Knight 1: We are now no longer the Knights who say Ni.
Knight 2: NI.
Other Knights: Shh...
Knight 1: We are now the Knights who say..."Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-Ekki-PTANG. Zoom-Boing. Z'nourrwringmm.
I guess we'll agree to disagree then![]()
lol covered head to toe
maybe taht should be covered heard to toe
![]()
Ohhh no, Kilroy what a cool bloke used to love the show , for this to happen to him horrible absolutely horrible![]()
Irc Channels To Join(Quakenet), #hexus.cs, #hexus.net
No no he is one arrogant biggot. Brilliant I say! Made my day![]()
Whilst, personally, I can't stand RKS, that kind of action is totally unjustified and, if done in the name of Islam (as claimed) gives Islam a bad name.
It doesn't the normal sort of thing done in the name of Islam, and I don't mean anything like bombing...Originally Posted by Saracen
Probably just a farm work making mischief.....
"The suspect is described as white, aged 30 to 40, with a ginger beard" - how many arabs do you know with ginger beards? well whoever the guy is i would like to buy him a pint, that's if i was old enough to buy one![]()
It gives the idiot who did it a bad name rather than Islam itself. There have been far far worse things done in the names of religion as I'm sure you're all too aware. For KS to use the actions of one idiot to try to justify his views and launch another unfounded all-encompassing attack on Islam as he did on Any Questions today was in my opinion pathetic. We'd rightly scoff if a Muslim political figure attacked Christianity and then used Christianity to encompass all white people based on the individual actions of some cult leader or called us all terrorists based on the IRA. The guy who threw slurry should have the book thrown at him, but I don't think anyone could argue that his actions are indicative of Islam on a whole or that Islam should be slated because of it.Originally Posted by Saracen
I have no time for RKS or many of his views.Originally Posted by Zathras
But, IF this actually was a Muslim doing this in the name of Islam (and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that it wasn't), then I meant what I said - it gives Islam a bad name. I did not, however, say that it was representative of all Muslims, or even a significant minority, let alone the majority. It may be representative or it may not, but one man's actions certainly can't be taken as such. Nor did I say that we should slate Islam as a whole, but I stand by the comment that it gives Islam a bad name. Firstly, they'll be people that will use it, rightly or wrongly, as an "example" of what Islam stands for, so it gives them a bad name in that sense. Secondly, in the light of events like the fatwa Khomeini called on Salmon Rushdie, there is a case to argue that it is indeed representative of a large part of Islam, in intent if not in degree. After all, what this act (if genuine) says is that THAT Muslim feels it's fine to physically assault RKS because of his views, and to do so in a country where such acts are clearly illegal. There will also be people that feel "here we go again. Slurry today, death threats tomorrow".
What this bloke did doesn't actually have to be endorsed by the Muslim community, either officially or by the unofficial majority (and no doubt wouldn't be, though I'd be astonished if there weren't a few sniggers and wry grins among Muslims, and non-Muslims as well for that matter) for it to give them a bad name. It's almost like a form of defamation - Islam will, to some extent, get blamed whether it approves or not, because of the claim was that it was done in their name.
I understand your sentiments, but I can't help but be slightly concerned about this attribution of a bad name. People seem very quick to state how these things will be giving Islam a bad name or to say how the 'general public' or whatever term you want to use will use these actions to attack Islam. There's action from both sides of the spectrum here, with the 'limp lefties' overreacting through being worried about people's reactions and the 'I'm no racist but' brigade using the action as further evidence against Islam. We have idiots who partake in publicity stunts of dubious legality in all forms of life, Fathers4Justice and the rebel hunting brigade being just two of the more recent examples. These people also feel it fine to physically assault MPs and other public figures because of their views in a country where such acts are illegal. I feel that a number of people are playing up this issue to being far more than it is to suit their own agendas and that it is being used as a convenient excuse to start the whole debate about integration of the Muslim community again, and that people stating they fear a backlash or bad press against Islam or whatever only fans the flames. It's a bit of a leap from talking about the actions of a sole individual to bringing in Salman Rushdie and stating it's indicative of Islamic behaviour on the whole. I know of numerous people of either christian or non-religious backgrounds who appreciated one being put over on Kilroy-Silk and many internet forums frequented mainly be these sorts of people are filled with talk of desires of taking action against all sorts of establishment figures. Even if accurate, I hardly think this dislike of views of politicians unique of the Muslim community or even out of the ordinary in everyday life, it's just a shame that people are so quick to think that it's a sign of extreme action to follow only when relatively small scale action is undertaken apparently in the name of Islam.
I agree with much of what you say, Zathras, but the point about giving Islam a bad name is, at the least, that it gives those that wish to do so ammunition to do so.
But that wasn't what I said. At no point did I suggest, let alone state, that this was "ndicative of Islamic behaviour on the whole". In fact, I took pains to make it clear that wasn't what I said, or meant. But the Rushdie incident was hardly the act of an isolated individual, was it? It was proclaimed by a major religious leader as policy and, from what I remember of it, very widely supported. And the actions of this one bloke, in using violence to react to a 'religious insult' shows the same mindset.Originally Posted by Zathras
Both the points are, to my mind, self-evidently true, but neither suggests that all Muslims support either stance.
hahahaha, serves him right, the smarming arse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)