Turkey protesters hold Istanbul square after days of violent clashes

revolt of the dogs what can I say:

[video=youtube;xqYU2inH3wA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xqYU2inH3wA#![/video]
 
why do they use such terms as 'pathetically mended' they never have any kindness or gentleness in mannerism. The news is always meant to incite some emotion in you and always of the hateful, disdainful look down upon sort..
Many a well dressed people in this world will hardly have any garment on that day mended or not!
la3an Allah alkuffar wazhlahoum fi dounia wal'akhira..
I can never read anything by them and feel impartiality or just mere passive transmission of news :raging:
 
العنود;1586186 said:
why do they use such terms as 'pathetically mended' they never have any kindness or gentleness in mannerism. The news is always meant to incite some emotion in you and always of the hateful, disdainful look down upon sort..
Many a well dressed people in this world will hardly have any garment on that day mended or not!
la3an Allah alkuffar wazhlahoum fi dounia wal'akhira..
I can never read anything by them and feel impartiality or just mere passive transmission of news :raging:
Click to expand...

I think you are reading too much into it. It clear says "if the wearer be very poor" that the veil may be "pathetically mended", not that it is always pathetically mended.

Also keep in mind this article is from 1921, and language is not static. Even now the primary dictionary definition of "pathetic" means "arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion", not arousing "arousing scornful pity". In fact, apparently the latter meaning only surfaced for the first time in 1937, more than 15 years after the article.

1590s, "affecting the emotions, exciting the passions," from Middle French pathétique "moving, stirring, affecting" (16c.), from Late Latin patheticus, from Greek pathetikos "subject to feeling, sensitive, capable of emotion," from pathetos "liable to suffer," verbal adjective of pathein "to suffer" (see pathos). Meaning "arousing pity, pitiful" is first recorded 1737. Colloquial sense of "so miserable as to be ridiculous" is attested from 1937. Related: Pathetical (1570s); pathetically. Pathetic fallacy (1856, first used by Ruskin) is the attribution of human qualities to inanimate objects.
http://etymonline.com/?term=pathetic
Click to expand...
 
Lol at your attempt to water this down in fact the language and action has only evolved to worse since don't you think? If that was attempt at good now a days between caricatures and frank abuse, invasion and yes vile language just the same. Does make your attempt up there all the more sincere- those were the days after all when beaches were closed to 'dogs and Arabs'

Best,
 
Jedi_Mindset said:
Well turkey is a islamic country, majority muslims, wouldnt it be wise to apply some islamic laws then?
Click to expand...
　
"Some"?
How about Muslim laws for Muslims and other laws for non-muslims?
 
Logikon said:
"Some"?
How about Muslim laws for Muslims and other laws for non-muslims?
Click to expand...
Is that how the law works? I guess it does in the west. Gitmo for instance for Muslims while a small hotel room for Anders Behring Breivik.

You guys are a funny bunch!
 
Logikon said:
　
"Some"?
How about Muslim laws for Muslims and other laws for non-muslims?
Click to expand...

Doesnt work that way, none country ever done that if non-muslims want to drink, party et cetera, they can go on holiday to a non-muslim country. westerners always talk about 'respecting the law of the country' well if you enter a muslim country you need to follow their laws. I am a dutch muslim and i respect the laws here unless some of these goes against my religion.
 
Jedi_Mindset said:
Doesnt work that way, none country ever done that if non-muslims want to drink, party et cetera, they can go on holiday to a non-muslim country. westerners always talk about 'respecting the law of the country' well if you enter a muslim country you need to follow their laws.
Click to expand...
Sounds simple in principle, but in practice this is not so easy. In a western country everyone can choose to drink, or not to drink. Muslim or non Muslim. Whereas in some Muslim countries, no one can drink. So it's not really equal treatment you're asking for here...

Also, although Turkey is today no longer the cosmopolitan place it once was, and almost everyone is Muslim, many of those Muslims feel it's ok to drink and other haram practices. You may say 'in that case they're not really Muslims' - but in that case, Turkey is also far from a 98% Muslim country...
 
Logikon said:
　
"Some"?
How about Muslim laws for Muslims and other laws for non-muslims?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, that's how Shariah works, Non-Muslims go by their own laws, but in highly Muslim populated area's, although they still go by their own laws, in the public sphere they have to follow Shariah (ie. No drinking alcohol in public, even though this would be ok in a pub or at home). They're also tried by their own courts, unless the crime involves a Muslim, in which case Shariah courts would take precedence.

But in area's that mainly have a Non-Muslim population, then historically, they were just left to mind their own business with the tax (jizya) collector coming every once in a while.

All this is contrary to democracy where the rule of the majority applies to everyone, even if they don't wish to follow those laws.
 
Perseveranze said:
All this is contrary to democracy where the rule of the majority applies to everyone, even if they don't wish to follow those laws.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is - see my post above. It's about freedom of access and choice.

(Although I agree with the rest of your post.)
 
Perseveranze said:
They're also tried by their own courts, unless the crime involves a Muslim, in which case Shariah courts would take precedence.
Click to expand...
Many of the Christians of Egypt prefer to seek Islamic courts especially with regards to their divorces, they don't find justice in their courts in fact which forces women to go back and remain married to abusive husbands or be a property of his should she run away. I think it is only humanitarian to have one court system that has justice for all than have them live under their own oppressive laws. Also what some consider 'freedom & choice' impinges on the rights of others. I personally had two very brilliant friends killed by a drunk driver. His freedom shouldn't override public good or the rights of others to life. They were two doctors who died, he was one loser who lived and got off with no punishment worthy of the crime he committed!

:w:
 
Last edited:
العنود;1586513 said:
His freedom shouldn't override public good or the rights of others to life.
Click to expand...
You are making a (non religious) argument for banning alcohol, Jedi is making a comparison between Islamic and western states in the way they apply laws - which is different.

The principle of fair application of laws could apply to anything including the way people dress, sexual equality etc.
 
Independent said:
You are making a (non religious) argument for banning alcohol, Jedi is making a comparison between Islamic and western states in the way they apply laws - which is different.
Click to expand...
Rather my argument stems from religion and the belief that the system :Allah::swt: placed for mankind is the only system that works and the only one with practical application that works for everyone. Those who dislike it only have criminal intent on the mind or rather prefer getting away with criminal behavior!


Independent said:
The principle of fair application of laws could apply to anything including the way people dress, sexual equality etc.
Click to expand...
This is filler, I don't see how it belongs here!

best,
 
I don't know what & who to believe... If only the media would show it as it is rather than take sides.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top