assumed its laws applied to them and have adopted its spirit into their message. The killings and genocide of nationalism as found in the OT by applying the pure laws of Abrahamic descendants is still carried on by his descendants especially in Islam.

Christ Jesus message is identified by his servant attitude, actions that demonstrate care and sacrifice, and wisdom based in forgivness, his life was the message - the example to us of a pure relationship with God. Mahomet was focused in his new found relationship with Abraham and his religious lineage. Comparison of their messages and practices is important and must not be dismissed as un-Reason-abull.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 29 October 2005 7:56:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Duck, I suppose I put the 'kiss of death' on your response :) by pre-empting it.
Never mind. You are quite managable :) <-- note smiley also.

I don't mind criticism, but I do expect what I say to be treated seriously and critiqued on evidence.

Guys like Reason who amaze me. Now using 'PBUH' for Mohammed, and I'm wondering ...-had had some kind of conversion to Islam experience ?

All the symptoms are there "You know nothing about..."
is probably the one must typical response of a Muslim to sharing with them the less palatable aspects of Mohamed's life.

Reason, firstly, that is incorrect, I happen to know a considerable amount about the hadith and also the Quran, speaking from ignorance is not exactly my preferred method of interacting.

In regard to the Old Testament, while I accept there is the mention of judgements and wiping out of certain peoples for their wrongdoings on a massive scale, this was related to such practices as infant sacrifice and many other things.

The issue of Mohammed and his treatment of the Jews, needs to be treated separately because it is not having the same context.

Your problem Reason, is that you need to do some work yourself on Old Testament introduction, and how to understand such characters as King David, Solomon etc. The one marked difference between 'bad actions' of David (for example) is that he REPENTED of them. "Place in me a clear heart oh God... my sin is ever before me" and there is NO such repentance by Mohamed for the murder (yes, murder) of various individuals who 'got in his way'.

So, I have to issue you with a mild rebuke here for gross misrepresentation and character assasination.

I find your assessment of my post quite remarkable. Here is the sequence (again)

1/ Waleed claimed Islam would NEVER justify rape etc
2/ I showed how it is a) allowed and b) practiced. (on captives)

If you can't see this then I'm reminded of Jesus words "There are none so blind as those who 'will' not see"

blessings
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 29 October 2005 1:28:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BoazD,

Are you sure you want to compare women rights in Quran versus other scriptures?

OK then, here is the Islam position on women rights revealed 1,400 years ago to pagan Arabs:

Surah Women (4) consists of 177 verses talking about women rights: to maintain their maiden names, to have their own financial entity, to be treated well by their husbands and supported (financially & emotionally). In case of a divorce, she has the right for arbitration (to correct her husband) and supported if divorced until she finds another husband (4: 1-12, onwards). The rights went as far as ‘men should not date women in secret but reveal’ the relationship (in marriage).

Here are women rights in NT/OT:
- The ‘right’ to have a master (her husband) (You and I know the Hebrew and Arabic word ‘yasud’ ie to dominate and enslave).
- The ‘right’ to marry her rapist (her lucky father gets 50 shekels though).
- The ‘right to be kicked out of the house and isolated in a kiosk during PMS and after child birth for 30 days (60 days if she gives birth to a female).

Come on BD, You can blough and misrepresent but you can't win a straight forward scripture comparison and we both know it, thats why you run the personal attack on Mohamed (PBUH).

Women rights in Islam is like the bega cheese: better by a country mile!
Posted by Fellow_Human, Saturday, 29 October 2005 5:15:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
F.H.
kind thanx for your 'cut paste' poste :) getting lazy arrrr....

My comments here were not about 'womens rights' they were specifically about the claim made by Waleed, and the real position spelt out in the Quran and in the practice of the Prophet and his companions.

F.H. you are indeed going askew in trying to suggest that the laws related to cultural/social life in Israel (the laws you mentioned fit that category) are applicable in the broader '10 commandments' sense
for all time.

The one about the girl raped who can be married by her attacker is indeed sad, and I believe it was a 'lesser of 2 evils' situation.
If she had already been disgraced through rape, who else might want her ? So, I assume the intended understanding would be that he raped her out of desire which when rightly chaneled through family responsibility, could have a better outcome. Thats the best 'spin' I can put on it, I believe that situation was very 'concessional' not 'instructive.

Comparing this with Sura 23.5-6 it is point blank clear instruction for all time,-end of story 'this is how it is' because it is in the context of the 'believers' and what characterizes them.

One might say its on a par authority wise with Johns gospel "A new commandment I give to you" there is no contextualization, interpretation, concession, its THIS IS MY COMMAND, and clearly for all time.

The other 'rights' a woman has, as spelt out in the New Testament (which shows the true 'spirit' of the Old.. are as follows:

The right to a man/husband who will love her as himself, pours himself out for her, as Christ loved the Church.

A woman in Islam has the right to be 'whacked' by her hubby if she is naughty :) and I've DONE the research on the word used, and please don't try to tell me it means 'gentle tap'.

But please, this topic is not about 'womens rights' we can have that discussion on another thread.
its about the 'cultural bogeyman' and Waleeds claims
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 29 October 2005 6:40:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy