Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Countryfox

Also in the news

By Countryfox, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

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? 

Nothing to apologise for mate, I was glad for the additional defence. :)

 

And truth be told, I have absolutely no idea why what I posted would be so apparently inflammatory.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twoleftfeet

twoleftfeet

Posted
Posted
7 hours 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.

They just added more petrol

 https://www.libertybugle.com/portland-blm-rioters-cheer-death-of-patriot-prayer-member-we-got-a-trumper-video/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

They just added more petrol

 https://www.libertybugle.com/portland-blm-rioters-cheer-death-of-patriot-prayer-member-we-got-a-trumper-video/

 

...sorry for taking the same line as earlier, but I'm not really sure of the trustworthiness of that particular source given the language used.

 

I did come across what seems to be a reasonable and sourced compilation of events earlier as a primer for what's going on, I'm going to leave it here:

 

--------------------------------

 

There’s a LOT of info that we don’t yet know about what happened on the streets of downtown Portland last night, and it’s really important to keep that in mind. We’re likely going to learn a lot more that will shape our opinions of the conflict, the shooting, and the potential aftermath.
 
There’s also been a lot of other stuff going on that my friends who DON’T live in Portland probably don’t know, so I want to share some more background that you’re probably not going to hear from news sources not based in PDX. (I have thoughts on local media coverage, too.)
 
Despite the length, this is actually a really, really short recap of the last few months. In no way do I intend to present this as a comprehensive history. This is merely a quick chronology for those who wonder “how did it get like this?”
 
Patriot Prayer is a right-wing group, led by a guy named Joey Gibson. They are based in Vancouver, WA a city just across the Columbia river, a body of water that forms the border between Washington and Oregon. So, they’re not even from here. Some of their members may be, of course, but in general the organization is considered an “outsider” group to the area. The guy who was shot last night was wearing a Patriot Prayer hat.
 
They are analogous to the “Proud Boys.” If I understand correctly, they’re technically separate groups, but they’re essentially peas in pod. If I conflate the two, it’s not like there’s a huge difference.
 
The first conflicts between PP and Portland protesters pre-dates the current Black Lives Matter protests. There have been run-ins since at least 2017. In 2018, a PP event was vastly outnumbered by counter protesters, and the Portland Police Department escorted the Proud Boys out of town. Not asked them to leave, not arrested the most violent, but *escorted them* out of town.
 
This pattern of Proud Boy/Patriot Prayer aggression has repeated several times over the years since, including attacks on individual targets away from larger protests.
This one is abot Tusitala “Tiny” Toese. I’ll mention him again in a moment:
Willamette Week, a weekly Portland indie publication, discovered that there had been email communication between someone in the Portland Police Bureau and PP’s Gibson, revealing “the extent to which law enforcement officers talked to and even coordinated with right-wing activists in order to police protests in 2017 and 2018.” So, the police (at least some of them, anyway) and the Proud Boys were in cahoots.
When the Black Lives Matter protests began after the death of George Floyd, Portland protesters never stopped. The size of the protests had, in fact, been shrinking – until Donald Trump decided to send a mysterious federal forces in late July. This led to a resurgence in crowd turnout and the nationally-covered events you’ve heard about.
 
Again, as I mentioned a few weeks ago, that protest was limited to a few blocks in downtown Portland. The alleged widespread violence and looting that Trump claimed was overtaking Portland simply was not true.
 
Since Trump’s federal forces have left, and as the protests approach their 100th consecutive day, their focus seems to have changed. I have not attended, so I cannot provide an in-person perspective, but I have watched many live streams from Eric Greatwood, aka “Veteran For Peace” (who just recently announced he’s stepping away from his role streaming and documenting the events) and Sol Luna (who’s still out there every night) and others. I encourage you to find a stream and watch for yourself in real-time to see what’s actually occurring every night.
 
In recent weeks, the protests that had for so long been centered around the federal courthouse downtown have expanded to the Portland Police Union building, other police stations, and – recently – a federal ICE building. There still has been no widespread looting, vandalism, or violence in the way that Trump portrays Portland (as a city under siege), but the conflicts have expanded to include not only these new locations, but the use of fires as a tactic.
It should be noted that the crowds still chant Black Lives Matter, but have increasingly changed their tone to antagonize police, more frequently chanting “ACAB – all cops are bastards” and “**** the police”. Many local Black leaders and activists have decried the shift to a more confrontational, provocational tone.
 
Nearly every night, the protests begin in earnest at about 10pm. Nearly every night, police declare the gatherings to be an “unlawful assembly” and, around midnight, they clear whatever area the protest is taking place. Many nights, they declare that the events are riots. Some national media (you know the one) push the narrative that Portland is nothing but riots, but the riots are not what you probably envision when you hear the word. They aren’t giant street brawls where people are throwing rocks through windows and fighting each other in hand-to-hand combat. It’s mostly a lot of yelling, some bullhorns, a lot of profanity, and throwing of objects. Weeks ago, most thrown items were water bottles, but there are more rocks now. Mostly, though, each night consists of a lot of standing around waiting to see when the police will make their move to disperse the crowd.
 
So, again, keep this in mind: the Portland Police Bureau declares these nightly events a riot very, very frequently. But the pro-Trump/Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer side hasn’t been silent, either.
 
On August 7, an explosive device was thrown at protesters in a Portland park.
 
On 8/15, a Patriot Prayer member allegedly fired a gun at pro-BLM protesters.
 
On 8/22, the Proud Boys visited downtown Portland, near the federal courthouse, and … this happened.
When you think of “riots,” you probably think of THIS:
 
One of the Proud Boys pulled a handgun, pointed it at protesters, and had his finger on the trigger. There are photos online if you want to look for them. Here’s a story:
 
During the course of this event, “Tiny” Toese was seen walking directly past police to gather with the Proud Boys. Toese is very well known to local authorities, who also knew that he was on parole and was not to attend events such as this due to his previous violent attacks and parole violations. The police didn’t stop him.
 
In fact, the police basically refused to intervene between the two groups. Lots of mace was used (not by police, but by the two factions). Proud Boys tried to tip over a truck that had been used to distribute snacks and water to protesters. There were large fistfights.
However, the police declared no riot until much later in the evening, after the Proud Boys had left and only the pro-BLM protesters remained. Yesterday, 8/29, a pro-Trump car caravan formed late in the afternoon in Clackamas and drove to downtown Portland.
Upon their arrival, there appeared to be no police presence. Many vehicles aggressively ran red lights and appeared to speed up through intersections, seemingly trying to hit (or at the very least, scare the shit out of) protesters. You may need to scroll a bit to find them all. (I hate Twitter, so I’m rarely on it, and I don’t have the patience to look up individual posts – but they’re there, I assure you.)
Then, at about 8:45, there was a shooting and one person died. He was wearing a Proud Boys hat. There are videos online, and you can find them if you want to, but I’m not going to post them here. In the videos, you can hear two gunshots. One person posted a slowed-down version of a somewhat distant video and indicated that the two shots were not from the same person, and that the Proud Boy missed his target, but his opponent did not. We don’t know for sure yet.
You also may not have heard about the fate of Joey Gibson, who decided it would be a good idea to walk around downtown last night with two of his fellow Patriot Prayer members. He was recognized by the crowd, who ultimately chased him through the streets and into a gas station, where he awaited rescue from the police. Despite the potential for more street violence across the downtown area, literally dozens of police showed up to help him leave.
 
Again, there’s a LOT we don’t know. But to anyone who doesn’t live in Portland and thought last night’s shooting was just some weird, random event, it wasn’t. It was, sadly, probably a predictable outcome.
 
Also, I didn’t even mention Ted Wheeler. So Trump and Fox News and others on that side, he’s a weak-kneed, do-nothing Democrat who can’t take control of his streets. However, what you likely haven’t heard yet, is that many in the protestor/BLM movement believe he’s a weak-kneed, do-nothing mayor who capitulates to the police and has done nothing to address the concerns of the community. Most would seem to agree he’s doing a terrible job, but for very, very different reasons.
And the local media: Last weekend's confrontation took place over several hours. Yesterday's began in the evening and lasted through the night. The shooting took place at about 8:45. I was home and had my TV on. Unless I missed it - which is possible - there was no live cut in, and no breaking news coverage. The news was given to the community during the 10:00 and 11:00 news shows. This distresses me to no end, because at that point, there WAS cause for concern for public safety, but the media appeared content to just wait it out. Personally, I find that embarrassing and shameful.
 
-----------------
 
And to sign off, Trump and Biden are of course blaming each other for the way things are going down.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bridge

Bridge

Posted
Posted

Very interesting & informative post. I live just outside Portland & was watching Timbers V RSL match on tv when the shooting took place..just a 15 minute walk from there to the ground.(no fans in attendance of course) Very depressing times indeed. I talked to a few people that were in the area before it all kicked off..they knew things would go south quickly once the Trump truckers caravan came on the scene.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted
Quote

 

Scrapping 213 local councils could save £3bn says report
28 August 2020

Abolishing 213 smaller councils in England and replacing them with 25 new local authorities could save almost £3bn over five years, a report says.

The report for the County Councils Network says one body in each area would reduce complexity and give communities a single unified voice.

However, others argue bigger councils are unwieldy and undemocratic.

The government is expected to publish its own proposals on overhauling local government in the autumn.

Plans could include scrapping district and county councils in England in favour of fewer, larger authorities which control all services in their area.

County councils, including Surrey, North Yorkshire and Leicestershire, have developed or are already developing plans to replace county and district councils in their area with a single body.

 

Am I getting deja vu ?

 

Surely we've tried this and reversed it because it didn't work or people were unhappy.

 

I'm certain that all or most of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland were all merge and then broken up again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Bridge said:

Very interesting & informative post. I live just outside Portland & was watching Timbers V RSL match on tv when the shooting took place..just a 15 minute walk from there to the ground.(no fans in attendance of course) Very depressing times indeed. I talked to a few people that were in the area before it all kicked off..they knew things would go south quickly once the Trump truckers caravan came on the scene.

Thank you for the perspective from closer to where it's happening!

 

If you know much about it, what's the general thoughts of the locals about it all?

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted

So the chap who tried to swim the channel for something to do on his day off was rescued 500 metres from shore after 8 hours. I think he needs to do a few more lengths of the swimming pool before trying to tackle 27 miles.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/english-channel-person-missing-after-trying-to-swim-from-dover-to-calais-unaccompanied-12060593 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leeds Fox

Leeds Fox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

So the chap who tried to swim the channel for something to do on his day off was rescued 500 metres from shore after 8 hours. I think he needs to do a few more lengths of the swimming pool before trying to tackle 27 miles.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/english-channel-person-missing-after-trying-to-swim-from-dover-to-calais-unaccompanied-12060593 


That’s 500m closer to the shore than I’d get tbf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
On 27/08/2020 at 17:49, the fox said:

Thanks for taking the time to listen to the other side of the story, man. I will try to answer your questions as precise as possible.

 

The words failed me regarding the bit about the highlighted part of the discussion. What I meant is, the actions of those terrorists aren't related to the teachings of Islam so trying to separate Islam and Muslims as a way to say "Muslims are fine, it's Islam that's the problem" is the bit that I mined. The Muslims that I was talking about are the ones who follow the the correct path. They follow the teachings of the Qur'an and the prophet peace be upon him. So, I should've said "Islam is perfect, Muslims aren't". So in a way, I was wrong in the way I phrased it and I do apologize. There are Muslims who drink alcohol, that doesn't mean that Islam allows it. If I had to write the post again, I would've said that " what some Muslims do isn't a representation of Islam". 

 

To the second point, those people are on clear misguidance. They have nothing to stand on. Let's put Qur'an and Sunn'ah as a judge between us and let's see. They don't have justification in the text. They quote a verse (or a bit of that verse) out of context and say "see! It fits our agenda".

 

I will give you an example.

 

Person number 1: Allah said that the believers shouldn't pray.

 

Person number 2: what are you on about?

 

P1: it says in the Qur'an Surah 4 verse 43 "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer"

 

P2: eh? It says that, but you should read  the whole verse in context. Because it says: "O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.

 

 

See how the sick of heart work? They twist and misquote scripture to suit their own desires.

 

 

They, time and time again, get ruined by Sunni scholars yet they seem to lack the smallest bit of shame. Anjem choudhary and his followers are right-wing media's favourite Muslims. I don't get those folk, are they stupid, crazy, or just ignorant? They scream "we want Sharia in England", do they not know that Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim majority country according to Islam? England is what's called a land of peace according to Muslim scholars. And in a land of Peace, you are to comply with the laws of that land and pay taxes as long as it doesn't go against Islam (example, Muslims aren't killed there because of their religion by the authority, they aren't forced to eat pork, drink alcohol, and deal in usury..etc). "Sharia in England" statement has no validity to it because England isn't a majority-muslim country. There's not a country in the world that's following Sharia in the world IMO so how are they going around wanting Sharia in England of all places? Those people get refuted by Muslims in England all the time. (A quick part that I want to add, Jewish people in a Muslim country under Sharia are allowed to hold their own court and judge between themselves according to their Jewish sharia whilst Muslims can't demand Sharia in non-muslim countries . Which brings me to another point, Sharia means Law. Saying sharia law is like saying "the Sahara desert", Sahara means desert)

 

Another thing about the terrorists in England. They are committing treason by attacking English civilians and going against Islam. When they come to England and get their nationality/residency, they are signing a contract that says that they will not cause harm, causing harm is them breaking the treaty unjustly(which is forbidden). Now some people will ask, "what if, for example, England starts a war against Morocco and start killing their civilians, can a Moroccan living in England attack English soldiers in England?" And the answer is NO! What he does according to Islam is, go to English authorities, hand over his nationality/residency and ask them to fly him to Morocco. The moment he leaves English soil and land in his homeland, is the moment the treaty is broken the right way. And notice how I said "English soldiers" and not "English people". Because even in war, you are forbidden to kill the innocent. 

 

I don't get English media sometimes, why do they have to pick two sides of the extreme and compare them? It's either people like Anjem choudhery and his followers or this new movement of left-wing, liberal Muslims (like madjid Nawaz, which I will talk about in a second). Why not pick a proper Sunni Muslim scholar and let him explain. I know very little and those Scholars can explain much better than me the misconception that English folk have about Islam. But I don't think the media will because it has to be " right-wing narrative vs left-wing narrative" in almost everything these days.

 

 

Now to Mr Madjid Nawaz. I had him on my recommendation many times on YouTube. After reading your post I went and searched him, the first video starts as him answering the question about "are Judges right to separate UK law from Sharia" and he answered "yes". And I was satisfied with the answer. That goes inline with what Islam teaches. (Even though I think poisons to society like gambling, Drugs and alcohol, usury..etc should be baned for the good of the people, a few things that the English people could benefit from) But to my horror, the man wants a "reform" to Islam, which implies that he knows more than the Creator about what's best for creation. Quite the Muslim role module he is. But I say hey, let's give the man the benefit of the doubt and see what his argument is, and behold, he comes up with 2 misconceptions that people on the EDL use against Muslims.

 

I don't mind an argument, but what I do mind is ignorance. I can forgive a non-muslim if he believes those misconceptions because he doesn't know. But someone who calls himself Muslim? What a joke.

 

The first is wife beating and the second is " a male can inherit  twice as much as females ". I will address both those misconceptions. 

 

The verse in Surah 4 verse 34 says "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

 

 

 

 

 

Some will say, "so it's like baseball with the 3 strikes rule. You advise them, then forsake them in bed, than you can beat them up, right?". No. Because it says " strike" but the verse doesn't say what are the limits to the striking. And like any Muslim who studies just a little bit will know that Allah said that the prophet PBUH will explain in detail what are the limits in some subjects. So now we have to go to hadith (the sayings of the prophet) and see what has he said about the verse. He said that when a person strikes his wife he shouldn't strike the face, leave bruises, or cause pain. Can't hit the face, can't cause pain or bruises, Which in conclusion says, Islam forbids wife beating. The striking, scholars say, is lightly hitting a place like a shoulder with a tiny stick signifying that their difference are about to go public and the families of the husband and  wife will be involved and it could end up in a divorce. Hopefully the first misconception has been explained.

 

 

As for the inheritance part, Madjid should've done his research. There are many cases were a female gets the same portion as a male, and even other cases where the portion a female gets is more than the male's.

 

But that still leave us with the bit about a male taking more than a female. You remember the first part in verse 4:34, where it says that men are in charge of women. When a female gets her piece of inheritance, she can do whatever she wants with it and is under no obligation to spend her share helping the household financially, but the male is ordered to spend from his own wealth and inheritance on her and on the household.

 

 

Imagine two people living together and they get £6000, the first person gets 4000 and the second gets 2000, but the person who got the 4000 has to take care of rent, buy medicine and food, and just spend his part of the money on the household whist the second person who got 2000 is under no obligation to contribute to living expenses. All the financial responsibility is on the person who got the £4000.

 

 

I have seen the figures and Muslims are always condemning terrorism and grooming gangs. It is a cultural problem when it comes to grooming gangs and iT should be dealt With harshly. I condemned both those groups on this forum before. 

 

There is no such thing as liberal Muslim. God commanded and he know more about his own creation than what humans know about themselves. You see most of the people who leave Islam aren't knowledgble enough and think that Islam condones domestic viloince when not even 200 years ago, the hierarchy in the cultures that they so idolize ranked the man first, the family donkey second, and maybe after that you can find women. 1400 years ago, Islam gave Women the right to vote, own property, have inheritance, and even divorce the man if her reasons are valid (a women can even ask to be divorced if she feels that her husband isn't satisfying her in bed because that's her right).

 

Look how most of the people who leave Islam want to indulge in all manner of sin and their knowledge about Islam is very limited yet a lot of people who convert to Islam are usually people who are welloff financial, from stable environment and made the choice based on intellect. Islam if one of the fastest growing, if not the fastest in the world. And I want to know what kind of religion they are converting to. 

Thanks for another detailed and thought provoking reply. You're obviously quite devout and I don't mean to offend by the points I posit or the questions I ask. I've learned that it's best not to start picking at scripture, mainly because I haven't bothered studying it, partly because I just don't have the time, but also because I'm just not interested in it at all (and that goes for the other religions too).

 

I will pick up on a few issues that interested me from your post - and a couple that disturbed me.

 

So, you seem to be hung up on the idea that Muslims should follow the words of scripture to the letter. I would contend that they mostly don't. 

 

The point I've made at a few points is that many Muslims, like Christians, tend to pick and choose the exact passages and tenets that suit their way of life. We're talking about circa 1.6 billion people here, all in different countries with differing cultures, laws, education and literacy - in many countries it's illegal to not be Muslim. As an Atheist there are still 13 countries I would literally be risking my life to go to. Guess what they all have in common? Human nature suggests to me that it would be impossible to all 1.6 billion muslims to agree on one exact truth within Islam. Same goes for the 2.5 billion Christians.

 

How many different sects and denominations are there within Islam? What are the tensions between those groups? There was a case here a couple of years ago of an orthodox Sunni Muslim driving 700 miles up to Glasgow to murder an Ahmadiyya Muslim shopkeeper because he believed he'd insulted his version of the religion. How much sectarianism is there going on around the world? As someone of Northern Irish descent I know full well these sorts of tensions can lead to.

 

You keep saying that there's no such thing as a Liberal Muslim, but that's simply not true. There's plenty of liberal Muslim movements around the world, the UK included. Studies suggest that they don't become less religious either. Just look at the growing representation of Muslims at LGBT Pride events. 

 

This is the bit that disturbed me:

Look how most of the people who leave Islam want to indulge in all manner of sin and their knowledge about Islam.

 

As you said in a previous post, 90% of the victims of terrorists (which I still contest are Islamist terrorists) - I would suggest that most people leave Islam for similar reasons of victimisation - that and they simply stop believing in what Islam is teaching them. You seem to be suggesting that they automatically become bad people. I don't believe in sin - does that automatically make me a bad person? I strongly urge you to look further into why people leave Islam. Pay particular attention as to why people do it in the Middle East literally at the risk of their lives. Because the number of non-believers is growing exponentially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

Not enough is being done to help men.

 

 

 

....sort out the ideal (that is perpetuated by many people across all demographics) that men have to be stoic, self-sufficient and emotionally blank except in cases of anger and that might help.

 

But, sadly and frankly, I'm not sure enough blokes that other blokes will actually pay attention to buy into the above idea right now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Innovindil

Innovindil

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

....sort out the ideal (that is perpetuated by many people across all demographics) that men have to be stoic, self-sufficient and emotionally blank except in cases of anger and that might help.

 

But, sadly and frankly, I'm not sure enough blokes that other blokes will actually pay attention to buy into the above idea right now.

Tbh I've had an experience with this today. Gone onto my doctors website where you can ask questions over the Internet instead of visiting, after you put the question in, you get a fairly long questionnaire on how blue/sad/nervous and a million other things your feeling. To me, it seems a pointless exercise, my feelings aren't why I'm contacting them, but at least gp's seem to be trying to get information about it now. Doubt I'd have seen anything like that a short time ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Tbh I've had an experience with this today. Gone onto my doctors website where you can ask questions over the Internet instead of visiting, after you put the question in, you get a fairly long questionnaire on how blue/sad/nervous and a million other things your feeling. To me, it seems a pointless exercise, my feelings aren't why I'm contacting them, but at least gp's seem to be trying to get information about it now. Doubt I'd have seen anything like that a short time ago. 

I think the NHS/docs have been pretty tuned up on the whole thing for a while now, which is good.

 

The biggest barrier, as it has been for some time, is peer groups and peer judgement, as well as general societal views, though they are (gradually) changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the fox

the fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Thanks for another detailed and thought provoking reply. You're obviously quite devout and I don't mean to offend by the points I posit or the questions I ask. I've learned that it's best not to start picking at scripture, mainly because I haven't bothered studying it, partly because I just don't have the time, but also because I'm just not interested in it at all (and that goes for the other religions too).

 

I will pick up on a few issues that interested me from your post - and a couple that disturbed me.

 

So, you seem to be hung up on the idea that Muslims should follow the words of scripture to the letter. I would contend that they mostly don't. 

 

The point I've made at a few points is that many Muslims, like Christians, tend to pick and choose the exact passages and tenets that suit their way of life. We're talking about circa 1.6 billion people here, all in different countries with differing cultures, laws, education and literacy - in many countries it's illegal to not be Muslim. As an Atheist there are still 13 countries I would literally be risking my life to go to. Guess what they all have in common? Human nature suggests to me that it would be impossible to all 1.6 billion muslims to agree on one exact truth within Islam. Same goes for the 2.5 billion Christians.

 

How many different sects and denominations are there within Islam? What are the tensions between those groups? There was a case here a couple of years ago of an orthodox Sunni Muslim driving 700 miles up to Glasgow to murder an Ahmadiyya Muslim shopkeeper because he believed he'd insulted his version of the religion. How much sectarianism is there going on around the world? As someone of Northern Irish descent I know full well these sorts of tensions can lead to.

 

You keep saying that there's no such thing as a Liberal Muslim, but that's simply not true. There's plenty of liberal Muslim movements around the world, the UK included. Studies suggest that they don't become less religious either. Just look at the growing representation of Muslims at LGBT Pride events. 

 

This is the bit that disturbed me:

Look how most of the people who leave Islam want to indulge in all manner of sin and their knowledge about Islam.

 

As you said in a previous post, 90% of the victims of terrorists (which I still contest are Islamist terrorists) - I would suggest that most people leave Islam for similar reasons of victimisation - that and they simply stop believing in what Islam is teaching them. You seem to be suggesting that they automatically become bad people. I don't believe in sin - does that automatically make me a bad person? I strongly urge you to look further into why people leave Islam. Pay particular attention as to why people do it in the Middle East literally at the risk of their lives. Because the number of non-believers is growing exponentially. 

 

There is no offense taken as long as the questions are honest. I don't think not studying the scripture will help in this scenario. A person can't form a clear opinion about a certain group if said person doesn't study what that certain group believe.

 

I do think that Muslims should follow not only the Qur'an, but the teachings of the prophet too. There are people who only believe the Qur'an and have discarded everything else. So they can pick a verse like "striking the wife" and make it an excuse to hit their wives even though the prophet clarified what that verse means. That picking and choosing,IMO, contributed to the starting many sects. The commandments are there, people can choose to follow them.

 

 

Qur'an 4:59 : "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result."

 

 

The part about referring to Allah and the messenger is why I'm so vocal about what the fringe groups do in the name of the religion. 

 

If a Muslim picks and chooses, the scholars call them out on it. Very different from Christianity. You don't get to pick and choose. You even believe it's from God or you don't. Now terrorists will pick a verse, out of context, interpret it the way they like (ignoring not only what the prophet said, but the verse before and after the verse they choose that puts everything into historical context) to do what they like.

 

 

 

If you are talking about countries suffering war, then yes. But that goes for any country suffering unrest. There are people from many types of beliefs going to Saudi Arabia and UAE and they travel and live there just fine there. There are places in England and USA which a person can't go to because of their skin color. 

 

There were Muslims killing other Muslims from the same sect for the pettiest of things. I addressed the point about causing harm in a previews post.

 

 

 

 Their actions don't represent the religion. You see here, that goes against what Islam teaches yet they do it. I hope now my point about "just because a Muslim does it, doesn't mean Islam teaches it" is clearer. People will do what they want regardless.

 

And I still stand on my point that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. 

 

I said "most". Not everyone who leaves Islam wants to indulge in Sin. I'm not saying that they automatically become bad people, I'm just asking what is their morale guide.

 

If you don't believe in Sin than it's hard to state your opinion about a certain group or ideology being bad or evil because you believe in subjective mortality Governed by the majority agreement of a certain group of people. So if another group of people see Rape as permissible because they believe in subjective morality governed by the majority agreement of said group stating that rape is fine, you can't disallow them that right because they agreed upon it.

 

I think the atheistic ideology is inconsistent with the way it represents itself. The ideology consists of letting the majority group choose what's moral and what's not yet they try and force their ideology on other groups. 

 

I think I'm diverting the thread too much especially when there is a thread for the topic.

 

Edited by the fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted
Just now, SystonFox said:

Has anything been confirmed? Wouldn’t be surprised if it was Facebook hysteria

My daughter reckons a woman had a heart attack at the wheel of her car and hit the barrier, didn't actually go into the brook. I don't know for certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxile5

foxile5

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

....sort out the ideal (that is perpetuated by many people across all demographics) that men have to be stoic, self-sufficient and emotionally blank except in cases of anger and that might help.

 

But, sadly and frankly, I'm not sure enough blokes that other blokes will actually pay attention to buy into the above idea right now.

Not only that, there's a prevailing attitude that men are bastards. That will have huge impact on some folk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...