BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:22 AM

I have never attacked any religion nor any person for their faith.
Repeating the lie does not make it any less of a lie Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:30 AM

"attempting to present Islamic radicalism as not only evil and dangerous, which it most certainly could be, but as unique, which it is definitely not."
.,,.
Seriously, Jim. Certainly not uniquely so -- I don't think anyone is asserting that -- but most arguably the most so. I know about Jim Jones & those loonies in Kansas & the Rev Mr Moon & his Unificators; about Shatila; and so ad ∞; & deplore them all as much as you do. But you have yet to name any actual present-day sovereign state ruled by any other system than claimed Koranic authority, in which people are stoned to death for what are not even offences in most places in the world; where young women are publicly given 100 strokes of the cane on the bare buttocks for being seen out in public with someone who is not an immediate relation, or because a veil has slipped to show too much face ...

I could go on, as you know. But I invoke Hegel again: this is not merely a quantative, but a qualitative difference, between this "Faith" & any other you can name. How can you urge that the fact that the Israelites stoned adulterers to death in the days of King David, & even as 'recently' as the days of Jesus Christ, or that the Holy Office burned 'heretics' in C16, is any "whataboutery" justification for their going on performing such stonings to this very day in Malaysia and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

How?


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 06:27 AM

"Repeating the lie does not make it any less of a lie Jim."
Ho hum - you a#have described all Male Pakistani Muslims as being culturally implanted to have sex with underage women
That is an attack on both the religion and the adherents to that belief
Mike
Once again, by confining the discussion to extremes, you are attempting to isolate Islamism as the major threat while at the same time, precluding discussion on other religions.
Islamic extreme radicalism is a threat.
So is a regime attempting to establish a one-religion state by force of arms.
The fact that that state has nuclear capability makes it a major threat to us all - God with a bomb.
I bloody well know of the injustices of enforced extremist religion, just as I know of the injustices of all religions, when they are allowed to afflict them - which, in some cases, is at this moment.
You are applying your sliding scale in order to demonise one religion, while at the same time demanding that we concentrate on that religion and ignore the rest
You seem hell-bent on not allowing us to discuss Islamic extremism in the context of its root causes.
Feel free not to do so yourself, otherwise, kindly mind your own business
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 06:36 AM

Not sure what your last four words supposed to mean, Jim. As a member of this forum -- not a 'Guest' or any such, but a properly constituted and recognised member -- I am perfectly entitled to comment on any point made in its discussions. It is, in fact, my 'business' to do so. It's what I joined it for. So what do you mean by telling me to "mind my own business"? That is precisely what I am doing, you impertinent little jackanapes, you. How veryveryveryvery bloodybloodybloodybloody DARE you! Be off with you, and mind yours elsewhere, you conceited young idiot!

~M~

(teeheeheeheehee.......)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 14 - 07:30 AM

Keith just said he never attacks people for their religion or faith.

Yet is known for saying "as a Christian....." Which infers a moral superiority. Although when I say that as a person who likes a decent Pinot I abhor bigotry, he can't see that it is the exact same thing.

Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 07:32 AM

You are entitle to comment on what I write Mike - you are not entitled to tell me where and whether I can write it
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as Evelyn Beatrice Hall was once heard to remark.
Hmm - Jackanapes again - you really do turn me on sometimes!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 09:27 AM

Musket, I have never said "As a Christian..." implying any superiority.
I did say that I belong to a Church that abhors and confronts racism, but that is not what you accuse me of.

You and Jim both attack things I have never said, and never would say, because you have no answer to what I actually do say.

Jim,
Ho hum - you a#have described all Male Pakistani Muslims as being culturally implanted to have sex with underage women
That is an attack on both the religion and the adherents to that belief

No.
I stated repeatedly that their religion was not in any way relevant, as you know because I have put it in front of you.
I only said I believed what was being said by eminent people of that culture, about their own culture.
I made clear it was not my own opinion, and indeed that I knew nothing about that culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 09:54 AM

Glad to give satisfaction, Mr Jack-a-Napes.

'Defend to death' was said by Voltaire first, I believe.

Cheers

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:37 PM

"'Defend to death' was said by Voltaire first, I believe."
I believed so until comparatively recently - apparently it is incorrectly attributed to him but Ms Hall was the originator of the saying apparently.
EVELYN BEATRICE HALL
Must write to Q.I.
"I stated repeatedly that their religion was not in any way relevant,"
Being Muslim refers to a religion - being a Pakistani is a reference to national origins, Male refers to gender, ergo all male Muslim Pakistanis being culturally implanted with a tendency to bed underage girls is an attack on an entire communities race, religion and gender - Three at a Blow, as the folk-tale would have it - doesn't come any more all-embracing than that.
You have yet to produce one single "eminent person" who made such a statement, and if you produced a thousand, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the fact that it is deeply racist, sectarian and inflammatory - such stuff are holocausts made of.
Your hiding behind your so-called Christianity is as revolting as your "historians" and your "experts"
Your disgusting views bear not the slightest resemblance to any genuie Christian I have ever met, including virtually all my friends and neighbours here, and a considerable number of my family.
I honestly believe you would have to fill in an application form to become a member of the human race - and you would almost certainly be turned down.
If what you state as your views represents anything resembling a religion, it is very easy to see where fundamentalism; Christian, Jewish, Muslim...., comes from.
You are a one-off head-banger Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:51 PM

Ah ~~ thanks for that info re the Voltaire biographer, Jim. I had heard of her by pen-name only, and hadn't come across theory that the attribution to Voltaire was a gloss of hers. Thanks for this info: no knowledge ever unwelcome.

As to "telling you where or whether you can write" anything. I think it reasonable to challenge your apparent assertion that any thread can be arbitrarily led off in any direction at the whim of any contributor to it, which seemed to me to be asserted in your "these threads go wherever the contributors choose to take them". If that is not what it implies, then what is? And it still appears to me a most questionable claim, liable to lead to infinite confusion. I can't really feel that challenging it in any way constitutes "telling you what or where you can write".

Does it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:53 PM

I did not refer to their religion at all, and just accepted what eminent people said of their own culture.
If that is the worst you can put up against me, in all these years, how bad can I be?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:06 AM

I dunno. The liberal use of the word eminent is as frequent as your wearing your religion on your sleeve. Both put there to denigrate those who disagree with you.

So don't be surprised when disagreeing leads to finding you disagreeable.



Michael. Voltaire certainly is relevant to this thread and as ever, all religion based activity.

"Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:09 AM

"just accepted what eminent people said of their own culture."
Bollocks - you made that up, good Christian that you are - it doesn't matter anyway. it's racist, and it's exactly the racist/religious smear that gets petrol poured through letter-boxes by your BNP friends
You put down their tendency to pedophilia to their religious driven culture - can you not stop lying for one minute?
Sorry Mike - can't agree
These discussions can only be wailing walls if we can't discuss them in their full context.
Keith's regular trick is discuss whatever he wants, wherever he wants, then, when he runs into trouble, too try to close that particular avenue by crying 'thread drift'.
He has been quite prepared to discuss this up to now, then, when he became mired in his own distortions, he tries to divert attention away from it.
He once desperately tried to do this on a chemical weapon (I think) thread, then himself drifted off into something completely off topic - when challenged, his reply was "thread drift happens".
Christian - 'I've shit them!' as they used to say in Liverpool
Not suggesting you are doing that, but he certainly is.
I'm afraid Sabra/Shatila will come up again and again as an example of one of the great atrocities brought about by a religion-driven regime - apologies in advance.
Off to sunny Waterford for a few days - have fun!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:26 AM

According to Musket, prefixing a statement with 'as a Christian...' implies moral authority. I do not see how that conclusion can be drawn. In a conversation about education I might say 'as a retired teacher...' Simply to contextualise what I wish to say and, perhaps, to establish my credentials. If I were to indicate that I was speaking as a Christian it would indicate no more than my attempt to present a Christian view. I do not see how I could claim any moral superiority. If others choose to confer such authority on me that is a matter for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:42 AM

It might be revealing to ask a non-radicalised muslim around and ask his opinion sometime. It's a bit like discussing racism when you're not on the receiving end - about the only thing I know is that I don't know, the more I learn the worse it seems, all that the legislation has done is drive the racism underground, making it harder to get a grip on and so more entrenched. I'm being careful to differentiate between equality in entitlement, disadvantage and racism, in passing, so I'm not buying into any sense of corrective reverse discrimination.
Of late, discrimination also works the other way, blacks using non-existent racism as a defence against their own faults. That too is racist, sadly, so it's not as if it's a one-way street.
Perhaps this is thread drift, that the question was of radicalisation. But the problem is that when the only way out of an unendurable situation is radicalisation, everyone loses: the real answer is to constinue to offer a way out of the corner, through tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 14 - 07:34 AM

Jim, if I was a racist I would post racist views and you would not have to trawl back years to find one post that is not in the least racist anyway.

Everyone is sick of you making the same tired old accusations.
You do it because you can not argue your case.
If you could, you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 02:34 PM

Brendan. Fully agree but we are talking Keith here and he has form. He uses what he considers moral authority by pointing put he can't be x y z because Christians don't do x y z. He drags dubious quotes from internet searches and once he decides the authors are eminent, then woe betide you if you disagree. That makes you a liar.

Not nice sometimes. Not nice at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:05 PM

He uses what he considers moral authority by pointing put he can't be x y z because Christians don't do x y z.

Completely untrue.
I have NEVER made any such statement.

(I did say that I belong to a Church that abhors and confronts racism, but that is not what you accuse me of.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 07:26 AM

Extracts from this morning's The Times, pp31 & 32

1. Pregnant bride stoned by her family
Pakistan
A 25 year old Pakistani woman who was three months pregnant was stoned to death by her family outside the High Court in Lahore for marrying the man she loved ... She was cornered and attacked with bricks by a mob of men that included her father, two brothers and a former fiancé. The couple had gone to the high court to record a statement in front of a judge that Ms Parveen had married by choice and had not been kidnapped, as had been alleged by her father ... The police have arrested only Ms Parveen's father, who is believed to have admitted to the killing. He described it as a matter of honour. The other men ... fled and have not been caught ... Honour killings are common in Pakistan, though it is unusual for the attack to happen in a public place ... Few cases of honour killings ever make it to court, and prosecutions are rare ... Police in rural areas often turn a blind eye to such incidents, dismissing them as family matters.

2. Death sentence woman has baby
A Sudanese woman sentenced to death for marrying a Christian has given birth to a girl in prison. A judge has allowed Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, 27, to nurse her baby for two years before the sentence is carried out.

Yes, yes, I know -- Ho-hum, heard it all before! But (and call me a racist or a bigot or whatever pejorative epithet may occur to you to deflect the effect of my question, if it gives you any satisfaction) I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Anyone?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:19 AM

Ho hum anyone?

How about Northern Ireland's first minister Robinson who has defended a Christianist pastor who calls Islam evil. He said it is the duty of the pastor to denounce false prophets.

It isn't as abhorrent as the animals who killed their own daughter but it was aimed at causing civil unrest and hatred of others, which eventually leads to the same thing. Fear of people through linking them to the behaviour of others. The Pakistani cultural issues of ownership of women is not tolerated by millions of Muslims. A friend asked why so many people who compare him to thirld world superstition, when asked, admitted that love honour and obey were in their Christian marriage vows.

If you must link culture to faith, then show me where in the bible it says I lay on the sofa farting watching Match of the Day.

Pointing out animals who have cultural ideas from the stone ages has nothing to do with Muslims living here any bit as much as being a vicar in Surrey paints you with the same pot as American Christians who murder doctors and nurses involved in termination of pregnancy.

You know, pointing out that others may comment in such a way to your post does no more than show your own misgivings about your comments. Hope for you yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:42 AM

"No passage in the Koran discusses honor killings, but Muslim clerics justify them and secular Muslims either do not punish them or pass laws to mitigate punishment for them. With this, Muslims make honor killings a part of Islam."

Supna Zaidi: Does Islam Justify Honor Killings?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 12:48 PM

"American Christians who murder doctors and nurses involved in termination of pregnancy", Ian, do not do so by judicial process in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction within which they do it. Stop being so stupid as to pretend you can't see the distinction, you fatuous ostrich, you!

My comment as to what I knew boobies like you would say points to the opposite of misgivings; ie that I know I am right whatever foolish people like you might feel PC-ly obliged to rejoin. You really are doing yourself little credit by being unable to muster any better argument.

In particular, you have dodged my explicit questions, to which a direct answer would be welcome, as distinct from irrelevancies about the Islamic denizens of our own population, who are entirely marginal to my interrogatives..

To remind you, here they are again:-
I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Telling me that Muslims who live here may not agree with such procedures is no sort of answer to the questions whatsoever. It is the extrapolations, and claims of divine authority [see the article linked by Bobad in his last post] from the citable teachings of the faith which induce such responses, which are of concern. Even if they are not accurately invoked [see point above about their being Hadithic if not perhaps directly Koranic], it is obviously regarded by the authorities where such abuses obtain as more than their jobs or safety are worth to attempt to intervene. Do you really think the "American Christians" you cite operate in conditions of such confidence & certitude?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:17 PM

Yes yes yes. But this thread is about Islamic radicalism, not national law. That the national law allows old ignorant peasants to use religion to enforce their odious will on society is fucking awful and abhorrent.

But it certainly isn't Islam gone bad. Media commentators are as happy as the perpetrators in purposely confusing culture and faith. The Pakistani prevalence of women as chattel certainly isn't Islamic in origin. It is shared by the many other faiths in that UK defined country borders.

I used to be involved in forensic mental health both as an inspector and lay assessor. I also inspected prisons. You may or may not be surprised how many murderers feel God told them to do it.

When you see me make the link from that in the same way you make the link with Islam, you can call me a bloody do gooder or whatever. Religion is the art of controlling a community. Always was always will be. But to make a link to those who share a faith is something that seems to be done to Muslims but not Christians.

For all my disdain of religion and everything to go with it, I don't think of Muslim friends as relatives of terrorists any more than thinking my Catholic friends covering for child abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:38 PM

"But this thread is about Islamic radicalism, not national law"
.,,.

'Yes yes yes' right back 2U! -- Why "But"? The two concepts are interdependent, not [as 'but' implies] incompatible, within the terms of reference of this colloquy. It is the radicalism which incites, & is held to justify, the [IMO misplaced] laws, surely? So 'national law' is part of, & an outcome of, the "radicalism" which, as you rightly say, is what this thread is about, rather than tangential or non-germane, as your 'but' implies.

So answer my questions, please, & stop trying to justify avoidance of doing so by recourse to factitious would-be diversional irrelevancies.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:46 PM

I am not, btw, surprised at the attitude you found among so many murderers in the course of your interesting work. But your tone implies that you didn't feel such claims were any justification for their actions. Do you not feel the same to be extrapolated amongst the entire, radically based, judicial systems we are talking of? If you don't, then what was your point?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 02:41 PM

"As a first step we will have to unlock our language and learn, once more, how to call a spade a spade. The worldwide cancer of terrorism by some Muslims is inspired by the teachings of Islam. To deny this fact is intellectual dishonesty. As long as you, and the rest of the non-Muslim world, permit Muslims to tippy toe around the doctrine of "armed jihad", you won't be able to take the second step, that is, confronting this death cult ideology on its merits, while resisting the temptation to be xenophobic and thus wrongly develop a hatred towards all Muslims."

Tarek Fatah: How to Fight Islamic Terrorism

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 03:11 PM

I'm no genius so I take the training on the chin when taught to not link reason with irrational state.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 04:40 PM

I'm no genius either, Musket. So I have not the ghost of an idea what that gnomic utterance of yours was meant to mean. But please don't trouble to explain. I am sure I shouldn't find it very interesting even if it were elucidated.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 05:31 PM

Just watched the news about the woman stoned by her family. Nothing to do with Islam but the report said it was within the culture the family had been brought up in. The murder was obviously wrong. Obviously going to be used by politicians the world over to show how Pakistanis (and therefore Muslims) are evil.

Stereotyping is what is happening. Sadly we can do nothing about that apart from ignore it.

And less stereotyping of us Gnomes please, M.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 06:40 PM

"Nothing to do with Islam but the report said it was within the culture the family had been brought up in."

And on what authority do you make this statement? Do you not know that there is no central authority for the interpretation of the Quran, the Hadiths and the Sahaba? Islam contains many schools of thought and there's no one single or simple source of interpretation on disputed points. Do you know what every Imam is preaching to his congregates on this issue? If the Imam prescribes honour killing to his followers does that still make it "nothing to do with Islam"? In many Muslim communities culture is intertwined with Islam - where do you draw the dividing line? Many progressive Muslims would disagree with your simplistic statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 06:51 PM

Egyptian TV Host Kicks Guest Out of Studio for Expressing Controversial Ideas on Religion

YouTube

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:17 AM

Just a couple of sentences from this morning's Times; following on from the bits I quoted from yesterday's --

In Somalia, a 13-year-old girl claimed she had been raped by three men. She found herself accused of adultery, was buried up to her neck inside a stadium and stoned to death in front of 1,000 people.

It's no use just getting all hysterical, Musket, and saying the people who did it were 'animals' ... 'ignorant peasants' doing what you denounce as 'fucking awful and abhorrent'... 'us[ing] religion to enforce their odious will on society'.

It was not 'ignorant peasants' enforcing anything; it was the judicial authorities of a sovereign state with which we maintain diplomatic relations administering the law which obtains within that jurisdiction. So will you still try to maintain this is not relevant to the subject of this thread, because we are talking about 'Islamic radicalism', which is somehow not germane to the laws to which it leads?

Oh, come on...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:37 AM

.. and have you come across this current story, copied from a New York paper?--

Noor Hussain, a 75-yr-old Pakistani immigrant, beat his wife to death in their Brooklyn apartment for making him the wrong dinner. His trial started Wednesday, where he was charged with second degree murder.
He had asked his wife, 66-yr-old Nazar Hussain, to make him goat for dinner. She made the mistake of making him lentil beans instead. He was outraged and they got into an argument. Court papers indicate that Nazar disrespected Noor and cursed at him. He then grabbed a wooden stick and beat her to death as she lay in bed.
Hussain's attorney Julie Clark was quick to admit he beat his wife in her opening statement, but argued he is ONLY guilty of manslaughter because he didn't mean to kill her. "He comes from a culture where he thinks this is appropriate conduct, where he can hit his wife," she said. "He culturally believed he had the right to hit his wife and discipline his wife."
The 'religion of peace' does condone wife beating. In one section, the Koran specifically tells men they are above women and women who disobey need to be beaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:41 AM

I agree with every bit of what you put Michael till you dragged a religion into it.

You are as misguided as Boo Bad above, where he rattles on about the Q'ran but somehow fails to point out the bible and it's similar proclamations.

Just because most people in the west don't take the bible as meaning anything serious and in less developed countries they retain the superstition that only a few do here, doesn't mean you can differentiate.

I recall in UK courts, you can invoke a superstition in order to persuade the court you are not telling porkies. Are you sure courts and religion are only joined at the hip in foreign climes? Do you think the governments of some countries control their areas in the same way Westminster controls Belfast? Do you hold Cameron to account for the appalling religious comments of Robinson the other day?

I wish governments did control their countries. Then economic sanctions might do something, but I'm not quite as naive as you are.

Something about gnomish in one of your earlier posts. According to scripture, gnomes can only be associated co messiah emeritus, and I am a full fat, caffeine saturated co messiah. Do get your facts right when talking about religion eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:55 AM

I said "gnomic", not "gnomish". If you don't know what is meant by a 'gnomic' utterance, here you are:-

gnomic
adjective
expressed in or of the nature of short, pithy maxims or aphorisms.
"that most gnomic form, the aphorism"
difficult to understand because enigmatic or ambiguous.
"I had to have the gnomic response interpreted for me"

I meant the second bit: what you had posted was so enigmatic as to be entirely opaque to my comprehension.

It's no good trying to exclude the religious element. See the NY Daily News bit I cited, where Koranic authority was explicitly claimed. So what if some Christians sometimes mis-cite Holy Writ? Whataboutery is never an argument. & you are still evading my challenge to point to any instance of such being the occasion of anything approaching the outcomes which which we are concerned here. You don't really want me to copy my questions yet again, do you?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:11 AM

The correct etiquette for beating your wife in Islam:

Islam: how to Beat Your Wife

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:16 AM

And here is a translation of a relevant Shura ~~

Quran 4:34:
Men have charge of women because Allah has preferred the one above the other and because they spend their wealth on them. Right-acting women are obedient, safeguarding their husbands' interests in their absence as Allah has guarded them. If there are women whose disobedience you fear, you may admonish them, refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them. But if they obey you, do not look for a way to punish them. Allah is All-High, Most Great.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:19 AM

Yeah but what about the Bible, Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:33 AM

I don't know... You give a gnomic response to something where you can happily confuse gnomic itself with gnomish and it goes straight over a grey head.

Good job I don't use my A material eh?

No, don't copy your questions again. They were dismal enough the first time around. What is The UK government doing about Peter Robinson inciting religious hatred? Isn't the government in control of him? Etc etc...

The only time religion and culture are confused in the minds of some here is when they think of the culture growing behind the gas cooker in the church hall kitchen. Buggering priests aren't anything to do with Christianity but a court in A third world country is something Mr Patel up the road must denounce or be seen to be implicated.

I give up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:59 AM

These are normal Muslims not radical extremists:

It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 14 - 10:00 AM

I think you posted the wrong article, Boo - didja read it first?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 10:13 AM

I think you missed the point Greggiepoo - but then what's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:39 PM

I give up too, Musket -- any attempt to make heads or tails as to what the hell you are on about. What is your 'A material'? What has Peter Robinson saying that he agrees with some other N Irishman got to do with anything I have said? How is it the biz of UK government anyhow? Who has suggested that your neighbour Mr Patel is called on to do anything whatever?

I think you must have finally flipped.

Bobad -- don't understand your question in the last post you addressed to me: "What about the Bible?" I mean, what about "what about" it? Kindly elucidate.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:54 PM

Mike, I was being facetious, simply preempting Musk et alia's propensity for whataboutery.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:56 PM

Thank you. Get it now.

LoL.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 14 - 02:19 PM

My how they squirm!

Still no reply to your question M.

One would think they would be grateful for your forensic demolition of their idiotic agenda?

Easy!   Easy!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:01 PM

If you've got it Michael, get some antibiotics. I'd hate it to spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:03 PM

Likes, not lies.

Possibly Freudian considering who I aimed it at.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 04:00 PM

"Likes" what? Not "lies" what? Can finds no use of either word in any of your recent posts...

Gnomicer & gnomicer...!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 03:15 AM

And the hate goes on.....
"What has Peter Robinson saying that he agrees with some other N Irishman got to do with anything I have said? How is it the biz of UK government anyhow?"
Are you joking Mike?
What does a hate statement aimed at a large section of the population of Northern by a political leader have to do with the UK?
Have you really become such a supporter of Islamophobic hatred?
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

The "some other N Irishman"
A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MUSLIMS
Jim Carroll

You really have joined the 'Dark Side' haven't you - you'll be waving papers saying "peace in our time" next.
Jim Carroll