Woman burnt to death at Islamic school after sexual assault Watch

username4454836
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#181
Report 2 months ago
#181
(Original post by QE2)
Ooh, controversial!
:innocent:

(Original post by Napp)
I doubt it. There’s no such entity.
Did I pass your test about facts?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#182
Report 2 months ago
#182
(Original post by Napp)
I doubt it. There’s no such entity.
Depends on how you view time.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#183
Report 2 months ago
#183
(Original post by QE2)
Depends on how you view time.
No it really doesn’t.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#184
Report 2 months ago
#184
(Original post by Decahedron)
Did I pass your test about facts?
If we were living half a century ago maybe?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#185
Report 2 months ago
#185
(Original post by Napp)
No it really doesn’t.
So you believe that the past does not exist in any sense.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#186
Report 2 months ago
#186
(Original post by QE2)
So you believe that the past does not exist in any sense.
Get to the point please.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#187
Report 2 months ago
#187
(Original post by Napp)
Do you have anything even vaguely intelligent to say or just this rather peculiar drivel? If so get to the point please.
Erm, that was the point.
If you believe that there is "no such entity" as East Pakistan, despite being aware of such an entity existing, you clearly do not believe that the past exists in any sense. There's nothing wrong with that position per se - it's just that you can only say that there is no such entity as East Pakistan in your opinion. To those who see time differently, there is such an entity as East Pakistan, just not here and now.

I understand that this might be a bit difficult for you. Feel free to ask follow-up questions.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#188
Report 2 months ago
#188
(Original post by Off.zxx)
Most influential man to ever grace the earth, the greatest law giver and a mercy to all man kind. At the time when people were burying there daughters Muhammed gave honour to women he would treat the rich and the poor in the same way and at a time when people did not give rights to black people Muhammed gave rights to Bilal and taught people about equality black people only got there rights in the USA a 100 years ago. You talk about Aisha when Mary married 90 year old Joseph at the age of 12.Islam is the only religion that prohibits marrying a minor,Quran 24:59.In some US states marriage is legal from the age of 13.And Muhammed's tribe offered him the best of women so he would turn away from Islam but he had no desire he only married widows and divorcees. Muhammed has been criticised since prophethood but never about aishia as it was normal then and women would mature at a much younger age.
Rape is considered a serious sexual crime in Islam, and can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent"
Islamic law, like the legal systems of classical antiquity and the ancient Near East, does not contain a true equivalent of the modern concept of rape, which is in turn based on the modern notions of individual autonomy and inviolability of the body, particularly the female body.
Furthermore the the rule about the 100lashes and about the role of a husband and his right over his wife are fairly straight forward ,a husband is allowed to lash his wife but he cannot leave any mark or he will be receiving sin.
The rest of your post has been duly destroyed and ripped apart by QE2, so I only wanted to deal with the first line. Muhammad is not the most influential person to have ever lived. If by influential you’re referring to followers then Jesus beats Muhammad, as the former has more followers and Islam is unlikely to ever have as many adherents as Christianity had at its peak.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#189
Report 2 months ago
#189
(Original post by QE2)
Erm, that was the point.
If you believe that there is "no such entity" as East Pakistan, despite being aware of such an entity existing, you clearly do not believe that the past exists in any sense. There's nothing wrong with that position per se - it's just that you can only say that there is no such entity as East Pakistan in your opinion. To those who see time differently, there is such an entity as East Pakistan, just not here and now.

I understand that this might be a bit difficult for you. Feel free to ask follow-up questions.
You do know the word exists has a tense right? It refers to the present, not the past. East Pakistan did EXIST it no longer EXISTS.
My, my. If you’re going to try and appear clever at least get your facts straight first old boy.
Not to mention the rather quaint fact that a fair number of bengalis would string anyone who called them ‘east Pakistanis’ up from a lamp post.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#190
Report 2 months ago
#190
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
The rest of your post has been duly destroyed and ripped apart by QE2, so I only wanted to deal with the first line. Muhammad is not the most influential person to have ever lived. If by influential you’re referring to followers then Jesus beats Muhammad, as the former has more followers and Islam is unlikely to ever have as many adherents as Christianity had at its peak.
A Debatable proposition, no? Especially given the birth rates in Islamic countries far exceed those in the Christian world... where most populations are stagnant or declining.
At any rate it is an established fact that Asia is where the centre of the world will be, in due course, with countries such as India, Indonesia etc. predicted to be super and great powers in their own right.
Never mind the fact the life blood of the world, oil, is controlled by countries where Islam is dominant. Who do you think funds the western countries? It’s petro dollars not the industry of old.
To call that particular prophet the most influential person in history may we’ll be inherently dubious but to ignore the power of Islam is even more so.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#191
Report 2 months ago
#191
(Original post by ibyghee)
This source should show pre islamic women https://courses.lumenlearning.com/su...slamic-arabia/
As for women taking a business, if a father had a business and a daughter and son. He would probably give it to the son. But I'm pretty sure nothing stops him from giving the business to the daughter. A woman can employ men to teach them or make them work. Aysha after the prophets death went on to teach his MALE companions about hadith. The first person the companions would go to be taught was Aysha. She was also the judge of what would happen on inheritance because of her math skills.
The point is that pre-Islamic women weren't always the oppressed chattels that Muslim apologists often claim. And it is self-evident that post-Islamic women suffer from certain restrictions in basic freedoms and equality. And there is no evidence that female infanticide was commonly practiced. Generally speaking, Khadija's actions would have been frowned upon (or worse) in Muhammad's Medina.

Bilal was persecuted at the time of the prophet by other his master just because he was Muslim. He would be dragged around, whipped and hot boulders would be put on his chest. This was because he was Muslim and so he was bought by the prophet so he wouldn't go through the trauma. Bilal was black and given freedom. Would be the same if any other race chose to be a Muslim. I think that is what he is trying to say that race was not an issue at that time.
Exactly. Bilal was not oppressed because he was black.

You say that ancient people went through puberty later,
It is not conclusive. It may have been a similar age as today, but where there is evidence of a difference it is later.

so that proves that it wouldn't be 9 or 10 since that is a very early age for us right now to go through puberty. and since the Quran says you can only have da sex at the age of puberty would show that young girls of age 10 wouldn't be forced to this.
1. It is entirely possible that a girl in 7th century Arabia could start puberty at age 9.
2. The Quran is inconsistent as verse 2:228 states that the iddah for those widows/divorcees too young to have started menstruating is 3 months. There is no need for iddah if there has been no sex.
3. You you think it is acceptable for an adult man to have sex with a girl if she has had her first period?

We won't talk about rape in Islam because of what happened the last time we debated on this
What happened?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#192
Report 2 months ago
#192
(Original post by Napp)
You do know the word exists has a tense right? It refers to the present, not the past. East Pakistan did EXIST it no longer EXISTS.
My, my. If you’re going to try and appear clever at least get your facts straight first old boy.
As I thought, you are having difficulty in grasping this concept. Time doesn't necessarily work in the way you assume. The past may still EXIST.

Not to mention the rather quaint fact that a fair number of bengalis would string anyone who called them ‘east Pakistanis’ up from a lamp post.
Even those Bengalis living in East Pakistan?
And you seem to be implying that "a fair number of bengalis [sic]" are violently intolerant. How bigoted of you.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#193
Report 2 months ago
#193
(Original post by QE2)
Even those Bengalis living in East Pakistan?
And you seem to be implying that "a fair number of bengalis [sic]" are violently intolerant. How bigoted of you.
Yes if we were talking in terms of quantum mechanics you might, at a serious stretch, have a point. But alas, you don’t. You’re simply trying to appear a smart alec and instead appearing a tedious teenager with little grasp of geo-politics, history or science for that matter.

I don’t recall implying such a thing? If that’s the first thing your brain can jump to then that’s your problem friend . Alas, again you are rather mistaken though and seem to not know what hyperbole is. Nor the rather base instinct of nationalism. Just as if I went into the heard of Glasgow or Dublin. And called them english my statement would apply.

It would be far less embarrassing for you if you just admitted your statement was idiotic to be honest..
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#194
Report 2 months ago
#194
How has this turned into an argument about a country that no longer exists?
1
reply
username4499936
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#195
Report 2 months ago
#195
(Original post by Napp)
You do know the word exists has a tense right? It refers to the present, not the past. East Pakistan did EXIST it no longer EXISTS.
My, my. If you’re going to try and appear clever at least get your facts straight first old boy.
Not to mention the rather quaint fact that a fair number of bengalis would string anyone who called them ‘east Pakistanis’ up from a lamp post.
Some physicists hold to the view that the past does in fact still exist just that it's no longer accessible to us.Its like when you leave the city of London.You are moving away from it in distance but that doesn't mean London ceases to exist.Its still there.

In this view of physics the past still exists we've just essentially moved away from it through the dimension of time rather than space.We can't go back but that's only because we can't move faster than the speed of light.If you could move faster than the speed of light you could in fact move back in time and arrive at that past place.

It's an interesting viewpoint tbh.And it has a certain logic to it.Its just not how we are used to viewing the passage of time.
0
reply
Wōden
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#196
Report 2 months ago
#196
(Original post by AJ126)
It doesn't really detract from my point.Your argument boils down to " Islam is bad but look at those guys over there.They're worse."

Nope.both Christianity and Islam have been terrible for women's rights.Those christian countries in Africa are only so because countries like England colonised them.We've moved on from those Victorian attitudes but those countries still retain them.Its the same reason why a lot of African countries still have laws against homosexuality.Because originally so did we.But we've moved on they haven't.And that's because we are no longer particularly religous.In general the abrahamic religions are terrible for women's rights.
You can read accounts of numerous early explorers who documented these kinds of barbaric practices among the native Africans, long before they were Christianized, and long before colonialism. European colonists if anything were the ones trying to put a stop to these practices (white protestant missionaries for example were among the first to campaign against the widespread FGM in Eastern Africa during the late 1800s).
0
reply
ibyghee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#197
Report 2 months ago
#197
(Original post by QE2)
The point is that pre-Islamic women weren't always the oppressed chattels that Muslim apologists often claim. And it is self-evident that post-Islamic women suffer from certain restrictions in basic freedoms and equality. And there is no evidence that female infanticide was commonly practiced. Generally speaking, Khadija's actions would have been frowned upon (or worse) in Muhammad's Medina.


Exactly. Bilal was not oppressed because he was black.


It is not conclusive. It may have been a similar age as today, but where there is evidence of a difference it is later.


1. It is entirely possible that a girl in 7th century Arabia could start puberty at age 9.
2. The Quran is inconsistent as verse 2:228 states that the iddah for those widows/divorcees too young to have started menstruating is 3 months. There is no need for iddah if there has been no sex.
3. You you think it is acceptable for an adult man to have sex with a girl if she has had her first period?


What happened?
Ye, I'm not sure about the whole daughter burying thing since there is no legit evidence but it seems as though it was a thing. I mean why would someone randomly just put that there. And what Khadija's actions? If you mean starting a business I'm not sure where you got that info from.
Bilal was not oppressed because he was black and became a general? That is the point. That it wouldn't have happened in early America because of race issues.
What happened after the rape debate was that it went outa hand :nope:Slurs were thrown across and we resorted to sending memes XD
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#198
Report 2 months ago
#198
(Original post by Wōden)
You can read accounts of numerous early explorers who documented these kinds of barbaric practices among the native Africans, long before they were Christianized, and long before colonialism. European colonists if anything were the ones trying to put a stop to these practices (white protestant missionaries for example were among the first to campaign against the widespread FGM in Eastern Africa during the late 1800s).
A half truth at best. I’d hardly call blowing people cannons, chopping off limbs, lynching, burning at the stake and so forth “civilised”. Other cultures and peoples might well have practiced heinous acts but to try and pretend (especially in the time you just mentioned) we were somehow better? I think not. Equal maybe, but not better.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (147)
17.65%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (74)
8.88%
No I am happy with my course choice (491)
58.94%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (121)
14.53%

Watched Threads

View All