"And as for Peter Sutcliffe and the Bible, I don't think there's any passage in either testament giving permission to kill prostitutes. "
?Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:21
Nine guilty over child exploitation ring
-
Ken Shabby
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Nine guilty over child exploitation ring
But Dave, that's Old Testament. If you're talking about Christianity, shouldn't you quote the New Testament (the gospels, etc)?
I haven't read anything about the case in the papers. So I can't comment on any media bias. I only heard about it on the TV news, but I had to turn it off. As with a lot of news these days, it made me feel sick.
I'm just glad that they caught them. I just hope the punishment is harsh enough for those evil pedophile scum....
I haven't read anything about the case in the papers. So I can't comment on any media bias. I only heard about it on the TV news, but I had to turn it off. As with a lot of news these days, it made me feel sick.
I'm just glad that they caught them. I just hope the punishment is harsh enough for those evil pedophile scum....
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mr Slater
Old Testament or not, I was wrong on this particular point.
Thinking about it, isn't the general dislike and aversion to prostitutes due to 1200+ of Christianity? Little busy now but may speak more later.
Thinking about it, isn't the general dislike and aversion to prostitutes due to 1200+ of Christianity? Little busy now but may speak more later.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Ken
The Bible is made up of the Old and New Testaments and is the basis of the Christian faith. The Old Testament played a major role in Christianity from the very beginning of the faith. Jesus, the apostles, and the earliest converts quoted from it, alluded to it and understood the Christian faith in light of its teachings.
Best look out for bolts of lighning Ken, next time you set foot outdoors!
Best look out for bolts of lighning Ken, next time you set foot outdoors!
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Mmm.
"I'm saying the outraged ones -however much I agree with their outrage- must know that to ignore the passages giving permission for stuff like this (ie. child abuse) is outright cherry-picking or at least selective-amnesia because they've been brought up to understand you just don't question the passages".
The view of the main Muslim umbrella organisation in the UK
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=485
Your interpretation of the Koran and accusations that it allows the raping of slave girls. Not as clear-cut as you profess it to be.
http://islamicresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... pe-of.html
"Firstly, the Qur'an must not be viewed as a compilation of individual injunctions and exhortations but as one integral whole: that is, as an exposition of an ethical doctrine in which every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its pages, and try to explain its ideas by means of frequent cross-references, always subordinating the particular to the general and the incidental to the intrinsic. Whenever this rule is faithfully followed, we realize that the Qur'an is - in the words of Muhammad 'Abduh - "its own best commentary"
"Squirm out of it with shite about allegories and metaphors all you like." "There are a few metaphorical words in the Quran, but no metaphorical stories I remember. It is all literal (haqiqi), "
http://khutbahbank.org.uk/2010/03/metap ... l-khutbah/
The view of the main Muslim umbrella organisation in the UK
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=485
Your interpretation of the Koran and accusations that it allows the raping of slave girls. Not as clear-cut as you profess it to be.
http://islamicresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... pe-of.html
"Firstly, the Qur'an must not be viewed as a compilation of individual injunctions and exhortations but as one integral whole: that is, as an exposition of an ethical doctrine in which every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its pages, and try to explain its ideas by means of frequent cross-references, always subordinating the particular to the general and the incidental to the intrinsic. Whenever this rule is faithfully followed, we realize that the Qur'an is - in the words of Muhammad 'Abduh - "its own best commentary"
"Squirm out of it with shite about allegories and metaphors all you like." "There are a few metaphorical words in the Quran, but no metaphorical stories I remember. It is all literal (haqiqi), "
http://khutbahbank.org.uk/2010/03/metap ... l-khutbah/
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mmm.
[quote]The view of the main Muslim umbrella organisation in the UK
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=485[/quote]
A Muslim organisation downplaying the influence their religion may have had on ghastly acts? They wouldn't be doing their job if they said anything less. I can probably find Nazi websites that deny the Holocaust but you'd obviously take their account of it as slightly biased or misleading.
[quote]"Firstly, the Qur'an must not be viewed as a compilation of individual injunctions and exhortations but as one integral whole: that is, as an exposition of an ethical doctrine in which every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its pages, and try to explain its ideas by means of frequent cross-references, always subordinating the particular to the general and the incidental to the intrinsic. Whenever this rule is faithfully followed, we realize that the Qur'an is - in the words of Muhammad 'Abduh - "its own best commentary"[/quote]
If only most Muslims took their book this way. It is, of course, bullshit. Sharia would be really hard to uphold without clear, individual injunctions. Muslims everywhere wouldn't bother with Halal and would be busy scoffing pork sandwiches with the rest of us.
"Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked a name other than that of Allah." [Al-Qur?an 5:3].............but ignore that because it's not really an individual injunction and should be taken as part of the whole book itself. (in other words, if it's harmless then do it but if some modern day westerners with their newfangled morals and ways point to it in abhorrence tell them some crap about it being a metaphor or that the real meaning is lost on them because they're ignorant). Again, just like Biblical apologists, they'll make any crap up to get themselves out of the hole they're in. I suppose that's progress. 100 years earlier we'd have been murdered for even complaining. And that still happens in some parts of the world.
Countries under Sharia kill apostates and married (female) adulterers routinely. This happens because the Quran IS taken as a book of individual commands from God, through the final prophet.
[quote]http://khutbahbank.org.uk/2010/03/metap ... l-khutbah/[/quote]
You took one thing I said out of context. The full quote should have been: "It is all literal (haqiqi), especially when dictating law (marriage being under this) and it is taught that if one is unsure whether something is metaphorical or literal, one should take the literal meaning unless Allah explicitly states otherwise."
Nevertheless, we come to the same argument about all the holy books: what's literal and what isn't? I'm telling you that while a certain Imam may have his own views on meaning, if he's unsure about a passage he is to take it literally, unless specifically stated by Mohammed himself. There is the rub.
Bible: If you're unsure ask the Pope (Catholics) or find your own meaning (Protestants). These approaches gives much more room for interpretation and wishy-washy thinking. It leaves gaps for the enlightenment and modern moral philosophy to fight its way into the public sphere. This is why secularism, liberty and freedom of expression evolved in Europe and not the sub-continent.
Quran: If you're unsure take it literally (all forks of Islam). There is less room (one could say no room) for different interpretation or holding an opposing view of the text. It is why the Islamic world lost it's dominance in Science and why Islamic liberal modernisers have to escape to the west, or work under pseudonyms and live surreptitious lives.
And you never answered my question: What do you think the judge meant when he said religion played it's part?
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=485[/quote]
A Muslim organisation downplaying the influence their religion may have had on ghastly acts? They wouldn't be doing their job if they said anything less. I can probably find Nazi websites that deny the Holocaust but you'd obviously take their account of it as slightly biased or misleading.
[quote]"Firstly, the Qur'an must not be viewed as a compilation of individual injunctions and exhortations but as one integral whole: that is, as an exposition of an ethical doctrine in which every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its pages, and try to explain its ideas by means of frequent cross-references, always subordinating the particular to the general and the incidental to the intrinsic. Whenever this rule is faithfully followed, we realize that the Qur'an is - in the words of Muhammad 'Abduh - "its own best commentary"[/quote]
If only most Muslims took their book this way. It is, of course, bullshit. Sharia would be really hard to uphold without clear, individual injunctions. Muslims everywhere wouldn't bother with Halal and would be busy scoffing pork sandwiches with the rest of us.
"Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked a name other than that of Allah." [Al-Qur?an 5:3].............but ignore that because it's not really an individual injunction and should be taken as part of the whole book itself. (in other words, if it's harmless then do it but if some modern day westerners with their newfangled morals and ways point to it in abhorrence tell them some crap about it being a metaphor or that the real meaning is lost on them because they're ignorant). Again, just like Biblical apologists, they'll make any crap up to get themselves out of the hole they're in. I suppose that's progress. 100 years earlier we'd have been murdered for even complaining. And that still happens in some parts of the world.
Countries under Sharia kill apostates and married (female) adulterers routinely. This happens because the Quran IS taken as a book of individual commands from God, through the final prophet.
[quote]http://khutbahbank.org.uk/2010/03/metap ... l-khutbah/[/quote]
You took one thing I said out of context. The full quote should have been: "It is all literal (haqiqi), especially when dictating law (marriage being under this) and it is taught that if one is unsure whether something is metaphorical or literal, one should take the literal meaning unless Allah explicitly states otherwise."
Nevertheless, we come to the same argument about all the holy books: what's literal and what isn't? I'm telling you that while a certain Imam may have his own views on meaning, if he's unsure about a passage he is to take it literally, unless specifically stated by Mohammed himself. There is the rub.
Bible: If you're unsure ask the Pope (Catholics) or find your own meaning (Protestants). These approaches gives much more room for interpretation and wishy-washy thinking. It leaves gaps for the enlightenment and modern moral philosophy to fight its way into the public sphere. This is why secularism, liberty and freedom of expression evolved in Europe and not the sub-continent.
Quran: If you're unsure take it literally (all forks of Islam). There is less room (one could say no room) for different interpretation or holding an opposing view of the text. It is why the Islamic world lost it's dominance in Science and why Islamic liberal modernisers have to escape to the west, or work under pseudonyms and live surreptitious lives.
And you never answered my question: What do you think the judge meant when he said religion played it's part?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Mmm.
You have lost sight of what you originally argued.
In your original post to me you stated:
1.And, Mohammed gives Muslims permission in Sura 33:50 to have sex with slaves (it's impossible to rape a non-muslim or Muslim wife in Islam and rape isn't even mentioned).
I have explained that your huge step in going from this to the Rochdale case,is not the view of the Muslim Council representing Muslims in the UK. This argument is very debatable and I have given you the links to prove this. This argument was not used by the defendants either before, during or after the court case. The argument was not used by the defendants families and friends either before, during or after the court case. The argument was not used by any Muslim body either, before, during or after the court case. You, yourself, have pointed out that as far as you suspect, the defendants weren't religious anyway.
2. "Given only non-Muslim girls were targeted, a possible reason for this is they didn't want to break any Islamic code".
See answers to 1 above. Obviously the same applies.
"And you never answered my question: What do you think the judge meant when he said religion played it's part?"
No idea because there was no other indication that I have read which explained why this phrase was used. I realise many including yourself have seized on this for a variety of purposes. My guess and it is only a guess is that in some ways Muslim communities are more coherent than the neighbourhoods where nobody knows their neighbour. And that as a generalisation, of which I am sure there are many, many exceptions you do not tend to see young, out of control, Asian girls hanging around taxi ranks, kebab shops late at night etc. The reason being is that just as many Muslim families tend to look after their old at home rather than putting them in a care home, so they tend, a huge generalisation again, to keep a tighter control of their daughters in particular.
Therefore I believe there was a religious element in the sense that the Asians thought they had a far, far, better chance of getting away with it by sticking to the girls that hung around the takeaways, which were generally white, out of control, young girls living in care homes after being thrown out by family.
As I pointed out to Davey before his post was deleted by admin. What is the key word in the following phrases:
Asian, Muslim paedophile.
White, Christian paedophile.
Slightly suntanned, of indeterminate religion, Eastern European paedophile.
Its the word paedophile. And what denotes them is a desire to exploit and control vulnerable, underage girls for their own perverted gain.
WHat does not denote them is the use of the Koran or the Old Testament either to defend paedophilia or in the case of the Old Testament, defend the killing of prostitutes or whatever.
Time to move on. I have absolutely nothing more to say in this thread to you. Last word to you I guess.
In your original post to me you stated:
1.And, Mohammed gives Muslims permission in Sura 33:50 to have sex with slaves (it's impossible to rape a non-muslim or Muslim wife in Islam and rape isn't even mentioned).
I have explained that your huge step in going from this to the Rochdale case,is not the view of the Muslim Council representing Muslims in the UK. This argument is very debatable and I have given you the links to prove this. This argument was not used by the defendants either before, during or after the court case. The argument was not used by the defendants families and friends either before, during or after the court case. The argument was not used by any Muslim body either, before, during or after the court case. You, yourself, have pointed out that as far as you suspect, the defendants weren't religious anyway.
2. "Given only non-Muslim girls were targeted, a possible reason for this is they didn't want to break any Islamic code".
See answers to 1 above. Obviously the same applies.
"And you never answered my question: What do you think the judge meant when he said religion played it's part?"
No idea because there was no other indication that I have read which explained why this phrase was used. I realise many including yourself have seized on this for a variety of purposes. My guess and it is only a guess is that in some ways Muslim communities are more coherent than the neighbourhoods where nobody knows their neighbour. And that as a generalisation, of which I am sure there are many, many exceptions you do not tend to see young, out of control, Asian girls hanging around taxi ranks, kebab shops late at night etc. The reason being is that just as many Muslim families tend to look after their old at home rather than putting them in a care home, so they tend, a huge generalisation again, to keep a tighter control of their daughters in particular.
Therefore I believe there was a religious element in the sense that the Asians thought they had a far, far, better chance of getting away with it by sticking to the girls that hung around the takeaways, which were generally white, out of control, young girls living in care homes after being thrown out by family.
As I pointed out to Davey before his post was deleted by admin. What is the key word in the following phrases:
Asian, Muslim paedophile.
White, Christian paedophile.
Slightly suntanned, of indeterminate religion, Eastern European paedophile.
Its the word paedophile. And what denotes them is a desire to exploit and control vulnerable, underage girls for their own perverted gain.
WHat does not denote them is the use of the Koran or the Old Testament either to defend paedophilia or in the case of the Old Testament, defend the killing of prostitutes or whatever.
Time to move on. I have absolutely nothing more to say in this thread to you. Last word to you I guess.
-
Gusset Sniffer
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Nine guilty over child exploitation ring
I have heard Pakistani families saying, "Don't act like a white girl" to their teenage daughters when they put make up on or want to stay out late. I think they have a problem.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gusset Sniffer
"I have heard Pakistani families saying, "Don't act like a white girl" to their teenage daughters when they put make up on or want to stay out late. I think they have a problem."
I suspect that the parents of the large number of underage girls flooding UK towns in the early hours of the weekend, pissed up and out of control may also "have a problem". I also suspect that the high prevalence of sexual infections and teenage pregnancy among young girls in this country might and is viewed as a "problem".
Why should it be so strange for a concerned parent not to want her daughter being potentially bracketed as "easy" and put at risk?
It's not as if they are saying - "don't mix with white girls because your father might be shagging one later tonight" is it?
I suspect that the parents of the large number of underage girls flooding UK towns in the early hours of the weekend, pissed up and out of control may also "have a problem". I also suspect that the high prevalence of sexual infections and teenage pregnancy among young girls in this country might and is viewed as a "problem".
Why should it be so strange for a concerned parent not to want her daughter being potentially bracketed as "easy" and put at risk?
It's not as if they are saying - "don't mix with white girls because your father might be shagging one later tonight" is it?