News0 min ago
Should Ch4 Have Used This Woman In A Hijab
to front the news of the Nice massacre?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"terrorism in the name of her faith is something else, not connected except by the tenuous link offered by the terrorist themselves."
Why do you use the word "tenuous"?
"Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith".
Please explain. Are you incapable of at least imagining that a religion may have as its first, third or eleventh commandment "Thou must kill the mockers of the Prophet"?
I am making the generous assumption that (a) you can follow an argument, and that (b) you nhave powers of imagination.
Why do you use the word "tenuous"?
"Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith".
Please explain. Are you incapable of at least imagining that a religion may have as its first, third or eleventh commandment "Thou must kill the mockers of the Prophet"?
I am making the generous assumption that (a) you can follow an argument, and that (b) you nhave powers of imagination.
vetuste - //"terrorism in the name of her faith is something else, not connected except by the tenuous link offered by the terrorist themselves."
Why do you use the word "tenuous"? //
Because terrorists use their misinterpretation of Islam to defend their horrible crimes. The notion that they are actually Muslims is laughable - the faith does not condone or advocate violence, hence their link is as I say, tenuous at best. They could call themselves devotees of the Wizard Of Oz, it would be at least as factually based.
""Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith".
Please explain. Are you incapable of at least imagining that a religion may have as its first, third or eleventh commandment "Thou must kill the mockers of the Prophet"? //
I am not incapable of the notion that someone who wants to kill people for not believing as he or she does, will use some archaic tract to back up their actions - but the rest of the adherents prefer to take the writings less literally. And we should be grateful - otherwise A & E departments could be swamped with Christians who have plucked out eyes, or cut off hands, and police stations crowded with people who have murdered 'sodomites' - the list goes on, but I am sure you can see my point.
//I am making the generous assumption that (a) you can follow an argument, and that (b) you nhave powers of imagination. //
No need for your 'generosity' - my history and daily contributions on this site are ample examples of both.
Why do you use the word "tenuous"? //
Because terrorists use their misinterpretation of Islam to defend their horrible crimes. The notion that they are actually Muslims is laughable - the faith does not condone or advocate violence, hence their link is as I say, tenuous at best. They could call themselves devotees of the Wizard Of Oz, it would be at least as factually based.
""Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith".
Please explain. Are you incapable of at least imagining that a religion may have as its first, third or eleventh commandment "Thou must kill the mockers of the Prophet"? //
I am not incapable of the notion that someone who wants to kill people for not believing as he or she does, will use some archaic tract to back up their actions - but the rest of the adherents prefer to take the writings less literally. And we should be grateful - otherwise A & E departments could be swamped with Christians who have plucked out eyes, or cut off hands, and police stations crowded with people who have murdered 'sodomites' - the list goes on, but I am sure you can see my point.
//I am making the generous assumption that (a) you can follow an argument, and that (b) you nhave powers of imagination. //
No need for your 'generosity' - my history and daily contributions on this site are ample examples of both.
"because terrorists use their misinterpretation of Islam to defend their horrible crimes. The notion that they are actually Muslims is laughable - the faith does not condone or advocate violence, hence their link is as I say, tenuous at best. ".
How do you know that they are misinterpreting Islam? Not Muslims? Laughable? You know nothing about Islam. Each point you make is wrong and demonstrably so. Mohammed killed people who took the *** out of him. Sometimes raped their wives. Preached hate and intolerance. But then then you don't know that do you? Muslims are good neighbours ONLY inasfar as they DON'T follow the example of their disgusting prophet. Can you refute these assertions? Of course you can't. You could do your own research. But that might disturb your narrow view of the world about the equality of cultures and the universality of moral values.
Your daily contributions (interesting phrase) certainly prove your high moral standing , but not your intellectual powers.
Atrocities happen daily throughout the world by people who seem to take the "archaic tracts" literally. Please try to keep up.
How do you know that they are misinterpreting Islam? Not Muslims? Laughable? You know nothing about Islam. Each point you make is wrong and demonstrably so. Mohammed killed people who took the *** out of him. Sometimes raped their wives. Preached hate and intolerance. But then then you don't know that do you? Muslims are good neighbours ONLY inasfar as they DON'T follow the example of their disgusting prophet. Can you refute these assertions? Of course you can't. You could do your own research. But that might disturb your narrow view of the world about the equality of cultures and the universality of moral values.
Your daily contributions (interesting phrase) certainly prove your high moral standing , but not your intellectual powers.
Atrocities happen daily throughout the world by people who seem to take the "archaic tracts" literally. Please try to keep up.
The final paragraph should have gone on to say that the proportion of Muslims who seem to misunderstand and misinterpret their texts is NOT vanishingly small as you suggest.
And justify the arrogance, if you can, that allows you to talk about interpretation of texts of which you are totally ignorant.
And justify the arrogance, if you can, that allows you to talk about interpretation of texts of which you are totally ignorant.
I keep asking for argument and debate, by the way. Instead I get assertions of politically correct faith and sneers. I know you're ignorant, but it's funny that all the pseudomaths and polymaths who mouth off (sorry, contribute valuably and often) can't actually contradict or refute the statements I and others make about the life of Mohammed and what the sacred texts of Islam say.
v_e, do you believe that most / all Moslems are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?
If yes, there would be really no point debating with you whether Fatima Manji should be presenting C4 News in a hijab, or at all, no matter what the news item - would there?
If no, then please state the problem with her presenting this news item.
If yes, there would be really no point debating with you whether Fatima Manji should be presenting C4 News in a hijab, or at all, no matter what the news item - would there?
If no, then please state the problem with her presenting this news item.
vetuste - //Can you refute these assertions? Of course you can't. You could do your own research. But that might disturb your narrow view of the world about the equality of cultures and the universality of moral values.
Your daily contributions (interesting phrase) certainly prove your high moral standing , but not your intellectual powers.
Atrocities happen daily throughout the world by people who seem to take the "archaic tracts" literally. Please try to keep up. //
Since you appear to know everything, and I appear to know nothing, there is really no point in us continuing to exchange posts on this subject.
Your daily contributions (interesting phrase) certainly prove your high moral standing , but not your intellectual powers.
Atrocities happen daily throughout the world by people who seem to take the "archaic tracts" literally. Please try to keep up. //
Since you appear to know everything, and I appear to know nothing, there is really no point in us continuing to exchange posts on this subject.
"v_e, do you believe that most / all Moslems are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers?".
An obvious "No" to the first question, Ellipsis. That's just counting, isn't it? I don't know how many are sympathisers. I'm assuming for this purpose that the aim of the terrorists is to subvert Western societies in order to establish an Islamic state - the jihad preached and practised by Mohammed. And I think there will be a lot of "sympathisers" for the aim, this is after all what the historicIslam is all about . Some will support the aim AND the methods, but most will support the aim but not the methods, or at least not when directed at civilian targets. These will pursue their aims through "peaceful" jihad via bodies such as The Muslim Council of Britain, CAGE, and various quislings in the body politic.
An obvious "No" to the first question, Ellipsis. That's just counting, isn't it? I don't know how many are sympathisers. I'm assuming for this purpose that the aim of the terrorists is to subvert Western societies in order to establish an Islamic state - the jihad preached and practised by Mohammed. And I think there will be a lot of "sympathisers" for the aim, this is after all what the historicIslam is all about . Some will support the aim AND the methods, but most will support the aim but not the methods, or at least not when directed at civilian targets. These will pursue their aims through "peaceful" jihad via bodies such as The Muslim Council of Britain, CAGE, and various quislings in the body politic.
The thread seems to have gone off at a tangent with non-sequiturs and diversionary questions. I don't think Fatima or her clothes have been mentioned for a while. I thought the question was about whether someone should change their clothes when the clothing is associated with a religion and he/she is reporting on an atrocity where there is a fair chance it would turn out to have been committed by someone who had sympathies for that religion
-- answer removed --
Talbot - //What the hell is wrong with asking who originally said
"Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith". //
Nothing as far as I am aware.
//And what is wrong with saying that is a daft comment? //
It's offensive.
You can argue, and directly disagree, but abuse is not tolerated - as per the Site Rules.
"Anyone who murders anyone cannot be a believer in any faith". //
Nothing as far as I am aware.
//And what is wrong with saying that is a daft comment? //
It's offensive.
You can argue, and directly disagree, but abuse is not tolerated - as per the Site Rules.
Talbot
Site Rules and the report button are always a handy get out clause when you are backed up in a corner with no other way to get out. !!!
Site Rules and the report button are always a handy get out clause when you are backed up in a corner with no other way to get out. !!!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Will Starmer - If He Wins - Be A Part...
News4 mins ago
Is This The Worst Ever Conservative...
News6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.