What is the best car for travelling 47.9 miles in?
Discussion
del mar said:
TooMany2cvs said:
No, it's a random group of self-important people who nobody actually has to listen to. No more than that.
I am not sure you can say that. Muslims in that town will listen to what this organisation says. These tend to be very religious people that listen to what their religious leaders / groups ay. del mar said:
We dismiss it as we don't listen to what the Church says but these people live a different life to you and I.
Quite literally this is wrong. The people in Blackburn - whether Muslim or not - live in the same Blackburn that everyone else does. They have similar jobs (or lack of them), they go to the same newsagents, supermarkets etc. If you want to see differences you will but "their" world is our world - we all live in the UK.del mar said:
To play this down seems to ignore what Trevor Phillips said - and he knows far more about "race" issues than we do.
Actually Trevor Phillips is biased. It is well documented that a conflagration of some Muslim groups blocked his political career within the Labour Party after he was Chair of the CRE. His survey is biased in it's selection criteria versus the selection criteria of the control group and even then has many items that are contrary to what was reported eg muslims associated more with "British values" than the control non-Muslim group.I am not staying that certain geographically located ethnic groups that happen to be Muslim could be better integrated - but this is also true of other ethnic groups that are not Muslim.
del mar said:
Yes giving a random distance seems silly, but I know of adult muslim women who were not allowed to go on a holiday to Spain unless their brother went with them.
Yes and many of us know many sub continental Asian families that have this - whether Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Bhuddist and other religious denominations. This is cultural not religious. Many of us will know (without realising it) many Muslim families who don't force "their women" to be accompanied. These families won't even know about the distance issue. Their sisters will be accompanied whenever they are going out eg for a night out - not just on holidays.Please note I am not saying the Qur'an does not state the above - it does. But the original article did not mention that this was an answer to a question - the BMA did not say it was their view or not.
bradders said:
mephistophelean said:
Please note I am not saying the Qur'an does not state the above - it does. But the original article did not mention that this was an answer to a question - the BMA did not say it was their view or not.
Is the Qu'ran wrong for stating this then?
If you are religious you would not say what in the Qur'an is right or wrong as you would believe it is the word of God eg
Is the Qur'an wrong for stating that a Muslim under any circumstances cannot kill women or children? (Daesh - take note of this one)?
Or how about that the aforementioned distance thing only applies if a Muslim husband provides adequately for his wife and children and "pleases his wife". (Yup - that is in there). If the wife is unhappy she is entitled to not only 50% of his assets but also a specified amount of land (I think it's about 0.35 acres of land) in a divorce. Oh and divorce is initiated by the wife, not the husband.
My point on cultural bias is that many of the things that are reported as "Muslim" are actually cultural.
Show me a religious Christian who follows everything in the Bible - even just the New Testament. I don't know of any religious Muslim that follows everything in the Qur'an. Every religious Muslim woman I know would laugh at this post on PH - they would tell their husbands or brother where to go if their hubby or brother tried to do this - and rightly so.
Quick example for everyone: Bangladesh is a Muslim country that has over 120m Muslims - more than the entire Middle East combined. Bangladesh has democratically elected women Prime Ministers to run their country for at least the last 20 years - much more gender diverse than we have managed in the more "modern" UK. Those women prime Minsters are religious and are not accompanied by male family members. Are they suddenly not Muslim? Or is Bangladesh not a Muslim country because they do not?
Edited by mephistophelean on Saturday 7th May 10:58
Edited by mephistophelean on Saturday 7th May 11:05
mephistophelean said:
Depends if you think it is the word of God or not
If you are religious you would not say what in the Qur'an is right or wrong as you would believe it is the word of God eg
Is the Qur'an wrong for stating that a Muslim under any circumstances cannot kill women or children? (Daesh - take note of this one)?
Or how about that the aforementioned distance thing only applies if a Muslim husband provides adequately for his wife and children and "pleases his wife". (Yup - that is in there). If the wife is unhappy she is entitled to not only 50% of his assets but also a specified amount of land (I think it's about 0.35 acres of land) in a divorce. Oh and divorce is initiated by the wife, not the husband.
My point on cultural bias is that many of the things that are reported as "Muslim" are actually cultural.
Show me a religious Christian who follows everything in the Bible - even just the New Testament. I don't know of any religious Muslim that follows everything in the Qur'an. Every religious Muslim woman I know would laugh at this post on PH - they would tell their husbands where to go if their hubby or brother tried to do this - and rightly so.
Quick example for everyone: Bangladesh is a Muslim country that has over 120m Muslims - more than the entire Middle Wast combined when people think of "Muslim" countries. Bangladesh has democratically elected women Prime Ministers to run their country for at least the last 20 years - much more gender diverse than we have managed in the more "modern" UK. Those women prime Minsters are religious and are not accompanied by male family members. Are they suddenly not Muslim? Or is Bangladesh not a Muslim country because they do not?
I don't believe in God, so yes, I clearly do think it is wrong. OK, let me phrase it another way - do you (speaking personally, not for others) advocate that even those that think the Qu'ran is the word of God should pick and choose the parts they believe? Further, do you think they should discard this part?If you are religious you would not say what in the Qur'an is right or wrong as you would believe it is the word of God eg
Is the Qur'an wrong for stating that a Muslim under any circumstances cannot kill women or children? (Daesh - take note of this one)?
Or how about that the aforementioned distance thing only applies if a Muslim husband provides adequately for his wife and children and "pleases his wife". (Yup - that is in there). If the wife is unhappy she is entitled to not only 50% of his assets but also a specified amount of land (I think it's about 0.35 acres of land) in a divorce. Oh and divorce is initiated by the wife, not the husband.
My point on cultural bias is that many of the things that are reported as "Muslim" are actually cultural.
Show me a religious Christian who follows everything in the Bible - even just the New Testament. I don't know of any religious Muslim that follows everything in the Qur'an. Every religious Muslim woman I know would laugh at this post on PH - they would tell their husbands where to go if their hubby or brother tried to do this - and rightly so.
Quick example for everyone: Bangladesh is a Muslim country that has over 120m Muslims - more than the entire Middle Wast combined when people think of "Muslim" countries. Bangladesh has democratically elected women Prime Ministers to run their country for at least the last 20 years - much more gender diverse than we have managed in the more "modern" UK. Those women prime Minsters are religious and are not accompanied by male family members. Are they suddenly not Muslim? Or is Bangladesh not a Muslim country because they do not?
Edited by mephistophelean on Saturday 7th May 10:55
Edited by mephistophelean on Saturday 7th May 10:57
Edited by mephistophelean on Saturday 7th May 10:58
bradders said:
I don't believe in God, so yes, I clearly do think it is wrong. OK, let me phrase it another way - do you (speaking personally, not for others) advocate that even those that think the Qu'ran is the word of God should pick and choose the parts they believe? Further, do you think they should discard this part?
I would not dream of telling anyone of any religious denomination what they should or should not believe. That is their choice - that is why I live in a democracy.Do I think we should tell people to selectively choose which parts of the literal interpretation of any religious text to believe in?
No because I think that is dangerous.
Christian fundamentalists that bomb schools and FBI buildings do this. So does Daesh and the Taliban. So do some Buddhists in Myanmarwho go round massacring non-Buddhists. They justification is that "one verse" in their text says it is okay. It is never okay.
My personal belief is that religious texts need to be read in full in their historical context. If you do this I don't think you would ever then take one sentence out of context and then say "Look - anyone who is a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Bhuddist etc" must believe every literal part of the text."
That was why I put other parts of the Qur'an above and asked if people disagreed with them.
Do I tell my wife, mother or daughter to be accompanied by a male family member if they go out travelling or when my wife goes abroad with work? No. Do I accompany my wife, mother or daughter if they are going out late at night or at a time or place where I think there is a remote possibility they might be attacked by idiots who think it is okay to rape or molest women? Damn right I do. But I do the same for my son and elderly dad too if they go out late at night as I feel safer doing so.
Am I wrong for doing so?
mephistophelean said:
I would not dream of telling anyone of any religious denomination what they should or should not believe. That is their choice - that is why I live in a democracy.
Do I think we should tell people to selectively choose which parts of the literal interpretation of any religious text to believe in?
No because I think that is dangerous.
Christian fundamentalists that bomb schools and FBI buildings do this. So does Daesh and the Taliban. So do some Buddhists in Myanmarwho go round massacring non-Buddhists. They justification is that "one verse" in their text says it is okay. It is never okay.
My personal belief is that religious texts need to be read in full in their historical context. If you do this I don't think you would ever then take one sentence out of context and then say "Look - anyone who is a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Bhuddist etc" must believe every literal part of the text."
That was why I put other parts of the Qur'an above and asked if people disagreed with them.
Do I tell my wife, mother or daughter to be accompanied by a male family member if they go out travelling or when my wife goes abroad with work? No. Do I accompany my wife, mother or daughter if they are going out late at night or at a time or place where I think there is a remote possibility they might be attacked by idiots who think it is okay to rape or molest women? Damn right I do. But I do the same for my son and elderly dad too if they go out late at night as I feel safer doing so.
Am I wrong for doing so?
I'm not sure - possibly, as your answer seems a tad confused.Do I think we should tell people to selectively choose which parts of the literal interpretation of any religious text to believe in?
No because I think that is dangerous.
Christian fundamentalists that bomb schools and FBI buildings do this. So does Daesh and the Taliban. So do some Buddhists in Myanmarwho go round massacring non-Buddhists. They justification is that "one verse" in their text says it is okay. It is never okay.
My personal belief is that religious texts need to be read in full in their historical context. If you do this I don't think you would ever then take one sentence out of context and then say "Look - anyone who is a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Bhuddist etc" must believe every literal part of the text."
That was why I put other parts of the Qur'an above and asked if people disagreed with them.
Do I tell my wife, mother or daughter to be accompanied by a male family member if they go out travelling or when my wife goes abroad with work? No. Do I accompany my wife, mother or daughter if they are going out late at night or at a time or place where I think there is a remote possibility they might be attacked by idiots who think it is okay to rape or molest women? Damn right I do. But I do the same for my son and elderly dad too if they go out late at night as I feel safer doing so.
Am I wrong for doing so?
You seem to be happy to say that anyone following one verse literally is not OK - in the context of bombings. Yet are unable to say that it is "not OK" (or wrong as I assert) to follow a lesser verse (no death involved in this one), as that would be an individuals choice in how to follow their belief. Where do you (again, you personally) draw that line?
I think we should view religious texts in the present, not the past. The historical context is all well for understanding why the text was written that way - but does not translate to life now, or indeed the law of the land in many cases. Where there is a clash of past and present in this way, I think it is perfectly acceptable to tell someone why belief and adherence to the past is indeed wrong.
bradders said:
I'm not sure - possibly, as your answer seems a tad confused.
You seem to be happy to say that anyone following one verse literally is not OK - in the context of bombings. Yet are unable to say that it is "not OK" (or wrong as I assert) to follow a lesser verse (no death involved in this one), as that would be an individuals choice in how to follow their belief. Where do you (again, you personally) draw that line?
I think we should view religious texts in the present, not the past. The historical context is all well for understanding why the text was written that way - but does not translate to life now, or indeed the law of the land in many cases. Where there is a clash of past and present in this way, I think it is perfectly acceptable to tell someone why belief and adherence to the past is indeed wrong.
I actually think we are closer than you think. I don't think there is a clash because more often than not there is context in the whole religious text - even in the misquote above women would only have to do this "if the husband pleased them". No woman in their right mind would be pleased if they were told where to go or with who by their husband or brother. So the Qur'an takes care of this.You seem to be happy to say that anyone following one verse literally is not OK - in the context of bombings. Yet are unable to say that it is "not OK" (or wrong as I assert) to follow a lesser verse (no death involved in this one), as that would be an individuals choice in how to follow their belief. Where do you (again, you personally) draw that line?
I think we should view religious texts in the present, not the past. The historical context is all well for understanding why the text was written that way - but does not translate to life now, or indeed the law of the land in many cases. Where there is a clash of past and present in this way, I think it is perfectly acceptable to tell someone why belief and adherence to the past is indeed wrong.
That is why I say I don't agree with taking any part of any religious text and then saying whether one should believe in it or not.
I will drive and drop off my parents, wife and kids at places late at night because I worry about them - not because of what is written in a religious text and certainly not because of some arbitrary distance that a Daily Mail journalist has made up.
I accept that means you have to read and understand the whole religious text. And most journalists don't do this. But all religious people do.
To be clear: terrorists who kills others clearly don't. Religious does not equal terrorist.
Are there sub-continental Asians (of different religious denominations) who "force" their wives/daughters to be accompanied by male family members. Clearly yes but it is not due to the religious text, it is due to their cultural norm which is not acceptable.
mephistophelean said:
I actually think we are closer than you think. I don't think there is a clash because more often than not there is context in the whole religious text - even in the misquote above women would only have to do this "if the husband pleased them". No woman in their right mind would be pleased if they were told where to go or with who by their husband or brother. So the Qur'an takes care of this.
That is why I say I don't agree with taking any part of any religious text and then saying whether one should believe in it or not.
I will drive and drop off my parents, wife and kids at places late at night because I worry about them - not because of what is written in a religious text and certainly not because of some arbitrary distance that a Daily Mail journalist has made up.
I accept that means you have to read and understand the whole religious text. And most journalists don't do this. But all religious people do.
To be clear: terrorists who kills others clearly don't. Religious does not equal terrorist.
Are there sub-continental Asians (of different religious denominations) who "force" their wives/daughters to be accompanied by male family members. Clearly yes but it is not due to the religious text, it is due to their cultural norm which is not acceptable.
Do you have the full text including the "if the husband pleased them" bit? Alas, I am not familiar enough with the text in question.That is why I say I don't agree with taking any part of any religious text and then saying whether one should believe in it or not.
I will drive and drop off my parents, wife and kids at places late at night because I worry about them - not because of what is written in a religious text and certainly not because of some arbitrary distance that a Daily Mail journalist has made up.
I accept that means you have to read and understand the whole religious text. And most journalists don't do this. But all religious people do.
To be clear: terrorists who kills others clearly don't. Religious does not equal terrorist.
Are there sub-continental Asians (of different religious denominations) who "force" their wives/daughters to be accompanied by male family members. Clearly yes but it is not due to the religious text, it is due to their cultural norm which is not acceptable.
Without further context, and not knowing who is deemed to be the judge in deciding whether the husband pleased them or not (you state it is the wife that is the judge), it could indeed be the husband himself dictating things. "I pleased you, so you cannot go more than 48 miles away from me without being accompanied" for example.
I assume this is taught to be fully understood that it can be ignored as an instruction and has no relevance in the UK today? If it is not, then why not?
bradders said:
Do you have the full text including the "if the husband pleased them" bit? Alas, I am not familiar enough with the text in question.
Without further context, and not knowing who is deemed to be the judge in deciding whether the husband pleased them or not (you state it is the wife that is the judge), it could indeed be the husband himself dictating things. "I pleased you, so you cannot go more than 48 miles away from me without being accompanied" for example.
I assume this is taught to be fully understood that it can be ignored as an instruction and has no relevance in the UK today? If it is not, then why not?
Not on my iPhone - sorry with the kids at Little Kickers.Without further context, and not knowing who is deemed to be the judge in deciding whether the husband pleased them or not (you state it is the wife that is the judge), it could indeed be the husband himself dictating things. "I pleased you, so you cannot go more than 48 miles away from me without being accompanied" for example.
I assume this is taught to be fully understood that it can be ignored as an instruction and has no relevance in the UK today? If it is not, then why not?
I find the way you have written this really odd. It implies some kind of weird relationship between a husband and a wife where one orders the other one around.
If you are married, would you ever say anything like the above to your wife or husband? Why do you think it is any different in a marriage between two people who happen to be religious? I am genuinely mystified.
No marriage I know of (whether muslim or not) works in that way. If it did, I (and I would hope many others) would tell the partner being ordered around to get a divorce - quickly.
Why do you think there is some kind of "instruction" being given? No muslim husband I know would dare to even contemplate saying something like "I pleased you, so you cannot go more than 48 miles away from me without being accompanied". They would get a swift slap to the face followed by a proper beating (and deservedly so).
Forgive me for saying so but you seem to be under the misapprehension that muslim or asian or whatever wives are submissive. They really are not.
Edited by mephistophelean on Saturday 7th May 16:39
br d said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Rammy76 said:
It's not him that's made the ridiculous rule up though is it?
No, it's a random group of self-important people who nobody actually has to listen to. No more than that.Got the balls to apologise to him?
Where did I say he was a bigot?
Open your eyes and read what's been written and see if you've got the balls to apologise to me (whatever that means on an Internet forum).
Interesting discussion on Ed Stourton's R4 "Sunday" programme today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079m0cf
Starts at 35:15
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079m0cf
Starts at 35:15
br d said:
Not sure there was anything wrong with the quoting.
Rammy made a comment, Toomany replied and I quoted both to show I'm supporting Rammy, seems standard stuff to me.
Don't think I'll bother next time
I do apologise, the way it came across I thought you were having a go at me.Rammy made a comment, Toomany replied and I quoted both to show I'm supporting Rammy, seems standard stuff to me.
Don't think I'll bother next time
Rammy76 said:
br d said:
Not sure there was anything wrong with the quoting.
Rammy made a comment, Toomany replied and I quoted both to show I'm supporting Rammy, seems standard stuff to me.
Don't think I'll bother next time
I do apologise, the way it came across I thought you were having a go at me.Rammy made a comment, Toomany replied and I quoted both to show I'm supporting Rammy, seems standard stuff to me.
Don't think I'll bother next time
mephistophelean said:
bradders said:
Do you have the full text including the "if the husband pleased them" bit? Alas, I am not familiar enough with the text in question.
Without further context, and not knowing who is deemed to be the judge in deciding whether the husband pleased them or not (you state it is the wife that is the judge), it could indeed be the husband himself dictating things. "I pleased you, so you cannot go more than 48 miles away from me without being accompanied" for example.
I assume this is taught to be fully understood that it can be ignored as an instruction and has no relevance in the UK today? If it is not, then why not?
Not on my iPhone - sorry with the kids at Little Kickers.Without further context, and not knowing who is deemed to be the judge in deciding whether the husband pleased them or not (you state it is the wife that is the judge), it could indeed be the husband himself dictating things. "I pleased you, so you cannot go more than 48 miles away from me without being accompanied" for example.
I assume this is taught to be fully understood that it can be ignored as an instruction and has no relevance in the UK today? If it is not, then why not?
I find the way you have written this really odd. It implies some kind of weird relationship between a husband and a wife where one orders the other one around.
If you are married, would you ever say anything like the above to your wife or husband? Why do you think it is any different in a marriage between two people who happen to be religious? I am genuinely mystified.
No marriage I know of (whether muslim or not) works in that way. If it did, I (and I would hope many others) would tell the partner being ordered around to get a divorce - quickly.
Why do you think there is some kind of "instruction" being given? No muslim husband I know would dare to even contemplate saying something like "I pleased you, so you cannot go more than 48 miles away from me without being accompanied". They would get a swift slap to the face followed by a proper beating (and deservedly so).
Forgive me for saying so but you seem to be under the misapprehension that muslim or asian or whatever wives are submissive. They really are not.
a proper beating?I can see the validity and deserving of a 'quick slap on the face' but can you detail the 'proper beating'?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff