Comments on: Amla: A beer for your sainthood

By: infidel

infidel — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:15:28 +0000

@Azad, I notice an increasing flood of negative opinion about your faith on the net. Alone the eye-opening Geerd Wilders court case in the Netherlands with a worldwide audience will start an avalanche of wake-up calls. I’m afraid you are pushing a ‘product’ which becomes increasingly unpopular.

By: realist

realist — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:35:38 +0000

Religion was never dominant in my life until Islam enlightened me.
I fully embrace http://www.faithfreedom.org
Peace

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:56:07 +0000

@Riya
“Your warped speculation on what may lie beneath a Muslim woman’s veil is crude, bigoted and quite frankly, boorish”.
Because you don’t like my speculation doesn’t make it crude or bigoted. As stated in my previous post there of examples in the middle-east of muslims in niqab who have committed crimes far worse than bank robbery. Also some muslim men have been known to dress in niqab as a means to escape detection while involved in crimes. What do you think makes SA muslims any different merely because it hasn’t happened here yet.
Muslims have the right to wear the veil, but then they should have to remove it when they enter the bank, just as a motor-cyclist has to remove his helmet. It’s known as equal rights in some democracies.
People can manifest themselves in public however they wish, but then I also have the right to comment on their appearance, and even to ridicule it. The constitution doesn’t prevent me from offending people. If I think the niqab looks ridiculous I am entitled to my opinion. After all I think nuns look ridiculous too.
Of course there’s no rainbow nation where everybody respects everyone else. Try living in the real world not La-La Land.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:28:37 +0000

@Riya,
I too have the right to be free from other peoples’ religions. I also have the right to criticise other peoples’ expression of their religion in public spaces.
Muslims first of all are members of the umma. Only secondly are they South Africans, islam comes before country for muslims. Amla should have the right not to sport the SAB logo, but then he should be prepared to give up his place in the team, as his religious beliefs are being placed above that of the team. There should be no exceptions in a team. There are certain Christians who will not play for their country on a Sunday. Personally, I think they then should not represent the team at all.
I am not concerned with whether muslims have no qualms with the personal appearance of motorcyclists. My concern is that muslimsa are given privileges in a bank that does not apply to others. Just because a muslim covers herself does not mean they may not be a criminal. Now they may or may not be entering the bank for nefarious purposes, but why cannot the motorcyclist be granted the same privilege? A veil is no more a sign of morality and being law-abiding than is a motor-cycle helmet. After all women wearing the niqab have been known to blow themselves up, along with innocent people, in other parts of the world. A veil doesn’t make you moral.

By: Robard

Robard — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:43:04 +0000

@Fathima
No flawed reasoning, I’m afraid. Botha apologised for prejudging Amla to be a “spoiled brat” when it turned out that he was in fact a truly devout Muslim who remained humble and gracious under the most trying circumstances. Botha’s supposed lack of respect for teetotallers is neither here nor there.

By: Azad Essa

Azad Essa — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:54:36 +0000

@Lenny fair enough, even Marx would agree.

By: Robard

Robard — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:36:51 +0000

Azad, I’m sorry, but I fail to see the logic of your criticism. It is a matter of opinion whether a sportsman should be judged on his character as well as his performance. Botha apologizes for prejudging Amla’s character as well as ability, having taken offence at his exemption from wearing the logo. The rationale of the apology is precisely the baselesness of prejudgement.

Even if it is a given that sportsmen shouldn’t be judged on their character, then it is still not illogical to apologize – for precisely that reason. Or are you simply saying that Botha did not in fact commit any real ethical transgression worthy of apologising for?

By: Fathima

Fathima — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:49:03 +0000

He made an apology. How great. But let’s just see what the apology is based on, in the interest of understanding people and things better.

It is not meant to attack Botha or the sincerity of his apology but merely to expose the fact that people need to see this situation in a broader light.

The apology was based on a flawed reasoning. This is clear. ‘I support your decision now because your personality rocks’ is NOT the same as ‘I support your decision because I respect you for not wanting to promote alcohol’

The bottom line is – Anybody should be able to choose and be respected for not wanting to promote SAB…the humble, pious saint or the vile obnoxious racist. This should not matter.

By: Larry Goodfella

Larry Goodfella — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:48:14 +0000

Please guys, cricket is boring enough. Go brush up on your statistics and go huddle somewhere.

By: Lenny Appadoo

Lenny Appadoo — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:24:39 +0000

Hi Azad, religion on its own is not a bad thing. But the facts speak for themselves; it has caused much pain and suffering in this world. I’m not saying we should ban it (although that would be nice), but it has no place in the public sphere.