Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

^^ I think you missed his point (almost) all those comments marginalise or deflect the part Islam has to play (or not) in those events.

Active ostracisation of such actions is a good step in the rejection of such actions. I think mass education in such things are good, the impact it will have would take a generation, but the rejection of such things can only be a good thing.
Let them eventually realise that they are a small faction, non representative of Islam as a whole, and indeed rejected by the masses.
I doubt they will achieve this, but if they do, it will help.
 
We woulnd't need more draconian laws if terrorists didn't keep killing people. I wonder how many of our liberties would be taken away if you get your way and we become part of the caliphate...

Just enforce the laws we have, we don't need more, we need the Police to be freed from the fear of being branded racists.

We have all seen BNP marches where the Police wade in and arrest people and then radical Muslims calling for beheading and it is videoed and dealt with off camera.
 
My own ultimate solution would be far too radical for the world, let alone this forum. :D

That's the second time I've seen you say that (or I've read it twice I'm tired :D). I intrigued to know what your solution would be. I would bet we've seen more extreme ideas on here so I wouldn't worry about it.

Care to share? :)
 
What do you mean?

Some people who claim to be Muslim blowing stuff up in the name of their religion is not an issue that the rest of the population that also identify as Muslim and aren't blowing stuff up should be required to deal with. Coming from the party of the small state and the responsibilities of the individual I would have hoped Sajid would have understood this. But that wouldn't have gotten him in the paper.

It's alright claiming that British Muslims should 'do more' to prevent people killing in the name of their religion, but how on earth do you expect them to do that?

By reporting these scumbags in their community.
 
3YeK9a5.jpg


Anyone else think this is a really powerful image?
 
^^ I think you missed his point (almost) all those comments marginalise or deflect any part Islam has to play (or not) in those events.

It is an interesting point to note that a lot of the condemnation on that list comes from leaders of countries who would happily put people to death for 'insulting the prophet ... '. :confused:
 
When you're dead your liberties are fairly irrelevant.

Or maybe some of us think rationally and realise the probability or statistical chance of being hurt let alone killed by a terrorist in the west is ridiculously low!

Not even remotely high enough to start talking about eroding our privacy and liberties :rolleyes:
 
The Qu'ran is the Qu'ran.

Pretty sure there isn't a terrorist version. ;)

There are multiple translations and hundreds of different interpretation of what it means though...
And often the meanings of words have in fact changed over time, so to understand any old document fully you need to know more than just that document, but also the context.

Rather like the Bible, we have one original set of documents, but they have been translated and interpreted hundreds of ways, often translated from one language into another, then into another, and sometimes into a forth without doing a direct translation from the A to D (indeed the "official" COE version is only about 400 years old prior to that there were multiple versions in use in the UK, and the Catholic, Greek and Russian churches to name but 4 all use different versions).

It really is very much down to how you read it to mean, and the translation and emphasis on certain words, some of which may have been given a different meaning in some versions (apparently at least one word used to show that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible is not one that is found in other documents written in the same language at the same time to define/describe homosexuals).

So yes there may only be the one Qu'ran, but depending on where you are (language), what sect you are it may vary, especially iirc the additional materials.
 
There are multiple translations and hundreds of different interpretation of what it means though...
And often the meanings of words have in fact changed over time, so to understand any old document fully you need to know more than just that document, but also the context.

Rather like the Bible, we have one original set of documents, but they have been translated and interpreted hundreds of ways, often translated from one language into another, then into another, and sometimes into a forth without doing a direct translation from the A to D (indeed the "official" COE version is only about 400 years old prior to that there were multiple versions in use in the UK, and the Catholic, Greek and Russian churches to name but 4 all use different versions).

It really is very much down to how you read it to mean, and the translation and emphasis on certain words, some of which may have been given a different meaning in some versions (apparently at least one word used to show that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible is not one that is found in other documents written in the same language at the same time to define/describe homosexuals).

So yes there may only be the one Qu'ran, but depending on where you are (language), what sect you are it may vary, especially iirc the additional materials.

Even with the Christian Bible - there are fundamentally different interpretations just between say the King James and John Nelson Darby versions of the bible with passages taken very literally and integrated into beliefs, way of life, church regulations, etc. etc. which completely differ in meaning between versions.

Its plain to anyone with an objective view that both the Bible and Qur'an have been perverted and/or distorted intentionally or unintentionally from their original meanings over the years often to suit the agenda or beliefs of an individual or group.

Hence why I am very much of the opinion that religion should always be a personal thing and that as a species we need to learn to be both tolerant of people having beliefs but also tolerant that people have different beliefs to ourselves.

Religion isn't the problem, people are.

EDIT: PS this is kind of a tangent off the post I quoted rather than a response to it directly - just got me thinking about a few things.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom