tommy Robinson --update

by zeb 184 Replies latest social current

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    In contrast, in Turkey 43%, in Pakistan 34%, in Morocco 29% of Muslims want their religious laws forced on non-Muslims - and in other countries - Iran, Saudi, Mauritania, etc. - religious law (shari3a) IS forced on non-Muslims and Muslims alike. No Western country has religious laws.

    You speak about some Muslim societies being 200 years behind the West but, really, some Muslim societies are even further behind.

    In some Muslim countries gay people are killed because shari3a is quite clear what the punishment is for homosexual acts. Shari3a is from the 7th century so this is what time period the worst Muslim countries are stuck in, some 1,300 years behind us in the West.

    In fact, the only countries that have the death penalty for consensual homosexual acts are Islamic countries.

    When did Western countries have death for consensual homosexual acts in their legal code?

    But I refuse to reduce Muslims to a monolithic block - strawman.

    Nobody on this forum believes Muslims to be a monolithic block.

    I stand with peaceful law-abiding citizens no matter what their beliefs - interesting.

    So if peaceful, law-abiding Muslims want shari3a to supplant our secular laws and society, you'd stand with such people?

  • recovering
    recovering

    I am opposed to Sharia law . I think it is an unimaginable horror. Before we get too full of ourselves however,take a look at the following.

    (CNN)The past week saw two remarkable developments at the United Nations, and the world took notice of both. One was the passage of a resolution condemning the use of the death penalty as punishment for consensual gay relations. LGBT groups viewed the moment as a major milestone, what the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association called a "historic first." Celebrations, however, were muted. That's because of the other occurrence: The United States, until recently a leader in the global effort to advance human rights, voted against the resolution.
    Updated 2:30 PM ET, Thu October 5, 2017

    Extremist are dangerous .It does not matter what religion or political ideology they profess.

  • humbled
    humbled

    https://youtu.be/h4mmeN8gv9o

    In the spirit of honesty l see that Abaddon is reading and responding fairly, adjusting some points and holding better defined ground. I agree with his last post but for one part.

    Tommy Robinson’s behavior must be given consideration as much as any young working class Muslim who is concerned by the crude prejudices toward himself by the likes of ...the EDL. The authorities have been weak in addressing problems in the immigrant and poor working class neighborhoods. Tommy’s tactics and his want of any overarching strategy may be deplored but they are understandable. In a sense we are reduced to arguing about Tommy’s soul or motivation.

    There isn’t anything more l personally can say about Tommy. He must be protected in custody though.

    I am not in the U K. so my comments might seem impertinent . But only weeks ago the US had its immigrants-at-the-border-children-taken drama. The board jsuffered through the word welter that triggered. And we have Race threads that generally have to do with legacies of slavery culture.

    l suggest a better way to approach solutions these problems is not head on- but SIDEWAYS.

    Here is a Pakistani man. A Muslim. His story is how to effect change in a culture that crushes human rights.

    I apologize if this link and my comments seems irrelevant. But sometimes the point of a discussion isn’t fully realized in the OP Sometimes the thread develops branches that need a chance to grow. Later they might find a thread of their own but...just saying...think about the link above if you like.

  • resolute Bandicoot
    resolute Bandicoot

    Abaddon -

    Why are you posting prejudiced shit resolute Bandicoot? And what if I were a Muslim?

    I've no interest in listening to a bigot on YouTube blow off with error after error in his monolog, but quite happy to have a dialog with you if you use your own words to express what you think.

    Pat Condell is quite a talented word smith actually, who strikes blow after blow right on target.

    I’d be happy to discuss the pro’s and con of Islamic doctrine and history

    I find it absolutely hysterical when non-believers take 'holy books' more seriously than the majority of the believers do, as most believers, whether they are Christian or Muslim only take what is convenient to them.

    Islam is Mohammed and islam is the quran, mohammed was the perfect man and the perfect example of conduct for all muslims and the quran is the perfect book, the original copy resides in heaven with alah. These are not negotiable corner stones of islam, any nominal muslim who does not submit to this understanding and embrace the full connotations of this is not a muslim.

    Look at how the expression of Christianity has changed in two hundred years - not because of any revelation from god, but because secularism and pragmatism has rubbed off the awkward bits and allowed people to ignore large parts of the Bible.

    Islam is at the beginning of this process in many countries. Outside of the febrile imaginations of those pushing divisive ideologies, many Muslims in the West are well down this road.

    There are some problems with this theory, there are checks and balances built in to prevent reformation, the “gates of Ijtihad” (enquiry into Islamic theology) have been closed since the 10th century. All credit to guys like Zudy Jasser who strive hard in this direction but are huge obstacles

    Many people are no doubt puzzled why we sometimes hear about mosques being blown up by other muslims, there are two main reasons for this, firstly the suni / Shiite squabble and secondly, where the imam is a moderate or a reformer.

    Put simply if you try to reform islam then you are an apostate and the punishment for apostasy is death.

    The fact is culture expresses religion; religion does not express culture.

    Have to sharply disagree here, in places where islam holds sway the religion is the culture 100%.

    Islam is not just something you do at the mosque on Friday, it is religious system that embraces a legal system that is obliged to create a military system to protect the religious elements. It is also a banking and financial system , an education system, a dietary system, need I go on, how can you say it is not the culture?

    This is how nasty, sexist, violent, racist Christian countries changed to far more peaceful and egalitarian ones. The culture changed, and people reinterpreted the religion accordingly (and became more and more nominal believers if not outright atheists). Our great great great grandfathers would consider the education of women nonsense, wife beating and marital rape a man's right, that an unchaperoned woman was a whore, that a woman showing her hair in public was likewise a whore,

    Sounds like Islamic law to me

    that it was right to impose religion with violence, that slavery was ok, that invading countries for trade or resources or just for land was totally permissible,

    Standard Islamic parasitic business model

    that god created the world in seven days...The culture in parts of some Muslim countries is basically unchanged from the time of WWII (and in many cases that means it closely resembled the culture in the country two hundred years ago, thus my comparison with great great great grandfathers), in others it has progressed. Immigrants carry cultural values with them, their children possess a blend, their grandchildren begin to resemble the 'norm' for that country. This has happened with almost every immigrant group in the past.

    It will happen with Muslims because they are people just like us. The vast majority of the Muslims I have lived, worked and studied with are no more a risk to society than the average nominal member of the C of E, so it is happening, has happened.

    Yes many of them appear to be just like us, until you mention mohammed in a bad light and then they try to cut your head off. If you’re not sure about this ask a devout muslim about the disgusting incident of mohammed giving his dead aunty a FWF while she lay dead in her coffin and see how you go.

    Don’t be fooled by the outward appearance, how many times have you seen this scenario on the news, there is a jihad attack somewhere and the news guys are interviewing the neighbours of the jihadi, “he was just a normal guy”, “they were mostly quiet and kept to themselves”, “I can’t believe it was him, there were no signs that he was a radical”

    As Simon said, “a non muslim defending islam is like a turkey defending Christmas”

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    This will come as a shock to Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians in Iran - if an Iranian Jew or Iranian Christian commits adultery or homosexuality, they will have broken Iranian law, which is based on shari3a. They will be liable to get the death penalty.

    Likewise, if an Iranian Jew/Christian criticises Islam or mocks Muhammad, the Iranian authorities will come down on them like a ton of hot bricks.

    Bishops sit in the House of Lords - so what? The House of Lords isn't part of a religious legal system and bishops don't make up the majority of members.

    abortion is unavailable in Northern Ireland due to pandering to religious sentiments there - maybe abortion is unavailable in N. Ireland because the majority of N. Ireland citizens are against it.

    Stating my personal opinion is not by definition a strawman - the strawman was implied on your part. You said you refuse to reduce Muslims to a monolithic block - the implication being that you think that some of us *do* reduce Muslims to a monolithic block. My comment was simply to point out that nobody on this forum does this - even the posters who disagree with your comments on Muslims/Islam.

    "When did Western countries have death for consensual homosexual acts in their legal code?"

    Oh, loads two hundred years ago. Which is the parallel I am drawing and you are ignoring. And a bit less, actually. 1861 in the UK, 1873 in the USA, 1949 in Australia - what are you babbling about? Are you seriously suggesting that in Australia in 1949 the Aussie authorities had the death penalty for gay acts as part of their legal code?!

    "So if peaceful, law-abiding Muslims want shari3a to supplant our secular laws and society, you'd stand with such people?"

    Which part of forcing opinions on others do you regard as peaceful or law abiding? I certainly support the right of people to express their opinions provided those opinions do not amount to the expression of hate speech - my question recognises that there are Muslims that are peaceful and law-abiding but want shari3a to supplant British (& other secular Western) law. Do you stand with such people?


  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Update: Britain and Australia did have the death penalty for sodomy as part of their legal codes.

    It started with the Buggery Act (1553) in Britain. Britain dropped the death penalty for gay acts in 1861. Australia followed suit later - with the state of Victoria dropping the death penalty for gay acts in 1949. This is a legacy of Empire.

    But in attempting to draw a parallel between how Western legal codes treated homosexuality and how shari3a treats it even today, what is Abaddon trying to do in this discussion?

    Seeing as Western countries have Christian heritage and shari3a is obviously Islamic, it would make sense to examine Christianity and Islam.

    First thing to note is this: Christians have no legal code for themselves. Jesus Christ didn't give his followers their own legal code; rather, he said for Christians to obey the government under which they live. Instead of an actual legal code with a court dispensing justice, Christians were to have Christian principles written in their hearts. Thus, if a Christian were to turn apostate, believing Christians were to try and reason with the apostate, then not associate with him if he continued in his apostasy. This isn't good but it simply doesn't compare to how Muslims treat apostates. Muhammad said "if a man changes his religion, kill him" - and that's what many Muslim countries do. Even where it's not written into law, extrajudicial killings for apostasy are common and the authorities often turn a blind eye.

    Muslims treat apostates and others this way because they have a legal code: shari3a.

    When ISIS were beheading captives in the Syrian desert, they were copying Muhammad's example. Muhammad personally beheaded hundreds of captive Jews.

    Now, France abandoned the guillotine relatively recently. I believe the last French person to go to the guillotine was beheaded in 1979.

    That's not good but there's simply no comparison between beheading in France and beheading in Islam.

    If I were to publicly insult France and French people, there won't be any French protesters angrily waving placards that read 'behead those who insult France' ... we know the situation's different re Islam.

    The Buggery Act (1553) was only loosely based on Christianity. OTOH, shari3a is quite clear that people who have consensual gay sex should be put to death.

    This is why the West has improved in its tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, gay people and gay couples. It's different with Islam because Muslims have a legal code from Allah that tells them that gay couples should be put to death by law. For Muslims, this is non-negotiable.

    I don't know if a reformation of Islam will be successful. Still, it must be worth a try.

    In the meantime the West can continue in wiping out terrorists.

    But back to Abaddon - what's he trying to do?

    Well, he's using his considerable knowledge to muddy the waters.

    The situation's pretty clear: the vast majority of Muslims believe in shari3a. This legal code is 1,300 years old so the majority of Muslims are influenced by shari3a or flat out want shari3a to rule the world - many millions of people are 1,300 years behind us in their mindset. In contrast, Christians have no legal code of their own. You can go through the New Testament with a fine tooth comb but you won't find an actual legal code.

    So, Simon may be blunt but he's spot on - Abaddon, in this thread at least, is acting as an apologist for Islam.

  • blownaway
    blownaway

    The left has to demonize the right because they can not win on arguments. Its OK to have people who are Muslim create NoGo zones in England, its ok to have blacks have black this and black that, have white this or that and its racist. The stupid left has not learned you can not make things right by another wrong. Its why they are losing here in the USA. Trump 2020 baby.

  • cofty
    cofty
    Its OK to have people who are Muslim create NoGo zones in England - blownaway

    There are NO NoGo zones anywhere in England. Our police, our government and most of all our people will not tolerate it.

    There was a case of a group of young Muslims verbally assaulting young women telling them they were not allowed to walk in a particular area 'improperly' dressed. They quickly got arrested.

    Sweden has No-Go areas, I'm not sure about Germany but I doubt it.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    70% of people in Northern Ireland want the law changed - ok fine, then N. Ireland can have a referendum on abortion and abide by the result.

    Re your comparison between Christianity vs Islam ,,, your whole argument falls down because you're trying to draw equivalence between Catholic canon law, WTS literature on one hand and shari3a on the other.

    THERE IS NO COMPARISON.

    Muslims have shari3a and dreams of al-khilafa, The Caliphate. There is no comparison. Christians have neither their own legal code nor their own earthly Caliphate. The Buggery Act (1553) may have been based on the bible but not the Christian part (New Testament).

    Once again, Christians have no legal code of their own but Muslims obviously do.

    Your intellectual dishonesty and c**tishness know no bounds.

    BTW, if you don't like the West, feel free to fuck off and try your luck living elsewhere ...

  • resolute Bandicoot
    resolute Bandicoot

    LUHE - "BTW, if you don't like the West, feel free to fuck off and try your luck living elsewhere ."

    Did you see this in the news today - https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/07/netherlands-muslim-politician-says-if-dutch-people-dont-like-a-changing-netherlands-they-should-get-lost

    Blown away - You are probably familiar with the Lefty Trump baby balloon flying over London,


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit