Despicable brutality

[spindrift]

really, i thought posters were showing their disgust that a so called covilised society can still whip a young girl to death

 

I don't think anyone would describe rural, tribal, medieval Bangladesh a "civilised society". Read the father's emotional statements, challenging the elders would have led to banishment.

[Glamrocker]

The Op was correct ..uncivilised animals..I dont think the word muslim was mentioned until a certain spindrift brought it up,the correlation must be there for him to have mentioned it,seems some people have their own agendas on the question of muslims.

Muslim or not I repeat uncivilised animals

[Wildcat]

An absolute requirement?

 

Checking the relevant verse there is an exception that applies for partners accusing each other of adultery, they can swear 5 times to Allah themselves. However if the accused does the same then there is a stalemate. No punishment to be meted out.

[depoix]

I don't think anyone would describe rural, tribal, medieval Bangladesh a "civilised society". Read the father's emotional statements, challenging the elders would have led to banishment.

and so would my true feelings had i posted them, when i said civilised ,i was bieng polite

[Wildcat]

The Op was correct ..uncivilised animals..I dont think the word muslim was mentioned until a certain spindrift brought it up,the correlation must be there for him to have mentioned it,seems some people have their own agendas on the question of muslims.

Muslim or not I repeat uncivilised animals

 

It was MJ Scuba that introduced "Islamic barbarism" although the sweeping generalisations about what should we expect of "uncivilised animals" was there is the second post. Before anyone tries to misrepresent what was being said, I have no problem with calling those that perpetrated this "uncivilised animals", the point is asking the question what do we expect of these "uncivilised animals" is asking us to make a generalisation, that quite clearly is not warranted when the case has caused outrage amongst the family, people in Bangladesh and internationally.

[Wildcat]

Which of my points do you think you're arguing with here, because I don't recall saying anything that this part could be a response to?

 

It was more general context.

 

Just like people who ignore the parts in the bible about shellfish, homosexuals, haircuts etc. are not true Christians right?

 

Ignoring a single verse from a holy book completely disqualifies you from practicing the religion that the holy book is for?

 

So no-one in the whole world practises Christianity then. By your reasoning, the catholic church as it exists today has nothing to do with Christianity.

 

Thats' not what you're saying right?

 

We aren't talking about a single verse. The story is in the Koran, Sahih Bukhari, and numerous Hadith.

 

You seem to be making the argument that no one is entitled to make a moral or scholarly criticisms of interpretations of the proper meaning of religious texts. Not only is this legitimate there is a moral obligation to do so.

 

Fair point, kind of. I'll switch my analogy to burning witches then, which was a sentence handed out by hundreds of local priests.

 

In which case your point is reduced from a general conception of what a religion is, to a specific aberration in a time and place. The amended example does not conflict with the point I am trying to make.

[flamingjimmy]

It was more general context.

I don't see it as relevant unless you believe in some sort of convoluted version of 'two wrongs make a right' where the two wrongs can be committed by completely different people centuries apart.

 

You seem to be making the argument that no one is entitled to make a moral or scholarly criticisms of interpretations of the proper meaning of religious texts.

Pretty much, yes. The 'proper' meanings can never be known, only personal and societally accepted meanings.

 

And in any case, even if they have got it wrong, they still think they are practising Islam and use Islam as a justification, which still demonstrates your contention that 'what happened had nothing to do with Islam' is false.

 

It had everything to do with Islam, I've seen you quote from religious tolerance.org a fair few times so perhaps you've already seen this, but have a look at what they have to say on the subject of punishments for adultery.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm

 

I don't want this to get confused and go to a different point. Let me be be clear, I am only arguing against your assertion that 'this had nothing to do with Islam' which was imo ridiculous.

[Wildcat]

I don't see it as relevant unless you believe in some sort of convoluted version of 'two wrongs make a right' where the two wrongs can be committed by completely different people centuries apart.

 

Pretty much, yes. The 'proper' meanings can never be known, only personal and societally accepted meanings.

 

It is personal and societally accepted meanings that are important. It is only mathematics or logic that can arguably be described independently of that context.

 

The point was mysogeny is prevalent in history with only a few arguable exceptions, it is only the last century this has changed.

 

In this context Islam provided protections and afforded rights to women. Why Aisha promoted it so fervently after her husband's death. This context is important for understanding what the texts are saying.

 

And in any case, even if they have got it wrong, they still think they are practising Islam and use Islam as a justification, which still demonstrates your contention that 'what happened had nothing to do with Islam' is false.

 

It had everything to do with Islam, I've seen you quote from religious tolerance.org a fair few times so perhaps you've already seen this, but have a look at what they have to say on the subject of punishments for adultery.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm

 

I don't want this to get confused and go to a different point. Let me be be clear, I am only arguing against your assertion that 'this had nothing to do with Islam' which was imo ridiculous.

 

I perhaps was not clear enough. When I am saying it has nothing to do with Islam I am talking about Islam as an idea with meaning derived from the personal, moral and historical context. That is how any term derives its meaning.

 

I am not saying that the Imam or council did not try to justify the decision in terms of Islam. What I am saying is that they were wrong to do so. In the same way Christians would denounce medieval style witch-hunts today as unChristian. There is perhaps an irony to it, arising from conflicting meanings but the usage is perfectly valid and normal.

[discodown]

I wonder what it means then when the OP says not to 'hide behind cultural norms and religious rights', if it wasn't meant as a swipe in an infrerence that this sort of a thing is the cultural norm of that society. especially when it has been established by the arrests and impending prosecutions that it is not the case, so can you please clarify?

I wonder what he does mean....

 

Firstly it is not your place to ask anyone else to clarify what I mean. Neither is it anyone elses place to clarify what I mean no matter what their intentions and I thank everyone who has defended me. They have done so admirably.

 

Why don't you grow a pair of grapefruits and ask me directly you spineless little weasel, instead of hiding behind innuendo and suggestion.

 

I also don't care if I get get a ban and i've never been banned in all the time i've used this forum but for you, because you feel you're special, i'll explain myself.

 

I used the term "don't hide behind cultural norm and religious rights" because this crime supersedes anything else. This is a crime against basic human rights. There is no possible way anyone could reasonably excuse this crime. It transcends race, religion, nationality, creed and culture. I call the perpetrators foul animals because they are. Not because they are brown skinned Bangladeshi Muslims. How can anyone try to rationalise or excuse or explain it? The elders of a village ganged up on a 14 year old girl, whipped her to death, then tried to cover up that death to try to save their own worthless hides. They could be blond, blue eyed, barnsleyites and they would still be foul animals. If you don't see that then you need to take a good long look in the mirror and ask whats wrong with you. You quoted me out of context. The people who committed this crime aren't typical bangladeshi's and aren't typical muslim's. What makes you think I would think that?

 

I await your very public apology. You were very public to try to imply I may be racist so you should be equally public to apologise. Grow a pair and be a man.

[WARANTED]

I wonder what he does mean....

 

Firstly it is not your place to ask anyone else to clarify what I mean. Neither is it anyone elses place to clarify what I mean no matter what their intentions and I thank everyone who has defended me. They have done so admirably.

I was in conversation with someone who had taken a queue from your post to generalise about Bangladeshi people as animals by posing a question of 'what do you expect from these animals?' Did you object to that??......No. Some one else took a queue from your post to call Islam a backward and barbaric religion, did you object to that??....NO, but instead thank him and others for supporting or defending you.........Why didn't you object if that is not what you meant?

Why don't you grow a pair of grapefruits and ask me directly you spineless little weasel, instead of hiding behind innuendo and suggestion.

Indeed you have shown what a strong spine you have to thank openly anti Islam posters as defending you. The reason I didn't ask you was because I was oh ever so frightened of you that I just couldn't bring myself to ask the obvious. I was in conversation with MJ Scuba and so my response was to him, why should I ask you, it's quite clear in your opening post what you meant, I have little regard for who ever you think you are.

I also don't care if I get get a ban and i've never been banned in all the time i've used this forum but for you, because you feel you're special, i'll explain myself.

You seem confident of hurling insults at fellow forummers and getting away with it, well not my place to lay down the law, if it was it may be a hundred lashes:hihi: And for your love of fruite and veg maybe bring a cucumber into some use.

I used the term "don't hide behind cultural norm and religious rights" because this crime supersedes anything else. This is a crime against basic human rights. There is no possible way anyone could reasonably excuse this crime. It transcends race, religion, nationality, creed and culture. I call the perpetrators foul animals because they are. Not because they are brown skinned Bangladeshi Muslims. How can anyone try to rationalise or excuse or explain it? The elders of a village ganged up on a 14 year old girl, whipped her to death, then tried to cover up that death to try to save their own worthless hides. They could be blond, blue eyed, barnsleyites and they would still be foul animals. If you don't see that then you need to take a good long look in the mirror and ask whats wrong with you. You quoted me out of context. The people who committed this crime aren't typical bangladeshi's and aren't typical muslim's. What makes you think I would think that?

Yours was the first post and as the OP it set the scene for an Islam bashing thread. The crime is horrendously despicable act and is condemned by all right minded people. You on the other hand oh precious one decided to imply that there would be some who would defend and excuse this on grounds of cultural norms and religious freedoms.

I am stating this very publicly that as yours was the first post of the thread and as no one had defended this vile act yours was an inference that this is a cultural practice and there would be some defending this act on grounds of religious freedom.

Since the religion is question is Islam and country Bangladesh it doesn't require a neurosurgeon to deduce that you meant the cultural practice or religious freedoms of the Bangladeshi people. No one had defended (and not a single person on here has done so far) the crime but you went onto assume some would. Not only that but you assumed that some would be hiding behind this excuse, yet no one has so far. Your post did however encourage likes of MJ Scuba to make inflammatory statements and others joining in condemnation not the criminals only but generalizing about all people of that region. I do wonder why you didn't challenge their postings if you didn't mean for it to be an Islam bashing thread.

I await your very public apology. You were very public to try to imply I may be racist so you should be equally public to apologise. Grow a pair and be a man.

Don't hold your breath, you set up what you clearly knew to be an Islam bashing thread and if it was otherwise then where is the correction to those who have made it so, oh I forgot they the same people who are your defenders:roll: I still think it's knuckle draggingly primitive to make a statement like 'grow a pair and be a man' just unmasks your reality, just to add I have a perfectly decent pair and probably a better man than you'll ever be.