This is a particularly foolish comment, given that no one is actually making any similar argument.
They both appear to have been fitted up something cruel – and Anne was also done on a dubious charge of plotting to kill Henry, since mere adultery wasn’t high treason and therefore executable – but the point is, I guess, that Henry didn’t want merely divorce by axe but judicial murder for its own sake.
Well, what fucking argument are they making? Sixteenth century English kings? Sociopathic murderers? Were any of these people trying to “balance negative portrayals” of themselves and their kin?
It has been said that there are two kinds of racism: (1) singling out a person based on race or ethnicity, and (2) refusing to single out a person because of his race or ethnicity. It appears to me that there are some people engaged in number 2 — in full squat mode, complete with squints and grunts.
If you want to call out Christians who kill in the name of Jesus, then open a fucking thread. But don’t use references to them to defend Muslims who kill in the name of Allah. That’s just purely stupid in its conception.
Except that my point has been explicitly that there has been no evidence that the husband in this case relied upon an appeal to Allah or Islam. I agree that a lot of the posts in this thread have been off track, but I am more concerned about baseless attacks than baseless defenses.
The implication by several posters has been that Islam is ripe for scrutiny because one Muslim nutcase did bad things without even associating his evil with his religion while I have found examples of other nutcases of different, (or no), religions doing the same thing (for, apparently, much the same reasons).
He associated his whole being with it when he launched his station. It was the whole point — to put people who mistrusted his religion at ease.
Reported for threatening death in the subject line.
okay, not really. Annie did mention death, and addressed it to “you,” which shows more bravery than I’m currently capable of.
God, I hadn’t even thought of that, PRR. I suppose it’s possible for this thread to be declared too close to the line.
At least he commuted her sentence from burning at the stake to beheading. ;)Hell he even had a specialist shipped in from France to behead her with a sword.
You have a valid point… but still.
As an Irishman, if I started a tv station to dispel myths and prejudices about the Irish and then I decided to kill my wife, you have to admit that it would be pretty ironic if I chose to off her by whacking her in the head with a shillelagh.
As an American, he should have just shot her, or taken her out in his boat and thrown her overboard.
Or run her over with his Big Foot Truck!!!11!!! (Then thrown her overboard his boat.)
However, beheading is not a religious function of Islam. Only a single murky verse in the Koran even mentions striking the neck–and only in battle. It has been used by terrorists as a demonstration of contempt for the victim and it is employed (on occasion) in Saudi Arabia and Iran as a cultural artifact of those specific societies, but it has no explicit connection to Islam as Islam.
Linking beheading, (employed by Christians as often as Muslims and even more frequently by Buddhists and Confucianists), with Islam would be rather like linking castration to Christianity via Galatians, 5:12.
From the story linked in the OP:
Great job you’re doing of that… :smack:
While you are fully accurate, you are still actually wrong.
This man started his station to dispel misconceptions concerning Islam (well, probably to make a lot of money was the real reason.)
He killed his wife in such a manner as to perpetuate a misconception. You’re pointing out that it is, in fact, a misconception really doesn’t do anything to counterract the irony of the situation because it is a commonly held one, and he has just reinforced it significantly.
The same logic that thinks beheading is Islamic in nature would be more logically justified in thinking that Travis the Chimp who ripped off his owners hands must have been a Muslim who thought his owner stole something and was therefore delivering theological justice. Actually, that would make more sense.
But that’s the way with misconceptions.
On this particular web site, however, I would (futilely) hope that the error was perceived as the error it is.
In truth, you are probably well justified in taking pains to point it out.
How on earth did he cut her head off at work? This is a quite difficult undertaking. It’s difficult to imagine being able to follow through with it, even in a rage.
You’ve got to be kidding. This was simply a crime of passion. Hence the messiness and negative publicity. About on par witht OJ murder of his wife.
In the breakroom with a cleaver?
There is no way, IMHO, that this was simply a “crime of passion.” Whatever the legal definition, in a rage you would do something instinctual to harm another person. BEHEADING THEM IS NOT INSTINCTUAL. There is no fucking way we evolved a tendency to behead those we love. Such a gene would not survive in the gene pool. Beat the shit out of them, sure, but beheading someone is as premeditated as it gets.
Well there are plenty of Muslim and Muslim scholars who would disagree with you. Even allowing for your chosen translation of the Koranic verse in question, the Prophet actually had 700 Jews beheaded, not in battle, but for allegedly plotting against him.
Now thats just silly if not downright incorrect. I suggest you read your bible again. Galations 5:12 is part a Pauline put down of circumcision for Christians suggesting that those Jewish Christians who want to maintain the tradition can go castrate themselves.
Now there are some Christians who have taken Matthew 19:12 to heart. There is a indication there that self castration may lead to the kingdom of heaven, even though it is not even remotely called for and there is no history that suggests Jesus mutilated Himself.