The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Sad this woman got stabbed.
OP leaping to something something Sharia Law something.
Have to ask, if it turns out the assailant was a Australian is he going to call for slouch hats to be banned?
Actually you'd know if it was an Australian that did it because there'd be some bloody kiwi claiming credit like they do for pavs and Phar Lap.
While we can debate the worth of the survey it is at least a metric of Britons attitudes, as opposed to the highly imaginative point he was countering.
In my experience Poms do love to complain. Doesn't matter their dna/ancestry/skin colour, they are a miserable whinging lot (its something in the water, pollution and micro-shrimp I think). So if 40 odd % admit they are content its more likely 80% and the other 40% are lying to keep an excuse for complaining.
Jatte lambastes Calico Rat
Ha as everyone knows from "Married at First Sight", Australians should get banned for drinking toooo much and fashion crimes.^^ave to ask, if it turns out the assailant was a Australian is he going to call for slouch hats to be banned?
OT: Should we not wait till the police has done its work with speculations?
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is marginal minority of British cops who aren't like that, but overall I'd say calling them corrupt cowards is being too nice to them. I mean what kind of police ignores ongoing crimes of a rape gang? This isn't even US police looking other way from what mafia and cartels were doing, this is whole new level of cowardice and complacency with evil, where they allow literal child rapists to do what they want, just because they don't like the optics of arresting muslim immigrants, since someone would call them "racist" for that. And they do that, while going all guns-blazing to arrest people for social media posts. Not an ACAB guy, but, honestly, majority of British police.
Not true… The only thing I (and others) have been unable to do here is to make you openly recognize the fact that there is plenty of material that both supports and suggests that this was (probably) done by a Muslim for ideological/political/religious reasons. There is lots of such material available all over the net basically, including this thread btw.
Now, let’s start small…
1). Do you recognize at all, that there is a theoretical possibility that this attack could have been done by a Muslim? As in, is this possible? Y/N?
2). Do you recognize that a Muslim who follows the doctrines and ideas of the Islamic sources could - in theory - find a motive, sanction and support for attacking an apostate and a vocal critic like Hatun Tash? Is this possible? Y/N?
3). Do you recognize that a Muslim could - in theory - find motive, sanction and support for attacking an apostate and a vocal critic like Hatun Tash, by other like-minded Muslims? Is this possible? Y/N?
Once you answered these questions, we can go further.
- A
Last edited by Axalon; August 25, 2021 at 02:15 PM. Reason: Details...
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
I don’t recall mentioning “sharia law” even once in that OP… In my experience, it is usually advantageous to read the OP, if one plans to comment on it (or the topic) in some fashion, like you do right here. Just saying…
I’ll worry about that the day it happens…
----------------------------
As long as there is no assailant officially arrested… I see little reason to wait with the speculations. After all, people do want know why this happened, and who is willing and able to do such a thing, this includes me btw. I certainly have my suspicions, and I have voiced them openly here, to see what others think. The police, or rather the Scotland Yard, have shown themselves blatantly incompetent and political (in this case), thus far. I don’t think this will change any time soon, even if they do present their official findings someday (if that ever happens). As long as there is no assailant officially arrested - I really don’t see how any of that will seriously alter the validity of the relevant materials already available to us as it is (and it is plenty), or that it will dispel peoples need to understand this and such shameful acts, staged at places like Speakers Corner.
Much of the already available information is solid in many ways, and thus it can serve as circumstantial evidence/material - regardless of the police and its investigation – and it is probably enough to puzzle together rational and solid conclusions and to build up a valid case in terms of motive too. That is, once we assume and accept this attack was ideological/political/religious in nature. The notion that it is mere “chance” in every relevant instance (in this case) is simply laughable, and thus it can probably be safely discarded. Besides, existing video footage clearly shows that this was both a deliberate and selective act (I am not allowed to post/link that clip here – as moderation won’t have it).
Once we do look at the context related to this case or any plausible motive within that very context, and try to believably match all that with the given target and place somehow - it all becomes rather straight forward, I would argue. After all, it adds up, and it does so effortlessly and easily. At the same time, various youtube/similar clips, news, texts and articles - from all over the world – shows that people have “curiously” managed to draw the same or similar conclusions independently, and this based on the same available public material. It is highly unlikely that all this is *just* some spectacular magic coincidence at play here.
----------------------------
All I can say is that if police - anywhere - have too worry about such petty things as being called a “racist” by some random moron - then something is seriously wrong with their priorities. Being called a racist these days is so common place, and usually for so stupid things that it has lost serious meaning. As for the police and their damned focus on social-media-hysteria… It really is inexcusable - it screams “thoughtcrime” all over it. Obviously, it should never ever been allowed to happen in the first place. Everybody is better off if that practice were abolished altogether, preferably yesterday. And as you already noted the police *should* have far more important things to do anyways, then to police individual opinions – regardless the kind… It’s both absurd and horrible, I agree.
----------------------------
"Once you answered these questions, we can go further"...
- A
Last edited by Axalon; August 25, 2021 at 02:13 PM.
The Hanafi school is the one that 'deviates', regarding female apostates. Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki all have have the death penalty for female apostates.
In the event, as I did not provide anything from the Hanbali madhhab above:
A Commentary on Zad al-Mustaqni (Hanbali)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This is from the Tahrir al-Vasilah (Jafari (Twelver) Shia)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As with the Hanafi, women who apostatize are not killed, but imprisoned. They are to be subjected to beatings at the prayer times (i.e 5 times a day) and only fed minimally, until repentance.
This is from the Da'a'im al-lslam (Ismaili (Shia))
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And this is from The Five Schools of Islamic Law (which deals more generally but tends to focus on Shi'ite (Imamiyyah, Twelver))
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Murtadd 'an fitrah is one who is born of muslim parents, while murtadd 'an millah is a convert who then apostatizes.
There is consensus (ijma) that (male) apostates are to be executed, the differences are on whether or not the execution can be immediate or if there must be some sort of waiting period to try and convince the apostate to revert.
There is difference of opinion on female apostates.
Last edited by Infidel144; August 25, 2021 at 08:27 PM.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
I don't think there's much point in continuing. They're establishing a propositional fallacy - or forcing you to to establish it for them. It isn't honest debating.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM
If someone can not openly recognize even a theoretical possibility of what is de facto possible, then yes - it is not rational, reasonable or honest - and yes, at that stage there really is no point in continuing that discussion, totally agreed. Besides there is a gigantic difference between the attitudes of: "I think it was a Muslim that did it" vs. "I don’t want it to be a Muslim that did it". And regrettably, we have both in this thread...
- A
Last edited by Axalon; August 26, 2021 at 06:46 AM.
There is a difference between claiming there is theoretical possibility and claiming there is evidence for a particular theory. You started with the latter. Lets not forget that.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
A theoretical possibility does not make it a probability, or a certainty. You're trying to level the blame on a religion, rather than the individuals who interpret it's tenets for how they interpret those tenets. Virtually all religious texts in virtually all religions contain material that can be construed as a call to action in the name of that religion. But individuals make the choice to convert that potential to reality, and they do it for their own reasons.
So yes, 1) it is possible that someone who claims to be Muslim could commit violence. Yes, 2 and 3) there is material in the Koran and associated teachings that could be considered a justification of violent action against both individuals or groups.
But the logical fallacy is to suggest that any of these possibilities - 1, 2 and 3 mean anything definitive about anything. Refer back to my earlier posts. The courts wouldn't be interested in you putting Islam on trial. You wouldn't have a case any more than you would if you tried to blame the Seventh Day Adventists for David Koresh (for example).
Rather than continuing to rack up the logical fallacies... Try to focus on individuals and actions and their motivations and frame them as such. It is OK to say: "Person A committed violence because they believed it to be right based on their understanding of religion B" But it is not smart to say "Person A committed violence because they are a believer in religion B and Religion B is bad"
Do you see the difference now?
Last edited by antaeus; August 26, 2021 at 09:26 AM.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM
Are we still blaming Christians for the attack on a woman in the act of criticizing Mohammed?
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
UK has history of Islamic attacks, specifically over criticism of Islam.
Woman was attacked while criticizing Islam in public, exactly where Muslims would attack people for doing same thing before.
Totally nothing to do with Islam guys!
Funniest part is that if it was same circumstances but she was attacked for criticizing say, I don't know, Churchill, everyone here would be talking about the evils of right-wing nationalism.
Yes. That's why I suggested it supports my case.
Who cares?
The point is anyone can claim an interpretation of a religion and act on their interpretation. David Koresh claimed an interpretation and acted on it. As did this random activist attacker. The individual's understanding of an interpretable text is what is important here. The individual can be arrested, charged, sentenced, treated. You can't arrest a religious text. You might try to ban it. But that wouldn't make you much of a free speech supporter.
IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM
What interpretation did the attacker claim?
I don't think I have seen anyone here suggest banning it.The individual's understanding of an interpretable text is what is important here. The individual can be arrested, charged, sentenced, treated. You can't arrest a religious text. You might try to ban it. But that wouldn't make you much of a free speech supporter.