Muslim associations in Leicester

[breadandcheese]

I was repeating what fox shagger confessed to. If you want someone to blame for incitement, its him.

BTW, are you continuing his incitement by repeating his confessions?

162361[/snapback]

No. Fox Shagger was posting on the discussion of self-defence. He did not confess anything of the sort (nor would do, judging by the nature of his posts). What you have done is go far and beyond that. Even above the bounds and laws of this society. Those same laws that you protest are the guardians of our culture, which you have based your entire argument upon, you have breached.

Again, I am interested to know the view of moderators.

[lush]

No.  Fox Shagger was posting on the discussion of self-defence.  He did not confess anything of the sort.

162374[/snapback]

He confessed that in the qu`ran, its OK to use combat (which can mean/result in, death) against a pagan, if a pagan attacks a muslim.

IN BRITISH SOCIETY, IT IS WRONG TO DO THAT.

...i doubt you`ll even acknowledge this, as per usual, all you seem to wana do, is behave ignorantly towards me

May i suggest we deal with the facts, and stop this childish bickering?

[breadandcheese]

He confessed that in the qu`ran, its OK to use combat (which can mean/result in, death) against a pagan, if a pagan attacks a muslim.

IN BRITISH SOCIETY, IT IS WRONG TO DO THAT.

...i doubt you`ll even acknowledge this, as per usual, all you seem to wana do, is behave ignorantly towards me

May i suggest we deal with the facts, and stop this childish bickering?

162379[/snapback]

Ok Lush, here are the facts.

As you yourself have admited in your last post, combat has many definitions, not all death or murder. Fox Shagger was merely pointing this out and I am confident in saying that Fox Shagger would want to see the law applied to anybody murdering another man in this country. Either way, it is still a long way removed from your incitement to hatred and incitment to violence, which leads me to my next point.

Britain is a tolerant open society that is organised by the rule of law. The rule of law is retrospect i.e. it can only be applied after a crime is committed (or if a crime is in the process of taking place).

Consequently, Islam is not incompatible with British society as you profess. You admit that combat has many definitions that are compatible with British society. If somebody should take the definition of combat too far, they will be punished by the full force of the law, which many muslims would agree with.

I imagine, you will argue that true serious muslims would stand up and support a muslim if he murdered a pagan. However, again, your definition of a true serious muslim is distorted and based upon Osama Bin Laden and Islamism. Certainy, you tarnish an entire religious population based on your distorted definition of true muslims.

Once again, the law is retrospect. If somebody should step outside the bounds of society, they will have committed a crime, punishable in law. Your tarnishing of an entire religious group before they have committed an offence is neither retrospect nor reasonable, and indeed works against the laws and bounds of our society.

On another note, in British society it is not wrong to kill somebody who attacks you. It is wrong to murder somebody, it is wrong to accidently kill somebody (manslaughter), but it is not necessarily wrong to kill somebody in self-defence. The term "without excessive force" is enshrined in law. Thus the killing of another person is permitted under law within the right circumstances.

You, however, have crossed all barriers of society and the rule of law. You constantly refuse to act retrospectively and indeed have committed the offences of inciting racial hatred and inciting violence.

[lush]

Consequently, Islam is not incompatible with British society as you profess.  You admit that combat has many definitions that are compatible with British society. If somebody should take the definition of combat too far, they will be punished by the full force of the law, which many muslims would agree with.

On another note, in British society it is not wrong to kill somebody who attacks you .  It is wrong to murder somebody, it is wrong to accidently kill somebody (manslaughter), but it is not necessarily wrong to kill somebody in self-defence.  The term "without excessive force" is enshrined in law.  Thus the killing of another person is permitted under law within the right circumstances .

You, however, have crossed all barriers of society and the rule of law. You constantly refuse to act retrospectively and indeed have committed the offences of inciting racial hatred and inciting violence .

162403[/snapback]

The definition IS the problem. In british society, we dont need definition, we need undertanding. We dont say, you maybe able to kill, we say, you MUST NOT kill.

Therefore, im saying that muslims should adhere to british society, and change the qu`ran to suit british society, because the qu`ran does not represent british society, it represents an alien belief system (atleast in this particular term/phrase).

Does that make sense to you?

IT IS WRONG, ILLEGAL TO KILL SOMEBODY!! Go and ask a policeman or judge? Deary me.

Ok, explain "within the right circumstances"?

No i havnt, i have merely asked the question, and was told an answer, i then therefore expressed the answer given to me, that is reasonable.

One could argue that YOU are inciting hatred, by agreeing to the destruction of another human, illegally.

[breadandcheese]

The definition IS the problem. In british society, we dont need definition, we need undertanding. We dont say, you maybe able to kill, we say, you MUST NOT kill.

Therefore, im saying that muslims should adhere to british society, and change the qu`ran to suit british society, because the qu`ran does not represent british society, it represents an alien belief system (atleast in this particular term/phrase).

Does that make sense to you?

IT IS WRONG, ILLEGAL TO KILL SOMEBODY!! Go and ask a policeman or judge? Deary me.

Ok, explain "within the right circumstances"?

No i havnt, i have merely asked the question, and was told an answer, i then therefore expressed the answer given to me, that is reasonable.

One could argue that YOU are inciting hatred, by agreeing to the destruction of another human, illegally.

162417[/snapback]

You asked if it made sense to me? No. It didn't, nor did it to many others on this messageboard.

We always need to attempt to clarify definition, that is why we have the rule of law, set-down i clearly defined guidelines. However, as clear as these guidelines are, definitions are difficult to draw up. I will explain this as you have trouble understanding and processing it.

We do not say in British society you must not kill. It doesn't even say that on the ten commandments. Our laws state: It is an offence to commit murder and it is an offence to commit manslaughter. (Incidently, the commandments state thou shalt not murder). Murder and manslaughter are different definitions of killing. Maybe not in your mind, which is clearly struggling to comprehend that murder and manslaughter are just two instances of killing.

However, there are other different definitions of killing. The law attempts to encompass these by the notion of excessive force. Thus it is illegal to use excessive force.

Should somebody be attacked by a knife-wielding maniac who is attempting to kill them and a struggle breaks out with the maniac dying through a stab wound. Here there is no charge to answer. A person has acted out of self-defence, believing their life to be in danger, taking reasonable steps to defend themselves. However should this person take possession of the knife during the struggle, knock the maniac to the floor and stab him 10 times. Then there is a charge to answer, for this person's life is no longer in danger at the moment they decided to stab the maniac. They have used excessive force.

So in British society, we say you must not murder, must not commit manslaughter and must not use excessive force. We do not say you must not kill (as evidence from the shoot-to-kill policy employed by the police).

The Quran/Koran, rather like the law in this country, will always have debate centring around the meaning of certain words and phrases (as with all religions and nations' laws - Just ask any lawyer who makes a living from this up and down the country). You have picked combat. In the same way as killing, there are many definitions, which have other sub-laws, commentaries and clauses to provide guidance. However debate will always ensue. Islamists choose one defintion, many muslims choose another.

I draw issue when you choose to label the muslim faith through the use of your definition of combat, choosing to ignore the actual actions of muslims (i.e. you do not judge retrospectively).

With regards your incitement to hatred and incitement to violence, you have committed an offence. The manner in which you "expressed an answer to a question" as you put it, was inciteful and not within reasonable bounds. However, it is up to the moderators to decide effectively what is within the bounds of the law, bearing in mind they share a responsibility for what is on this board.

[Deathside]

Thats why i asked that muslims denounce it, then came a huge silence

162345[/snapback]

Who the fúck are you talking about?

[lush]

I was under the impression that the problem with shortages in junior doctor training positions is down to the way the NHS is run, and not positive discrimination or bias. 

Something to do with their inept management so that they no longer have the money to take on trainee doctors and instead need instant recruits (thus doctors from abroad who already have all the necessary qualifications and experience of working in a hospital).  Probably something to do with the vast amount of bureaucracy and money wasted at the top levels of the NHS.

If anybody here is studying medicine or training to be a doctor, I would be interested to know what they think.

161421[/snapback]

My friend is a manager at a midlands hospital.

She says in response to your query:

We are a "Teaching Hospital" so we always have at least 6 trainee Docs on site at, and our sister hospital probably has twice that amount so for this Trust it is deffinately not true.

Hope thats of any help to you.

[breadandcheese]

My friend is a manager at a midlands hospital.

She says in response to your query:

We are a "Teaching Hospital" so we always have at least 6 trainee Docs on site at, and our sister hospital probably has twice that amount so for this Trust it is deffinately not true.

Hope thats of any help to you.

162471[/snapback]

That is reassuring, thank you. I was probably as shocked as you to read of medical students studying for 5 years (with the undertaking of debt that this now means through student loans) and being unable to get a trainee position.

Kudos to your friend and her trust.

[lush]

We do not say in British society you must not kill .  It doesn't even say that on the ten commandments.  Our laws state:  It is an offence to commit murder and it is an offence to commit manslaughter .  (Incidently, the commandments state thou shalt not murder).  Murder and manslaughter are different definitions of killing.  Maybe not in your mind, which is clearly struggling to comprehend that murder and manslaughter are just two instances of killing.

Should somebody be attacked by a knife-wielding maniac who is attempting to kill them and a struggle breaks out with the maniac dying through a stab wound.  Here there is no charge to answer.  A person has acted out of self-defence, believing their life to be in danger, taking reasonable steps to defend themselves. However should this person take possession of the knife during the struggle, knock the maniac to the floor and stab him 10 times.  Then there is a charge to answer, for this person's life is no longer in danger at the moment they decided to stab the maniac.  They have used excessive force.

So in British society, we say you must not murder, must not commit manslaughter and must not use excessive force.  We do not say you must not kill (as evidence from the shoot-to-kill policy employed by the police).

The Quran/Koran, rather like the law in this country, will always have debate centring around the meaning of certain words and phrases (as with all religions and nations' laws - Just ask any lawyer who makes a living from this up and down the country).  You have picked combat.  In the same way as killing, there are many definitions, which have other sub-laws, commentaries and clauses to provide guidance.  However debate will always ensue.  Islamists choose one defintion, many muslims choose another.

162446[/snapback]

What the hell does this mean:

you must not kill . It doesn't even say that on the ten commandments. Our laws state: It is an offence to commit murder and it is an offence to commit manslaughter? Doesnt the latter mean "you must not kill"?

Correct me if im not getting you here, but are you telling me that in british society law, if one feels their life is at threat, they can use reasonable steps to aviod their death, even if it means the death of their opponent?

In terms of integration between the islamic faith through the qu`ran and every other culture, should the qu`ran say combat, instead of slay?

[breadandcheese]

What the hell does this mean:

you must not kill .  It doesn't even say that on the ten commandments.  Our laws state:  It is an offence to commit murder and it is an offence to commit manslaughter? Doesnt the latter mean "you must not kill"?

Correct me if im not getting you here, but are you telling me that in british society law, if one feels their life is at threat, they can use reasonable steps to aviod their death, even if it means the death of their opponent?

162503[/snapback]

In answer to your first paragraph, the law attempts to define killing, rather than state you must not kill.

One is able to defend himself with reasonable force and without excessive force. Under this statement in law, it is permissable to kill somebody if defending yourself. The debate comes in as to what is deemed reasonable force and what is deemed excessive force.

[lush]

In answer to your first paragraph, the law attempts  to define killing, rather than state you must not kill.

One is able to defend himself with reasonable force and without excessive force . 

Under this statement in law, it is permissable to kill somebody if defending yourself.  The debate comes in as to what is deemed reasonable force and what is deemed excessive force .

162542[/snapback]

"The law" surely cannot decide the law, after an event has happened, that is plain daft.

Killing someone in self defence, is excessive force.

I am not getting this. You cant go around killing someone, because your "defending yourself". If that was law, they`d be near mass murder. They`d be many a murder on friday and saturday nights. It doesnt make sense b&c.

The law (courts) cannot define reasonable force, without being there at the time, it is just hearsay, and a shamble of the law. I dont believe what you say is the absolute truth. I cant, it makes no sense to me.

[Rincewind]

Ask Fox Shaggers dog to explain it to you.

[Dunc]

"The law" surely cannot decide the law, after an event has happened, that is plain daft.

Killing someone in self defence, is excessive force.

I am not getting this. You cant go around killing someone, because your "defending yourself". If that was law, they`d be near mass murder. They`d be many a murder on friday and saturday nights. It doesnt make sense b&c.

The law (courts) cannot define reasonable force, without being there at the time, it is just hearsay, and a shamble of the law. I dont believe what you say is the absolute truth. I cant, it makes no sense to me.

162565[/snapback]

You might not like it lush, but he is right. You can kill some one within the law of self defence. Its in extreme circumstances, perhaps the same extreme circumstances that the Qu'ran says you can combat pagans. If you don't believe us then go and ask a lawyer/judge/police officer for confirmation.

Oh forgive me if I don't enjoy the moment.

[FNQ]

Lush has been had!

[MC Prussian]

"The law" surely cannot decide the law, after an event has happened, that is plain daft.

Killing someone in self defence, is excessive force.

I am not getting this. You cant go around killing someone, because your "defending yourself". If that was law, they`d be near mass murder. They`d be many a murder on friday and saturday nights. It doesnt make sense b&c.

The law (courts) cannot define reasonable force, without being there at the time, it is just hearsay, and a shamble of the law. I dont believe what you say is the absolute truth. I cant, it makes no sense to me.

162565[/snapback]

Say Lush, are you on an own personal vendetta here or what?

Your ignorance to acknowledge Islam as a peaceful religion (which it basically is) after such a long discussion goes beyond my knowledge. You are stubborn, selfish and populist.

The fact that you have never heard of the term "self-defence" shows me that you either are excessively dumb or just playing dumb. It is part of our very own human nature to defend ourselves under extreme circumstances.

You give out generalities, speak a twisted tongue and deny that you actually are racist and purely offensive.

As soon as there are no more reasonable points to make, as soon as your defence has crumbled, your only strategy is to insult other members on here, trying to save your wicked head with a silly joke.

You are a religiously blinded man. You are just another scared British who believes everything he reads and he has been told. It is time you make your own mind up and stop putting together pieces of other people's comments just to fit your own "big picture".

You are one sad, pathetic figure.

[Deathside]

Lush has been had!

162743[/snapback]

By Fox Shagger's dog?

[Rincewind]

There is such a thing as evidence of which there are 5 types

Direct What the Police Officer saw

Primary: Original documents or objects involved in the case

Secondary: Copies of Primary evidence ie. documents

Circumstantial: Facts that point to a conclusion. Admissable in court but needs direct evidence

Hearsay Something that was told to the witness by somebody else. This evidence is not admissable in court.

Example of intentional and unintentional.

You are getting a cup out of the cupboard and drop it. That is unintentional.

You take a cup of a shelf and throw it at your missus/GF and it breaks on her head. That is intentional.

The outcome is the same. One broken cup. But the methods are different.

FAO LUSH

[lush]

You might not like it lush, but he is right.  You can kill some one within the law of self defence.  Its in extreme circumstances, perhaps the same extreme circumstances that the Qu'ran says you can combat pagans.

162666[/snapback]

If what you are saying is the truth, then the law is an ass, and so is the islamic belief to slay a pagan within the version you expressed.

Explain:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.†[33:50]. “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.†[4:24]

[lush]

"You are stubborn, selfish and populist.

you either are excessively dumb or just playing dumb.

You give out generalities, speak a twisted tongue and deny that you actually are racist and purely offensive."

As soon as there are no more reasonable points to make, as soon as your defence has crumbled, your only strategy is to insult other members on here , trying to save your wicked head with a silly joke.

You are a religiously blinded man. You are just another scared British who believes everything he reads and he has been told. It is time you make your own mind up and stop putting together pieces of other people's comments just to fit your own "big picture".

You are one sad, pathetic figure .

162786[/snapback]

I admit i dont know much about religion, thats why i ASK questions of it.

Now your a fortune teller?

Your strong on insults i see

Maybe you should appologise for insulting me? Got it in you? Or are YOU the sad, pathetic figure?

[Rincewind]

'I admit i dont know much about religion, thats why i ASK questions of it.'

Yet you continue to refuse to accept the answers put forward.

I suggest you go away and do some research on religion, the law and cultures of the world and come back when you are able to answer your own questions. Say in about 30 years.

[lush]

'I admit i dont know much about religion, thats why i ASK questions of it.'

Yet you continue to refuse to accept the answers put forward.

163905[/snapback]

Maybe the `answers` were wrong, you dont know UNTIL you query them.

[Rincewind]

You admit you dont know the answers yet you say the ones other give are wrong.

It seems you have made up your mind what answers you want others to give so its a waste of time you asking and we answering.

[lush]

You admit you dont know the answers yet you say the ones other give are wrong.

It seems you have made up your mind what answers you want others to give so its a waste of time you asking and we answering.

163919[/snapback]

Just because i dont know the answer, doesnt mean someone in here does

I admitted i was wrong, if the other guys are right

leave me alone now, im fed up with you.

[MC Prussian]

Just because i dont know the answer, doesnt mean someone in here does

I admitted i was wrong, if the other guys are right

leave me alone now, im fed up with you.

163923[/snapback]

That's probably the only reasonable statement you have ever made... And will ever make...

You are just not able to lead a proper discussion. As soon as you run out of ammo, you act like a little kid, leave to hide in a corner.

You "ask questions" about religion? Liar! Shall I quote again what you said about Islam and Muslims? Or have you forgotten (again)?

[MC Prussian]

I admit i dont know much about religion, thats why i ASK questions of it.

Now your a fortune teller?

Your strong on insults i see

Maybe you should appologise for insulting me? Got it in you? Or are YOU the sad, pathetic figure?

163866[/snapback]

Maybe you should extend your vocabulary and refresh your grammar and spelling. That's really pathetic and sad, that an Englishman lacks that knowledge.

And again, the fact that you still deny having made mistakes and false accusations on here doesn't speak for you, Lush.

You are ignorant. And that is a fact.

I would rather not see you again on here. Not until you have gone through a very mind-changing metamorphosis and are reborn as a reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful person.