Also in the news

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Its very ‘un nerving’ to read serious posts from  @Dr The Singh 

 

has he been kidnapped ???

yes by me

[Dr The Singh]

11 hours ago, the fox said:

Oh, I thought you were talking about just the wives of the prophet (who all agreed willingly, there were even other women who wanted to be his wives).

 

Anyways, does a women have a saying on who her husband is? Of course. There is no marriage without the agreement of the women. An example: 2 of the prophet's wives were captives of war. He freed them, prompting many Muslims to free many other captives. And they both agreed to marry him as free women. 

 

The prophet didn't go around burning villages for servants. The wars weren't unprompted. People didn't want to keep treaties (they wouldn't have signed them in the first place if they were in a position of power and they would've killed every Muslim if they had the chance) or pay Jizya. They wanted to fight Muslims, kill them so he had to fight back.

 

Talking about Jizyah, here's another misconception about Islam.

 

Jizyah is a tax for the people of the book (Jews and Christians). Muslims also pay taxes called Zakhat. But wait, even though that sounds Fair (way more fair than the terms the Christians and the Jews would offer the Muslims if the roles were reversed). It gets even fairer because we have to know who pays Jizyah.

 

And the answer is : only adult males who are healthy and can fight.

 

So, the people who don't need to pay Jizyah are, women, children, men who can't work, the sick, the blind, the old, the poor, the crazy, the handicapped, and the monks and priests. the poor are to be given money from the treasury as help. And every Christian and Jew is relieved from military service. They have their money, houses, honer, and places of worship protected from inside and outside threats. Plus, they have the right to do business across the Muslim land. (All of this is according to Sharia) There was a time were Jews sought refuge and went to Muslims. They lived amongst Muslims and survived the Catholic church and grew wealthier and more knowledgeable of their history. It lasted the best part of 1300 years. People have to wonder what caused the relationship to turn bad.

 

Back to the main subject.

 

 

 

 

There were treaties between many tribes and the tribes have gone back on them, betraying the prophet so the only outcome left is war. The fighting wasn't unprompted. They were called to convert and they refused so they were signing treaties and breaking them, aiding enemies against the prophet even though they gave their word to fight besides the prophet against any outside threat. (Another story for another post).

 

So, what's the alternative for the captives of war? Put to the sword? What have the women and children, the sick and the old. done to deserve death? (Even the men who fought, they surrender and the only ones who were killed were the one who wanted to keep fighting Muslim) It was not their fault. Or, should they be thrown in the desert to die (like what the polytheists did to the prophet and his companions). Or should the women sell their bodies to men for food and for boys to do hard labor and the sick and the old to die of poor conditions. That, if they even had the chance to do so? The prophet said that the captives are like brothers, they should eat what the Muslims eat and dress with what the Muslims wear. If they were mistreated, they should be freed. If they were told to do a job, the job has to not be too hard for them and their holders should help them. They shouldn't be hit in the face. It's a command to treat them well. They are described as "whom the right hand possess" and they are to be treated justly according to Qur'an surah 4 verse 36: "Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.". 

 

 

 a lot of servants were freed. The servants can buy their freedom with their own money, or they can be freed if they were mistreated or if their holders wanted to free them according to the law. 

 

As for the female servant (called a'mah or Jariyah), she is to only share the bed with one man. So if she's already married, her holder has no right to bed her, force her husband to divorce her or stop him from sharing her bed. And if she wasn't married, she is not to sleep with 2 or more men or be forced to sell her body or do more than her ability allows her to or practice unlawful things, if she sleeps with strange men, her punishment is only half of the punishment of a free women. If she birth children from her holder, her children are legitimate and her holder can't sell her or give her away because she became the mother of his children. And if he dies, she becomes a free women and have the right to inherit or marry. The prophet encouraged people to free and marry them. 

 

 

That's justly treatment. 

 

My responses were long and detailed. It was your part to ask questions, so can I ask some?

 

Like you mentioned, prophets of God have to do what's best if the means are available. And your questions don't seem like they come from a Christian or Jewish background. So, Sikh I guess? So my question is, (if you are Sikh), why do you think Sikhism is right and what are the standards to judge who's a prophet and who's not. And why do you think what the Gurus preached was right. Because anyone can claim to be a prophet.

 

We can move to the religion thread if you want to answer my questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't bother moving this to a religious thread.  My question was not answered, infact what was written, any human being would implore such behaviour to have your rights taken away from you and be called 'servants', dictated by someone else's rule or religion.  There is no account at which people the right hand posses, could at any point at there own choosing just walk out and not be possessed.  They had to be freed at the choice of there master.

 

You can post whatever you like,.I'm done with this hyperbole.

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/

 

So he went to the home of a woman who accused him of sexual assault with his children in the car?

 

He was also armed with a knife!

Edited 29 August 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/

 

So he went to the home of a woman who accused him of sexual assault with his children in the car?

 

He was also armed with a knife!

I can't find any other source that says that Blake was visiting the home of that woman - and frankly the NY Post is the US equivalent of the Sun and the Daily Mail rolled into one, which a cursory Google check will verify.

 

The warrants, it seem, did exist, though they have now apparently been vacated (for obvious reasons, I guess) and, once again, even if all of the above were true, there is no evidence whatsoever of him actually brandishing that knife and presenting a deadly threat and thus warranting deadly force in response.

 

The Post is simply trying to justify the attempted murder of a person of colour because he had a record and "might" have been a threat with zero regard for due process. Not all that surprising from a Murdoch publication, really.

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can't find any other source that says that Blake was visiting the home of that woman - and frankly the NY Post is the US equivalent of the Sun and the Daily Mail rolled into one, which a cursory Google check will verify.

 

The warrants, it seem, did exist, though they have now apparently been vacated (for obvious reasons, I guess) and, once again, even if all of the above were true, there is no evidence whatsoever of him actually brandishing that knife and presenting a deadly threat and thus warranting deadly force in response.

 

The Post is simply trying to justify the attempted murder of a person of colour because he had a record and "might" have been a threat with zero regard for due process. Not all that surprising from a Murdoch publication, really.

 

 

I didn't know that about the NY Post tbf, I was just reading the news on google and it linked me to that article, it makes sense though as it says similar things in the DM about the sexual assault and that he was visiting the home of the woman etc.

 

I imagine the information about the knife will be released shortly (if it's true), they'll have to publish it in the investigation findings.

[foxile5]

Watched a programme about gymnasts feeling abused because they were told they were too heavy to compete on the high bars. 

 

Now, don't get me wrong - there have been several horrific instances of abuse by coaches on both female and male athletes. The programme touched on this. It is deplorable. 

 

However, this body positivity nonesense needs to be bought into check. Being an elite gymnast requires you be in a particular physical condition. I'm bordering fat. I am, objectively, too heavy to be on the high bars. It would be dangerous at worst and a real poor judgement of coaching at best. It isn't abuse to have body expectations in sporting arenas. 

 

This concept of commenting on someone's weight being abuse needs to be reviewed. I thoroughly expect sports people to have to moderate their weight with greater consideration than, say, an administrator. 

 

If you don't like getting told that you need to lose weight to compete in an event then I'd suggest that sports at an elite level isn't for you. 

 

Again, this is distinct from physical abuse. But if looking a certain way and being able to move in a certain way are aspects of the sport then that's going to be an expectation from those training at the highest levels. 

[MPH]

18 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I didn't know that about the NY Post tbf, I was just reading the news on google and it linked me to that article, it makes sense though as it says similar things in the DM about the sexual assault and that he was visiting the home of the woman etc.

 

I imagine the information about the knife will be released shortly (if it's true), they'll have to publish it in the investigation findings.

 

 

It would be absolutely horrific if it was true that there were previous charges against him for things like that.

 

 

You have to judge each case on its own separate merit.. meaning, what happened on the day to ‘justify’ the shooting?

 

 

if as a crazy 18 year old i got drunk started a fight and beat up a few people and i then got accused of shoplifting the next day, i hope that judge would look for evidence of any shoplifting and not base his decisions on wether i got drunk the night before.

 

 

im sure you know all this of course.

Edited 29 August 2020 by MPH

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I didn't know that about the NY Post tbf, I was just reading the news on google and it linked me to that article, it makes sense though as it says similar things in the DM about the sexual assault and that he was visiting the home of the woman etc.

 

I imagine the information about the knife will be released shortly (if it's true), they'll have to publish it in the investigation findings.

It's fair - I only know as much about the US media as I do because I spent time there and because if you're interested in US politics as I am you've got to know the slant of each source.

 

Based on what I've read it does seem that there was likely a knife in the car. Thing is, unless it's certain that he was going to produce it with intent to use it, I'm not sure it matters - is it really right to stick seven in someone's back on the basis of a maybe rather than a certainty? Guess that goes back to the death penalty discussion tbh - absolute, irreversible measures requiring absolute proof IMO.

[Jattdogg]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

It would be absolutely horrific if it was true that there were previous charges against him for things like that.

 

 

You have to judge each case on its own separate merit.. meaning, what happened on the day to ‘justify’ the shooting?

 

 

if as a crazy 18 year old i got drunk started a fight and beat up a few people and i then got accused of shoplifting the next day, i hope that judge would look for evidence of any shoplifting and not base his decisions on wether i got drunk the night before.

 

 

im sure you know all this of course.

He may not be a Saint  at all but having said that, i still dont think shooting him 7 or 8 times was warranted. Could have backed off and then if he came back out the car with a knife then i suppose do what ya gotta do.

 

 

Edited 29 August 2020 by Jattdogg

[the fox]

10 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

Don't bother moving this to a religious thread.  My question was not answered, infact what was written, any human being would implore such behaviour to have your rights taken away from you and be called 'servants', dictated by someone else's rule or religion.  There is no account at which people the right hand posses, could at any point at there own choosing just walk out and not be possessed.  They had to be freed at the choice of there master.

 

You can post whatever you like,.I'm done with this hyperbole.

Your questions were answered in detail. (I even addressed misconceptions that weren't related to your question directly). 

 

"Someone else's rules" as if people aren't required to adhere to the laws of the authority governing the country they live in. No one is free to do whatever he wants.

 

And I already said that servants can pay to gain their freedom or demand their release from the authority if they were mistreated. 

 

 

I didn't quote you first, you did. Posting loaded questions which I did provide answers to. 

 

I answered your questions yet you choose to end the discussion (that you started BTW) because you didn't want to address mine.

 

This was you, right?

 

On 27/08/2020 at 18:03, Dr The Singh said:

 

I have had many debates on this forum, with serial themes, I need you to show real perspective and honesty, for a response.

 

On 27/08/2020 at 21:50, Dr The Singh said:

As always expect no response

 

Anyways, we can both agree to end the discussion here. But we can pick up the topic on its designated thread if you want to answer my questions.

[Dr The Singh]

Just now, the fox said:

Your questions were answered in detail. (I even addressed misconceptions that weren't related to your question directly). 

 

"Someone else's rules" as if people aren't required to adhere to the laws of the authority governing the country they live in. No one is free to do whatever he wants.

 

And I already said that servants can pay to gain their freedom or demand their release from the authority if they were mistreated. 

 

 

I didn't quote you first, you did. Posting loaded questions which I did provide answers to. 

 

I answered your questions yet you choose to end the discussion (that you started BTW) because you didn't want to address mine.

 

This was you, right?

 

 

 

Anyways, we can both agree to end the discussion here. But we can pick up the topic on its designated thread if you want to answer my questions.

your deluded, go and do one

[the fox]

Thanks for elevating the level of intellectual discourse regarding the topic.

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, the fox said:

Thanks for elevating the level of intellectual discourse regarding the topic.

No mate its you, you cannot see anything bad in what your faith has done.  Its so sad, again,.can you tell.me.those women when the right hand possess can next day.decide.to walk an do what they want with there own free will without prejudice?  As it should be.

 

Free will' all peope says this must be observed. What your telling me that this is not the case.

 

Yes?  Or No? 

That's all I ask for.

Let's. Start there and continue

 

Edited 29 August 2020 by Dr The Singh

[Dr The Singh]

22 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

No mate its you, you cannot see anything bad in what your faith has done.  Its so sad, again,.can you tell.me.those women when the right hand possess can next day.decide.to walk an do what they want?

 

 

Yes?  Or No? 

That's all I ask for.

 

[420Hashish]

2 hours ago, the fox said:

Thanks for elevating the level of intellectual discourse regarding the topic.

It's impossible to win an argument against an idiot. Save your breath m8

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53963625

 

More escalation in Portland. Not good.

[twoleftfeet]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53963625

 

More escalation in Portland. Not good.

Why does the press keep referring to these as protests. They are not mainly peaceful in the same way the armed teenager in Kenosha wasnt mainly peaceful.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

Why does the press keep referring to these as protests. They are not mainly peaceful in the same way the armed teenager in Kenosha wasnt mainly peaceful.

I guess because they fit the dictionary definition of protests - people marching and engaging in civil disturbance for the sake of objecting to a political cause. I don't think that they have to be peaceful in order to keep fitting that definition.

 

In any case, the whole thing is a tinderbox right now, which isn't much good except for those who would like to be king of the ashes.

[I am Rod Hull]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I guess because they fit the dictionary definition of protests - people marching and engaging in civil disturbance for the sake of objecting to a political cause. I don't think that they have to be peaceful in order to keep fitting that definition.

 

In any case, the whole thing is a tinderbox right now, which isn't much good except for those who would like to be king of the ashes.

Violence is ok for a political cause!!!. Not in the West it ain’t.... WTF are you on pal apart from soy?

[leicsmac]

Just now, I am Rod Hull said:

Violence is ok for a political cause!!!. Not in the West it ain’t.... WTF are you on pal apart from soy?

...evidently something not quite so strongly affecting as you are, considering the remarkable quality of the strawman just constructed there - seeing that I said absolutely nothing about the moral veracity of these or any other protests and instead only clarified the dictionary definition of "protest". Again, such definitions say nothing about it needing to be peaceful or not.

 

It's good to see an actual response rather than the continued drabble of meaningless emojis, though.

[foxile5]

10 hours ago, 420Hashish said:

It's impossible to win an argument against an idiot. Save your breath m8

420hashish being the voice of sense.

[I am Rod Hull]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...evidently something not quite so strongly affecting as you are, considering the remarkable quality of the strawman just constructed there - seeing that I said absolutely nothing about the moral veracity of these or any other protests and instead only clarified the dictionary definition of "protest". Again, such definitions say nothing about it needing to be peaceful or not.

 

It's good to see an actual response rather than the continued drabble of meaningless emojis, though.

Load of bollocks... You clearly say that that protests do not have to be peaceful for a political objective. 
 

Strawman - your favourite buzz word.. Stop using it, it’s embarrassing.

 

I hope Biden wins, just to spare me from your TDS posts 

[foxile5]

10 minutes ago, I am Rod Hull said:

Load of bollocks... You clearly say that that protests do not have to be peaceful for a political objective. 
 

Strawman - your favourite buzz word.. Stop using it, it’s embarrassing.

 

I hope Biden wins, just to spare me from your TDS posts 

They don't have to be peaceful though - that's just a definition. Leicsmac isn't advocating violence or condoning. Just observing that the definition of protest isn't necessarily for it to be peaceful. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, I am Rod Hull said:

Load of bollocks... You clearly say that that protests do not have to be peaceful for a political objective. 
 

Strawman - your favourite buzz word.. Stop using it, it’s embarrassing.

 

I hope Biden wins, just to spare me from your TDS posts 

 

1 minute ago, foxile5 said:

They don't have to be peaceful though - that's just a definition. Leicsmac isn't advocating violence or condoning. Just observing that the definition of protest isn't necessarily for it to be peaceful. 

 

 

Giving a response so that I don't have to - much obliged. Evidently that wasn't clear enough.

 

And I'm not making anyone read the Trump-related material I post, but if there's portions of them that are actually inaccurate and not based on what the man has actually said, done or implied then I'd be happy to discuss them.

[foxile5]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Giving a response so that I don't have to - much obliged. Evidently that wasn't clear enough.

 

And I'm not making anyone read the Trump-related material I post, but if there's portions of them that are actually inaccurate and not based on what the man has actually said, done or implied then I'd be happy to discuss them.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to speak for you. I just really don't understand how your post was so offensive to him. 

 

How can one be angered by a definition?