User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
I'm assuming you can read Latifah, otherwise you wouldn't be here. Read the last sentence 100 wrote.
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
I can indeed read.
There was nothing in 100’s last sentence that deserved your rude response.
Insulting a religion, or any set of beliefs, is not the same as inciting hatred.
There is a clear difference. In any case, your remarks were ill mannered.
:x
Nick Grifiths was cleared of inciting hatred. I am not talking about that.
Which leads me again to ponder how on earth you are on this forum because clearly you haven't read what I wrote.
I'm talking about the fact that he insulted Islam. Where as he cannot against Judaism and Sikhism because it's confined to one race.
Rude response? What did I say that was so rude?! Be gone little girl!
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
Dare I say, that is definitely rude.
i agree with the person who said there should be laws to protect muslims and christians in this country. Why are the laws currently there just to protect jews and sikhs exclusively that doesn't seem just at all. It's sending out a message that it's ok to insult muslims and christians coz you can "get away with it", but you can't do the same to Jews and Sikhs. I'd like to know who made this law where in history the bunch of intelligent fools decided it was ok to protect these two religious groups and not others?
Why was that rude?
She is a little girl.
And he wants her to shut her joking little mouth.
Dur! You said...
Don't be a dimwit m & m.
You obviously didn’t read 100’s comments properly. How silly of you to respond with bile and personal insults. Sometime the odd insult is deserved and necessary, not on that occasion. How foolish of you. What a nice guy you are. :roll: A very daft user name as well. Suits the standard of your posts. Very dodgy.
Thanks Jinnah.
Salam
Joker is so funny. She always makes me laugh.
Have a look at what she said to MMM above :
[b]She is saying that she does not believe in personal insults. Such purity.[/b]
Only a woman could possibly manage to contradict herself so blatantly.
Omrow
Wake up Jinnah. :roll:
You not firing on all four today are you?
Is you eyesight failing you again?
I actually said....
As you know, I have no problem with the odd insult. Especially with flag waving dunces like YOU.
Have a nice day, Jinnah.
latifah is correct.
mmm, you have misunderstood me. I have not suggested or considered and do not believe that laws protecting races and religions should not apply equally to Muslims. Just to be really clear, Muslims must be and to my awareness are protected under laws against hatred and incitement. I do not know why you are saying there are laws for different faiths and in any case I would not approve of such a legal discrimination.
After making very clear that I felt Griffin was out of line I responded to Ed's point about "insulting Islam" to say that it is not a crime. Nor is it a crime if someone says "Judaism is a stupid religion, how can anyone but a fool believe the world was created in six days" or somesuch. Even if that gives me some offense it is not an incitement to hate.
However I think that publicly calling Islam "wicked and vicious" and especially saying that Muslims are turning the UK into a hellhole, is an incitement to hate. If you disagree or if I phrased that ambiguously either here or in the first instance, please come back with a polite response.
latifah, thank you very much indeed for clarifying and having that out and going out of your way to be so honourable.
Omrow, I have no idea where you are coming from. Seems plain stupi[size=12]d[/size].
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Once again you misunderstand me and I you. Now when I wrote about the law protecting Jews and Sikhs I assumed you knew about how the law protects races and disregards religion. My point was that it was a generic law not specific to Jews or Sikhs.
This is why salman rushdie ‘the cursed’ was able to do such evil. This is why we have this pathetic thing called the davinci code, full of fabrication.
Insulting Islam and criticising Islam are two different things. Like saying the world could never have been created in 6 days is a criticism and Muslims never object to open dialogue or such criticism. When Grifiths said Islam is "wicked and vicious" now that’s an insult, a hurtful and evil insult.
Maybe you don’t understand the psyche of a Muslim of today but we are being ‘persecuted for our beliefs’. Every which way we turn we find ourselves fire fighting. So don’t say it’s ok to insult Islam. Choose you words carefully!
That was my peace offering, so to say the founding of common grounds.
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
OK, well, that was hardly an apology for the nasty things you said, but I appreciate the spirit. I forgive you.
I would need you to explain in more detail if I were to understand your issues with racial and ethnic discrimination laws and the laws banning incitement to hate.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
I'm direct. I never hide behind my words. People do find this directness offensive but equally I find people who hide behind their words offensive. Thats why I like forums people can be direct (even though we're all hiding behind our keyboards).
The Law is something I read post 1988. I will see if I can find it again and post it. These things are never easy to find now.
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
To be honest, "blah blah blah". You were downright rude and that is what I forgave you for. I am not going to view plain rudeness as direct and transparent or honourable in any way.
The "inciting hate" law is 2006, not 1988. ftr Muslims were nevertheless protected under other various human rights, anti-discrimination, employment and pro-ethnic minority laws, and even the old 1976 Race Relations Act contained provisions for national and ethnic origin. I am weary of people who preach from a seemingly endless catalogue of complaints against the world at large.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
As I said the law was something I 'read post 1988'. I did not say it was a law made in 1988.
1988 was when 'the cursed' wrote his evil.
As for your last post.... it was good I liked your directness
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
... and who refer to Mr Rushdie as "the cursed" (though of course, considering his book evil is your entitlement). It diminishes anything else you have to say on the subject of inciting hatred.
If I wanted to write a scathing mockery of the Torah I would be rightly protected under UK law. Some have done this. If you believe Islam is exceptional in being a permissible subject for harsh criticism you are mistaken.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Calling a person ‘cursed’ is hardly inciting hatred, but hey we can't cry or be valiant in defence for our religion. As you refer to him ‘Mr Rushdie’ is cursed, look at his life.
That is a difference between us. You think it to be just for certain people to write such ‘scathing mockeries’ of the Torah, Bible or Quran.
With my directness, I shall refer you to today’s climate towards Islam and Muslims. Perhaps you could appreciate it if you refer back to how your people have been treated, whether it is on the same scale or not. It is not just Muslims but it is Islam also.
When the wagons rolling they all jump on!
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
I disagree heavily. Rushdie was well within his rights. Do you believe the fatwa against him is an appropriate response? That is what I perceived in your reference to "the cursed". The Satanic Verses were published long before 9/11 so I don't know why you refer to "today's climate toward Islam and Muslims", but unquestionably there has been a growth in cynicism about Islam and Muslims. With equal directness I refer you to death fatwas on the heads of artists.
One of my favourite books by one of my favourite writers is Anthony Burgess' "Earthly Powers", which contains a chapter in which his protagonist writes a pornographic and homosexual account of Genesis. Similar blasphemies are commonplace and legitimate art. It goes without saying that literalist believers of a certain narrow mindset get flustered. Few drive the artist into hiding for fear of his life. Such religious intimidation is a sickening abuse of faith.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
The fatwa was given in Iran. Ordering all Muslims they must kill him at sight. The Ayatola does not have solemn rule over the Islamic world. Neither am I in Iran. In an Islamic country Shariah law overrules all others. I am well within my rights to protest and call him cursed. I did not refer to the fatwa when I said cursed either.
I may not watch TV but I do keep up to date with affairs in the world today.
You now understand why I said 1988 and I looked into this after 1988. I thought you would have known.
Yes the satanic verses where written in 1988 and I said today’s climate. Am I the only one who has seen ‘the cursed’ on reports referring to Islam recently? All of a sudden the old adversary is an authority on Islam again. Let’s really aggravate them.
Artists create, not manipulate. This person manipulated the Genesis.
Nevertheless the old saying is true. Sleep and eat!
True character and honesty was abundance of ages gone by,
Today we are left with you and I
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
mmm- you need to tone down
stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you
an apology to latifah is due if you dont mind.
you will never agree iwth 100,i dont , most dont..... but there snothing wrong with that.... you need to stop the insulting remarks...that is not teh islamic ettiquettes....
salaam
With respect, Ed, not for my sake, but an apology from mmm to 100 is also due. I also think you are out of line to say that most people don't ever agree with 100. I expect there are many things on which we agree. Maybe you did not mean to say exactly that but it is a powerful assertion worth challenging.
mmm,
I asked a direct question. Can you give me a yes or no? Then I will know whether or not to apologise for my reading of your remark about Rushdie.
I don't know what you mean by this:
"Yes the satanic verses where written in 1988 and I said today’s climate. Am I the only one who has seen ‘the cursed’ on reports referring to Islam recently? All of a sudden the old adversary is an authority on Islam again. Let’s really aggravate them."
Any chance you could clarify it?
I am being straight with you. Maybe you are not writing clearly enough to prevent misunderstanding. If I [i]have[/i] understood, you are imo incorrect to impugn my motives.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
I said be gone to Latifah and I owe her an apology? Sorry Saj we disagree once again.
Also, I can’t apologise to a person who condones sacrilege. I brush off any sly remarks made and don't throw a 'paddy'.
100 I thought I did give you an answer. In Iran the fatwa is correct, I’m in the UK and the fatwa is incorrect here.
The cursed was commenting on the Niqab.
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
[color=brown][size=9]*EDIT*[/size][/color]
[size=11]However I now get something: you were saying that Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses in 1988 and in the ensuing public debate you read something about the law favouring Jews and Sikhs because Islam is not a race. I would still be interested to read a concrete example. You are also opposing Rushdie further for his more recently expressed views on the niqab.
You also approve of the fatwa against his life if it is carried out in Iran but not elsewhere.
I am sorry I took so long to discern all this.
Please don't refer to him as "the cursed". It is inflammatory and it does, though perhaps not legally, constitute the promotion of hatred. Are you able to call him Salman Rushdie?[/size]
[color=brown][size=9]*/EDIT*[/size][/color]
Also the bit about condoning sacrilege - I am for allowing blasphemy as protected free speech, and there is a difference between that and sacrilege. I remember the murder of Theo Van Gogh, on account of his blasphemy, by extremists claiming to act in Allah's name. Was that not sacrilege?
Don't call me sly. It is ignorant. And you [i]can[/i] apologise for the various insults. Saying it is because I "condone sacrilege" is no excuse. Anyway apology or nay, unless you ask me a question or tell a lie, I'm bored of the argument.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Did I write that 'the cursed' is in violation of race hate crimes because he apposed the Niqab? CoughSlyCough.
The Law favours races instead of religions. NOT just Jews or Sikhs.
The evil in man is capable of much. You call it art, I call it malicious intent to incite and gain publicity. Greed!
You can’t even cry…… call him by his name? Your statement makes me incensed, how dare you even suggest what I should call him.
You want me to justify why Theo Van Gogh was murdered? How? Why?
Someone kills another person 100s of miles away and you want me to justify it? You silly little man.
In your last paragraph you start with ‘Don't call me sly’. You end with ‘unless you ask me a question or tell a lie’. Okay, I wont call you sly.
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
mmm. Clown.
What kind? The kind in scary movies or the kind that go to parties?
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
The entertaining but ever so slightly dim type.
Hey I just seen a clown raising charity for children in need, thought of this and that I should be standing there with him!
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
BNP to consider non-white members
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Pages