Cab driver stabbed after being asked if he was a Muslim

[yorkshirelad]

He doesn't want to stone accused adulterous women in Central Park, or anything of the sort-though it's easy to see how someone who wasn't apprised of the somewhat nuanced facts could assume as much....

How do you know? He can't do that at the moment, but I would like to really know what his views are on this. I'm not saying that this is what he wants, I'm saying we don't know.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Exactly, you believe that demonstarting and speaking out against the mosque is giving extremist muslims a "bloody shirt". So what is your solution, stay quiet and don't speak out. You want us to ignore our first amendment right because muslims will get offended and cut more westerners heads off worldwide. Listen to what you're saying.

Not so fast. You claimed it was NOT giving them a bloody shirt. When I proved it, you then said you meant that all along.

Now, as I've said, the loser who stabbed the cabby needs to be dealt with accordingly and punished to the full extent of the law, but tell me this, what are the statistics on violence against muslims in the US since 9/11? Then again, what are the statistics on violence against non muslims by muslims in the Islamic world since 9/11? Let's start with Nick Byrg, I'm sure his beheading is still on Rotten.com or some of those other despicable websites.

Our law is not dependent upon the laws or lawlessness of other countries, and our application of both civil liberties and religious tolerance is not dependent upon how well they are respected elsewhere. I have yet to see a court case in the USA find that an infringement of civil rights is justified against a person from Country A because Country A doesn't respect our rights in turn. I find it depressing that you claim to believe in the rule of law, and then explain why it should not apply since 'they' are much worse than 'us'.

 

[WC_lun]

Extremists and radical clerics (not unlike our own politicians) will play this issue up no matter which way it goes. If it the Muslim center is allowed, they will consider it a "Victory Mosque". If the activity center is denied, it will show the world Americans are evil and hate Muslims. To the extremists it will either be a bloody shirt or a white flag.

This "Victory mosque" thing is a fabrication. If it held any traction what so ever, then extremist groups would claim that it is indeed a victory moque in order to discredit the imam and raising tensions further in the US. Why they haven't done it is because unlike many Fox listeners, most Muslims realize it is a bunch of hooey.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now, I understand that these folks got this building on the cheap, but it would be a noble gesture if they would simply relocate this center.

How far?

Tolerance goes both ways.

What tolerance are they supposed to be showing Christianity that they are not?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I know of some boroughs of the UK now where Sharia is being followed as an alternative to the law of the land because of the pervasive nature of Islam.

http://www.islamic-sharia.org/

Statistics:

* 1982-1995
1,500 Cases * 1996-2002 3,000 Cases * 2003 - 2005
1500 Cases
* 2006 to date
About 1000 Cases handled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council

The council has no legal authority or jurisdiction in the United Kingdom[1].

http://bostonreview.net/BR34.2/bowen.php

Muslims can easily find Islamic institutions for mediation or arbitration—what the British papers call “sharia courts”—in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, and elsewhere. The tribunals provide downloadable forms on their web sites, charge set fees for service, and meet on scheduled days of the month. Most of them offer only non–binding mediation. The exception is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which recently registered under the Arbitration Act and places a solicitor side–by–side with the Islamic scholar. The solicitor can make contracts binding, enforceable in the civil courts. Beyond these formal institutions, individual Muslim men, often imams at local mosques, offer advice about family and other matters to Muslims.

This is no different than binding private arbitration in the USA. First, both parties must agree to it. Second, it is binding in civil courts only if recognized by a civil court of law as well. Consider both Roman Catholic law in the USA (different laws affecting Catholics, but only binding on Catholics and only with their permission) and Judge Judy and similar TV shows or binding arbitration with various professional organizations representing doctors, lawyers, and so on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html

In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule only in civil cases, such as divorce and financial disputes. Until last year, these rulings depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. But now, due to a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996, they are enforceable by county and high courts.
Sharia courts are classified in the same way as arbitration tribunals - with rulings binding in law provided both parties in the dispute agree to give them the power to rule on their case.
However, a Muslim couple must still be divorced in the British courts for it to recognised under British law. The same provision in the Arbitration Act applies to Jewish Beth Din courts, which resolve similar civil cases.

There is nothing sinister here. No one can be dragged to Sharia Court in the UK without their permission, and both parties have to agree to any decision made.

Imagine that; two parties, both presumably Muslim, who wish to have their case heard by a council that understands their religious beliefs and how it impacts the conflict in question. Both agree to be bound by the decision, and it has no force of law unless both agree to the decision as well. Oh, that's horrible!

Oh wait. That sounds like Major League Baseball contract negotiations!

 

[CanuckMA]

No, you're bonkers for failing to acknowledge that not all Muslims are "these hateful extremists." :lfao:

As for the FoxNews thing, facts are facts, and usually incontavertible: if you cite Fox, and it proves to be true, it doesn't matter who says it. The website says that the sources of funding will be vetted and made public-we kind of have to take them at their word, since they don't seem to have any significant funding yet...

You mean this potential funding : http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/news_corp_remains_silent_on_da.html

 

[yorkshirelad]

Not so fast. You claimed it was NOT giving them a bloody shirt. When I proved it, you then said you meant that all along.



Our law is not dependent upon the laws or lawlessness of other countries, and our application of both civil liberties and religious tolerance is not dependent upon how well they are respected elsewhere. I have yet to see a court case in the USA find that an infringement of civil rights is justified against a person from Country A because Country A doesn't respect our rights in turn. I find it depressing that you claim to believe in the rule of law, and then explain why it should not apply since 'they' are much worse than 'us'.

You obviously find many things depressing Bill. It's not about country A or B, it's about ideology. The guy who stabbed the cabby was wrong, pure and simple, but attacks on muslims by non muslims in the US over the past ten years pales in significance to the almost 3000 killed in 9/11.
Now, you and this Imam may claim the UBL was made in the US, but as far as I'm concerned you would be wrong. He was in some way funded by the US when he was fighting with mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, but his ideology is his own.
It is incendiary for this Imam to say such things at a time when he has plans to build a madrassa just a couple of blocks from ground zero. As if this is going to some how allure him to the US populace as a whole.
Oh and btw, the fanatical muslim community will keep waving a "bloody shirt" as long as we have a vested interest in the middle east and until we pray five times per day facing Mecca.

 

[yorkshirelad]

You mean this potential funding : http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/news_corp_remains_silent_on_da.html

Nice try! I'm sure this guy is a shareholder in many different companies, probably Haliburton if he is wise. He's probably wise to have shares in Newscorp as more and more people are using their media outlets in some way or another, but I don't think Rupert Murdoch can do much about who owns stock in Newscorp when it is public.

On the other hand, if the Saudis are going to fund this, it's going to be a madrassa pure and simple.

 

[WC_lun]

You mean this potential funding : http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/news_corp_remains_silent_on_da.html

I did find it amusing that Stewart's conclusion is that we shouldn't watch Fox News or we'll be supporting terrorism. I also think it speaks volumes that they have absolutely no comment when other Stewart pieces have incited a very quick response through thier morning show.

 

[yorkshirelad]

There is nothing sinister here. No one can be dragged to Sharia Court in the UK without their permission, and both parties have to agree to any decision made.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html

Read this Bill! These bastards have a great way of using our laws against us.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You obviously find many things depressing Bill. It's not about country A or B, it's about ideology. The guy who stabbed the cabby was wrong, pure and simple, but attacks on muslims by non muslims in the US over the past ten years pales in significance to the almost 3000 killed in 9/11.

Yes, it does. But you offer equivalence and then claim you don't. It's one or the other. Either it's OK for us to attack Muslims in retaliation for having been attacked by Muslims or it is not. If it is not, then what happened on 9/11 has nothing to do with us attacking Muslims in the USA now. You cannot have it both ways.

Now, you and this Imam may claim the UBL was made in the US, but as far as I'm concerned you would be wrong. He was in some way funded by the US when he was fighting with mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, but his ideology is his own.

No one said his ideology wasn't his own. The claim was that he was 'made' in the USA and that statement is correct, as you've now agreed.

It is incendiary for this Imam to say such things at a time when he has plans to build a madrassa just a couple of blocks from ground zero.

He didn't say it recently, he said it after 9/11.

As if this is going to some how allure him to the US populace as a whole.

I don't think you know what the word 'allure' means.

Oh and btw, the fanatical muslim community will keep waving a "bloody shirt" as long as we have a vested interest in the middle east and until we pray five times per day facing Mecca.

Nope. You haven't addressed your back steps, and I'm not letting you off the hook. First you said they didn't, and when I proved they did, you claimed you not only knew that, but you said it first. Sorry, you owe some explanations before you play 'look over there' games.

This isn't about the argument, this is about you. You made it personal when you stated I was insane. Now you get to back up, apologize, or I keep after you until you give up and go away. Plain and simple. You screwed the pooch when you came after me, son.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nice try! I'm sure this guy is a shareholder in many different companies, probably Haliburton if he is wise. He's probably wise to have shares in Newscorp as more and more people are using their media outlets in some way or another, but I don't think Rupert Murdoch can do much about who owns stock in Newscorp when it is public.

Murdoch owns stock in his media companies too. They're friends. Get it?

On the other hand, if the Saudis are going to fund this, it's going to be a madrassa pure and simple.

You make a lot of allegations, but you can't back up anything, and so far all your statements of definite fact are provable lies. You don't like to admit that, so you change the subject and refer to people as insane. Sorry, game over. You lose.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There is nothing sinister here. No one can be dragged to Sharia Court in the UK without their permission, and both parties have to agree to any decision made.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html

Read this Bill! These bastards have a great way of using our laws against us.

A new network of courts in five major cities is hearing cases where Muslims involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.

It's exactly what I said. If both parties don't agree to it, it is not law and can't be enforced by any court of law. It is no different than binding third-party arbitration in the USA like between insurance companies to avoid lawsuits, or out-of-court settlements in most insured/insurer disputes.

Either you really do not have even simple reading comprehension skills, or you choose to be willfully ignorant. That's up to you if you want to play stupid, but it's not fooling anyone else. Go crawl back to your hate hole.

 

[CanuckMA]

I can choose to have any civil dispute with another Jew settled by a Beit Din. Does that mean the Ontario is ruled by Halacha?

 

[xJOHNx]

You obviously find many things depressing Bill. It's not about country A or B, it's about ideology. The guy who stabbed the cabby was wrong, pure and simple, but attacks on muslims by non muslims in the US over the past ten years pales in significance to the almost 3000 killed in 9/11.
Now, you and this Imam may claim the UBL was made in the US, but as far as I'm concerned you would be wrong. He was in some way funded by the US when he was fighting with mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Russians, but his ideology is his own.
It is incendiary for this Imam to say such things at a time when he has plans to build a madrassa just a couple of blocks from ground zero. As if this is going to some how allure him to the US populace as a whole.
Oh and btw, the fanatical muslim community will keep waving a "bloody shirt" as long as we have a vested interest in the middle east and until we pray five times per day facing Mecca.

About the first paragraph: et alors? Or do you want the eye for an eye treatment? Kill 3000 muslims, so we can be even on that?
What is it that you want to say? Because really, you are throwing around wild arguments.

I think we both can agree that the acts that were commited by a few do not count for the the whole. As many Suffi scholars and even traditional Muslims have deemed the attack on 9/11 as pure horror.

The fanatical muslim community doesn't care about you converting. They really don't. As they have already killed other fellow-muslims (which is clearly prohibited by the Quran). Wise up, it's all about politics and power. Under a varnish coat called Islam (as it has always been with every group that is using religion as a tool to reach their goals).

 

[Carol]

I can choose to have any civil dispute with another Jew settled by a Beit Din. Does that mean the Ontario is ruled by Halacha?

Probably no more so than enjoying Mulligatawny Soup at an Udupi Bhavan means that you are a vegetarian Hindu.

I think the concern that YL is voicing is over how voluntary "voluntary" truly is. I remember this debate among local Muslims about 5 years ago or so, when England permitted some matters to be decided by a Shari'a court (if that is the proper term). Some Muslims in both of our nations were up in arms about the idea...stating that they had emigrated west to escape such a thing.

To me it is parallel to the subject that Blade96 brought up, that of forced arranged marriages. There is noting illegal about an arranged marriage, but I don't think a forced marriage is legal under civil law. My understanding is that each person must enter in to the marriage of their own free will. But what recourse does a young person have if they are being forced in to this arrangement by everyone they know? Especially in a tight eastern community where the people tend to take social matters much more personally and treat offenders to their ideals with much outward revulsion and disgust than we typically experience in western communities.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think the concern that YL is voicing is over how voluntary "voluntary" truly is. I remember this debate among local Muslims about 5 years ago or so, when England permitted some matters to be decided by a Shari'a court (if that is the proper term). Some Muslims in both of our nations were up in arms about the idea...stating that they had emigrated west to escape such a thing.

This is where I part company with some. I see that as liberals wringing their hands and trying to get the government's camel's nose under the tent.

What you appear to be saying is that there is social pressure on Muslims to accept the authority of these courts, so it would appear that they accept such arbitration voluntarily, when in fact they do not.

I can imagine such a thing happening. I also cannot imagine a scenario under which it could be determined if a person was being influenced by their peers or not. I would also venture the guess that YL is not deeply concerned about the poor, poor, disadvantaged Muslim youths who are trapped in their own culture.

To me it is parallel to the subject that Blade96 brought up, that of forced arranged marriages. There is noting illegal about an arranged marriage, but I don't think a forced marriage is legal under civil law. My understanding is that each person must enter in to the marriage of their own free will. But what recourse does a young person have if they are being forced in to this arrangement by everyone they know? Especially in a tight eastern community where the people tend to take social matters much more personally and treat offenders to their ideals with much outward revulsion and disgust than we typically experience in western communities.

How does a person from the outside of such a culture tell whether or not an arranged marriage is truly voluntary on the part of both parties? The alternative here would be to not allow cultures to practice their own beliefs and practices in the hopes of stopping a small minority who might be silently oppressed by such things. Destroy the culture to save it. Invade the right of the family to govern the family itself, insert the government, and for what? To protect those who will not or choose not to speak up for themselves.

At a certain point, one must say that if a person is 'oppressed' and does not wish to do as their family wishes them to do, they must speak up. If they do not, that is sadly their problem. The only alternative is to destroy all family life in order to protect a tiny minority.

No one asked me if I wanted to be circumcised. Shall the government tell parents they cannot perform this religious (for some Jews) ceremony? No one asked me if I wanted to be baptized, confirmed, etc in the Catholic Church. My family doesn't engage in arranged marriages, but my family certainly let me know that they didn't approve of my first marriage and brought pressure on me. Shall the government protect me from them?

When a bride and groom get married and the bride is clearly pregnant, does any government agency step in to ensure that it's not a 'shotgun wedding' in the literal or figurative sense? I don't think so. If both say "I do" at the wedding, that's pretty much it.

In my opinion, the government's job is to ensure that if a person objects to (arranged marriage, etc), that their right to refuse be protected. If they do not object, I don't see it as the government's job to stick it's nose in. I realize that some weak individuals will thereby be victimized. I'm sorry about that, but I see no acceptable solution for it.

 

[Empty Hands]

Words mean things. A madrassa is an Islamic school, not a community center, and not a mosque. Some are run by extremists, most are probably not, but the word itself just means a school.

 

[Carol]

Words mean things. A madrassa is an Islamic school, not a community center, and not a mosque. Some are run by extremists, most are probably not, but the word itself just means a school.

There are many in the United States, 10 in Massachusetts alone, including this school in a not-so-great town on the NH border which boasts a 7 to 1 student teacher ratio (!!)

http://www.theislamicacademy.com/IAPData/iap.asp

 

[yorkshirelad]

Yes, it does. But you offer equivalence and then claim you don't. It's one or the other. Either it's OK for us to attack Muslims in retaliation for having been attacked by Muslims or it is not. If it is not, then what happened on 9/11 has nothing to do with us attacking Muslims in the USA now. You cannot have it both ways.

No one said his ideology wasn't his own. The claim was that he was 'made' in the USA and that statement is correct, as you've now agreed.

He didn't say it recently, he said it after 9/11.

I don't think you know what the word 'allure' means.

Nope. You haven't addressed your back steps, and I'm not letting you off the hook. First you said they didn't, and when I proved they did, you claimed you not only knew that, but you said it first. Sorry, you owe some explanations before you play 'look over there' games.

This isn't about the argument, this is about you. You made it personal when you stated I was insane. Now you get to back up, apologize, or I keep after you until you give up and go away. Plain and simple. You screwed the pooch when you came after me, son.

"Screwed the pooch", you really are amusing Bill! Let's address a few things here:
UBL was not made here! The US contributed to a group that he was associated with through funding and training. He is a result of indoctrination that he recieved from the Saudis. Btw his ideology isn't his own, it is shared by millions of muslims worldwide.

You think this Imam's chides to the US make it ok because it was right after 9/11. It makes it worse.

Allure: to entice by charm or attraction.
I must admit, I was allured to the catholic church at one time. The images of Christ dying for my sins and the charm of the baby Jesus at Christmas had an impact. That is before I realized the truth that the hierarchy were only interested in making money and protecting pedos.

Anyway, it looks like the majority of the population are against you on this one. I think you apologist's take on things is getting old and tired with the people at large.

Btw Bill, I don't believe in the slightest that it is ok to attack random muslims as this creep has done and I believe I've made that clear. My point is, as you well know is that I do not want this one incident to be used to tar all who don't agree with the center with the same brush.

Oh, and because you like to play the semantics game, I will end by saying, I didn't call you insane at all. I refered to you as "bonkers". Which as far as I'm concerned means that you are tragically crazy, in an almost comical sense.