Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
ViolentPanda said:
As in the religion - the one that uses the Koran
Islam shows it's Tolerant side
- Thread starter jeff_leigh
- Start date
As in the religion - the one that uses the Koran
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Divisive Cotton said:As in the religion - the one that uses the Koran
Riiight, so it's a monolithic and unitary religious philosophy whose supporters/adherents all respond to its' imperatives in exactly the same manner, is it?
Can you see what I'm getting at, or would you like a nice simple map, perhaps?
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
So do you have any criticisms of Islam the religion?
jeff_leigh said:
You certainly don't come across as such and which "irony"?
If you want to discuss a conviction, then start with providing for all the details of the case and the details of the judge's ruling. Thank you.
While you are at it, please explain - in detail - what a court's ruling (and which type of court? I see no information on that either) in a particular country which describes itself as a Replubic operating under a Civil Law system has to see with Islam in its totality.
Thank you.
salaam.
Forgot:
Going on the sensationalist contenance of the OP, I suppose they were judged guilty of violation of Constitution Chapter III, Art. 47;III.
It is tricky though as the text speaks of prohibition of acts of propaganda which provokes racial, national, religious and social discord and animosity. The court could however rule that publication in a newspaper of such an article falls under abuse of the medium for propaganda purpose by those convicted. As such also abuse of their professional affiliation to said medium.
If the court gets away with that, it speaks for the quality of the legal representation. They should find themselves better lawyers.
salaam.
Going on the sensationalist contenance of the OP, I suppose they were judged guilty of violation of Constitution Chapter III, Art. 47;III.
It is tricky though as the text speaks of prohibition of acts of propaganda which provokes racial, national, religious and social discord and animosity. The court could however rule that publication in a newspaper of such an article falls under abuse of the medium for propaganda purpose by those convicted. As such also abuse of their professional affiliation to said medium.
If the court gets away with that, it speaks for the quality of the legal representation. They should find themselves better lawyers.
salaam.
JoePolitix
Gone
Aldebaran said:
I think the verdict probably says more about the quality of justice in Azerbaijan than the quality of the legal defence.
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Aldebaran said:
Indeed, it does require further inverstigation. How could a secular state bow down Islamic militants in such a way?
Futher information though is easy to find:
http://www.englishpen.org/writersinprison/bulletins/azerbaijanextendedpretrialdete/
http://iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=325778&apc_state=henicrs200611
They all provide a very, very ugly picture.
Perhaps somebody could find an English translation of the article and then we can decide whether they deserve to be stoned for it, or maybe just imprisoned.
JoePolitix said:
To me it says jurisdiction plays rather creative constitutional rights but it is no secret that the Juridicial branche of Azerbaidjan is "not fully developed yet" and hence not as strong as it should be.
Still, I think the defence must have been weak and most probably was itself influenced by public opinion.
I didn't see the article in question so I can't judge its particularities.
salaam.
Divisive Cotton said:
It is not the state, it is a judge's ruling following the instructions of the Penal Code for said cases.
1.I gave you the translation.
2.Tone and wording of your post indicates you do not seek a civil discussion. You are here to expose your obvious prejudice. Feel free to do so but do not expect me to reply.
salaam.
jeff_leigh
What happened to Dubversion ?
Aldebaran said:
well just going fromthe article the part that reads
"Soon after the article appeared, an Iranian cleric - angered by its depiction of Islam as a violent religion - offered his house to anyone who killed the journalists, Reuters reported on Friday."
Hey they called our Religion Violent!, Lets Kill 'em.
now don't you see the Irony there?
jeff_leigh said:
Can look inronic in non-Muslim view. The reality is mcuh more complex then that.
Most probably he judged the journalists as apostates in which case a few consequences within Shari'a can apply. Depends on the case, the intentions, the declarations of the accused etc.. etc.. and furthermore on the interpretations and weight you give at all this. It is easier to call for death sentences then to justify it and in my view no death penalty can be justified, no matter the case.
Nevertheless, Islamic Law didn't apply for this case to begin with and what a non-party outsider says is irrelevant for the case itself.
There is a broad consensus on the ruling that Muslims should obey their State's Laws. Hence a non-citizen of that state inciting its citizens (and others) to overrule the verdict and take the "law" in their own hands is at the very least a violation of Islamic commands. (Not to speak ot the incitement to commit murder.)
salaam.
Oh bloody hell thats funny.
More tolerance http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Divisive Cotton said:
Do you have an answer to the question I've already asked you?
I can't really answer your question until I know what you perceive "Islam" to be, you see.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
JoePolitix said:
The judge merely delivers "justice", the judge doesn't rule on guilt or innocence. As Aldebaran said, the quality of legal representation in defence of the journalists appears to have been poor.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
jeff_leigh said:
Hey, it's an Iranian cleric. A single person.
It was mentioned purely to add "savour" to the story. It has bugger-all significance apart from that.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Dhimmi said:That's covenient apologism. Hopefully the same applies in non-islamic states.
It'd only be "convenient apologism" if it weren't a claim supported by looking at the similar lack of "maturity" to the criminal justice systems throughout the former Soviet Union.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
nino_savatte said:Yawn, here we go again with the Muslim bashing.
No worse than a Christain bashing tbh.
Truth is, people like to take religious beliefs and turn them for their own political means. The reality is that such vague conceptions of Islam and Chistianity (without having a clue about the religions themselves) render them as abstractions, so people who use or criticise such beliefs are just twats, like the OP.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
N_igma said:No worse than a Christain bashing tbh.
Truth is, people like to take religious beliefs and turn them for their own political means. The reality is that such vague conceptions of Islam and Chistianity (without having a clue about the religions themselves) render them as abstractions, so people who use or criticise such beliefs are just twats, like the OP.
No they're not, religions are just abstract beleifs that anybody can have mean anything they want. That's why their strongest proponents are just twats.
They're all just abit of harmless fun untill people start taking them to seriously. Religions are at their most constructive when they have very little power in the society, in my opinion. People who critisize them should never be thought of twats for doing so, likewise any other up-its-own-arse ideology.
jeff_leigh
What happened to Dubversion ?
N_igma said:The reality is that such vague conceptions of Islam and Chistianity (without having a clue about the religions themselves) render them as abstractions, so people who use or criticise such beliefs are just twats, like the OP.
Hey Wanker if you'd care to read my posts I stated that I wasn't critisising any religion merely pointing out the irony of the whole situation
jeff_leigh
What happened to Dubversion ?
ViolentPanda said:
Well then an Iranian Cleric involving himself would make it more than an Azerbaijan thing no?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Divisive Cotton said:As in the religion - the one that uses the Koran
So you're saying that Islam, as a religion, has a monopoly on militancy.
Btw, in case it had escaped your attention, all Muslims use the Quran.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Divisive Cotton said:
Why single out one religion for criticism? Unless you're trying to tell us something, that is.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
N_igma said:No worse than a Christain bashing tbh.
Truth is, people like to take religious beliefs and turn them for their own political means. The reality is that such vague conceptions of Islam and Chistianity (without having a clue about the religions themselves) render them as abstractions, so people who use or criticise such beliefs are just twats, like the OP.
What "Christian bashing"? In case you hadn't noticed, ever since "9/11" ther has been an anti-Muslim backlash in the western media. Christians have not become the target of cultural relativists, Muslims have...or maybe you haven't been paying attention to the news in the last few years.
jeff_leigh
What happened to Dubversion ?
nino_savatte said:
He may be refering to the bashing most of us on here give to the Evangelical Right Wing Christians in USA
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
jeff_leigh said:
They deserve it because they aren't proper Xtians (what sort of Xtian campaigns for the abolition of war pensions?) and they have a disproportionate amount of power and influence.
jeff_leigh
What happened to Dubversion ?
nino_savatte said:
True people from all communities will use/abuse a religion to suit thier own agenda
Similar threads
