Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Director of "moderate" British Muslim advocacy group won't condemn stoning of women
Posted by:
#NotAllMuslims
()
Date: March 06, 2015 11:24AM
Cage director Asim Qureshi refuses to condemn stoning of adulterous women
This Week presenter Andrew Neil appears shocked at failure to refute Sharia law
Rosa Prince By Rosa Prince, Online Political Editor, Video source: BBC / This Week 10:15AM GMT 06 Mar 2015
The director of the Muslim rights group Cage has repeatedly refused to condemn the stoning of adulterous women by Islamic extremists.
Appearing on the BBC’s This Week programme, Asim Qureshi was asked about a series of positions advocated by a Muslim scholar he has described as a mentor, including female genital mutilation, domestic violence and the stoning to death of women found guilty of cheating on their husbands.
Last month, Mr Qureshi was criticised for describing Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State executioner known as Jihadi John, as a “beautiful young man”.
Pressed by Andrew Neil, the show’s presenter, to condemn a series of extreme positions, including claims that Jews are descended from pigs and homosexuality is evil.
He repeatedly refused to engage, saying: “I’m not a theologian.”
Pushed to take a stance, he said: “I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.”
Accusing him of using “weasel words,” Mr Neil put it to Mr Qureshi that he had in the past spoken in favour of Jihad and Sharia law.
He said: “As far as I am concerned, Sharia law isn’t practised correctly anywhere in the world.
“Jihad is part of the religion of Islam.”
He criticised MI5 and the security services, claiming they helped to radicalise young Muslim men by mistreating them.
Mr Qureshi was asked by Alan Johnson, the former Labour home secretary, if he believed that Emwazi was genuinely on safari when he was stopped by the security services on his way back from a trip to Africa.
He said he had no evidence to suggest he wasn’t, adding “They should not have stopped them.”
A visibly shocked Mr Johnson said: “This is what we are up against in terms of the ‘moderate front’.”
Michael Portillo, the former defence secretary and one of the show's regular guests, told Mr Qureshi: "I wonder what the hell the BBC is doing giving you all this airtime."
This Week presenter Andrew Neil appears shocked at failure to refute Sharia law
Rosa Prince By Rosa Prince, Online Political Editor, Video source: BBC / This Week 10:15AM GMT 06 Mar 2015
The director of the Muslim rights group Cage has repeatedly refused to condemn the stoning of adulterous women by Islamic extremists.
Appearing on the BBC’s This Week programme, Asim Qureshi was asked about a series of positions advocated by a Muslim scholar he has described as a mentor, including female genital mutilation, domestic violence and the stoning to death of women found guilty of cheating on their husbands.
Last month, Mr Qureshi was criticised for describing Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State executioner known as Jihadi John, as a “beautiful young man”.
Pressed by Andrew Neil, the show’s presenter, to condemn a series of extreme positions, including claims that Jews are descended from pigs and homosexuality is evil.
He repeatedly refused to engage, saying: “I’m not a theologian.”
Pushed to take a stance, he said: “I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.”
Accusing him of using “weasel words,” Mr Neil put it to Mr Qureshi that he had in the past spoken in favour of Jihad and Sharia law.
He said: “As far as I am concerned, Sharia law isn’t practised correctly anywhere in the world.
“Jihad is part of the religion of Islam.”
He criticised MI5 and the security services, claiming they helped to radicalise young Muslim men by mistreating them.
Mr Qureshi was asked by Alan Johnson, the former Labour home secretary, if he believed that Emwazi was genuinely on safari when he was stopped by the security services on his way back from a trip to Africa.
He said he had no evidence to suggest he wasn’t, adding “They should not have stopped them.”
A visibly shocked Mr Johnson said: “This is what we are up against in terms of the ‘moderate front’.”
Michael Portillo, the former defence secretary and one of the show's regular guests, told Mr Qureshi: "I wonder what the hell the BBC is doing giving you all this airtime."
Re: Director of "moderate" British Muslim advocacy group won't condemn stoning of women
Posted by:
EGDHx
()
Date: March 06, 2015 07:58PM
yes and in the USA we give women the ELECTRIC CHAIR
your first question is: what was the accusation
your first question is: what was the accusation
Re: Director of "moderate" British Muslim advocacy group won't condemn stoning of women
Posted by:
No moderate
()
Date: March 07, 2015 10:53AM
Muslims
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Director of "moderate" British Muslim advocacy group won't condemn stoning of women
Posted by:
libs hate America.
()
Date: March 07, 2015 10:58AM
Calling a Muslim moderate is like calling a lib an American. It just doesn't exist.
Re: Director of "moderate" British Muslim advocacy group won't condemn stoning of women
Posted by:
TJVLT
()
Date: March 07, 2015 11:25AM
as if anyone was listening to what their opion was anyhow
Re: Director of "moderate" British Muslim advocacy group won't condemn stoning of women
Posted by:
7bkjV
()
Date: March 07, 2015 11:29AM
marriage was a far different thing in the ancient past
there were more and stricter law about infidelity - and for good reasons
the laws protecting women were stronger in the Greek / Roman early law days than perhaps they are now. and in the USA when constitutional adherence lapse deeply after the 1929's corruption days - some judges got away with denying any legal rights to women
HOWEVER. that doesn't mean in the old days their laws were wrong. the reasons were different. people died and wars erupted when they weren't followed, thus the laws.
the penalty for a cheating wife had been DEATH. and at the time: the penalty for a cheating husband was: also DEATH.
there were more and stricter law about infidelity - and for good reasons
the laws protecting women were stronger in the Greek / Roman early law days than perhaps they are now. and in the USA when constitutional adherence lapse deeply after the 1929's corruption days - some judges got away with denying any legal rights to women
HOWEVER. that doesn't mean in the old days their laws were wrong. the reasons were different. people died and wars erupted when they weren't followed, thus the laws.
the penalty for a cheating wife had been DEATH. and at the time: the penalty for a cheating husband was: also DEATH.