Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Three asians jailed for life

26 replies

speedymama · 24/11/2005 18:30

Saw this
As a black person, I always say that there is good and bad in all races because there are a lot of people out there who are happy to condemn a group of people for the actions of a few.
This was a wicked crime and demonstrates the depths that hateful people will sink. Racist people of all races are a stain on humanity.

OP posts:
starlover · 24/11/2005 18:44

apparently they were cleared of being racist though because they had attacked other people, of all races, the same day....

Caligyulea · 24/11/2005 18:47

I am so schocked that the minimum sentence for this is 15 years. These are young men. They'll be out while they're still reasonably young, and yet they've murdered someone. When the death penalty for murder was abolished, no-one said that murderers would only serve fifteen or twenty years in jail, it was assumed that they would serve most of their life.

donnie · 24/11/2005 19:09

what a terrible crime, so brutal. I also feel that 15 years is a paltry price to pay, as Caliyulea says they are young men and will be my age ( approx) when they are released !
Life should mean life.They are vile and disgusting murderers.
I notice the BBC report said they had been drinking all day - wonder if the new licensing regulations will contribute to higher drink-fuelled crime. The met has already said they believ it will.

peacedove · 24/11/2005 19:55

indeed it was a wicked crime.

and yes, the drinking is a problem. There should be less of a substance that brings out the animal in one.

slug · 25/11/2005 10:27

Err, but peacedove, these men are Muslim. Is not drinking already banned for them?

zippitippitoes · 25/11/2005 10:41

A further shocking aspect of this story was that if they had only attacked this man then they would have considered it a racist crime and their sentence could have been longer, BUT

because they attacked others on the same day who weren't white then it wasn't considered racist so their sentence was shorter

so they actually benefitted from attacking more people

Caligyulea · 25/11/2005 10:45

I don't understand the Judge's logic there. Does he really think that racists have some sort of "honour among theives" mentality, where they'll only viciously attack members of one race, and when confronted with members of another race will say "Ah, I won't attack you, because you're on point 3 of my racism scale, and I only attack people on point 5 and above, you don't fit my criteria".

Bloody ridiculous.

peacedove · 25/11/2005 11:52

slug: "Err, but peacedove, these men are Muslim. Is not drinking already banned for them?"

True, slug. If we Muslims practiced what is our deen, our way of life, as told in the Quran and the Sunnah, we wouldn't be committing crimes, and the world will know how wonderful the religion is that we claim to profess.

slug · 25/11/2005 14:28

please don't get me started quoting the Quran peacedove on the subject of peace and Islam. Can I refer you to this discussion?

wessexgirl · 25/11/2005 14:35

Seeing as the judge decided that this was not a racist crime, why are the perpetrators persistently described in headlines as '3 Asian men'? Why not just '3 men'?

Prufrock · 25/11/2005 14:43

Because it was so obviously a racist crime. They were shouting "we killed the white man" afterwards ffs. Just because the judge had to not classify it as racist because they had attacked people of more than one race (and that's a legislative point that needs urgent amendment) doesn't mean their real motive wasn't racist

Prufrock · 25/11/2005 14:44

And I do actually applaud the media for once (well most of the media) for referring to them as Asian rather than muslim.

peacedove · 25/11/2005 14:52

slug: "please don't get me started quoting the Quran peacedove on the subject of peace and Islam."

I won't ask then, slug. In another thread you said you were genuinely interested in learning why Muslim women covered. I now see that you have studied Islam so as to quote selectively the verses without the context in which they were revealed.

Blu · 25/11/2005 14:52

I am a bit mystified as to why a completely viscious and purposeless murder is worse if it is deemed racist. Viscious and purposeless murder is viscious and purposeless murder.

It is interesting to know how race is implicated in all sorts of aspects of society - and it is important to recognise where racism needs to be challenged, but I can't see that a non-racist murder should attract a lighter sentence than a racist murder - that someone has been senselessly killed should be the ultimate and over-riding factor.

Pinotmum · 25/11/2005 14:53

THis happened very close to where I live. The victim had seen a female friend to a bus stop (after celebrating a friend's birthday) in the early hours of the morning to make sure she got home safely and on his way home this happened. In the local paper report someone apparently said they heard something "like a football being kicked" and then his body was found and it seems it was his head they had heard being kicked

peacedove · 25/11/2005 14:55

And slug, this murder has nothing to with Islam, and if you want to prove that it has, please feel free to do so.

Neither does the story that you have linked to have anything to do with Islam.

slug · 25/11/2005 15:57

Oh sorry, I thought that fact that the adubdction, rape and killing of the women were ordered by the mullahs had some connection to religion.

Sorry, without wanting to get into a discussion and hijak this thread. Yes, I have read the Quran. I can't see how quoting only the 'Islam is a peaceful religion' bits (please, I'd like to know where they are) is any less selective than pointing out the less favourable bits. If it's any consolation, I'm just as sceptical about any belief system, it's not just Islam.

HRHQoQ · 25/11/2005 16:05

Sorry slight thread hijack - funny how Islam is often referred to by as a 'non' peaceful religion - while the Bible has some equally "violent" bits in it - seemingly some as instructions to Christians..........until you read it in context.

I think, unfortunately, it happens with most things in life - people pick out the bits that on their own make dreadful reading (as a Christian "Woman should submit to their husbands" verse springs to mind) - without thinking about the context in which they were written).

I haven't read anywhere that these men were Muslim - so TBH I'm not sure why this debate about Islam as come into the thread Confused.

slug · 25/11/2005 16:13

I work round that way. My students tell me they are, they come from the same community and know their families

Caligyulea · 25/11/2005 16:14

I agree with Blu actually, I don't think the law should police thought, only action.

Murder is murder, whatever the reasons, and the sentence should be the same whatever the motive.

slug · 25/11/2005 16:14

What? You mean the bit about beating your wife with a stick 'no thicker than your thumb?'

HRHQoQ · 25/11/2005 16:14

So? they come from a Muslim family - doesn't mean that they are Muslims - look at the Census in this country - how many people label themselves "Christians" but don't believe a word of it and only go to church for the Matches, Hatches and Dispatches?????

HRHQoQ · 25/11/2005 16:16

and where exactly in the bible does it say that a man should beat his wife??????

peacedove · 26/11/2005 07:03

This is a very, very, simplified version of why Mullahs sanction things that are forbidden in Islam.

Who are the Mullahs?

There is no ordained clergy in Sunni Islam, by which is meant that anyone can study Islam. Since we are far removed from the days of the prophet (saw). the correct interpretation would involve learning the language (as understood in those times), history and context of revelation of specific verses, and the practice of the prophet and his companions.

There is no ordained clergy in Islam. But in effect it exists among the shia, and used to be among those sunnis who follow the fiqh of one of the (four) Mujtahideen. Also among the sufis there is an oath to obey their sufi leader.

What happened was that since the distances were great, people came to rely on those locally resident who studied the sharia. Many communities were greatly isolated, and gradually their practices became ivergent from the mainstream, or extraneous elements entered their practice, and became sanctified because some religious figure had been seen doing them.

People forgot that they could lead the prayers; they even forgot the meanings of the verses, so they appointed someone who would lead them in prayers. They forgot Arabic, so they appointed Qaris to teach reading the Quran to their children.

They forgot the rulings of basic duties, so they came to rely more and more on those who had more knowledge than themselves, however deficient these themselves were.

In wanting to be saved, they accepted mystics as leaders. These mystics, or sufis, had denied themselves many pleasures, and had acquired some supernatural powers. These sufis then became the virtual rulers of these communities.

After the fall of Baghdad, the religious scholars came to the conclusion that this disaster had befallen the Ummah because of internal strife among the Muslims, caused by free interpretation, so the conditions for scholars to make Ijtihad were tightened.

Thus a door that was considered leading to more divisions of fiqh, was closed.

At one time the Mullahs were learned, and could undrstand and argue intelligently. The state of knowledge of Mullahs isn't always very high these days. In villages the Mullah or sufi pir (leader) is often in league with the local landlord or local political leader, so often the practice is not Islamic, but a tradition of that community.

When a village council, or village Mullah issues a verdict, we discount it, but the community in which they are living does take their word to be true.

Please remember this difference. The verdicts that are issued by the Mullas are not always those of true schoalrs of Islam.

It is a problem of educating our people, and freeing them from the local landlords and local pirs.

peacedove · 26/11/2005 07:37

with the influx of villagers to the cities, the village Mullah now h a very powerful presence in the cities, too.

There was another eason I had not listed. Colonialism bred a lot of resentment, and many religious leaders became leaders in the political and military struggle to free their people. Their focus on this liberation became far more pronounced than social problems within the community.