Blind woman's 'Unclean' guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver

[DaMaN]

You're both being douchebags. repiV, your anti-Islamic sentiments are as welcome as racist or anti-semetic statements - that is to say, not at all. Cut it out. I don't care what you think about it, but this thread is not about Islam as an evil religion, because it straight up isn't. Islam may have some questionable issues with intolerance and xenophobia, as you say, but it is not inherently 'evil'.

DaMaN, I can see by the way you're wording things that you're deliberately attempting to rile repiV up. This is a good tactic, but it's also fairly transparent and makes you look like an arrogant asshole as well. It's fair to defend Islam, but really, both of you are making a big stink that doesn't need to be here.

If the conversation was focused on merely the pros and cons of Islam, particularly in relation to world events and this particular situation, that'd be less of a problem, but it seems that we cannot discuss this without resorting to constant, heinous personal attacks. That is not tolerated. Grow up and take it to PM if you have a problem with one another.

This thread is a millimeter away from being closed, but I'll see where it goes.

I appologise if I came off sounding like an arrogant asshole. That was not my intention. I was attempting to argue that Islam was not the cause of this problem, and I'm sorry if that got in the way of the discussion at hand, though I believe this to be of fundamental importance to the inflated importance given to this news seemingly only on the fact the cab-driver was muslim.

 

[DaMaN]

I would like you to explain to me why exactly I shouldn't express anti-Islamic sentiments. Since when was it forbidden to be against an ideology? Just because it happens to be a religion, and religions are sacred? Gimme a break.
Are you going to warn people for being anti-Nazi aswell? Or anti-neocon?

I agree that it makes no sense for it to be forbidden to be against an ideology. However, I believe that to discriminate based soley on religion or other beliefs is wrong. Be you Muslim, Christian, Buddist, or Jew, everyone should be entitled to equal rights without discrimination. In our society today, there appears to be a large amount of anti-Muslim sentiment, based soley on the fact that people are Muslims. It is this that I argue against.

 

[repiV]

I agree that it makes no sense for it to be forbidden to be against an ideology. However, I believe that to discriminate based soley on religion or other beliefs is wrong. Be you Muslim, Christian, Buddist, or Jew, everyone should be entitled to equal rights without discrimination. In our society today, there appears to be a large amount of anti-Muslim sentiment, based soley on the fact that people are Muslims. It is this that I argue against.

Now we're getting somewhere...
People in our society do have equal rights without discrimination. That also includes the right to be hated by others.
Incidentally, this is a freedom that is sorely lacking in Muslim countries. More often than not, women are treated as little better than animals, and people of other religions the same.
By the way, an ideology IS a set of beliefs. If you can't be against someone because of their beliefs, what the hell CAN you be against them for? The colour of their shoes?

 

[pomegranate]

If you can't be against someone because of their beliefs, what the hell CAN you be against them for?

Um, their actions? You know, stuff which actually effect other people?

Would you prefer a long descriptive paragraph instead?

I'd prefer anything to that sort of lazy rhetoric simpletons spout to justify hateful frothing.

 

[delusional]

where did this incident happen?

 

[repiV]

I'd prefer anything to the sort of lazy rhetoric simpletons spout in place of reasoned argument.

If "politically correct" is rhetoric, then so is "simpleton". I suggest you examine your own arguments.

 

[repiV]

where did this incident happen?

Which incident? The subject of the thread?

 

[delusional]

when the cab driver refused to let the dog in his cab

 

[pomegranate]

If "politically correct" is rhetoric, then so is "simpleton". I suggest you examine your own arguments.

No. 'Politically correct' is a very involved, very loaded, rhetorical construction which can additionally mean entirely different things coming from different people.
A simpleton is, em, a-person-who-is-simple. Simple, no?
Only one of these is rhetoric.

Bear in mind that I'm not actually making any arguments at this point , I was just pointing something out to you as advice.

 

[repiV]

when the cab driver refused to let the dog in his cab

West London...

 

[repiV]

'Politically correct' is a very involved construction which can mean very different things coming from different people. A 'Simpleton' is, em, a-person-who-is-simple.
Only one of these is rhetoric.

Bear in mind that I'm not actually making any arguments at this point , I was just pointing something out to you as advice.

I'm really not sure what your point is at all. Someone who will never point out the follies of a particular group for fear of offending them, unless they tarnish several groups at the same time including the majority, is politically correct. What other term would you use to describe them? I can think of a few, but they're mostly insults and don't really address the issue at all.

On another note, I have no doubt most of these people would have no qualms whatsoever with a hefty dose of Christianity-bashing. They're not persecuted, y'know.

 

[pomegranate]

I'm really not sure what your point is at all.

My point is that 'politically correct' is a rhetorical device, and 'simpleton' is not.

If you're referring to my previous point, let's refresh:

Using 'politically correct' in the pejorative, is a red flag clearly indicating a stupid, tabloid-fed, unreconstructed racist/mysoginist/gaybashing/generally hateful moron

That's pretty clear, I think. Not that I am saying that is what you are. It's an impression I'd imagine you want to avoid giving, is all.

 

[DaMaN]

Now we're getting somewhere...
People in our society do have equal rights without discrimination. That also includes the right to be hated by others.
Incidentally, this is a freedom that is sorely lacking in Muslim countries. More often than not, women are treated as little better than animals, and people of other religions the same.
By the way, an ideology IS a set of beliefs. If you can't be against someone because of their beliefs, what the hell CAN you be against them for? The colour of their shoes?

I agree, people in our society have equal rights without discrimination. While it does include the right to be hated by others, it does not include the right to discriminate against them. There is a fine distinction between hate and discrimination, one that is too easily crossed.

If, for example, person A hates person B because person B is a muslim, then it would not be right for person A to harrass person B due to their religion.

However, in the case presented on the first page we have a dilemma. On the one hand, we have a Muslim cab driver who wants to keep firm in his belief. On the other, we have a blind woman who wants service from the cab driver. The cab driver does not want to give the woman service because of his religion.

Currently, the law states that refusing service based on disability is punishable by a fine. However, the cab driver was refusing service to the dog based on the cab driver's religion. This happened to coincide with the fact that the woman was disabled.

On one hand we must respect the cab driver's religion, on the other we must respect the woman's disability.

This is indeed a dillemma, and I subscribe to CptStern's monster island idea as a solution to religion, but idealistically I have no solution.

One cannot, however, argue that the cab driver's religion is the root cause of this conflict, no more than one could argue that the woman's disability is.

Common sense of course, dictates that the religion would be easier to consolidate than blindness, but what if it were something more serious, such as being deathly allergic to dogs? (Or that the presence of dogs sends the cab driver into spasms? (As unlikely as this is)). Having a person's religion discriminated against can be just as damaging as having a person's disability discriminated against.

Alas, I fear that I don't have a concrete solution to this particular problem.


(aside from CptStern's monster island )


---

I most certainly agree that these human rights are sorely lacking in a lot of countries (not just those in the Middle East). However, I also believe it is primarially up to them to determine the nature of their problem and to begin to take steps against it - were we to go into their country and impose our beliefs and values upon them against their will (as we appear to be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan), then we would be just as guilty of refusing them their rights.

 

[repiV]

Okay dokey:


That's pretty clear, I think. Not that I am saying that is what you are. It's an impression I'd imagine you want to avoid giving, is all.

You'd be right about that.
However, it's simply a descriptive term. There's nothing wrong with the term just because rags like the Daily Mail like to throw it around.

 

[pomegranate]

You'd be right about that.
However, it's simply a descriptive term. There's nothing wrong with the term just because rags like the Daily Mail like to throw it around.

Well, as you're making some of the same kind of points as such rags, but with supposedly different motivations (as you seem to be saying), wouldn't it be wise to distance yourself from them by not using the same tired, sorry phraseology and rhetorical shortcuts? Or do you not care whether you give the impression of being of the same breed?

Also, plz see my edit above.

 

[repiV]

I agree, people in our society have equal rights without discrimination. While it does include the right to be hated by others, it does not include the right to discriminate against them. There is a fine distinction between hate and discrimination, one that is too easily crossed.

If, for example, person A hates person B because person B is a muslim, then it would not be right for person A to harrass person B due to their religion.

Would it be right to harrass them due to some other reason?
I'm guessing your answer is no. So, it's not ok to harrass people. No special privileges afforded to the religious - that is indeed discrimination in itself.

However, in the case presented on the first page we have a dilemma. On the one hand, we have a Muslim cab driver who wants to keep firm in his belief. On the other, we have a blind woman who wants service from the cab driver. The cab driver does not want to give the woman service because of his religion.

Currently, the law states that refusing service based on disability is punishable by a fine. However, the cab driver was refusing service to the dog based on the cab driver's religion. This happened to coincide with the fact that the woman was disabled.

On one hand we must respect the cab driver's religion, on the other we must respect the woman's disability.

I don't believe in respecting anyone's religion. Again, that's giving them special privileges which amounts to "positive discrimination". I don't respect any religion (except Buddhism), never have, never will.
If the cab driver cannot do the job as effectively as other cab drivers can, he shouldn't be doing it.
I can't be a fighter pilot because I wear glasses (there is another reason too, one that matters, but let's ignore that for now). Now, in reality, they do not affect my ability do to the job at all. Those helmets are on so tight the glasses don't budge, and many long-time pilots whose eyesight has deteriorated wear them.
They also ban contacts and laser treatment - the reason for all three is "because we can".
That's real discrimination for you. The kind you don't hear about in the headlines.

This is indeed a dillemma, and I subscribe to CptStern's monster island idea as a solution to religion, but idealistically I have no solution.

I don't see a dilemma at all. The only dilemma here is that we continue to tolerate people coming in and walking all over our culture and way of doing things. Even worse, certain people blame others amongst us for not being tolerant enough of these people!

One cannot, however, argue that the cab driver's religion is the root cause of this conflict, no more than one could argue that the woman's disability is.

Well, it is, because the conflict arose because he decided to follow the teachings of his religion.

Common sense of course, dictates that the religion would be easier to consolidate than blindness, but what if it were something more serious, such as being deathly allergic to dogs? (Or that the presence of dogs sends the cab driver into spasms? (As unlikely as this is)). Having a person's religion discriminated against can be just as damaging as having a person's disability discriminated against.

A physical, logical reason that he couldn't accept the dog is far different than some inane superstition.

Alas, I fear that I don't have a concrete solution to this particular problem.


(aside from CptStern's monster island )


---

I most certainly agree that these human rights are sorely lacking in a lot of countries (not just those in the Middle East). However, I also believe it is primarially up to them to determine the nature of their problem and to begin to take steps against it - were we to go into their country and impose our beliefs and values upon them against their will (as we appear to be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan), then we would be just as guilty of refusing them their rights.

I don't care what they do, so long as it doesn't affect us. And when we let hordes of people with their Middle Eastern upbringings and value systems over without so much as checking the compatibility of their beliefs and allegiances with those of our society, it starts to affect us. Bigtime.

 

[repiV]

Well, as you're making some of the same kind of points as such rags, but with supposedly different motivations (as you seem to be saying), wouldn't it be wise to distance yourself from them by not using the same tired, sorry phraseology and rhetorical shortcuts? Or do you not care whether you give the impression of being of the same breed?

Also, plz see my edit above.

"Politically correct" would be an accurate description. Am I supposed to take the long-winded and less concise route purely because the phrase has become a cliché?
Also, do bear in mind that "politically correct" is not a term invented by the Daily Mail, but by the politically correct themselves.

 

[pomegranate]

"Politically correct" would be an accurate description. Am I supposed to take the long-winded and less concise route purely because the phrase has become a cliché?

Well that's your choice, with likely effects on the reception of your arguments, as I've explained.

Also, do bear in mind that "politically correct" is not a term invented by the Daily Mail, but by the politically correct themselves.

Absolutely, the Mail and their like have warped it into a demonising, catch-all insult for anyone more liberal or socially progressive than the Pope. That is the danger you face in using it, when you're not using it in a positive sense.

 

[repiV]

Well that's your choice, with likely effects on the reception of your arguments, as I've explained.



Absolutely, the Mail and their like have turned it into a demonising, generalsing insult. That is the problem I'm pointing out that you face in using it.

Political correctness is quite possibly the stupidest, most inane aspect of our society as it currently stands - whatever you want to call it.
In any case, lots of terms get perverted, I guess. Especially when they surround contentious issues. Blair isn't particularly liberal, nor is Bush a conservative.
Actually, you could say that the naive and clueless PC crowd have hijacked the liberal ideology and subsequently discredited it to the point where the word liberal has become an insult, but I digress.

Oh by the way, by fluke I ate my first pomegranate today. You're all sweet and stringy...

 

[pomegranate]

Political correctness is quite possibly the stupidest, most inane aspect of our society as it currently stands...

Seriously? I'd pick the gross materialism, rampant self-centredness, rudeness and lack of respect and kindness for one another, the unceasing ability of the public to be led around by the media, barely-disguised xenophobia, and, oooh, littering, before being bothered by people being overly considerate to the feelings of minorities. And, to make a vital point, I don't think any of those are caused by Muslims.

Oh by the way, by fluke I ate my first pomegranate today. You're all sweet and stringy...

Ok... I had pomegranate flavoured Rubicon yesterday. It wasn't that great.

 

[repiV]

Seriously? I'd pick the gross materialism, rampant self-centredness, rudeness and lack of respect and kindness for one another, the unceasing ability of the public to be led around by the media, barely-disguised xenophobia, and, oooh, littering, before being bothered by people being overly considerate to the feelings of minorities.

Gross materialism and rampant self-centredness I feel are an inseparable part of any successful society. Competition drives success and progress. Gross materialism is the unfortunate result of a society where success is defined largely by wealth.
I agree these things could do with being tamed, but they can never be eliminated, for we would become a stagnant, apathetic and ultimately poor society.
Rudeness and lack of respect...well I hear people are much, much friendlier up thar in the north. But I see you live in Birmingham...cities tend to breed such qualities in people.
Although I do agree that we have cultivated a society where people now know their rights but not their responsibilities. That does tie in with political correctness however - which in essence gives people who haven't earned it the right to preferential treatment. They are very related issues.
Public led around by the media...what can you do? So long as we have a society that wants answers NOW and in a format that is convinient to them, to get results with the least effort possible, the media will always control public opinion.
As for xenophobia, we are one of, if not the most tolerant people on the face of the earth. We are so tolerant we give preference to other cultures' norms on our own soil and disapprove of patriotism. The only people we are at all xenophobic towards have rightfully EARNED that xenophobia.

Ok... I had pomegranate flavoured Rubicon yesterday. It wasn't that great.

I'm guessing it was sweet but not stringy.

 

[delusional]

id like to say im liberal but im forced to say classical liberal because the word liberal has been tainted.
frankly i see the cab driver being fined as disgusting, basically stripping him from his natural right to property and forcing him to allow a dog into his car when he doesnt want it there. if this was a government ran cab(which i wouldnt support) id have a problem but this is his private property and he should have the final say who is allowed in his cab not the government.

 

[pomegranate]

I'm guessing it was sweet but not stringy.

It tasted like grapes.

 

[Ennui]

I would like you to explain to me why exactly I shouldn't express anti-Islamic sentiments. Since when was it forbidden to be against an ideology? Just because it happens to be a religion, and religions are sacred? Gimme a break.
Are you going to warn people for being anti-Nazi aswell? Or anti-neocon?

The difference between political and religious ideologies is a very distinct one, even if there is some crossover, as in the case of Islam. You can feel free to express anti-Islamic sentiments, but not in such a rabid manner, if you please. I'd prefer it if we attempted to keep offense, whether intentional or not, to a minimum, and religion is a very touchy subject for many people. You're attacking it on mostly political and moral grounds (from what I gather, anyway), and in a more ... aggressive manner than I feel is appropriate.

 

[repiV]

The difference between political and religious ideologies is a very distinct one, even if there is some crossover, as in the case of Islam. You can feel free to express anti-Islamic sentiments, but not in such a rabid manner, if you please. I'd prefer it if we attempted to keep offense, whether intentional or not, to a minimum, and religion is a very touchy subject for many people. You're attacking it on mostly political and moral grounds (from what I gather, anyway), and in a more ... aggressive manner than I feel is appropriate.

I just don't see why religious beliefs should get special protection. Why should they be less subject to criticism than other beliefs, despite being more indefensible than any other beliefs?
The only difference between a religion and any other set of proposterous superstitions (say, belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy) is that a religion has political acceptance.

 

[repiV]

id like to say im liberal but im forced to say classical liberal because the word liberal has been tainted.
frankly i see the cab driver being fined as disgusting, basically stripping him from his natural right to property and forcing him to allow a dog into his car when he doesnt want it there. if this was a government ran cab(which i wouldnt support) id have a problem but this is his private property and he should have the final say who is allowed in his cab not the government.

It might be his car, but he is licensed to perform a public service by the government. That license is granted based on the understanding that he will uphold certain standards of service. If he cannot do that, he is not deserving of the license.

 

[delusional]

sucks for england since i couldnt find anything like that in usa, all you need is a licence and the government doesnt regulate like england does.
i read that you cant even put a flag on a taxi in england.

 

[repiV]

sucks for england since i couldnt find anything like that in usa, all you need is a licence and the government doesnt regulate like england does.
i read that you cant even put a flag on a taxi in england.

Don't know if that's true or not, but it sounds rather unlikely. Probably just some isolated story hyped up. Although there have been documented cases of things like schools banning items with the flag on in case it causes "racial tensions". Which is utterly absurd but sadly the state of things.
In any case, we're not big into flags. Or patriotism.

 

[delusional]

it happened in 2004 and i dont feel like linking it but it was a law to not allow flags flown but some places didnt enforce it. but it was true

 

[Solaris]

Its daily mail lies.

 

[gick]

it happened in 2004 and i dont feel like linking it but it was a law to not allow flags flown but some places didnt enforce it. but it was true

Like Solaris said, its usually BS either made up or blown out of all proportion by shite like the Mail.

For example, there was a report/rumour going round my town that the Fire Station had been banned from putting a flag up for St George's day so as not to 'offend the muslim community'. Eventually, it turned out that a town councillor had suggested it at a meeting, and the idea had been turned down. But hey, the BNP never let facts get in the way of some juicy propaganda. Also, judging from the letters page in the local paper, the response from the muslim community ranged from 'lol we dont care if you put up a flag' to 'Put it up! We're british too!'.

Its still a shitty religion though. I just have a problem with Islam, and not muslims. If you see what I mean.

 

[CptStern]

It might be his car, but he is licensed to perform a public service by the government. That license is granted based on the understanding that he will uphold certain standards of service. If he cannot do that, he is not deserving of the license.

you're one for hysterics arent ya? I'm sure one of the standards is that they obey the speed limit ...I'm sure every single last cab driver obeys the speed limit right? he was fined, Islamic jihadists didnt parachute out of the sky and rape british women/small dogs, nor has the queen taken to wearing a veil ..the issue is settled (cab driver is an idiot, fined) lets move on

 

[repiV]

you're one for hysterics arent ya? I'm sure one of the standards is that they obey the speed limit ...I'm sure every single last cab driver obeys the speed limit right? he was fined, Islamic jihadists didnt parachute out of the sky and rape british women/small dogs, nor has the queen taken to wearing a veil ..the issue is settled (cab driver is an idiot, fined) lets move on

Yes...replying to delusional's argument with a factual statement...very hysterical.
In that case, the issue was settled with the very first post in the thread. Why did you bother replying at all?

 

[CptStern]

Yes...replying to delusional's argument with a factual statement...very hysterical.
In that case, the issue was settled with the very first post in the thread. Why did you bother replying at all?

I clarified someone elses post ..why did you reply? and yes your are swayed by hysterics .... and no I'm not judging it from that one post but rather every post in this thread

 

[repiV]

I clarified someone elses post ..why did you reply? and yes your are swayed by hysterics .... and no I'm not judging it from that one post but rather every post in this thread

I don't need an excuse to reply; I'm not suggesting we move on as the issue has been settled. The issue was settled by the thread starter when he started the thread.
No, I'm not swayed by hysterics. Hysterics would be "let's nuke the entire Middle East and kill all Muslims". It's a sad, sad reflection of our society that it's become normal to tolerate anything from anyone so long as it's "their culture" and that in all cases minorities are poor persecuted people and whitey is the oppressor.
The all-too-familiar lefty tactic of throwing around the words "extremist" or "racist" when someone disagrees with them? Now that's hysterical. Not to mention stupid.

 

[CptStern]

I don't need an excuse to reply;

and I do?

I'm not suggesting we move on as the issue has been settled. The issue was settled by the thread starter when he started the thread.

yes but you took it into other tangents when you blamed islam for the incident in question

No, I'm not swayed by hysterics.

yes you are:

And when we let hordes of people with their Middle Eastern upbringings and value systems over without so much as checking the compatibility of their beliefs and allegiances with those of our society, it starts to affect us. Bigtime.

hysterics

Unfortunately the politically correct faux-liberal minions are too afraid of offending anybody to stand up and single any one group out. Unless that group happens to be Americans, then it's free fire

hysterics

The Jews are an intelligent, enlightened, brilliant people who have contributed a vast amount to global civilisation despite their small numbers. Islam as an entity bears considerable resemblances to Nazism itself. It is an oppressive, evil ideology that brings nothing but barbary, tyranny and economic depression wherever it spreads.

hysterics ...you are prone to generalizations

Hysterics would be "let's nuke the entire Middle East and kill all Muslims".

no that would be madness not hysteria

It's a sad, sad reflection of our society that it's become normal to tolerate anything from anyone so long as it's "their culture" and that in all cases minorities are poor persecuted people and whitey is the oppressor.

there's you going all hysterical again


stfu man ..really do you have to inject your idiotic "the white man is being gobbled up by minorities" bullshit into every post? this is about a dog not being allowed in a cab not some larger muslim conspiracy to take over the UK as you seem to suggest ..it could have happened to anyone of any race creed colour etc ..I myself have been refused transport because I had a dog with me ..even though it was small and in a cage ..so legally they didnt have a reason to refuse me a ride but they did ..and I didnt cry discrtimination

The all-too-familiar lefty tactic of throwing around the words "extremist" or "racist" when someone disagrees with them? Now that's hysterical. Not to mention stupid.

look pomegranate already gave you a talking to about idiotic labeling, it really just makes you look stupid ..and who is throwing "racist" and "extremist" around? you're using those terms not me ..hmmm you're rather defensive when it comes to being labeled racist ...especially since I never labelled you as that .....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[repiV]

and I do?

You said that we should just let the matter drop since it's been settled. But it was settled in the first post. That makes no sense.

yes but you took it into other tangents when you blamed islam for the incident in question

How can Islam not be responsible for the event in question?
I suppose Islam isn't responsible for this either?

yes you are:

hysterics

What the **** is hysterical about that? Seriously, are you outta your damn mind? Sure, let's just let people with a diametrically opposed culture largely hostile to our own live amongst us without even giving them any scrutiny. To suggest caution is so hysterical!

hysterics

No, that's just truth.

hysterics ...you are prone to generalizations

Hey, remember...not all Nazis were bad. Some were nice, loving, caring family people. Does that change the fact that Nazism is an evil, oppressive ideology? No, it does not.
I'm sure Karl Marx was a decent sort too. His ideology is still responsible for the misery of untold millions of people.
So is Islam.

no that would be madness not hysteria



there's you going all hysterical again


stfu man ..really do you have to inject your idiotic "the white man is being gobbled up by minorities" bullshit into every post? this is about a dog not being allowed in a cab not some larger muslim conspiracy to take over the UK as you seem to suggest ..it could have happened to anyone of any race creed colour etc ..I myself have been refused transport because I had a dog with me ..even though it was small and in a cage ..so legally they didnt have a reason to refuse me a ride but they did ..and I didnt cry discrtimination

Was your dog a guide dog? No? Then there is no issue.
I didn't say it was "part of some larger Muslim conspiracy to take over the UK", I said it is indicative of the problems that Islam causes over here. To point out a trend is not hysterical, to ignore it is foolish. You sign your own death warrant.

look pomegranate already gave you a talking to about idiotic labeling, it really just makes you look stupid ..and who is throwing "racist" and "extremist" around? you're using those terms not me ..hmmm you're rather defensive when it comes to being labeled racist ...especially since I never labelled you as that .....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I wasn't referring to you.

 

[Nemesis6]

Islam, in its current form, is not compatible with Western democracy and values because Western democracies are mostly secular. Islam, in the form that's preached, is rigid and unreformable. So it must be transformed in order to be compatible. And we can't do that. The only thing we can do is show them a way of life in which they have the ability to choose whether or not they want God -- Whom they can define however they want -- to be a part of their lives, no matter their level of semitism.

This is by no way an isolated case, and saying that it has nothing to do with Islam is pure denial.

 

[CptStern]

You said that we should just let the matter drop since it's been settled. But it was settled in the first post. That makes no sense.

I meant within this thread

How can Islam not be responsible for the event in question?

because it is not:

“A dog can be owned for purposes such as the following:

2. A trained dog as a guide. This would be the case if a person is blind and he/she has no choice but to keep a dog for essential services. In this case, it is permissible for him/her to keep a dog inside the house once it has been trained for service, but it is still recommended that the dog have its own sleeping arrangement.[/quote]

besides the fact that they advise you not sleep with your dog guide dogs ARE premissible under islamic teaching

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547226

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/...bility of Keeping Hunting Dogs and Watch Dogs

http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/news_releases/2002/no_ban_on_guide_dogs_under_isl.aspx

Recent [2002] guidance from the Shariat Council has confirmed that trained assistance dogs can accompany disabled people into restaurants or taxis managed or driven by Muslims. With two million Muslims in Great Britain, many running businesses in the service sector, this represents an important ruling with potentially far-reaching effects

he excercised his freewill, not his religion's

I suppose Islam isn't responsible for this either?

again it's an example of someone following their own convictions: non-Muslim are not in any way prohibited from buying/consuming/carrying alcohol

What the **** is hysterical about that? Seriously, are you outta your damn mind? Sure, let's just let people with a diametrically opposed culture largely hostile to our own live amongst us without even giving them any scrutiny. To suggest caution is so hysterical!

please I live in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world (roughly half are immigrants or children of immigrants) dont give me bullshit about cultures being subverted ..because I'm not speaking chinese or going to a freaking synagogue on the sabbath ..although I do enjoy a good stir fry and latkas every now and then

No, that's just truth.

as only you see it ..hysterics imho

Hey, remember...not all Nazis were bad. Some were nice, loving, caring family people. Does that change the fact that Nazism is an evil, oppressive ideology? No, it does not.

so islam is on the same magnitude of evilness as the Nazis? ...and you're saying you're not prone to hysterics? .......oooooooooooooh-kaaay :rolling:

I'm sure Karl Marx was a decent sort too. His ideology is still responsible for the misery of untold millions of people.
So is Islam.

so by your logic jesus was responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, predestination/tithing, pedophelia, and Ernest ****ing Angley?

Ignoring a Common Cause logical yadda yadda

I didn't say it was "part of some larger Muslim conspiracy to take over the UK", I said it is indicative of the problems that Islam causes over here. To point out a trend is not hysterical, to ignore it is foolish. You sign your own death warrant.

:upstare: more hysterics ...I've proven the guide dog thing was an individual choice

 

[repiV]

Islam, in its current form, is not compatible with Western democracy and values because Western democracies are mostly secular. Islam, in the form that's preached, is rigid and unreformable. So it must be transformed in order to be compatible. And we can't do that. The only thing we can do is show them a way of life in which they have the ability to choose whether or not they want God -- Whom they can define however they want -- to be a part of their lives, no matter their level of semitism.

This is by no way an isolated case, and saying that it has nothing to do with Islam is pure denial.

Heil Allah...er, I mean amen.

I meant within this thread

I see.

because it is not:

Then what is it to do with? Israel maybe? George Bush? The Illuminati?

Edit: eish, NOW you go and edit...