Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

[PointOfViewGun]

This is true... There are not much evidence to support your suggested police-scenario, and there are not much evidence to support the unserious Marsian-scenario either, absolutely correct. If you meant anything else, beyond that – then the claim is false. I take it you already know this....

- A

Yet, you have been unable to show any evidence that this was done by a Muslim.

[Cyclops]

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.

You are using that chart like a politician… All we know is that 46% of those folks who bothered to answer that survey currently feel “happy” - whatever that means… As for all the others who didn’t bother or were not asked to begin with - we don’t have a clue. BTW, more interesting and telling parameters on society would be if people are “content” (29%) or feel “optimistic” (20%) - and neither of these two are suggesting any glorious numbers, now do they? Considering that 71% does not feel “content” and 80% does not feel “optimistic”, right? At least according to this survey anyways…

- A

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.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

ave to ask, if it turns out the assailant was a Australian is he going to call for slouch hats to be banned?

Ha as everyone knows from "Married at First Sight", Australians should get banned for drinking toooo much and fashion crimes.^^

OT: Should we not wait till the police has done its work with speculations?

[Heathen Hammer]

Personally, I wouldn’t go that far, but it certainly is suspicious and it is without a doubt piss poor performance on their part. After all, it’s their job to catch morons like this and they can’t do it when it counts - despite being on the scene and in full pursuit in less then 10 seconds after the fact… It is suspiciously incompetent. Another thing that irritates me is that this is investigated by the Scotland Yard and not the regular police – yet British authorities don’t have the spine to recognize this attack as a terrorist attack which is probably what this essentially is. “Nah, that’s too sensitive to do” – it don’t fit the desired narrative of the PC-nuts. All the same we can (supposedly) not get enough of glorious moronic mass immigration, imported Islamization and endless multi-culti junk that we didn’t asked for or need. …“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” as Hamlet would have it.

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.

[Axalon]

Yet, you have been unable to show any evidence that this was done by a Muslim.

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

[PointOfViewGun]

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 is 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

You do know the difference between theory and evidence?

[Axalon]

... OP leaping to something something Sharia Law something.

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…

Have to ask, if it turns out the assailant was a Australian is he going to call for slouch hats to be banned?

I’ll worry about that the day it happens…


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

OT: Should we not wait till the police has done its work with speculations?

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.


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

... 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.

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.


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

You do know the difference between theory and evidence?

"Once you answered these questions, we can go further"...

- A

[Infidel144]

I offer some free and unsorted comments to infidel144’s heavy-weight post on
Sunni jurisprudence doctrines, regarding apostasy - just to make various details
sink in here (for me as well)…
<snip>

““A female apostate” is to be compelled to return to the faith, … It is elsewhere mentioned that a female apostate must be daily beaten with severity until she return to the faith.” (This is taken from the sunni Hanafi-school btw. See post: 47).

Again, just wow! This doctrine declares that any female apostate are to be imprisoned, then beaten (severely) - this daily - until she submits and returns/reverts to Islam. “no compulsion in religion”, folks! None at all! ...Now, if I understand all this correctly - the sunni Hanbali-school on the other hand (not Hanafi), deviates from that stance and prescribes death-penalty for female apostates as well. Thus it seemingly stands between permanent imprisonment with daily (severe) beatings, or death by execution. Neither strikes me as acceptable or excusable actions in any western secular country (or elsewhere for that matter) for merely abandoning Islam. Then again, without fear and such extreme actions, how many females (including child-brides) would remain loyal to this cult - if given an actual free choice?

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: 

The Book of Prayer
“Whoever denies its obligation has disbelieved”: I.e. those among the Muslims who deny the obligation of the five daily prayers. He belies Allah by taking such a stance for it is the Almighty who ordained it as obligatory. He has lied against the Prophet and the consensus of the Muslims by denying the obligation of prayer and becomes an apostate as a result. No Muslim can plead ignorance to the obligation of the five daily prayers.
...
“He is not executed until the passing of a three-dav grace period by which time he must repent”:
He is asked to repent for missing prayers as Islamic law offers respite to the apostate by means
of repentance before he is executed. The one who misses his prayer is an apostate and is asked to
repent over a threeday period. He is ordered to repent each day by those in authority. If he does
not repent by the end of this grace period, he is executed.


The Book of Zakat
If he refuses to pay and denies that it is •wajib, he has disbelieved while he
knows the ruling. Zakat is taken from him by force and he is executed. If
he refuses to pay due to his miserliness, then it is taken from him and he is
reprimanded.
“If he refuses to pay”: He refuses to pay zakat due to his denial that it is wajib.
Even if he pays zakat but claims that it is non-mandatory, he has also disbelieved
because of it. He has rejected Allah, the Messenger of Allah ^ and the
community of Muslims. He has belied a fundamental Islamic law that has to
be known by all Muslims. Hence, there is no doubt regarding his apostasy.
However, he is not proclaimed as a disbeliever for there is a slim chance that
he was unaware of the ruling pertaining to zakat. In this case, he is taught that
zakat is one of the pillars of Islam and that it is obligatory upon Muslims. If he
still maintains that it is not an obligation even after being made aware of it, he
is proclaimed an apostate. He is given an opportunity to repent failing which
he is executed because of his apostasy.


“Zakat is taken from him by force and he is executed”: It is taken from him
by force as zakat is the right of the poor and the needy. His obligation to pay
zakat is not absolved due to his refusal to pay it nor is the right of the poor
and needy absolved as a result of his refusal. If he continues to refuse to pay
even after being made aware of its obligation and the evidence to support it,
then zakat is forcibly taken from him and he is executed if he does not repent
to Allah.

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: 

An Apostate (Murtadd)A murtadd from Islam does not inherit in the opinion of the four Sunni schools, irrespective of his apostasy being 'an fitrah or 'an millah,7 except if he returns and repents before the distribution of the heritage. (al-Mughni, vol. 6)


The Imamiyyah observe: A murtadd ‘an fitrah, if a male, will be sentenced to death without being asked to repent, and his wife will observe the 'iddah of death from the time of his apostasy, and his estate will be distributed even if he is not executed. His repentance will also not be accepted concerning the dissolution of his marriage, or the distribution of his estate, or the wujub of his execution, though it will be accepted in fact and by God, as well as in regard to other issues such as the ritual cleanliness of his body and the validity of his acts of worship (‘ibadat). Similarly, he may own after his repentance new properties acquired through work, trade, or inheritance.


A murtadd 'an millah will be asked to repent. If he does so, he will have all the rights and obligations of Muslims. If he does not repent, he will be executed and his wife will observe the 'iddah of divorce from the time of his apostasy. Then if he repents while she is undergoing 'iddah, she will return to him and his property will not be distributed unless he dies or is killed.


A woman will not be sentenced to death irrespective of her apostasy being 'an fitrah or 'an millah. But she will be imprisoned and beaten at the times of salat till she repents or dies. Her heritage will be distributed only after her death. (al-Sayyid Aba al-Hasan's Wasilat al-najat and al-Shaykh Ahmad Kashif al-Ghita’s Safinat al-najat, bab al- 'irth)

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.

[PointOfViewGun]

"Once you answered these questions, we can go further"...

- A

Or, and this is a very strange idea, you could stop deflecting and wasting people's times and just show that evidence you claim to have.

[antaeus]

Or, and this is a very strange idea, you could stop deflecting and wasting people's times and just show that evidence you claim to have.

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.

[Axalon]

I don't think there's much point in continuing. ...

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

[PointOfViewGun]

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.

[antaeus]

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.

- A

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?

[Sir Adrian]

Are we still blaming Christians for the attack on a woman in the act of criticizing Mohammed?

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

[Infidel144]

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).

Uh, the Branch Davidians stem from the Shepherd's Rod movement, whose leader was excommunicated from the Seventh Day Adventists, and whose teachings were declared heretical.

[antaeus]

Uh, the Branch Davidians stem from the Shepherd's Rod movement, whose leader was excommunicated from the Seventh Day Adventists, and whose teachings were declared heretical.

And that is exactly my point. Anyone can interpret any set of religious texts in any way they want.

[Infidel144]

And that is exactly my point.

Oh. Did you know that information I related?

Anyone can interpret any set of religious texts in any way they want.

Has some relevant authority declared the prescriptions from the Quran and Sunnah heretical?

[antaeus]

Oh. Did you know that information I related?

Yes. That's why I suggested it supports my case.

Has some relevant authority declared the prescriptions from the Quran and Sunnah heretical?

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.

[Infidel144]

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.

What interpretation did the attacker claim?

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.

I don't think I have seen anyone here suggest banning it.