Comments on: A convert speaks

By: Arthur Dent

Arthur Dent — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:13:20 +0000

I have responded to Juan Golbado's post in the original topic.

By: Chris Baldwin

Chris Baldwin — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:40:59 +0000

Isn’t regarding Qaradawi as a representative of muslim Britons about as sensible as taking the Bishop of Cracow as a representative of catholic Britons? Irrespective of what they actually believe. If Ken wants to talk to a representative of the former group surely someone elected by them to represent them would be far more appropriate.

By: Dave F

Dave F — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:00:13 +0000

Mr Smith appears, from his post, to believe Muslims are exempt from British law. They are not. It is a criminal offence to beat your wife or anyone else. Likewise gay-bashing. Really, you cannot choose to live within the conveniences of a secular open society and simultaneously pretend you are entitled to apply the norms of a mediaeval ghetto.

By: Dave F

Dave F — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:00:09 +0000

By: Schulz

Schulz — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:17:15 +0000

He obviously thinks the Muslim conference he hosted is more important.
I guess Evangelical Christians need to (re)introduce stoning as a basic principle of their belief system to reach this level of relevance for Mr Livingstone.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:41:58 +0000

No I don’t think he would host such a conference. He obviously thinks the Muslim conference he hosted is more important.

By: David T

David T — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:57:21 +0000

So you think that if he were invited to host such a conference he’d agree?

Not analogous because they’re politicians?

OK then, if Christian evangelicals wanted him to host a conference on “The Family”, would he do it? Would he spend £4000 of my money on defending his conduct?

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:46:26 +0000

If Livingstone wanted to have a debate on, say, the proper controls of immigration into the United Kingdom, and invited representatives of the Monday Club, UKIP, Veritas, and the BNP to participate

Not an analogous situation.

Livingstone opened the conference the conference, but did not direct the debate or pick who took part. The conference was organised by Muslims and many Muslims took part, of varying views.

By: David T

David T — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:46:14 +0000

But when I read Yusuf Smith’s site I do find it raises so many questions I’d love to know the answer to.

For example, a female reader of the article discussed above refers to an article which suggests “in Arabic the word which means ‘to beat’ can also be as validly interpreted as ‘to separate’ thus giving rise to the possibility that the separation of husband and wife may have been the correct interpretation all along”

Yusuf Smith’s response is as follows:

“This is the first time I have heard this and it sounds far-fetched to me. If a man first counsels, then separates in bed from, and then beats his wife, and she still does not come round, then arbitrators are called in. This may lead to separation. So I don’t see why beating should mean separation”

I mean, sure, there are loads of men who beat their wives of all ethnicities and beliefs. Some feel ashamed about doing it. Some justify it on the basis that “she was asking for it”.

But what about Yusuf Smith? How do you get from, you know, worrying about the environment and global inequality – other themes of his blog, which I assume he’s always worried about – to solemnly reciting god’s supposed instructions on the precise stage at which you’re supposed to knock your old lady about?

By: Logan3

Logan3 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:56:52 +0000

Sorry…