/* */

PDA

View Full Version : U.S. NEWS: Man sets fire to UK Muslim's dress on NYC's Fifth Avenue



Search
09-13-2016, 03:04 PM
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Source

A British woman's traditional Muslim clothing was set on fire on Fifth Avenue, New York police have said.

The woman, who had been staying in a Manhattan hotel, was returning from sightseeing when she felt a warm spot on her arm, an officer told the BBC.

She turned and saw her arm on fire and a man with a cigarette lighter. She was able to pat out the fire with her hands and did not suffer any injury.

The attack is being investigated as a possible hate crime.

A police source confirmed to the BBC the woman is Scottish but would not confirm local reports she is a dentist from Glasgow.

The woman was left with a hole the size of a 25-cent coin (about the size of a 2p-coin) on her sleeve, police said.

They have footage of a man they suspect of the crime and are appealing for witnesses.

When news emerged of the attack, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called upon the mayor to add resources to the city's hate crime investigation unit.
"We are clearly seeing a spike in attacks on individual Muslims and Islamic institutions in New York and around the country, which should be of concern to all Americans," said CAIR-NY Executive Director Afaf Nasher.

"It is time for the mayor and the NYPD to put forward the necessary resources to investigate and prevent these attacks on the Muslim community."
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Waahid
09-13-2016, 04:04 PM
No proper man would do such a thing. I'm Scottish and I hate 'don't like' dentists because they use drills/pliers and the Polish ones use screwdrivers...
Reply

Waahid
09-13-2016, 05:48 PM
No, absolutely not. Violence towards women is unnacceptable and should be punished harshly.
Reply

jabeady
09-13-2016, 05:49 PM
No, we're joking about dentists.

I think you know or can guess pretty well my opinion on hate crimes. As this one goes, however, it was pretty minor with mild physical harm done. I do regret the emotional impact on the victim, and I wish her the best, but she will never see or hear any comment I might make.

BTW, there is such a thing as Gallows Humor. I'm sure there's a dictionary definition for it, but the best explanation I ever heard is that it is the hysteria of a sane man when facing disaster.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
sister herb
09-13-2016, 06:06 PM
I don´t think that this thread is suitable for the jokes - just same who is your target.

It is also called as "off topic".
Reply

jabeady
09-13-2016, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity
I think the dentist talk was light-hearted. :/
There's an awful lot of tragedy in this life. It's difficult to work up a lot of outrage, sometimes, and this was a comparatively minor episode.
Reply

sister herb
09-13-2016, 07:23 PM
I bet it wasn´t very minor episode - attemp to burn somebody alive.
Reply

Search
09-13-2016, 08:21 PM
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Grief and outrage are the natural reaction. But so is perhaps laughter. Not because this is particularly funny. But precisely because it is tragic.

Because in 1928 investigation into humor, Freud argued that laughter was a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with the Sisyphean distresses of everyday life. In Wit and Its Relation to Unconscious, Freud gives the example of a prisoner about to locked in the gallows who says to his guard: “Well, this is a good beginning to the week.” The prisoner makes a joke because he doesn’t want to cry; his ego distracts his conscious brain from the unspeakable misery of the moment.

Laughter isn't always about comedy; it's about how most jokes turning in our minds are born from temporary tragedies like when we laugh seeing a man falling and slipping on a clean floor and landing on his bum, even though he is hurt and could have broken his back and his neck.

That said, I also think sister herb is right; the man who did this to the woman wanted to burn her alive; as I read her last post in this thread, I was sobered by the instant realization that our Muslim sisters are open targets due to hatred and bigotry. That is not particularly funny.

Simultaneously, I'm chagrined to admit that I laughed at the dentist jokes; I don't know what that says about me, but I hope it is not that I'm a bad person. Probably though my humor is seriously misplaced. Because I doubt I'd be laughing if I had been in this situation or any of of my loved ones. I guess life is very unfunny sometimes, and paradoxical laughter is my crutch.
Reply

Huzaifah ibn Adam
09-13-2016, 08:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmLSzf96h-k

He wants to burn the clothes of a Muslim woman. In jail, they'll burn his clothes off him slowly. They have all the time in the world for him.

Papa wag vir hom.
Reply

M.I.A.
09-13-2016, 08:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Search
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Grief and outrage are the natural reaction. But so is perhaps laughter. Not because this is particularly funny. But precisely because it is tragic.

Because in 1928 investigation into humor, Freud argued that laughter was a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with the Sisyphean distresses of everyday life. In Wit and Its Relation to Unconscious, Freud gives the example of a prisoner about to locked in the gallows who says to his guard: “Well, this is a good beginning to the week.” The prisoner makes a joke because he doesn’t want to cry; his ego distracts his conscious brain from the unspeakable misery of the moment.

Laughter isn't always about comedy; it's about how most jokes turning in our minds are born from temporary tragedies like when we laugh seeing a man falling and slipping on a clean floor and landing on his bum, even though he is hurt and could have broken his back and his neck.

That said, I also think sister herb is right; the man who did this to the woman wanted to burn her alive; as I read her last post in this thread, I was sobered by the instant realization that our Muslim sisters are open targets due to hatred and bigotry. That is not particularly funny.

Simultaneously, I'm chagrined to admit that I laughed at the dentist jokes; I don't know what that says about me, but I hope it is not that I'm a bad person. Probably though my humor is seriously misplaced. Because I doubt I'd be laughing if I had been in this situation or any of of my loved ones. I guess life is very unfunny sometimes, and paradoxical laughter is my crutch.
..ya got me..

as the old saying goes, if I wasn't laffin id be crying..

and I don't really like crying.

..and laffin is outlawed.

:|

just as well I didn't get it..

concentrating on work and manners and etiquette.

in all honesty I don't exist..

which is probably for the better.
Reply

jabeady
09-13-2016, 08:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sister herb
I bet it wasn´t very minor episode - attemp to burn somebody alive.
As it turned out it was minor. There is little chance the woman was in serious physical danger. At the worst, bystanders would have helped beat out the flames. Which makes me ask:

If the woman had been in serious danger, and if (non Muslim) bystanders had helped her, how much mention would you be giving the bystanders right now in this conversation?
Reply

Huzaifah ibn Adam
09-13-2016, 08:59 PM
Yes, the sister didn't suffer serious physical damage; however, the intention of the assailant must be taken into consideration. He intended to cause harm to her. He just wasn't able to do it. If he could, he'd happily have burnt her alive. His situation is the same as that of a person who is trying to rape a woman, and then someone comes along and scares him away. His intention was to rape her and thus he should be dealt with accordingly. If no action is taken against such a person (like this would-be rapist, for example) he will simply do it the next time he gets the chance. He hasn't changed. He hasn't mended his ways. He was just scared away. He'll be back again. Take action against him, though, and you've solved the problem permanently.
Reply

M.I.A.
09-13-2016, 09:04 PM
...not a therapist joke.

although in prison life, most people keep quiet.

strange place.
Reply

Huzaifah ibn Adam
09-13-2016, 09:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
in all honesty I don't exist..
You don't exist?
Reply

Huzaifah ibn Adam
09-13-2016, 11:29 PM
Did you watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLkRA2pdBdE

Those are the South African jails. Pollsmoor is particularly notorious. They should send this guy here to Pollsmoor.
Reply

M.I.A.
09-14-2016, 02:13 AM
Meh, being chief is hard.. being chef is hard..

always someone who wants something different.

..
....
...make it yourself.


nothing in life is easy, be grateful.. most of us do not endure..

the more guns to combat gun crime way of life.

I'm not knocking it..

the flip side is that people who are really good at guns can sort of change the converstion a bit when they show up..

fear does negate good or bad for the most part.


it's always a double edged blade.

I will not wait at the chopping blocks to do your bidding..

do it yourself.

who will know if you become kings or tyrants?

only the people who had need to turn up in front of you.

drama much? woe is me..


I guess what I've always said is that from my point of view..

most battles are won and lost long before any battlefield or judge is reached.


may Allah swt have mercy upon us.


hopefully any half competent investigation will lead to an arrest..

any vigilantism would just alienate you further..

why don't you go set some people on fire.. that will put things right.


Road rage.


...no that's not what I'm saying, only beat up the bad people!!

...who don't have families..

or children.

or are from deprived backgrounds.

...Maybe those that leave lines between sentences so there posts seem way too long.. them guys deserve it.

honestly most people should really count there blessings. that they are so tolerant.

Maybe one day we won't fear or grieve..

although tumult and oppression are worse than death.
Reply

Search
09-14-2016, 02:34 AM
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:sl: (Peace be upon you)

Hi, brother. I have to respectfully disagree with you.

In the past, I have often disagreed with @cooterhein and he will tell you that I have often disagreed with him and even honestly threatened once to report him. I do feel he comes across an Islamophobic person in many discussions as I've even bluntly told him; I'm sure he'll be corroborate those things as facts.

That said, in this matter, I have to say that I agree with @cooterhein. I don't agree with taking the laws in one hands; and I think it is irresponsible to encourage any persons to do so; Muslims should hold themselves to a higher standard, and they should not do anything that is against the law even if it may bring personal satisfaction or temporary egoistic pleasure at presumably vigilante justice having been served because violence is an easy answer but a total non-solution to the problem.

If anything is done in self-defense (and that includes defense of others), that's fine morally and also legally.

However, anything other than that is not fine. For example, let's think about the hosts of problem this non-solution presents: (a) a person will be jailed if caught and will have to post a bond to be released which can be financially hefty depending on what the crime this person committed (b) what if the person committing this extrajudical violence, since the person was not present, may commit the violence against an innocent person because he doesn't have the means to investigate the crime as the police do and may penalize the wrong person, (c) justifies the stereotype of the "Mad Muslim" that acts first and thinks later, (d) will be presenting media a golden chance to present once again how Muslims are intolerant and the original news of a woman being the target of a hate crime would be drowned out in the face of this new news storm, (e) brings shame and dishonor to the Muslim family and community, and (f) renders moot the impersonal state mechanisms for punishing criminals, and (g) creates a false link between vigilantism and Islam when there is no place in Islam for vigilantism.

How then has anything of value been accomplished then with extrajudicial violence? Rather, we're in loss and in advocating such a position become the architects of chaos.

format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam
My advice to them is nothing more than this:

"Do what you must."

See that ^ right there? Nothing incriminating in that statement. No extra-judicial violence in that statement. Nothing complicated in that statement. But, it is a statement made on a public forum understood by people who have understanding.

Everyone has to do what they have to do, don't they?

Like when the Jews wanted to incriminate Jesus, and challenged him on the issue of paying taxes to Caesar, he said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
:wa: (And peace be upon you)
Reply

jabeady
09-14-2016, 03:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Huzaifah ibn Adam
He intended to cause harm to her. He just wasn't able to do it. If he could, he'd happily have burnt her alive.
Tell me how you know this. How do you know he didn't just intend to scare or harass her? How do you know?
Reply

Search
09-14-2016, 03:31 AM
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Well, I don't think there is any way to know for a 100% sure. From what I understand, a prosecutor could theoretically go for either first degree assault or attempted murder with a specified offense of hate crime for the perpetrator. In New York, attempted murder is same level offense of assault in the first degree; so, I'd think a prosecutor would just go for the assault in the first degree with a specified offense of hate crime.

format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady
Tell me how you know this. How do you know he didn't just intend to scare or harass her? How do you know?
Reply

jabeady
09-14-2016, 03:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Search
:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Well, I don't think there is any way to know for a 100% sure. From what I understand, a prosecutor could theoretically go for either first degree assault or attempted murder with a specified offense of hate crime for the perpetrator. In New York, attempted murder is same level offense of assault in the first degree; so, I'd think a prosecutor would just go for the assault in the first degree with a specified offense of hate crime.
Precisely. A prosecutor will go for the most serious charge for which he is sure to get a conviction. The danger is in "over-charging." Remember, under the American system, once you are acquitted of a crime you can never be tried for it again. The prosecutor has to get it right the first time. A conviction for aggravated assault is generally easier to get than for attempted murder. It may well be that you charge him with attempted murder, he is acquitted and goes free, when a charge of assault would have put him in jail for a number of years.

The designation of a hate crime doesn't usually come into play until the sentencing phase. I *think* in most states the hate crime designation functions to double the sentence to be imposed.
Reply

cooterhein
09-14-2016, 05:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady
The designation of a hate crime doesn't usually come into play until the sentencing phase. I *think* in most states the hate crime designation functions to double the sentence to be imposed.
I looked up a couple of things just now. First, the hate crime designation according to New York state law.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article485.htm
From the Sentencing section.

"2. When a person is convicted of a hate crime pursuant to this article and the specified offense is a misdemeanor or a class C, D or E felony,
the hate crime shall be deemed to be one category higher than the
specified offense the defendant committed, or one category higher than
the offense level applicable to the defendant`s conviction for an
attempt or conspiracy to commit a specified offense, whichever is
applicable."
So it does depend on the exact category, but in this instance it looks like it could more than double the sentencing. As best I can tell, this is a Class D felony (within the specified set of categories) and the outcome will most likely look like this.
http://www.assaultandbattery.org/new-york/

"2nd Degree Assault

Slightly more serious than a 3rd degree assault charge, this offense is considered a Class D violent felony and generally carries a potential 7 year prison sentence. In addition, it carries the label of “convicted felon” for life."

Okay, so under strictly normal circumstances this would probably carry a 7 year sentence and a lifetime as a convicted felon. But if this is successfully tried as a hate crime, this would get bumped up from 2nd Degree Assault sentencing to 1st Degree Assault sentencing. So that would look like this.

"1st Degree Assault
The most serious of general assault charges, 1st degree assault is considered a Class B violent felony and typically carries up to 25 years in prison."

So that's 25 years instead of 7, although it may be worth mentioning that in both cases 7 is the maximum and 25 is the maximum. I'm not sure how likely it is for the maximum sentence to be the outcome, but there is potential for this to result in a tripling of jail time.

And of course it's worth asking, what if the offense was in the first degree to begin with? What would happen then, if it was a hate crime? That's covered a bit in the first source, notice that we switch categories from 2nd degree to 1st degree. We're going from a Class D felony at the 2nd degree to a Class B felony at the 1st degree. So according to that first link, we're looking at some sort of sliding scale on minimum sentencing but it doesn't mention anything about increasing the maximum, from what I can tell anyway. But hey, it's New York, this may be just a bit different in other states.

I suppose the good news is that this should be charged as a felony with significant jail time no matter which way it goes. I would be curious to see exactly what the burden of proof is when questioning if it's a hate crime, though. It was blatantly obvious that the woman was a Muslim, sort of like how it's blatantly obvious that a black person is black and a woman is a woman (some of the other hate crime categories). It was also a really odd attack that specifically targeted her clothing. These sorts of things can be suggestive of a certain type of targeting without necessarily having slam-dunk evidence such as anti-Muslim epithets that were shouted so everyone could hear. It's possible to make that argument, but I don't know how likely it is to work. This could be a rather interesting piece of legal precedent. They have to find the guy in order for this to happen though, so I guess we take it one thing at a time.
Reply

M.I.A.
09-14-2016, 07:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady
Tell me how you know this. How do you know he didn't just intend to scare or harass her? How do you know?
...a person makes an argument that is logical and objective.

it makes sense.

it poses moral and ethical questions.

and it's like taking a layer of an onion..


you my friend.. are still an onion.

if only one good post was followed by another.

the hell is wrong with you?

DD

the law and the application of law are two differing things..

probably..

or do only the innocent get defended by lawyers?
Reply

jabeady
09-14-2016, 05:02 PM
Sigh.

A person sets someone else's clothing on fire with a cigarette lighter, in the middle of a crowd. Is the intention to harass or to murder?

To *declare* that the intention is to murder, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening.

The poster making the declaration has demonstrated no knowledge of the attacker's thinking. The poster making the declaration has only made an accusation of attempted murder, and offered no evidence of intent. If this were to go to trial on this basis, it would certainly result in an acquittal. The attacker would go free, immune to further prosecution for this act.

However, if it is treated as an aggravated assault, the attacker's intention isn't so important, conviction is reasonably likely and, as a hate crime, punishment is significantly increased.

Which would be the smarter charge to make, aggravated assault or attempted murder?

Now, any talk about the law versus how it's enforced in this case has to include the *fact* that it is eligible to be treated as a hate crime, and probably will be if the attacker can be apprehended. The designation as a hate crime would be a tacit demonstration that American society regards physically attacking someone because of their gender and/or religion, regardless of intent, is particularly reprehensible. This would seem to be to American society's credit, and I don't understand why it should deserve criticism.

BTW, just as an aside, I once heard someone complain about hate crimes. Why, the person asked, should a crime be considered more serious because of who the victim was? It seemed to him to be just more damned political correctness. I responded by asking him what he wanted to do and who did he want to do it to? He never answered.

PS: If a person accuses another person of something, without providing evidence, then the accuser could very well be sued for libel or slander. As in science, in American law claims and accusations must be substantiated by evidence.
Reply

Serinity
09-14-2016, 05:07 PM
Oh yeah, some kid goes out with an AK-47 out in the street and kills 24 people..

We don't know the intention of the kid, it may have been an accident. Or perhaps he misfired. and wanted to test the gun.........

"To "declare" this as an intent to kill, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening. "

There is something called logical deduction ya know. One may rape 200 girls, but say "I just wanted to save them......" will the court be like "oh ok, just go to jail for 2 months, and be free".

If I kill 2000 people and say "I just wanted to test the gun, my intentions was not to kill people." will the court give any bugs about my intentions?

Fact is, he could have burned The Muslim woman, and who cares what his intentions were, if people let him be, he'd prob burn the Muslim Woman. we see at what COULD have happened rather than "BUT did he INTEND IT?"

With liars come holes. :) so if the guy lies, one can technically find out by psychologically manipulating the guy. :
Reply

M.I.A.
09-14-2016, 05:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady
Sigh.

A person sets someone else's clothing on fire with a cigarette lighter, in the middle of a crowd. Is the intention to harass or to murder?

To *declare* that the intention is to murder, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening.

The poster making the declaration has demonstrated no knowledge of the attacker's thinking. The poster making the declaration has only made an accusation of attempted murder, and offered no evidence of intent. If this were to go to trial on this basis, it would certainly result in an acquittal. The attacker would go free, immune to further prosecution for this act.

However, if it is treated as an aggravated assault, the attacker's intention isn't so important, conviction is reasonably likely and, as a hate crime, punishment is significantly increased.

Which would be the smarter charge to make, aggravated assault or attempted murder?

Now, any talk about the law versus how it's enforced in this case has to include the *fact* that it is eligible to be treated as a hate crime, and probably will be if the attacker can be apprehended. The designation as a hate crime would be a tacit demonstration that American society regards physically attacking someone because of their gender and/or religion, regardless of intent, is particularly reprehensible. This would seem to be to American society's credit, and I don't understand why it should deserve criticism.

BTW, just as an aside, I once heard someone complain about hate crimes. Why, the person asked, should a crime be considered more serious because of who the victim was? It seemed to him to be just more damned political correctness. I responded by asking him what he wanted to do and who did he want to do it to? He never answered.

PS: If a person accuses another person of something, without providing evidence, then the accuser could very well be sued for libel or slander. As in science, in American law claims and accusations must be substantiated by evidence.

...I didn't read your post.. just the first few lines.


if a person sets fire to your house..

how do you define the maximum punishment?


it's probably if there were people in it at the time.


probably :/


it's not a murder investigation.

but if the person ended up on life support..

it would be some equivalent of attempted murder.


..but should the punishment reflect the crime or the outcome of the crime?

depends on what deterrent the law wants to be..

who serves life for multiple shoplifting?
Reply

jabeady
09-14-2016, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity
Oh yeah, some kid goes out with an AK-47 out in the street and kills 24 people..

We don't know the intention of the kid, it may have been an accident. Or perhaps he misfired. and wanted to test the gun.........

"To "declare" this as an intent to kill, you have to not only *have knowledge* of what the attacker is thinking, you also have to *assume* that the attacker is counting on the people in the crowd to ignore what is happening. "

There is something called logical deduction ya know. One may rape 200 girls, but say "I just wanted to save them......" will the court be like "oh ok, just go to jail for 2 months, and be free".

If I kill 2000 people and say "I just wanted to test the gun, my intentions was not to kill people."

Fact is, he could have burned The Muslim woman, and who cares what his intentions were, if people let him be, he'd prob burn the Muslim Woman. we see at what COULD have happened rather than "BUT did he INTEND IT?"
I'm missing something. How are the two cases equivalent? There would seem to be a difference between an AK47 and a cigarette lighter.
Reply

Serinity
09-14-2016, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady
I'm missing something. How are the two cases equivalent? There would seem to be a difference between an AK47 and a cigarette lighter.
unless the guy was mentally ill, I can not see it other than it being intentional for the guy to burn.. Remember, one can use a fork for murder.......
Reply

jabeady
09-14-2016, 08:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Serinity
unless the guy was mentally ill, I can not see it other than it being intentional for the guy to burn.. Remember, one can use a fork for murder.......
You don't need any weapon at all to commit murder. But my argument is that murder is a serious charge to make, and it requires serious evidence. Doesn't Islam teach that "Thou shalt not bear false witness," to borrow a phrase?
Reply

Serinity
09-14-2016, 09:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady
You don't need any weapon at all to commit murder. But my argument is that murder is a serious charge to make, and it requires serious evidence. Doesn't Islam teach that "Thou shalt not bear false witness," to borrow a phrase?
what do you mean by "borrow a phrase".

Indeed we shall hold onto Justice, even if it be against our own selves, etc.

we don't know whether it was intentional or not, but doesn't excuse him from what he did.
Reply

jabeady
09-14-2016, 09:35 PM
"To borrow a phrase" means to use someone else's words as your own. In this case, I was
"borrowing" the 6th(?) Commandment.

And no, it doesn't excuse him. I have neither the desire nor intention of excusing him. However, he can *and should* only be punished for what he actually did, and not for what others *think* he was doing.
Reply

Futuwwa
09-15-2016, 12:33 AM
Somehow I suspect the guy with the lighter didn't really think things through. His actual chances of either causing significant damage, or getting away with it, were rather small. I suspect it was just a random bigot who happened to be suitably annoyed in the moment without really thinking it through.
Reply

jabeady
09-15-2016, 01:34 AM
I agree. The thread took the situation to a ridiculous extreme.

In other news, an arrest has been made in the arson of the Orlando Islamic center/mosque, whatever.
Reply

m.riz
09-15-2016, 01:38 AM
Hate crime :o
Reply

M.I.A.
09-15-2016, 01:01 PM
I'd like to talk about terrorism and in particular ISIS for a moment..

it's semi relevant.

it seems to me that isis have it fundamentally wrong in approach..

all they have done is let loose anarchy to those open to it.

let's take the example of smoking..

isis have beheaded people for the crime.

it has been fundamentally labeled haram.

...weather it is or not is another matter.. but let's take it as example.

if you look towards the west.. smoking is becoming increasingly not tolerated.

it has become illegal to smoke in places of work, public buildings..as well as other places.

it has become heavily taxed by the government..

the cynic would say it's a money making scheme.

the scientist would say it's to pay for subsequent health care.

what would the Muslim say?

there is still freedom to choose the wrong action.. but it is heavily penalised..

it is by modern equivalent the western jizya..

and it is irrespective of any claimed allegiance.

you could say that in the secularist society it has very little to do with faith or God..

and yet it becomes more of an intolerant action.

it is ironic that the faithless implement rule better than those that would turn you away from them or worse.

it's just a concept, feel free to disregard or scrutinise.
Reply

Scimitar
09-16-2016, 02:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady

epic... my guess it Titan didn't have the strength to pull it out himself :D the irony :D

Scimi
Reply

Scimitar
09-16-2016, 02:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Somehow I suspect the guy with the lighter didn't really think things through. His actual chances of either causing significant damage, or getting away with it, were rather small. I suspect it was just a random bigot who happened to be suitably annoyed in the moment without really thinking it through.
Grown men with the IQ of 6 year olds should not be allowed near combustible substances, period.

Scimi
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-23-2008, 06:32 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2008, 07:56 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-30-2007, 03:06 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 04:22 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!