More Tales of the Veil: London Man Assaulted for Wife's Veil Comment

[SteveGrenard]

The story speaks for itself. I hope they throw the book at the suspect since Islam is supposed to be this wonderful peaceful religion ... except somebody forgot to tell the thug who did this:

Man attacked over wife's Muslim veil comment
Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:04 PM GMT


By Michael Holden

LONDON (Reuters) - A man,whose wife made a passing comment about a Muslim woman's full face veil, suffered a broken nose and lost his front teeth after being attacked and headbutted by the woman's partner, police said on Sunday.

The victim, a 46-year-old white man, was walking through Regent's Park with his wife, son and daughter when they passed another family, a Muslim man and his wife who was pushing a baby in a pushchair.

"The victim's wife made a comment directed to her husband that she thought it must be difficult for the woman wearing the veil to see out of it as it covered her face," a police spokesman said.

"The suspect began shouting and returned approximately 10 minutes later on his own and repeatedly punched and headbutted the victim."


http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-12-24T120414Z_01_L24179459_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-BRITAIN-VEIL.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C2-Business-2

[SteveGrenard]

Muslim women will now have to remove their veils at UK airports

Finally some sanity. Islamic customs should not be allowed to mask the identity of terrorists or wanted killers who won't take off their masks (e.g. niqabs) for the authorities. Of course the Unions, no doubt representing many muslim members, are bitching that such a move would place "intolerable" demands on female staff since females would be the only ones allowed to do this. What a farce!




London, Dec 25: Veiled Muslim women will now have to reveal their identities at airports across Britain following a government diktat after it was revealed that a suspected killer might have escaped the police net dressed in a niqab.

Home Office sources say immigration officials will now have the right to impose their legal right to lift the veils of passengers, although unions have attacked the plan, saying it would impose intolerable demands on female staff, as they would be the only ones allowed to look under the veils. Asylum seeker Mustaf Jama, wanted for the murder of police officer Sharon Beshenivsky, reportedly flew from Heathrow to Somalia using his sister`s passport. He was believed to have been wearing a niqab, which covers the entire face except for a narrow slit of the eyes. Under the plan, immigration officers would now be legally entitled to ask any female passenger to lift the veil to verify her identity against the passport photograph.

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=344145&sid=WOR

I guess Mamma Jama is on his way to fight in the jihad for the Somali Union of Islamic Courts. Never mind he is a wanted killer in the England. He is fresh from the UK with street cred of killing a British copper. He should do well and move up swiftly.

[Dave1001]

How are you not spamming the board with these threads?

[Cleon]

Back on the anti-Islam kick, eh, Steve?

[SteveGrenard]

How are you not spamming the board with these threads?

Because they are not spam:

http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html

Sorry if such news offends you but you can't make all the people happy all the time.

[SteveGrenard]

Back on the anti-Islam kick, eh, Steve?

I am anti-Islam because of the baggage it carries with it. The mere fact that many Muslim women I see in my clinic every day don't wear veils indicates to me that it is not a hard requirement of the faith and is being used in many cases to start trouble or to allow murderers to escape arrest and prosecution as in the examples given above.

If Islam reformed itself, banning Sharia, forced conversions and its other violent proclivities, I couldn't care less about being for or against the faith.
Islam offends me, and it offends 100s of millions of non-Muslims with whom muslims say they want to co-exist with in this world. Or do they? One can't help getting the feeling Islamicists seek total world domination and will use violence to achieve it.

There are muslims who recognize these problems but they are few and far between right now.

[Cleon]

So "yes."

[SteveGrenard]

So "yes."

Yup.

Quelle surprise! Me and many many millions of others feel the same way.

Cleon ... it's not exactly that I am alone out here on this.

[CFLarsen]

Steve Grenard: On Yet Another Crusade. :rolleyes:

But, Steve: Why on this forum?

[Mojo]

I am anti-Islam because of the baggage it carries with it. Do you think skeptics are soft on Islam?

[Mojo]

The story speaks for itself. Why do you consider it reasonable to generalise from this individual Muslim to all Muslims? What conclusion about Christians do you think we can draw from the recent adventure (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1968882,00.html) of the Bishop of Southwark (as a senior churchman, surely more representative of Christians than a random bypasser in Regent's Park is of Muslims).

"I'm the Bishop of Southwark. It's what I do."

[Mojo]

I guess Mamma Jama is on his way to fight in the jihad for the Somali Union of Islamic Courts. Never mind he is a wanted killer in the England. He is fresh from the UK with street cred of killing a British copper. He should do well and move up swiftly.A lot of newspapers have published the rumour that a murder suspect may have escaped from Britain disguised as a woman and wearing a veil. Do you have any actual evidence to back the story up?

[SteveGrenard]

A lot of newspapers have published the rumour that a murder suspect may have escaped from Britain disguised as a woman and wearing a veil. Do you have any actual evidence to back the story up?

Since he escaped from Heathrow to Mogadishu and the authorities in Britain investigated this and this is what they believe to have happened I defer to them and in fact cited the press reports in the UK on this. You can read them and decide whatever you want.

Aside from this specific case and on a more general basis, the fact that a Muslim woman will not remove her full face veil for immigration control in the UK and the fact that a wanted murderer can dress in drag including the veil and escape visual identification procedures are both givens. The fact that any person can dress up in drag and don a niqab and not be subject to an identity check is absurd. What do you think would happen if you showed up at the airport wearing a ski mask and claimed your religion would not allow you to remove it?

Jama's sister's passport was shown to immigration control even though they established she was nowhere near the airport let alone traveling that day to Somalia. I am sure the British police were smart enough to go to her and ask to see her passport which she couldn't produce since it was with her fugitive brother in Somalia. If she cooperated in this affair she should be arrested and charged for aiding and abetting.

They have little or no hope of ever getting Jama back as by now he has joined up with the UIC jihad in Somalia and is either dead in jihadi combat (and on his way to paradise) or well protected there. This doesn't mean the UK authorities should write this off and continue to allow muslims to escape visual i.d. for immigration or other law enforcement purposes.

[SteveGrenard]

Why do you consider it reasonable to generalise from this individual Muslim to all Muslims? What conclusion about Christians do you think we can draw from the recent adventure (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1968882,00.html) of the Bishop of Southwark (as a senior churchman, surely more representative of Christians than a random bypasser in Regent's Park is of Muslims).

"I'm the Bishop of Southwark. It's what I do."

This confrontation and mugging by a muslim man insulted by a comment made by another man's wife is merely an example of the aburdity of the muslim position. If you are telling me that the insistence on the veil and being offended by objections to it is not widespread in the muslim community in the UK I guess you haven't been following the press on this. I merely quote the news, not make it. If you think, for example, only 1 out of a 100 muslims would defend the wearing of a veil with a violent response that is your privilege. I happen to feel it's a lot more than that.

edited to add:

I have no problem criticizing or even generalizing if warranted from any actions of or statements made by a member of the Christian church. If you want to discuss some aspect of this let us know what you are talking about. Do members of the Christian clergy drink alcohol? For sure. What is it that you are suggetsing might be generalized about this adventure? That all Christians drink alcohol and could get drunk? Did the Bishop assault anyone? Did he head butt them? Did he knock their teeth out?

[Mojo]

I have no problem criticizing or even generalizing if warranted from any actions of or statements made by a member of the Christian church. If you want to discuss some aspect of this let us know what you are talking about. Do members of the Christian clergy drink alcohol? For sure. What is it that you are suggetsing might be generalized about this adventure? That all Christians drink alcohol and could get drunk? Did the Bishop assault anyone? Did he head butt them? Did he knock their teeth out?I'm not suggesting that any generalisation should be made from this. That's your game.

[Mojo]

Since he escaped from Heathrow to Mogadishu and the authorities in Britain investigated this and this is what they believe to have happened I defer to them and in fact cited the press reports in the UK on this. Sorry, I must have missed the thread in which you did this. Can you provide a link please? You can read them and decide whatever you want. Actually, I have seen much of the coverage of this in the UK media. I have yet to see any indication of the source of the claim that he got through security controls wearing a veil. Words like "reportedly" and "claims" get bandied about, typically as in this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195581.stm). Nowhere have I seen the claims confirmed by anyone in a position to know whether this actually happened, such as the police or the immigration authorities.

[fuelair]

Steve Grenard: On Yet Another Crusade. :rolleyes:

But, Steve: Why on this forum?

Why not? It is politics(British at least.). It is currently an event. It does revolve around one or more social issues.

What is your evidence it does not belong here? Or is that merely your opinion
based on your clear disagreement with the idea that there are really primitive/evil/violent Muslims out there - though neither Steve (or I) have IIRC said they are the majority.:)

[Rob Lister]

Steve, you may at times be over the top but I've yet to read a post of yours I would ever consider spam.

Keep posting, and while you do so note the criticality of your posting from others that just so happens also lacks any substance of refute. In some cases it seems, but only for some people, the truth is not welcome here.

[CFLarsen]

Why not? It is politics(British at least.). It is currently an event. It does revolve around one or more social issues.

What is your evidence it does not belong here? Or is that merely your opinion
based on your clear disagreement with the idea that there are really primitive/evil/violent Muslims out there - though neither Steve (or I) have IIRC said they are the majority.:)

Oh, just curious, given Steve's history of wanting to censor this forum, and discredit skeptics, skepticism and Randi in particular.

[Rob Lister]

Oh, just curious, given Steve's history of wanting to censor this forum, and discredit skeptics, skepticism and Randi in particular.

And your attack of the argument he makes is ________________________?

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry, I must have missed the thread in which you did this. Can you provide a link please? Actually, I have seen much of the coverage of this in the UK media. I have yet to see any indication of the source of the claim that he got through security controls wearing a veil. Words like "reportedly" and "claims" get bandied about, typically as in this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195581.stm). Nowhere have I seen the claims confirmed by anyone in a position to know whether this actually happened, such as the police or the immigration authorities.

Actually it is this thread you must've missed but here it is again FYI:

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=344145&sid=WOR

Asylum seeker Mustaf Jama, wanted for the murder of police officer Sharon Beshenivsky, reportedly flew from Heathrow to Somalia using his sister`s passport. He was believed to have been wearing a niqab, which covers the entire face except for a narrow slit of the eyes.

Are you denying it is not possible for a man to dress up in drag, don a veil/niqab and escape an identity
check? If so the British government and most law enforcement authorities outside muslim theocracies disagree with you.

Are you denying that in the absence of being able to facially identify a male person flying into or out of Heathrow they would be able to use their sister's passport and thus get away with masquarading as someone else? If so, the immigration authorities in Britain would beg to diagree with you.

The authorities in Britain always use terms like reportedly and allegedly until they have proved a case in a court so this is nothing special. The facts in this case are that a male can dress up as a woman when disguised by a niqab and a male can use a female's passport when doing so.

These are not assertions or allegations, they are entirely possible ocurrences irrespective of this specific case.

[Mojo]

Since he escaped from Heathrow to Mogadishu and the authorities in Britain investigated this and this is what they believe to have happened I defer to them and in fact cited the press reports in the UK on this.
Sorry, I must have missed the thread in which you did this. Can you provide a link please? Actually it is this thread you must've missed but here it is again FYI:

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=344145&sid=WORIf you look carefully at that page, you will see subtle hints that suggest that that is an Indian site, for example it has an India edition (which you linked to) and an international edition, and if you go to the "Nation" page it has stories about India. I don't think India has ever been considered to be part of the UK. It was part of the British Empire for a while, but even though it was a while ago that you were over here (the late 70s, I believe) it had by that time been independent for about three decades.

Now, where did you cite the press reports in the UK on this?

[Mojo]

Are you denying it is not possible for a man to dress up in drag, don a veil/niqab and escape an identity
check? If so the British government and most law enforcement authorities outside muslim theocracies disagree with you. I assume you have an extraneous "not" in that question. I agree that it would be possible if they were not checked, and it appears that this may be the case, at least when people are leaving the country. For example, the story I linked to above says: The Home Office said the claim was unlikely to be true as women can be asked to lift veils in identity checks.

Visual checks are carried out on people arriving in the UK.

BAA, which owns and operates Heathrow airport, said it was the responsibility of individual airlines to confirm the identity of passengers at check-in and boarding gates.

The Home Office said police and immigration officers carried out checks on those leaving the UK on an "intelligence-led basis". Note that while it suggests that the authorities are not necessarily particularly vigilant about people leaving, and do not seem to check identities on a routine basis, the power to require faces to be shown does seem to exist.

I'm not sure to what extent the issue of veils is relevant here, as it appears that there may not have been visual checks carried out at all, and if they were women (or people claiming to be women) could have been asked to lift veils in identity checks. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg has said if the reports are true it "beggars belief" that there are no visual facial checks when a person leaves the country at an airport.

Are you denying that in the absence of being able to facially identify a male person flying into or out of Heathrow they would be able to use their sister's passport and thus get away with masquarading as someone else? If so, the immigration authorities in Britain would beg to diagree with you. Obviously, not being able to see someone's face would potentially enable them to travel under someone else's passport, but it appears that the authorities have the power to require veils to be lifted: The Home Office said the claim was unlikely to be true as women can be asked to lift veils in identity checks.

The authorities in Britain always use terms like reportedly and allegedly until they have proved a case in a court so this is nothing special. The facts in this case are that a male can dress up as a woman when disguised by a niqab and a male can use a female's passport when doing so. On the other hand newspapers are usually quite keen to cite official sources for stories, to give them more of an appearence of authenticity. All we have here is an unsourced rumour, which the Home Office apparently considers unlikely to be true: The Home Office said the claim was unlikely to be true as women can be asked to lift veils in identity checks.

These are not assertions or allegations, they are entirely possible ocurrences irrespective of this specific case.In the absence of any actual evidence, all they are are assertions or allegations. The fact that something is possible does not mean that it actually happened. It is understood West Yorkshire Police - who have not commented on reports about the veil theory - regard it only as one of a number of possibilities. In fact, only a couple of weeks ago they were asking for information on the basis that he may still be in the country: Mustafa Jama is believed to have links with Sheffield, Birmingham, Coventry and Leicester, although detectives said they are not ruling out the possibility that he could be anywhere in the country.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/4524670.stm)

[SteveGrenard]

There are two intersecting issues. One is the requirement for veils to be removed for identity purposes, entering or leaving a country such as the UK and the other is Mustafa Jama's escape from Britain after being sentenced to life in prison with his co-conspirators in the policewoman's death. There is the possibility that this scumbag dressed up as a woman to elude capture.
Closing this loophole is what is being done, as of today, in Britain. A Pakistani born British Catholic Bishop, whose father was a convert from islam to catholicism, came out in favor of the veil removal policy so there are also many articles detailing his views on the subject as well.



Pakistan-born Bishop Nazir-Ali said the Muslim community needed to make more effort to integrate in British society.

"It is fine if they want to wear the veil in private," he told the Sunday Telegraph. "But there are occasions in public life when it is inappropriate for them to wear it."

He called for legislation over the veil after a suspect wanted over the shooting of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky was thought to have fled the UK while dressed in a veil.

Bishop Nazir-Ali said: "Given that we are facing an unprecedented security situation, legislation needs to be introduced that allows officials to remove the veil."

He added that people were "too worried about offending Muslims".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6300286,00.html



The Beshinevsky Murder Press Reports:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2516421,00.html


http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1944289





The 'architect' of the heist, Piran Ditta Khan, remains a fugitive, as does Jama's brother Mustaf, 26.

He is on the run in Somalia - reportedly slipping out through Heathrow Airport disguised as a Muslim woman in a veil.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23379252-details/Gunmen+who+killed+WPC+were+already+on+bail/article.do



A sixth man, Jama's brother Mustaf, is believed to be in hiding in Somalia after escaping from Britain using his sister's passport and wearing a veil.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=they-could-have-just-threatened-us-with-guns-and-that-would-have-been-enough---why-did-they-have-to-shoot--&method=full&objectid=18317187&siteid=94762-name_page.html


The law should cover airports, ports, Tube and train stations, and employers should have the right to demand that the veil is not worn in the workplace, the Bishop said.

The comments came days after it emerged that a man wanted in connection with the murder of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky may have fled Britain disguised as a Muslim woman. Mustaf Jama is believed to have escaped detection by wearing a niqab, which covers the face except the eyes.

Bishop Nazir-Ali, whose father converted from Islam to Catholicism, also said that the Muslim community needed to make greater efforts to integrate.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2100007.ece


Immigration officers at British airports will begin lifting the veils of passengers to verify identity, The Scotsman said Sunday.

The order came after it was revealed that suspected killer Mustaf Jama flew from London's Heathrow airport to Somalia using his sister's passport. He is believed to have worn a woman's niqab, which has just a slit for eyes, and was not required to lift the veil.

The requirement has drawn criticism from unions claiming it will impose impossible demands on its members, particularly women, who would be the only ones allowed to look under the veils, the Scotsman said.

Home Secretary John Reid is planning to enforce the requirement before considering more stringent measures, a Home Office official said.

http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_6285-Veils-To-Be-Lifted-At-British-Airports.html


Bottom line my friend is the veil has got to go. Muslims should not be allowed to shield their real identities by invoking some sort of religious privilege especially since it is so obviously optional.

[Ralph]

Steve, you may at times be over the top but I've yet to read a post of yours I would ever consider spam.

Keep posting, and while you do so note the criticality of your posting from others that just so happens also lacks any substance of refute. In some cases it seems, but only for some people, the truth is not welcome here.


Agreed. Everything I've seen Steve post is certainly something that could be considered "newsworthy" in the least.

If anyone else had posted the same newsworthy material I doubt if there would be the same level of personal attacks that Steve always seems to get from the same few individuals.

Personally I'm bored to tears with all the Bush bashing threads we see here.
For that reason I just ignore them.

Others obviously do enjoy them though but when there's disagreement--it usually comes as an attack against the content of the post--not the poster.

[Mojo]

There are two intersecting issues. One is the requirement for veils to be removed for identity purposes, entering or leaving a country such as the UK and the other is Mustafa Jama's escape from Britain after being sentenced to life in prison with his co-conspirators in the policewoman's death. As far as I'm aware he hasn't even been tried, let alone sentenced. There is the possibility that this scumbag dressed up as a woman to elude capture. Equally, there seems to be the possibility that he may have evaded capture because the authorities left it up to the airlines to check the identity of people leaving the country. The real issue may be what sort of border checks we have, and whether they were competently enforced. Closing this loophole is what is being done, as of today, in Britain. A Pakistani born British Catholic Bishop,Anglican, actually, which means that gets to sit in the House of Lords and vote on laws (he was also previously Assistant Bishop of Southwark ;) ). ...whose father was a convert from islam to catholicism, came out in favor of the veil removal policy so there are also many articles detailing his views on the subject as well. It looks as if the power to insist on facial identification was previously there, although it may not have been enforced, particularly when people are leaving the country.

Bottom line my friend is the veil has got to go. Do you mean that Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear it, or just that the authorities should be allowed to look under it when necessary? Muslims should not be allowed to shield their real identities by invoking some sort of religious privilege especially since it is so obviously optional.I agree, but exaggeration doesn't help your case.

As for the reports of his alleged departure, was thought to have fled the UK while dressed in a veil.
...reportedly slipping out through Heathrow Airport disguised as a Muslim woman in a veil. ...believed to be in hiding in Somalia after escaping from Britain using his sister's passport and wearing a veil....may have fled Britain disguised as a Muslim woman. Mustaf Jama is believed to have escaped detection by wearing a niqab, which covers the face except the eyes.He is believed to have worn a woman's niqab...Does nobody have a reliable source for these beliefs?

[SteveGrenard]

As far as I'm aware he hasn't even been tried, let alone sentenced.

Sorry, it was his brother Yusuf Jama who was tried.
I must've gotten my jamas mixed up.


Equally, there seems to be the possibility that he may have evaded capture because the authorities left it up to the airlines to check the identity of people leaving the country. The real issue may be what sort of border checks we have, and whether they were competently enforced.

Up to now pretty crummy I guess. If the airlines continue to do this task that means the traveler would have to present their passport and their face to the clerk at the check in counter would it not? If every moslem woman who insists on wearing veil requested a private room and female employee to do this, the check in lines just got a lot longer. If the airline check in doesn't do it, and the security check in doesn't do it, it and the government does it, it means a third check point on one's way to the gate.



Anglican, actually, which means that gets to sit in the House of Lords and vote on laws (he was also previously Assistant Bishop of Southwark ;) ).It looks as if the power to insist on facial identification was previously there, although it may not have been enforced, particularly when people are leaving the country.

Oh yes, he's the Bishop of Rochester. His father converted to Catholic from Islam so I guess the son converted from islam to catholic to Anglican.


Do you mean that Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear it, or just that the authorities should be allowed to look under it when necessary? I agree, but exaggeration doesn't help your case.

Not being allowed to wear it, especially since it is optional and not all muslim woman wear it, would be the simplest solution. Allowed to look under or ask for it being cast aside for a passport/identity check comparison should be mandatory however.


As for the reports of his alleged departure, Does nobody have a reliable source for these beliefs?

The press reports and the language you point out are what I have seen. Once again, even if this lowlife didn't escape the country with his sister's passport under cover of a niqab, the possibility for this happening must be stopped in the future, strarting from now. The veil must go when facial identification is required by the authorities. I am glad you agree.

[pipelineaudio]

Why do you consider it reasonable to generalise from this individual Muslim to all Muslims? What conclusion about Christians do you think we can draw from the recent adventure (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1968882,00.html) of the Bishop of Southwark (as a senior churchman, surely more representative of Christians than a random bypasser in Regent's Park is of Muslims).

"I'm the Bishop of Southwark. It's what I do."

Besides the black hole sized Tu Quoque you are pushing, its important to define the term "Muslim"

If it is one who practices "Islam" then you must also define what "islam " is

Many on this board insist islam is NOT the religion of the koran

However IF muslim means follower of the religion spelled out in the Koran, than I for one have the balls to say ALL are then evil.

Not to continue your Tu Quoque, but I feel also that all who follow the religion of the bible of deuteronomy and Leviticus as evil as well

[Mojo]

There are two intersecting issues. Well, there are a number of other issues of equal or greater importance than the veil here. One of the suspects, Piran Khan, was apparently able to flee to Pakistan without dressing up, so it looks as if there is a big issue with border controls. Two of the Men who have been convicted were on police bail for firearms offences at the time of the trial. Mustaf Jama had a string of offences, which might well have led to his being deported had the Home Office not considered Somalia to be too dangerous. :rolleyes:
Not being allowed to wear it, especially since it is optional and not all muslim woman wear it...To what extent is it "optional"? Some Muslims wear it, some don't. Admittedly it seems to be more cultural than religious in some cases, but not all Muslims follow precisely the same form of Islam. Would you say that celibacy is optional for Catholic priests? There are plenty of denominations that don't require their priests to be celibate.

I don't think Islam is quite as monolithic as you seem to think it is.

[Mojo]

Besides the black hole sized Tu Quoque you are pushing, its important to define the term "Muslim"

If it is one who practices "Islam" then you must also define what "islam " is

Many on this board insist islam is NOT the religion of the koran

However IF muslim means follower of the religion spelled out in the Koran, than I for one have the balls to say ALL are then evil.

Not to continue your Tu Quoque, but I feel also that all who follow the religion of the bible of deuteronomy and Leviticus as evil as wellI agree, there is certainly more to Islam, as a religion and as a cultural phenomenon, that just what is in the Koran. If all Muslims followed precisely what is in the Koran (or precisely what is contained in any single set of writings) then we wouldn't see the division between Sunni and Shia, for example.

I was pointing out Steve's approach, one that he has used before, of generalising from particular Muslims of whom (I would imagine) nobody on this forum would approve, to all Muslims. It's the same fallacy that people employ when they say that Stalin was an atheist and therefore atheism is bad.

[carlvs]

Yup.

Quelle surprise! Me and many many millions of others feel the same way.

So what - millions also felt the same about blacks, jews, christians, slavs, native americans, etc...

(by the way: you just became only the 3rd non-9/11 "conspiraloon" to make it onto my ignore list...)

[Ralph]

I agree, there is certainly more to Islam, as a religion and as a cultural phenomenon, that just what is in the Koran. If all Muslims followed precisely what is in the Koran (or precisely what is contained in any single set of writings) then we wouldn't see the division between Sunni and Shia, for example.

I was pointing out Steve's approach, one that he has used before, of generalising from particular Muslims of whom (I would imagine) nobody on this forum would approve, to all Muslims. It's the same fallacy that people employ when they say that Stalin was an atheist and therefore atheism is bad.


I think Steve's made it quite clear on numerous occasions that he doesn't think ALL muslims are murderers. Just enough to be causing a lot of misery & suffering in the world.......far more than seems to be coming from christians,hindus, and rastafarians for example.

There's a lot of threads on this board about Jack Chick & Fred Phelps.
Should the posters of these threads be attacked because they're holding ALL christians in a bad light?

Even a scumbag like Phelps operates within the law. While I'm sure he'd LIKE to kill all the degenerate homos & atheists.--he doesn't. The same can't be said for the individuals that Steve has been posting about.

[pipelineaudio]

I was pointing out Steve's approach, one that he has used before, of generalising from particular Muslims of whom (I would imagine) nobody on this forum would approve, to all Muslims. It's the same fallacy that people employ when they say that Stalin was an atheist and therefore atheism is bad.

Hold on now, last I checked, there wasnt a book telling atheists EXACTLY how they must behave and how they must treat other people

Are you sitting on the side that says muslims dont need to follow the laws of the koran?

We REALLY need to come up with terms that work

Im not trying to get into one of Dr.A's retarded no true scottman situations here, just saying we need to give a name to those who follow the laws of the koran and those who needent

[Dr Adequate]

Strange, I can't remember kicking your butt over this issue, and yet your remarks strongly suggest that I did. Can you supply a link?

In the meantime, could I draw your attention to the useful word "fundamentalist"?

[CFLarsen]

So what - millions also felt the same about blacks, jews, christians, slavs, native americans, etc...

(by the way: you just became only the 3rd non-9/11 "conspiraloon" to make it onto my ignore list...)

Steve is a Conspiracy Trooter (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2181059#post2181059)

[CFLarsen]

I think Steve's made it quite clear on numerous occasions that he doesn't think ALL muslims are murderers. Just enough to be causing a lot of misery & suffering in the world.......far more than seems to be coming from christians,hindus, and rastafarians for example.

Wrong.

Steve is very sly about this. When not called on it, he has no problems lumping all Muslims as violent:

Not the people, the religion. Muslims, of course, would destroy people who do not convert to Islam. They consider apostasy equivalent to treason.

No qualifications whatsoever.

When Steve talked about the Islamic jihad arriving in Denmark, I asked him just how many of these people there were in Denmark.

He pointed to all Muslims in Denmark. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2180943#post2180943)

But when called on it, Steve is only talking about those Muslims who are violent. Of course he is, how could you ever think otherwise?

Right until his next post, where he continues to paint all Muslims as blood-thirsty terrorists.

[Zep]

Steve is trying to use a tactic similar to "suicide by policeman". He is attempting to "bring down" this forum by trying to bring it to the attention of "the relevant authorities", presumably in the USA, in an effort to have the forum and website suspended or even taken down.

He cares not one whit what any arguments really are here, as long as he gets the content of this forum to say words like: Muslim, Islam, jihad, terrorist, bomb, war, killing, mad, insane, crusade, invasion, etc, etc, etc. He tries to sound like he supports the current "War On Terror" so that any detractors or even arguments against him can be construed as "support for terrorists". He is being a nasty bugger, and I think certain northern European people are too stubborn to realise that NOT playing the game IS an option.

What everyone else thinks of this opinion is up to them. I'm sure not everyone agrees with it. Personally, I have Steve on Ignore and have done for some time. Frankly, I think it's a waste of time indulging him his vindictive practices, let alone bothering to try and argue them with him. I believe that to do so only adds fuel to his fire - it plays right into his peurile hands.

My 2c.

[CFLarsen]

Steve is trying to use a tactic similar to "suicide by policeman". He is attempting to "bring down" this forum by trying to bring it to the attention of "the relevant authorities", presumably in the USA, in an effort to have the forum and website suspended or even taken down.

He cares not one whit what any arguments really are here, as long as he gets the content of this forum to say words like: Muslim, Islam, jihad, terrorist, bomb, war, killing, mad, insane, crusade, invasion, etc, etc, etc. He tries to sound like he supports the current "War On Terror" so that any detractors or even arguments against him can be construed as "support for terrorists". He is being a nasty bugger, and I think certain northern European people are too stubborn to realise that NOT playing the game IS an option.

What everyone else thinks of this opinion is up to them. I'm sure not everyone agrees with it. Personally, I have Steve on Ignore and have done for some time. Frankly, I think it's a waste of time indulging him his vindictive practices, let alone bothering to try and argue them with him. I believe that to do so only adds fuel to his fire - it plays right into his peurile hands.

My 2c.

It is exactly because Steve is doing this - trying to bring down this forum - that we shouldn't ignore him.

[HarryKeogh]

Steve is trying to use a tactic similar to "suicide by policeman". He is attempting to "bring down" this forum by trying to bring it to the attention of "the relevant authorities", presumably in the USA, in an effort to have the forum and website suspended or even taken down.

He cares not one whit what any arguments really are here, as long as he gets the content of this forum to say words like: Muslim, Islam, jihad, terrorist, bomb, war, killing, mad, insane, crusade, invasion, etc, etc, etc. He tries to sound like he supports the current "War On Terror" so that any detractors or even arguments against him can be construed as "support for terrorists". He is being a nasty bugger, and I think certain northern European people are too stubborn to realise that NOT playing the game IS an option.

What everyone else thinks of this opinion is up to them. I'm sure not everyone agrees with it. Personally, I have Steve on Ignore and have done for some time. Frankly, I think it's a waste of time indulging him his vindictive practices, let alone bothering to try and argue them with him. I believe that to do so only adds fuel to his fire - it plays right into his peurile hands.

My 2c.

Oh, brother.:rolleyes:

[pipelineaudio]

Strange, I can't remember kicking your butt over this issue, and yet your remarks strongly suggest that I did. Can you supply a link?

In the meantime, could I draw your attention to the useful word "fundamentalist"?

I dont think the term fundamentalist is a apt one. The term is usually used by far left loonballs in order to make moral equivalency between christianity and islam

Besides it is false. There is Islam-the religion of the Koran (and possibly Haddith, but NO GREAT difference either way) and then there is "Hypocrisy"/"Apostacy" which we call "moderate islam" yet which islam calls treasonous

"fundamentalist" doesnt even make sense for christianity, as its impossible to be 100 % true to a bible which contradicts itself

[Dr Adequate]

So there are No True Christian Fundamentalists. And as according to the fundies, who don't exist, if you're not a fundamentalist, you are No True Christian. Hence, as there are No True Fundamentalists, there are no Christians.

Better yet, according to moderate Muslims, who don't exist (as per your post) suicide is Not Truly Muslim, hence suicide bombers and their supporters, i.e. Muslim extremists, are No True Muslims. Hence, there are neither Muslim extremists nor moderates. Hence, there are no Muslims.

This is fun, shall we abolish Buddhism next?

[pipelineaudio]

So there are No True Christian Fundamentalists. And as according to the fundies, who don't exist, if you're not a fundamentalist, you are No True Christian. Hence, as there are No True Fundamentalists, there are no Christians.

Better yet, according to moderate Muslims, who don't exist (as per your post) suicide is Not Truly Muslim, hence suicide bombers and their supporters, i.e. Muslim extremists, are No True Muslims. Hence, there are neither Muslim extremists nor moderates. Hence, there are no Muslims.

This is fun, shall we abolish Buddhism next?

I dont know how you concoted any of that crap from my post

Tell me how you can be a fundamentalist to a law that contradicts itself

[Dr Adequate]

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Hoots! No True Scotsman! Och! Who says?
I've lived in Scotland all my days.
My accent, you'll observe, displays
a Caledonian lilt.
I have a very Highland air;
my motto's "touch me if you dare";
I should explain: this thing I wear
is called a "kilt".

My hair's a ginger shade of red;
my kinsmen once with Wallace bled,
and all were Scottish born and bred,
as all True Scotsmen are.
My sporran's kept in constant use;
my tartan's mainly green and puce;
I've ancestors that fought with Bruce
outside a bar.

I eat my porridge up with zest:
I find it easy to digest;
I toss the caber with the best;
and when I'm feeling frisky
to demonstrate the way I feel
I dance a Highland fling, or reel;
I'm full of Calvinistic zeal;
and, sometimes, whisky.

It scares the Saxon, one and all
to hear the bagpipes' martial call
but when they skirl and caterwaul
I think it sounds just fine.
I hunt the haggis in his glen,
pursue the creature to its den
and cook it up with "tatties" when
I wish to dine.

And still you go on talking rot,
and say despite all this you're not
disposed to think that I'm a Scot:
you claim you're still in doubt.
I dinnae like what you've implied:
you've wounded my True Scotsman's pride;
so, Jimmie, kindly step outside,
and let's find out.

A connoisseur like you will know
a true Glaswegian kiss.
Hey, Jimmie, can your mother sew?
Then tell her to stitch this.

[Dr Adequate]

I dont know how you concoted any of that crap from my post Well, I had to add a few premises, but I believe that your basic method of abolishing reality by redefining words will work just fine.

Tell me how you can be a fundamentalist to a law that contradicts itself I can't, but millions of others find no apparent difficulty in so doing.

[pipelineaudio]

Well, I had to add a few premises, but I believe that your basic method of abolishing reality by redefining words will work just fine.

I can't, but millions of others find no apparent difficulty in so doing.

Im sorry that you have so much trouble understanding simple rationalizations

The appeal to popularity really works out well for you too

[Dr Adequate]

Im sorry that you have so much trouble understanding simple rationalizations

You might want to look that last word up.

The appeal to popularity really works out well for you too That was not an "appeal to popularity", don't be stupid.

[pipelineaudio]

You might want to look that last word up.

That was not an "appeal to popularity", don't be stupid.

"

Tell me how you can be a fundamentalist to a law that contradicts itself"


I can't, but millions of others find no apparent difficulty in so doing."

ok

[mr_fidget]

The story speaks for itself. I hope they throw the book at the suspect since Islam is supposed to be this wonderful peaceful religion ... except somebody forgot to tell the thug who did this:

Man attacked over wife's Muslim veil comment
Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:04 PM GMT

I must admit I don't quite grasp what religion has to do with this attack.

In my opinion, the attacker has suffered from one of those “you dissin my woman I'll kick your teeth in” moments. It is an ugly way to react to offensive comments and shows many things about this man's behaviour, but it is nothing I have not heard of before.

[Dr Adequate]

ok Glad we sorted that out before you humiliated yourself further.

[Zep]

It is exactly because Steve is doing this - trying to bring down this forum - that we shouldn't ignore him.He is not interested in arguing to win the argument. You won't "win" because that's not what he is trying to achieve. He only wants text posted - the more, the better...for him. So EVERY post you make in response to Steve only provides more text on this forum to fuel his demented drive. You are actually HELPING him achieve his goal by being so stubborn. So shall I fetch the baseball bat to hit you for being so dim now? Or later...

[pipelineaudio]

Glad we sorted that out before you humiliated yourself further.

This "dork lashing out" thing of yours probably garnered some sympathy early on, but its gotta grate on people after a while

[Dr Adequate]

This "dork lashing out" thing of yours probably garnered some sympathy early on, but its gotta grate on people after a while "... and that concludes our newsflash from inside pipelineaudio's head, and now, back to reality."

[pipelineaudio]

"... and that concludes our newsflash from inside pipelineaudio's head, and now, back to reality."

Planet Chomsky perhaps

[Dr Adequate]

Planet Chomsky perhaps Now you have retreated into your own private language.

If you have anything to say in favor of your weird nonsense about Muslims and Christians, please say it. In English.

[pipelineaudio]

Everyone else understands just fine, why is that? (well maybe not Clause of course)

[SteveGrenard]

I must admit I don't quite grasp what religion has to do with this attack.

In my opinion, the attacker has suffered from one of those “you dissin my woman I'll kick your teeth in” moments. It is an ugly way to react to offensive comments and shows many things about this man's behaviour, but it is nothing I have not heard of before.


There is lot of confusion around the veil about whether it is custom to wear it or a religious obligation according to Islamic teachings. The Islamic fundamentalists and illiterate Mullahs argue that the veil is a must for Muslim women as a religious duty. They argue that face showing of a woman in public is un-Islamic. These are completely wrong arguments, because the veil is not an Islamic tradition or a religious obligation. The veil predates Islam. The veil, as an article of clothing that covers parts of the head or face, was first worn more than 5000 years ago. According to Dr Muazzez Cig, a well-known Turkish archaeologist specializing in ancient Sumerian civilization, “veils were first used Sumerian temple priestesses whose job it was to initiate young men into the world of sex”.

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/12/11pakistan.html

[steverino]

He is not interested in arguing to win the argument. You won't "win" because that's not what he is trying to achieve. He only wants text posted - the more, the better...for him. So EVERY post you make in response to Steve only provides more text on this forum to fuel his demented drive. You are actually HELPING him achieve his goal by being so stubborn. So shall I fetch the baseball bat to hit you for being so dim now? Or later...

I disagree. I think it is Larsen who is arguing with Steve, and that Steve is making a point, which Larsen finds arguable. If Steve is reacting to Larsen's argument, then it is arguable that Steve is simply prolonging the argument for the sake of being argumentative.

[Dr Adequate]

Everyone else understands just fine, why is that? (well maybe not Clause of course)

...

If you have anything to say in favor of your weird nonsense about Muslims and Christians, please say it. In English.

[mr_fidget]

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2006/12/11pakistan.html

I appreciate you providing this link, but I still don't get why the attack should be seen as motivated by being muslim and not as a demonstration of the attacker's beastly behaviour.

In my mind , I picture this scenario: Friday night, Croydon town centre, my wife sees a chavette with her partner, she makes a comment on the woman's earring, we will likely, very very likely, end up in a fight.

Should I say that chavs are a scum? Well... yes they are, but the point is that you can have the same type of behaviour irrespective of religion.

[Mojo]

I appreciate you providing this link, but I still don't get why the attack should be seen as motivated by being muslim and not as a demonstration of the attacker's beastly behaviour. We're back to Steve's tactic of taking the actions or comments of an individual Muslim and generalising to all Muslims.

[CFLarsen]

We're back to Steve's tactic of taking the actions or comments of an individual Muslim and generalising to all Muslims.

And we're waiting for him to say that, noooo, that's not what he is doing.

And then, he does it again.

[SteveGrenard]

I appreciate you providing this link, but I still don't get why the attack should be seen as motivated by being muslim and not as a demonstration of the attacker's beastly behaviour.

It certainly is a demonstration of bad behavior, actually criminal assault behavior for which the attacker will be charged, probably jailed, fined and perhaps even sued if he has any money. The incident just happens to be over a veil comment and the mistaken notion by seemingly a lot of muslims that it is a religious obligation for women to wear the veil. I provided a reference that disagrees with this. I disagree with this also because I have seen plenty of muslim women in public not wearing veils as well.

The incident is more likely a demonstration of the entire veil related row starting with the recent comments made by Jack Straw and the super sensitivity muslims display over anything they perceive or think is offending them. It seems very likely the womn making the veil remarks was not intending to offend muslims but her husband ended up getting head butted and having teeth knocked out as a consequence. Is this a sane, normal, rational non-violent way of responding to this crap? I don't think so.

[mr_fidget]

Is this a sane, normal, rational non-violent way of responding to this crap?

Absolutely not sane and not rational.

Was it normal? I do not know, what makes people tick seems to be slightly different each time, for all you and I know, this guy might be an outstanding citizen in other areas, but he just get very pissed off when someone makes any comment about his wife.

The point I am trying to make is that if you replace veil with hoop earrings and muslim with chav, you are very likely to end up with the same beastly result.