Covering up women [Archive I]

Dr Rick

July 19, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by yguy
Attractive women have a psychological advantage over men, which is why such women tend not to get traffic tickets, for instance.

The general differences in the way men and women drive may play a role.

When women dress provocatively, they increase that advantage to the detriment of both men and women, as it encourages men to look at them as sex objects.

It is entirely possible, not mutually exclusive, and infact quite normal and healthy, to be sexually attracted to someone and also respect that person as a person. Good relationships are founded upon sexual attraction and respect, not just one or the other. What yguy terms "provocative" may likely be what many healthy men consider attractive.

There's nothing wrong with male sexuality, and it's hardly a weakness. I like seeing attractively-dressed women, and I never rape any of them.

Burqas are obviously going way too far in a misguided attemt to protect men from their own weakness, but western civilization has gone way too far in the opposite direction, in my view.

So attraction to women is a male weakness, yet on other threads it's been made quite clear that yguy considers male attraction to males a perversion.

Gosh, what's a righteous boy to do? Talk about your no-win situation...

I have no problem with any of this. However, if men did start to overcome these weaknesses on their own, many women who use their sexuality as a weapon would be disempowered. That kind of woman has a vested interest in maintaining her advantage - even to her own detriment.

"Maintaining her advantage...to her own detriment".

George Orwell would be proud. It's really not clear what yguy is advocating here, but I have a really bad feeling that it's neither pleasant, normal, nor natural.

That children are thus dressed makes me wonder if there are repressed pedophilic urges in Islamic men which they're trying to apply the same solution to that as they do to their weakness for women. Just a thought.

On other threads, we've seen attempts to somehow connect homosexuality with pedophilia, but here we have an attempt to connect a religion to it.

If homosexuality is connected to pedophilia, and Islamic men are repressing pedophilic urges, then these men must have some connection to homosexuality, which would make the wearing of Burqas by women to protect them from the lust of males unnecessary, afterall. :D

beth

July 19, 2003, 09:43 PM

Yguy, your post sounds rather sexist to me. Perhaps a guy should act like a man instead of being a brute, he should, instead, go wack off in a corner somewhere if he can't control himself. She still isn't to blame.

NonContradiction

July 19, 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Brahma's atheist
This may be a bit incoherent but I just hate misogyny and institutional misogyny. It gets me so mad

Your post is a little incoherent, therefore, I ask the following question: Are you equating Islam with institutional misogyny? If so, then I don't think that you have proved your point.

yguy

July 19, 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by blondegoddess
Yguy, your post sounds rather sexist to me. Perhaps a guy should act like a man instead of being a brute, he should, instead, go wack off in a corner somewhere if he can't control himself.

Have I said otherwise? As far as I'm concerned, rape should be a capital crime, whether the victim wore a slutskirt or a nun's habit.

She still isn't to blame.

I don't think one can properly make a blanket statement to that effect. I'm not sure one can do so for any adult victim of any crime, for that matter.

NonContradiction

July 19, 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by YGuy
Burqas are obviously going way too far in a misguided attemt to protect men from their own weakness, but western civilization has gone way too far in the opposite direction, in my view.

Originally posted by Dr. Rick
So attraction to women is a male weakness

I don't see how you got from point A to point B here. Where did he say in the above post that attraction to women is a male weakness? Moreover, you didn't address the point that he was raising, namely, has Western society gone too far?

yguy

July 19, 2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't see how you got from point A to point B here. Where did he say in the above post that attraction to women is a male weakness?

He doesn't usually get much of what I say right, but he pretty much got that right. Men, to varying degrees, have the weakness of tending to look at women as objects of sexual gratification, as the NOW crowd pointed out decades ago.

Buddrow_Wilson

July 19, 2003, 11:13 PM

A provocatively dressed women is as much partially to blame for being raped as someone who is murdered for making a rude gesture would be partially to blame. You can argue that the action 'provoked' the act to some extent, but to assign blame to the victim is grossly inappropriate imo.

Timberline

July 19, 2003, 11:29 PM

In my opinion, people who oppose Islamic values simply wish to push their own morality onto Muslims.

Well, yes. In this instance, the values being 'pushed' are empathy for others and 'treat others the way you'd like to be treated.'

The problem with traditional Islamic dress is that it makes many healthy outdoor activities, sports and games impossible or impractical--or, at the very least, so uncomfortable that no one would want to do them.

I love the outdoors. I like to hike, rock climb, bicycle, swim, play tennis, feel the breeze on a summer day, and wear comfortable, sensible clothes in hot weather. Would I want to be forbidden from doing these things? No. Therefore, I shouldn't forbid women from doing these things.

Seems simple enough. Unfortunately, whole Muslim countries and communities, plus backward pockets of Christianity, still don't get that simple concept. Hard to believe this is 2003.

Daleth

July 20, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Moreover, you didn't address the point that he was raising, namely, has Western society gone too far? What exactly might you consider "going too far"?

MollyMac

July 20, 2003, 05:46 AM

Well said Timberline. Forcing people to wear clothes which are hellishly uncomfortable, making them view the outside world through a burkha (anyone ever tried this?) under threat of punishment - beatings, imprisonment, ostracism - is a matter of cruelty. How does one justify this cruelty?

The discussion of rape on this thread seems to have focussed on the stereotypical rape victim as an attractive young woman. My experience as a Victim Support worker suggests otherwise and I'd like to try and show why we reject the term 'sex crime'. We feel it perpetuates the myth that rape is a result of men not being able to control themselves in the presence of female beauty. This is a myth which is very pervasive and very dangerous - I believe it has been responsible for countless aquittals of rapists in English courts.

Over an eight year period I worked with hundreds of rape victims. A minority were attractive young women and not one of them had been immodestly dressed by Western standards at the time of the assault. This might sound awful but if you had seen what some of these women looked like you would have been amazed:

A five foot tall, 200 lb woman aged 50 and with learning difficulties was frogmarched over a mile to her home (a single rented room) by a stranger who then raped and tortured her.

A widow in her 70s was found asleep in her bed by a burglar. He dragged her to the floor, stripped and raped her then covered her with the mattress from her bed and jumped up and down on it until he thought she was dead. (The thing that really haunted this woman afterwards was the fact that she'd been married 50 years and her husband had never seen her completely naked but her rapist - a kid of about 20 - had).

A woman in her 80s was forced by a stranger to suck off and swallow. Her attacker then stabbed her vagina with a knife and sliced through her perineum. She recovered surprisingly well from her physical injuries but I've not doubt the trauma of the experience hastened her death some months later.

I would add that in the majority of rape cases I've seen, some attempt at anal penetration was made.

The only thing that made these victims attractive was their extreme vulnerability and the ease with which they could be dominated and abused - that's how their attackers got their kicks. And this horrendous cruelty and disregard for the humanity of their victims is why we prefer the term 'hate crime'.

Goober

July 20, 2003, 07:54 AM

Shouldn't women have the right to dress provocatively, or indeed any way they want. If you think that western society has "gone too far", do you think the freedom to dress as you please should be taken away from them?

But this is what happens is some muslim countries. As I understand, the really fundamentalist muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have legislation that FORCES women to cover themselves. Do you (meritocrat) seriously think that this just as moral as western values that allow freedom in this area?

As a side note, I've also heard that it leads to a very high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among women as the body needs sunlight to synthesise vitamin D.

Finally, yguy:

He doesn't usually get much of what I say right, but he pretty much got that right. Men, to varying degrees, have the weakness of tending to look at women as objects of sexual gratification, as the NOW crowd pointed out decades ago.

Do you think that men in societies where the women are forced to wear head to toe clothing don't have the same weakness?

Dr Rick

July 20, 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
...has Western society gone too far?

Did Polynesian, Tahitian, and Native American societies "go to far"?

Many Western societies have "gone too far" in oppressing women and human sexuality, though some Muslim-dominated societies have done much worse.

Notably absent from the "let's cover-up women and tell them how to dress to protect them from rape" argument is the lack of evidence to support such an effort or any refutation of the evidence against such an endeavor.

There is no reliable evidence that covering women from head to toe will decrease the incidence of rape, and that's because rape is a crime of dominance, power, and hate, not passion. Some Muslim countries report lower rape rates than Western societies, but the statistics are so skewed as to make them unreliable. In the US, rape rates are recorded as reported by victims, but in many ME countries the reported rape rate is based upon actual convictions, which are very difficult to get; a woman's word in many cases is not adequate evidence, and must be corroborated by male witnesses. Furthermore, women in Muslim dominated countries are often strongly discouraged from ever reporting rape.

Rape has no known correlation with dress; it is correlated with the perpetrator's feelings of anger and inadequacy, however, and there is no evidence that oppressing women or forcing them to dress a certain way is going to have an impact upon such motives. That's also why suggesting "Perhaps a guy should act like a man instead of being a brute, he should, instead, go wack off in a corner somewhere if he can't control himself" won't work as a solution, either; rapists masturbate as much or more than normal men.

Dr Rick

July 20, 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by yguy
He doesn't usually get much of what I say right, but he pretty much got that right. Men, to varying degrees, have the weakness of tending to look at women as objects of sexual gratification, as the NOW crowd pointed out decades ago.

NOW did not point-out that how males look at women is a "weakness;" the twisted concept that sexual attraction is somehow dirty or a weakness has it's origins in the repressive doctrines of some religions, notably Christianity and Islam.

NOW and the Women's liberation movement fought against using �physical attractiveness and charm as the primary measures of a woman�s worth," not against human sexuality.

yguy

July 20, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NOW did not point-out that how males look at women is a "weakness;"

Balderdash. They may not have called it that, but the rhetoric of the time made it clear that they resented having men undress them with their eyes. They spoke more truly than they knew.

yguy

July 20, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Goober
Do you think that men in societies where the women are forced to wear head to toe clothing don't have the same weakness?

Of course - and probably worse. Thus the attempt to overcompensate. However, calling the weakness a virtue - as the Dr Ricks of the world would have us do - would lead us to undercompensate.

Societal dress codes are properly imposed not by men upon women, but by the older generation upon the younger.

Dr Rick

July 20, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by yguy
Balderdash. They may not have called it that, but the rhetoric of the time made it clear that they resented having men undress them with their eyes. They spoke more truly than they knew.

The fallacy of equivocation:

"Resentment" is not identifying a "weakness;" many people resent the power, money, and looks of others but do not label them as "weakness."

Societal dress codes are properly imposed not by men upon women, but by the older generation upon the younger.

Then why aren't you wearing a codpiece?

However, calling the weakness a virtue...

Strawman

Nowhere357

July 20, 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by yguy
Balderdash. They may not have called it that, but the rhetoric of the time made it clear that they resented having men undress them with their eyes. They spoke more truly than they knew.
From the NOW (http://www.now.org/organization/info.html) website:

"The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society."

I'm curious as to how your condescending interpretation of the "rhetoric of the time" serves to support your position in any way.

Is it your belief that women wish to be undesired? As far as I can tell, their wish is for equal rights and an end to discrimination. And I'm inlined to take their word over yours.

yguy

July 20, 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women.

I'm not interested in NOW's official statement of purpose. I was referring to the rhetoric of the 70's, which had a kernel of truth embedded in it, as I have pointed out.

yguy

July 20, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
The fallacy of equivocation: <snip>

Forget it, Doc. Having a conversation with a machine is boring.

Dr Rick

July 20, 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by yguy
I'm not interested in NOW's official statement of purpose. I was referring to the rhetoric of the 70's, which had a kernel of truth embedded in it, as I have pointed out.

You mean, which you have "falsely asserted" and you're "not interested" in the truth; neither substantiation for your post nor refutation of the evidence against it has been provided by you.

You're not interested in explaining or supporting your revisionist falsehoods because you can't. When facts interfere with your prejudice, you just ignore them, but don't expect reasonable people to do so, as well.

meritocrat

July 20, 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Timberline
Well, yes. In this instance, the values being 'pushed' are empathy for others and 'treat others the way you'd like to be treated.'

That's irrelevant. You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

The problem with traditional Islamic dress is that it makes many healthy outdoor activities, sports and games impossible or impractical--or, at the very least, so uncomfortable that no one would want to do them.

I love the outdoors. I like to hike, rock climb, bicycle, swim, play tennis, feel the breeze on a summer day, and wear comfortable, sensible clothes in hot weather. Would I want to be forbidden from doing these things? No. Therefore, I shouldn't forbid women from doing these things.

Seems simple enough. Unfortunately, whole Muslim countries and communities, plus backward pockets of Christianity, still don't get that simple concept. Hard to believe this is 2003.

I dislike it when people say that. Why should progressing times equate with more progressive attitudes?

Nowhere357

July 20, 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by yguy
I'm not interested in NOW's official statement of purpose. I was referring to the rhetoric of the 70's, which had a kernel of truth embedded in it, as I have pointed out.
Then your answer to "how does your condescending interpretation of NOW's purpose actually support your position?" must be "it doesn't".

And of course you are uninterested in NOW's official statement of purpose. Factual information that opposes your position is of no interest to you, I understand.

Nowhere357

July 20, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
That's irrelevant. You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

I do believe it is their actions which we oppose. Rather relevant, since they abuse basic human rights.

I dislike it when people say that. Why should progressing times equate with more progressive attitudes?
Why shouldn't they? Why should attitudes not progress to keep pace with the progressing times?

MollyMac

July 20, 2003, 12:23 PM

posted by Nowhere357
I do believe it is their actions which we oppose. Rather relevant, since they abuse basic human rights.
posted by meritocrat when I made exactly the same point earlier in this thread
Some might argue that there ARE no universal rights!!
I thought I'd save you the trouble, meritocrat. Now are you going to develop your line of argument? Or are you going to resort to your favoured diversionary tactic of making a blatantly untrue assertion like this one:
Well it was you who stated that Islamic values are absolutely wrong.
or a non-sequiteur like this one:
You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

Hmm?

yguy

July 20, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
When facts interfere with your prejudice, you just ignore them, but don't expect reasonable people to do so, as well.

Neither you nor N357 have distinguished yourselves in my mind as particularly reasonable, to say the least; so pardon me if I fail to find disagreement from either of you particularly noteworthy.

Nowhere357

July 20, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by yguy
Neither you nor N357 have distinguished yourselves in my mind as particularly reasonable, to say the least; so pardon me if I fail to find disagreement from either of you particularly noteworthy.
Identify anywhere, in any thread, where you believe I've been unreasonable.

Anywhere, in any thread, on any forum, at any time, in any place.

That was a direct challenge to you - back up your claim.

meritocrat

July 20, 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by MollyMac
I thought I'd save you the trouble, meritocrat. Now are you going to develop your line of argument? Or are you going to resort to your favoured diversionary tactic of making a blatantly untrue assertion like this one:

Well I think you are?

Who are you to say Muslim women covering themselves is wrong?

yguy

July 20, 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Identify anywhere, in any thread, where you believe I've been unreasonable.

Anywhere, in any thread, on any forum, at any time, in any place.

That was a direct challenge to you - back up your claim.

I did that weeks ago, and you know it. It's why the topic of homosexuality can no longer be discussed between you and me. You wanna call me out, start another thread. Maybe I'll show up, and maybe I won't.

MollyMac

July 20, 2003, 01:08 PM

You think I'm what, meritocrat?

Whatever it is - don't bother unless you can quote the evidence.

meritocrat

July 20, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by MollyMac
You think I'm what, meritocrat?

I think you have a problem in accepting this debate is about subjective ethics.

braces_for_impact

July 20, 2003, 01:56 PM

Attractive women have a psychological advantage over men, which is why such women tend not to get traffic tickets, for instance. When women dress provocatively, they increase that advantage to the detriment of both men and women, as it encourages men to look at them as sex objects.

<Scantily clad woman waves hand> "You don't want to give me a traffic ticket officer."

<Officer Dick Peters> "I don't want to give you a traffic ticket, move along."

:D

Nowhere357

July 20, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by yguy
I did that weeks ago, and you know it. It's why the topic of homosexuality can no longer be discussed between you and me. You wanna call me out, start another thread. Maybe I'll show up, and maybe I won't.
No you didn't. And no I don't it. Where's the evidence? I asked you to back up your claim, you have not done so. And I've already called you out, plain as day, how could you pretend not to notice this?

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: it just occured to me - "unreasonable" to yguy means "anyone who disagrees with me and won't allow me to play my evasion games effectively."

Yes, I'm very unreasonable, by this definition.

Nowhere357

July 20, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Who are you to say Muslim women covering themselves is wrong?
Who has said that Muslim women covering themselves is wrong? I haven't seen anyone make this claim.

Roland98

July 20, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Roland98
And again, I'll point out that this is also done in some Christian denominations as far as girls only wearing collared shirts and floor-length skirts and head coverings. Are there "repressed pedophilic urges" there as well?

Originally posted by yguy
I believe so. In fact, I don't believe there ever was a father who didn't at least once feel the faintest wisp of a sexual attraction for his own daughter, though I've only heard one (who was not a pedophile by any stretch) admit it.

I don't suppose I should bother asking for a source for this other than your own opinion. Or perhaps your personal experience as a father with a daughter? Oh, wait...

NonContradiction

July 20, 2003, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NOW did not point-out that how males look at women is a "weakness;" the twisted concept that sexual attraction is somehow dirty or a weakness has it's origins in the repressive doctrines of some religions, notably Christianity and Islam.

Allowing a Muslim man to marry up to four wives and making the act of love between them an act of worship to the Abrahamic God contradicts your assertion that Islam views sexual attraction between men and women as dirty. You are seriously mistaken.

There are left wing radicals and right wing extremists in all of the Abrahamic religions, but I see no reason to believe that the radicals and extremists should define religion for everybody else.

Dr Rick

July 20, 2003, 09:36 PM

Polygamy is not a demonstration of sexual liberation; in Islam, it is just another tool of repression. If sexuality is "love" in Islam, why can't women practice androgeny as at least one of Mohammed's wives did? Why have women been condemned to death by the torture of being bombarded by rocks just for engaging in "the act of love?"

Islam and Christianity both seriously and detrimentally constrain sexuality, particularly female sexuality, but also male sexuality, and simply labelling copulation "an act of worship" does not mitigate the repressive nature of either.

Islam represses sexuality for most as it wields promises of unbridled sexuality in return for obedience to some. Sexuality is a tool to be manipulated, repressed, and redirected in Islam. It condemns non-virginal brides and forces women into hideous garments as it promises an afterlife eternal hard-on to male martyrs. It twists and perverts sex into an unnatural system of rewards and prohibitions. Sex is filthy under most circumstances in Islam, to be enjoyed and explored only under specified conditions, that for some divine reason, only seem to favor men.

Islam makes sexuality a constrained, sinful trait. The millions of women in the world today confined to their homes and burqas is a compelling refutation against any assertion to the contrary.

winstonjen

July 20, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by meritocrat
Some might argue that there ARE no universal rights!!

In that case, then Islamic societies have no right to force women to cover up.

Goober

July 20, 2003, 10:36 PM

Who are you to say Muslim women covering themselves is wrong?

-meritocrat

Nice strawman, but nobody is arguing this. Try and stick to the point.

Meritocrat, you seem to have a problem with ethics. You seem to think that 'subjective' means 'arbitrary'. An ethical code would be a code of behaviour designed to increase the well-being of a society and its members. An unethical action is one that damages another persons well being for no good reason (or something along those lines). But it is pointless to take any action and say 'there is no way to tell if this is ethical or not, it's all subjective' as that would render ethics totally useless.

NonContradiction

July 20, 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Polygamy is not a demonstration of sexual liberation; in Islam, it is just another tool of repression.

I don't agree. I objected to your implication that Islam views sex as something dirty. If sex is something dirty, then why are the martyrs of paradise promised beautiful companions in the hereafter? You are wrong, face it, Dr. Rick.

Do you want to tell me that polygamy isn't more liberal than monogamy? How about sex with concubines? Your assertion that Islam is equally as sexually repressive as Christianity is nonsense.

If sexuality is "love" in Islam, why can't women practice androgeny as at least one of Mohammed's wives did?

What do you mean by androgeny here? Which wife of Muhammad practiced androgeny? Who said that sexuality is love in Islam?

Why have women been condemned to death by the torture of being bombarded by rocks just for engaging in "the act of love?"

I am assuming that you are referring to adultery here. Why don't you just say so? Islam isn't as liberal as you are, Dr. Rick, but that doesn't mean that it's as sexually repressive as Christianity is. Secondly, who appointed you as the arbiter to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive?

Islam and Christianity both seriously and detrimentally constrain sexuality, particularly female sexuality, but also male sexuality, and simply labelling copulation "an act of worship" does not mitigate the repressive nature of either.

Simply asserting that Islam and Christianity are equally sexually repressive doesn't make it so either.

Islam represses sexuality for most as it wields promises of unbridled sexuality in return for obedience to some.

Listen to what you are saying, Dr. Rick. How can Islam make promises of unbridled sexuality, yet at the same you claim that Islam views sex as dirty in the same manner that Christianity does? You are talking nonsense.

Sexuality is a tool to be manipulated, repressed, and redirected in Islam. It condemns non-virginal brides and forces women into hideous garments as it promises an afterlife eternal hard-on to male martyrs.

Again, if what you say is true, then how can you say that Islam views human sexuality as dirty? Secondly, where does Islam condemn non-virginal brides? Thirdly, right wing extremists may force women into hideous garments, but they don't speak for everyone in Islam.

It twists and perverts sex into an unnatural system of rewards and prohibitions. Sex is filthy under most circumstances in Islam, to be enjoyed and explored only under specified conditions, that for some divine reason, only seem to favor men.

Islam makes sexuality a constrained, sinful trait. The millions of women in the world today confined to their homes and burqas is a compelling refutation against any assertion to the contrary.

I don't confine my wife to our home, nor do I force her to wear a burqa. I am far too liberal for that. However, I am far more conservative than you appear to be. Therefore, I come back to my original question: Who appointed you as the final arbiter to determine where to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive? Why don't you just get off of your high horse?

Dr Rick

July 20, 2003, 11:25 PM

�No one is allowed to wed more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them, to buy (women), as many as he wants.� Ibn Hazam, vol. 6, part 9, pp. 441, 467.

Mohammed is estimated by scholars to have had somewhere
between 15-25 wives. Almost all agree that he had more that the Quran permits for other Muslims.

He married Aisha when she was just 6 years old and had intercouse with her when she was at the ripe ole' age of 9.

One of his first wives had two other husbands at the time she married him.

Allowing oneself to engage in pedophilia and hypocrisy is hardly a sign of sexual liberation; nor is blindly following the teachings of such a pervert an indication of free or decent thoughts.

Dr Rick

July 21, 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am assuming that you are referring to adultery here. Why don't you just say so? Islam isn't as liberal as you are, Dr. Rick, but that doesn't mean that it's as sexually repressive as Christianity is. Secondly, who appointed you as the arbiter to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive?

I'm desperately hoping you're not trying to justify killing a woman just because she had sex. Please, in the name of humanity and all that is decent, tell us that's not what you're defending. Screw the rest of your nonsense; just show us a sign that you have some ability to judge right from wrong, and tell us you find this kind of horror abhorrent.

Timberline

July 21, 2003, 12:51 AM

That's irrelevant. You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

Who mentioned force?

It's in my self-interest to encourage the people around me to share the values of 'empathy for others' and 'treat others as you'd like to be treated.' It's in my self-interest to oppose societies, ideologies and individuals that do not share those values.

Whether I have the right to do so is irrelevant. Did abolitionists have the right to 'push' their values onto Southern states? Did Southern states have the right to push their values onto slaves? A lot of people with conflicting values are crowded onto the same small planet, and, whether we like it or not, we�re going to push against each other at times. We're going to have to interact with each other.

NonContradiction

July 21, 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
He married Aisha when she was just 6 years old and had intercouse with her when she was at the ripe ole' age of 9.

From the primary sources (such as they are) a strong case can be made that AIsha was around 19 when the marriage was consummated.

Thus, since it cannot be established that Muhammad did indeed marry a child, your argument is pointless.

Allowing oneself to engage in pedophilia and hypocrisy is hardly a sign of sexual liberation; nor is blindly following the teachings of such a pervert an indication of free or decent thoughts.

You haven't established that Muhammad engaged in pedophilia. Therefore, you are doing nothing more than assassinating the character of the messenger because you don't like his message.

It's ironic that you call Muhammad a pervert since the west is filled with so many sexual perverts, given the liberal sexual attitudes. You should look at your own society before you start attacking someone else's society. Does Pee Wee Herman whacking off in a movie theater ring a bell with you? How many guys in America whack off to pornography on the internet? Pornography on the internet is the crack cocaine of sexual addiction - millions of guys are addicted to it. Does that sound like sexual liberation or sexual enslavement to you? Moreover, the young teenage girls that get lured into that lousy business don't even get health care benefits from the porn industry when they contract STD's. They are used like toilet paper and then flushed down the toilet. Why is it that we don't hear liberals screaming about women being abused by the porn industry, but they make a big deal about Muslim women dress? Clean up your own society before you go out trying to clean up everybody else's society. You are talking nonsense, Dr. Rick, and I am still waiting for you to answer my question: Who appointed you as arbiter to draw the line between sexual liberalism and repression? Get off of your high horse, Dr. Rick.

Dr Rick

July 21, 2003, 08:47 AM

With various strawmen, non sequiturs, and ad hominem tu quoque ("you too") fallacies, NC is lamely arguing one should not criticize torturing a woman to death since she had sex when she wasn't married, the hypocrisy and oppression of Islam is justifiable in part because Pee-Wee Herman masturbated in a movie theater, and forcing millions of women to wear burqas is not an issue simply because he has the decency not to "force" his own wife to wear one.

In the name of religion, some people can rationalize anything.

cheetah

July 21, 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
A provocatively dressed women is as much partially to blame for being raped as someone who is murdered for making a rude gesture would be partially to blame. You can argue that the action 'provoked' the act to some extent, but to assign blame to the victim is grossly inappropriate imo.
I disagree on a technicality, though I understand the point you are tryign to make. A provocatively dressed woman is not directing her provocatively dressed body at one person (the rapist) or anyone in particular, really. The rude gesturer who gets murdered most likely made that rude gesture to the person who murdered him. So, IMO, the rude gesturer contributed more significantly to the result (his own murder) than the victim of the rape. Of course, neither would in any way deserve anything of the sort.

cheetah

July 21, 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by MollyMac
Well said Timberline. Forcing people to wear clothes which are hellishly uncomfortable, making them view the outside world through a burkha (anyone ever tried this?) under threat of punishment - beatings, imprisonment, ostracism - is a matter of cruelty. How does one justify this cruelty?

The discussion of rape on this thread seems to have focussed on the stereotypical rape victim as an attractive young woman. My experience as a Victim Support worker suggests otherwise and I'd like to try and show why we reject the term 'sex crime'. We feel it perpetuates the myth that rape is a result of men not being able to control themselves in the presence of female beauty. This is a myth which is very pervasive and very dangerous - I believe it has been responsible for countless aquittals of rapists in English courts.

Over an eight year period I worked with hundreds of rape victims. A minority were attractive young women and not one of them had been immodestly dressed by Western standards at the time of the assault. This might sound awful but if you had seen what some of these women looked like you would have been amazed:

A five foot tall, 200 lb woman aged 50 and with learning difficulties was frogmarched over a mile to her home (a single rented room) by a stranger who then raped and tortured her.

A widow in her 70s was found asleep in her bed by a burglar. He dragged her to the floor, stripped and raped her then covered her with the mattress from her bed and jumped up and down on it until he thought she was dead. (The thing that really haunted this woman afterwards was the fact that she'd been married 50 years and her husband had never seen her completely naked but her rapist - a kid of about 20 - had).

A woman in her 80s was forced by a stranger to suck off and swallow. Her attacker then stabbed her vagina with a knife and sliced through her perineum. She recovered surprisingly well from her physical injuries but I've not doubt the trauma of the experience hastened her death some months later.

I would add that in the majority of rape cases I've seen, some attempt at anal penetration was made.

The only thing that made these victims attractive was their extreme vulnerability and the ease with which they could be dominated and abused - that's how their attackers got their kicks. And this horrendous cruelty and disregard for the humanity of their victims is why we prefer the term 'hate crime'.

MollyMac, thank you for sharing this. You are right, discussion of rape too often focuses on hypothetical victims that don't really exist, possibly as a way to reduce the impact of the perceived crime. The ones you describe here are heinous and hateful.

cheetah

July 21, 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by yguy
Neither you nor N357 have distinguished yourselves in my mind as particularly reasonable, to say the least; so pardon me if I fail to find disagreement from either of you particularly noteworthy.

Where's that jawdropping emoticon when I need it? To say Dr. Rick has not distinguished himself as reasonable, and N357, who makes very good points here, is just unimaginable. It's like telling Gandhi he hasn't distinguished himself as a person who is very passionate for his cause.

:eek:

Buddrow_Wilson

July 21, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
I disagree on a technicality, though I understand the point you are tryign to make. A provocatively dressed woman is not directing her provocatively dressed body at one person (the rapist) or anyone in particular, really. The rude gesturer who gets murdered most likely made that rude gesture to the person who murdered him. So, IMO, the rude gesturer contributed more significantly to the result (his own murder) than the victim of the rape. Of course, neither would in any way deserve anything of the sort.

We could extend the analogy to a situation such as "date rape" where the woman does dress that way to impress a particular individual.

cheetah

July 21, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
We could extend the analogy to a situation such as "date rape" where the woman does dress that way to impress a particular individual.

A better analogy, though I think there is still wriggle room, like the woman dressing to feel HER best. Anyway, I really don't disagree and I feel increasingly uncomfortable discussing anything having to do with a victim of either of the crimes asking for the result they get. I think, as you pointed out, that people should view it this way: No one would say, "That guy deserves to get murdered because he flipped the other guy off and called him a cocksucking pig." and no one should say that a woman deserves rape based on what she's wearing. Of course, in light of MollyMac's info, this is probably largely a moot point for non-acquaintance rape.

Acquaintance rape is a whole different animal though. Men should be taught that no matter what a woman is wearing, even if she's naked, does not indicate a final answer on sex with him. I mean, not all women at nudist camps are saying yes to sex to any guy, right? Whoever said it was ok to judge someone's sonsent based on their clothes? To not acknowledge that consent should come out of the mouth is something cloe to treating a woman like an object rather than a human being, IMO. Whoever starting using clothing as an excuse for rape was a total asshole.

Dr Rick

July 21, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
Whoever starting using clothing as an excuse for rape was a total asshole.

And completely wrong, as well. I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no good evidence that the way a woman dresses affects her chances of being raped; MollyMac's experience with rape victims is consistent with this observation.

Calzaer

July 21, 2003, 10:55 PM

if God had meant for us to run around naked, we'd've been BORN that way!

cheetah

July 21, 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
And completely wrong, as well. I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no good evidence that the way a woman dresses affects her chances of being raped; MollyMac's experience with rape victims is consistent with this observation.

Good point, and, as is unfortunately typical of those blinded by religion, other types of extremism and those with unfounded preconceived notions, totally ignored.

NonContradiction

July 22, 2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
With various strawmen, non sequiturs, and ad hominem tu quoque ("you too") fallacies, NC is lamely arguing one should not criticize torturing a woman to death since she had sex when she wasn't married....

The only one here who is arguing lamely is you. The fact is you don't even have an argument, Dr. Rick. Firstly, Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage, but that isn't the main issue anyway. The question is, as I have posed it before, who appointed you to draw the line here?

Certainly, most people would object to a fine of $25.00 for someone convicted of murder - most people are not that liberal. Similarly, most people would object to executing someone convicted of stealing a loaf of bread - most people are not that far right.

The prescribed punishments in Islamic law may seem harsh to you, coming from a liberal society as you do, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. An argument can be made that America has been too liberal with convicted criminals. How many criminals have been returned to the streets by liberal judges, only to commit more crimes against innocent people?

It's amazing to me how dogmatic liberals have become. If someone isn't as liberal as they are, then they label them "repressive". You can assert that Islam is repressive and oppressive, but it's merely an assertion on your part unless you can successfully argue that you are the one who should be drawing the line. Good Luck trying to do that.

the hypocrisy and oppression of Islam is justifiable in part because Pee-Wee Herman masturbated in a movie theater

This is such a mischaracterization of what I have said that it doesn't even deserve a comment.

and forcing millions of women to wear burqas is not an issue simply because he has the decency not to "force" his own wife to wear one.

I am to the left of the Taliban and to the right of Dr. Rick. Unless you learn to make these kinds of distinctions, Dr. Rick, you will never understand what I am saying to you. Get off of your high horse.

In the name of religion, some people can rationalize anything.

Yes, and in the name of liberalism, some people can rationalize anything. Just don't condemn me for not being as liberal as you are, and I won't condemn you for not being as conservative as I am.

NonContradiction

July 22, 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no good evidence that the way a woman dresses affects her chances of being raped; MollyMac's experience with rape victims is consistent with this observation.

The real issue here, Dr. Rick, is who draws the line for the way a woman dresses? We have completely naked on one end of the spectrum and the burqa on the other end. In between those two extremes, we have gradations. The problem with the far left is that they keep moving the line, always testing the laws against obscenity.

Nowhere357

July 22, 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
[B]The real issue here, Dr. Rick, is who draws the line for the way a woman dresses?
Is there some reason they need to be told how to dress?

pilaar

July 22, 2003, 02:36 AM

NonContradiction:
It's amazing to me how dogmatic liberals have become. If someone isn't as liberal as they are, then they label them "repressive". You can assert that Islam is repressive and oppressive, but it's merely an assertion on your part unless you can successfully argue that you are the one who should be drawing the line. Good Luck trying to do that.

IMO a good way to figure out how oppressed certain part of humanity is, is by looking at the readiness other sections of humanity have to trade places. Eg. I doubt that any free human would gladly exchange the place with a slave during the time when slavery was accepted, even thought they claimed that slavery was 'good and proper' for those who were slaves to justify their own position and benefits they got from other peoples oppression.

In the society and the time in which I live, I would have no problem with being either a male or a female.
However, the last thing in the would I would want to be born as is as a muslim woman in a muslim country and I have so far not met anybody who would trade places with muslim women living in muslim countries. I have also never heard of muslim men being eager to trade places or exchange their positions with muslim women. Women's lives there obviously can't be all that good.

Also, my observations have lead me to believe that in the places (or within religious groups or whatever), where one section of the humanity is oppressed, most of the people are affected anyway. I would rather be a woman in a free western world than a male in a muslim society any day. The groups which are harsh & oppressive to one part of humanity within their own circles are normally harsh, cruel & oppressive to all members of that society, because these attitudes can not really be contained to only one section of society. Places where women are severely oppressed also oppress males, eg harsh authoritarian control of all, severe punishments & harsh bringing up of children at home & in school, harsh and authoritarian rule & social laws, harsh practices at work etc. So even though males have an advantage over females within these groups of people (whether they are nations or religious groups or whatever), neither gender (in general) can really have a quality of life at the level that a person of any gender can have in a group which is freer and where people try not to oppress either gender.

pilaar

Dr Rick

July 22, 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The only one here who is arguing lamely is you. The fact is you don't even have an argument, Dr. Rick. Firstly, Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2023502.stm

"Amina Lawal, 30, was sentenced to death for becoming pregnant after her divorce, which is considered as adultery under Nigeria's interpretation of the Islamic law, or Sharia.

On the same day, another Nigerian woman, Safiya Huseini, who had been convicted for adultery and sentenced to be stoned, was freed on appeal after pressure was exerted by the international community and the Nigerian government."

Amen-Moses

July 22, 2003, 08:48 AM

I had a quick scan through but didn't read every post so excuse me if someone has already said this but the argument against the showing of bare flesh is not that women who do so are more at risk but that it inflames the ardour of the younger men in society to the point where women in general are at a greater risk, i.e the ugly weak guy who spends a few hours at the disco watching scantily clad girls strutting their stuff is later likely to spend his frustrations on a weak victim (like those mentioned by MollyMac).

I don't know if this is completely rubbish or even how one would go about proving it either way but that is the argument that I have heard from Muslim friends (yes even women!).

They always point out the extremely low rape figures within their cultures as proof that it works but one could equally point out that there are far fewer weak victims around due to the way their culture is organised, i.e to get at any of my friends female relatives a rapist would have to get past him, both his brothers, 2 brother in-laws, his father and several grown sons as everyone lives together (neighbourhood watch on a grand scale) and he is not unusual in this. (He is an Omani btw, just in case anyone wondered)

Amen-Moses

cheetah

July 22, 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The real issue here, Dr. Rick, is who draws the line for the way a woman dresses? We have completely naked on one end of the spectrum and the burqa on the other end. In between those two extremes, we have gradations. The problem with the far left is that they keep moving the line, always testing the laws against obscenity.

I'd take obscenity over oppression any day. At least in a liberal society both men and women have a say in what obscenity means to them. The women who are forced to wear burqas, by definition of the word forced, do not have a choice in their lifestyle, and that's what's wrong about it, that's what's oppressive about it. You can use subjective morality all you want to paint a picture of rosiness, but the fact is, wearing burqas is just a symptom of the general idea that women are worth less and should not have the final say in their own lives. As mentioned before, this succeeds in keeping them marginalized and anonymous.

cheetah

July 22, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
I had a quick scan through but didn't read every post so excuse me if someone has already said this but the argument against the showing of bare flesh is not that women who do so are more at risk but that it inflames the ardour of the younger men in society to the point where women in general are at a greater risk, i.e the ugly weak guy who spends a few hours at the disco watching scantily clad girls strutting their stuff is later likely to spend his frustrations on a weak victim (like those mentioned by MollyMac).

I don't know if this is completely rubbish or even how one would go about proving it either way but that is the argument that I have heard from Muslim friends (yes even women!).

They always point out the extremely low rape figures within their cultures as proof that it works but one could equally point out that there are far fewer weak victims around due to the way their culture is organised, i.e to get at any of my friends female relatives a rapist would have to get past him, both his brothers, 2 brother in-laws, his father and several grown sons as everyone lives together (neighbourhood watch on a grand scale) and he is not unusual in this. (He is an Omani btw, just in case anyone wondered)

Amen-Moses

The point was made, several times, though that clothing has not been shown to affect rape. If one woman's clothing encourages a man to rape a different woman who is not scantily clad, well, who knows, but that's a little bizarre and certainly there is no evidence for it. I think it is a stupid argument, which again rests on the idea that men are incapable of controlling themselves and women must be responsible for men's weaknesses. As I ahve said before, I have a lot more faith and confidence in the male gender than that. It's sad that those other people do not.

Also mentioned was that Muslim countries have very low rape figures because of the great discouragement in reporting it. Even greater than in our own Western Societies.

Bad Kitty

July 22, 2003, 11:08 AM

The point was made, several times, though that clothing has not been shown to affect rape. If one woman's clothing encourages a man to rape a different woman who is not scantily clad, well, who knows, but that's a little bizarre and certainly there is no evidence for it.

As I recall, this is the argument often used against pornography. That it make all women into potential victims of the uncontrolled male libido.

And yet, I hought studies had shown repeatedly that rape was not a crime of "passion".

Michelle

Dreamer_87

July 22, 2003, 11:12 AM

Initially this thread showed a lot of promise because it touched on sensitive but important ideas in ethics - like sexuality and rape and the idea of dominance etc. but it didn't take long for the thread to be ruined by some posters' dislike for each other and ad hominems and empassioned replies that sidetracked whatever little debating was going on.

Amen moses makes a good point - see? Even though I disagree with most of the things he says I don't feel the need to bring those other, irrelevant disagreements into the discussion because I recognize that it's possible that he's 'correct' when it comes to some issues and 'incorrect' when it comes to others - in that he mentions the very different structure of this other society and some of its advantages (which I understand to be the increased safety due to larger number of males on the look out so to speak); how about someone coming up with a list of pros and cons of each system? How does a woman's appearance affect the people around her (and let's not limit the discussion to rape) and is it true that wearing very little creates a negative impression?

Apologies if I'm not too coherent, I'm tired and sleepy and grumpy at the moment but I hope that post made sense.

Ab_Normal

July 22, 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
They always point out the extremely low rape figures within their cultures as proof that it works...

Since rape brings disgrace on the family, it's much less likely to be reported; in some cases, the family will kill the victim to save their "honor". Here's a news story (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/07/22072003165316.asp) from Iraq.

Amen-Moses

July 22, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
Since rape brings disgrace on the family, it's much less likely to be reported; in some cases, the family will kill the victim to save their "honor". Here's a news story (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/07/22072003165316.asp) from Iraq.

That is not just a Muslim trait it happnes in western societies as well.

Mind you it is interesting that you think of "their culture" and post a story about the most non-muslim Arab ME country which happens to be full of western soldiers, I do believe that the rape figures for Vietnam also went through the roof during occupation as well. It probably has much to do with the desparation of the people and the lack of any hope.

I'd be interested in comparisons btween Oman, Jordan, Iran, Brunei, Qatar, Syria and Egypt with western (read christianised) cultures of equal economic standing. Would you for example expect the rape figures for California to be higher or lower than Qatar and why?

Amen-Moses

NonContradiction

July 22, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
I'd take obscenity over oppression any day.

That is your choice, and there are many other people in Western society who feel as you do, but don't condemn others if they don't feel the same way as you do. Why should I be labeled "oppressive" or "repressive" if I am not as liberal as you?

The conservatives have typically defined the center. The liberals, on the other hand, have been constantly moving the goal posts, so they now no longer know what center is anymore. When we say that somebody is on the right or the left, what do we mean by that? Right of what? Left of what? Where is the center?

At least in a liberal society both men and women have a say in what obscenity means to them.

Yes, but it's not a numbers game were playing here. Simply because the masses feel the same way about something doesn't make it right. The masses are, typically, sheeple.

The women who are forced to wear burqas, by definition of the word forced, do not have a choice in their lifestyle, and that's what's wrong about it, that's what's oppressive about it.

Most societies have laws against obscenity, including Western societies. Law implies the use of force. Therefore, the question isn't whether or not we should have laws against obscenity, but rather what should those laws be, which leads me back to my original question about where is the center.

Secondly, the liberals like to focus on the burqa for obvious reasons, but the fact is that the Arabs, for the most part, are pretty liberal. Where do you think Shakira learned how to shake her bum for the guys in the west? In fact, during the 60's and the 70's, the Arab world became very liberal as a result of western influence, coupled with the intellectual stagnation of conservative religious figures. What we are witnessing now in the Arab world is a reaction among right wing extremists towards this phenomenon.

In Afghanistan, where the burqa has been made famous, women used to dress liberally while the monarchy was in power. After the defeat of the Soviets and the fall of the monarchy, right wing extremists groups took over and then suddenly women found themselves in burqas. They went from being too liberal to being too conservative. This was, and still is, the problem, but I don't expect the liberals to acknowledge the truth anytime soon.

You can use subjective morality all you want to paint a picture of rosiness, but the fact is, wearing burqas is just a symptom of the general idea that women are worth less and should not have the final say in their own lives. As mentioned before, this succeeds in keeping them marginalized and anonymous.

To understand the situation, you must first rid yourself of all bias. In other words, become an impartial observer and stop being so judgemental.

cheetah

July 22, 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction

That is your choice, and there are many other people in Western society who feel as you do, but don't condemn others if they don't feel the same way as you do. Why should I be labeled "oppressive" or "repressive" if I am not as liberal as you? Because "you" as in the culture in dispute, is making choices for other people without their participation.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

The conservatives have typically defined the center. The liberals, on the other hand, have been constantly moving the goal posts, so they now no longer know what center is anymore. When we say that somebody is on the right or the left, what do we mean by that? Right of what? Left of what? Where is the center?
Wow, a bunch of statements with no back up whatsoever. Conservatives, by definition, do not define the center, they define the opposite of liberal/progressive, they are more conservative than the center, otherwise we would call them centrists. I really don't care what is meant by right or left, because my point is not about progressives or liberals it is about mandating certain rules for people without those people's participation, even though they, as a group, are fuly mentally and physically competent. And, surprise, surprise, those rules that are made without their participation or consent are usually uncomfortable, painful or detrimental to the individuals that compose that group.

Originally posted by NonContradiction

Yes, but it's not a numbers game were playing here. Simply because the masses feel the same way about something doesn't make it right. The masses are, typically, sheeple.
So, the other system is right because LESS people beleive in it? no. The point is, again, that those rules re: women covering up are made without the benefit of the participation of the women. now, if women were in government, were representatives, etc. in Saudi Arabia, for example, and decided that they wanted to wear those, that might be a bit different. And, of course, as new women came into the scene, they may find that the new consensus is not to wear them and allow for change. It is, rather, the rigidity and uncompromising stance that is, quite simply, inhumane.

Originally posted by NonContradiction

Most societies have laws against obscenity, including Western societies. Law implies the use of force. Therefore, the question isn't whether or not we should have laws against obscenity, but rather what should those laws be, which leads me back to my original question about where is the center. To me, there is still a question of laws against obscenity. Many cultures do not have them, or have entirely different views of them. Polynesian cultures for example would, I guess, be considered even farther "left" than the US by your standards. However, that's just their culture. The point is, they currently have a lot more choice inviolved on the part of the women on how they are "allowed" to dress. There may be "traditions" and such, but when you start placing into law a couple of particular garments that are acceptable without the ability of that group to participate, it is, again, inhumane.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

Secondly, the liberals like to focus on the burqa for obvious reasons, but the fact is that the Arabs, for the most part, are pretty liberal. Where do you think Shakira learned how to shake her bum for the guys in the west? In fact, during the 60's and the 70's, the Arab world became very liberal as a result of western influence, coupled with the intellectual stagnation of conservative religious figures. What we are witnessing now in the Arab world is a reaction among right wing extremists towards this phenomenon.

In Afghanistan, where the burqa has been made famous, women used to dress liberally while the monarchy was in power. After the defeat of the Soviets and the fall of the monarchy, right wing extremists groups took over and then suddenly women found themselves in burqas. They went from being too liberal to being too conservative. This was, and still is, the problem, but I don't expect the liberals to acknowledge the truth anytime soon.
1. I thought Shakira was from South America.
2. You say in Afghanistan they used to dress liberally and now they went from too liberal to too conservative. Are you not making a value judgement, just as you are claiming we are doing? Who are you to say they were too liberal? And I'll say it again, it's not about the clothes, it's about the inhumanity.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

To understand the situation, you must first rid yourself of all bias. In other words, become an impartial observer and stop being so judgemental.

So should you. You obviously are not unbiased. You, though, are defending a way of dress, while I am deriding a way of treating other human beings. Why don't you address the REAL point, and tell me all about why it is ok to marginalize women and prevent them from participating in decisions that will shape their lives? I realize, obviously, that this varies to a significant degree amongst the different countries and cultures of the area, so if you'd like to discuss why Syria is better than Saudi Arabia and why Jordan is better than Qatar, perhaps, go ahead, but I'd like to know why, if you do make that distinction.

Dr Rick

July 22, 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Would you for example expect the rape figures for California to be higher or lower than Qatar and why?

Let's see how the stats stack-up and then you can tell us what you expect:

In California, the rape rate is recorded as the number of rapes reported by victims; a conviction isn't necessary for a rape to be used in a statistic.

In Qatar, which incorporates many aspects of Shari'a, rape rates are recorded based on actual convictions; spousal rape is not a crime, the testimony of two women equals that of one man, and leniency for honor killings by male relatives disgraced in some way by a females behavour (including being raped) is part of the legal system there (US State Department Report on Human Rights, 2000; Amnesty International).

Dr Rick

July 22, 2003, 02:58 PM

posted by NonContradiction
They went from being too liberal to being too conservative...the west is filled with so many sexual perverts, given the liberal sexual attitudes...
and ...
also posted by NonContradiciton...it's merely an assertion on your part unless you can successfully argue that you are the one who should be drawing the line...Secondly, who appointed you as the arbiter to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive?...Who appointed you as arbiter to draw the line between sexual liberalism and repression?

NonContradiction

July 22, 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2023502.stm

"Amina Lawal, 30, was sentenced to death for becoming pregnant after her divorce, which is considered as adultery under Nigeria's interpretation of the Islamic law, or Sharia.

As we all know, interpretation is one thing and the text is another. If they have that interpretation, then I would be curious to know how they arrived at that conclusion. In general, however, unmarried people engaging in sex outside of marriage are not treated as harshly as married people.

NonContradiction

July 22, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
1. I thought Shakira was from South America.

She is also Lebanese.

2. You say in Afghanistan they used to dress liberally and now they went from too liberal to too conservative. Are you not making a value judgement, just as you are claiming we are doing?

Yes, I am making value judgements, just like you and everybody else in this world. However, there is a difference between making judgements and being judgemental. As long as people are judgemental of one another, they will always talk past each other.

Who are you to say they were too liberal?

According to my judgement, they were too liberal. You would probably disagree, but that is fine. I am not going to condemn you for it.

And I'll say it again, it's not about the clothes, it's about the inhumanity.

If you are arguing against the burqa, then you are arguing against a strawman. I would fight against anybody who would want to force women, especially my daughters, into a burqa by law.

It's not about the clothes, and it's not about the inhumanity. It's about where is the center. The liberals have no center.

You obviously are not unbiased. You, though, are defending a way of dress, while I am deriding a way of treating other human beings. Why don't you address the REAL point, and tell me all about why it is ok to marginalize women and prevent them from participating in decisions that will shape their lives?

I am not just defending a way of dress. I am defending a center. Until the liberals get a center, they will have nothing to defend. They will just be attacking everybody to the right of themselves, labelling them oppressors.

Why don't the liberals raise hell about the way the pornography industry treats teenage girls who are lured into the business? Why don't they liberate these teenage girls, first, before they stick their noses into another society half-way around the world? Liberals defend pornography as freedom of speech, but how does pornography treat women?

Of course, the way the West treats women doesn't excuse the way women are treated in other cultures around the world. However, it is very inconsistent for liberals to preach what they don't practice themselves.

Silent Acorns

July 22, 2003, 04:37 PM

To go back to the OP:
So what is the wearing of veils and covering up, in any society, for.
Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women?
There can be little doubt that the principle rationalization for laws requiring women to cover themselves up more than men is that it is to protect women from men. I can't say whether or not this was a resonable description of male motives 1000+ years ago when these laws were introduced, but I can say that there is little evidence that it is a resonable description of male motives today.

The problem with these laws is that they ignore the fact that if dressing more conservatively really did prevent them from getting raped, women would volunteer to dress that way, with no law needed. The fact that such laws are deemed necessary suggests that either these cultures:

1. are following ancient laws primarily out of custom,
2. think that women can't properly evaluate risk, or
3. are trying empower men at the cost of women

Personally, I think the answer is three. It may not be the reason individuals rationalize these laws, but it is the reason these laws continue through the centuries. It's the age old trade-off: give men the power to control their women and men will give the state the power to control everyone.

We in the west have liberated ourselves from this type of thinking (at least partially), while other parts of the world are still mired in it. No society can be truly democatic until it allows women to decide their daily affairs for themselves.

cheetah

July 22, 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction

I am not just defending a way of dress. I am defending a center. Until the liberals get a center, they will have nothing to defend. They will just be attacking everybody to the right of themselves, labelling them oppressors. Unfortunately, I still have no idea how havnig a center relates to this discussion. I am still interested in why you think it is ok to marginalize women. I hate to be black and white, but this isn't an issue where there are many gradations. You either support women having a say in their dress or you don't, and the OP was about women who are forced to cover up. FORCED.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

Why don't the liberals raise hell about the way the pornography industry treats teenage girls who are lured into the business? Why don't they liberate these teenage girls, first, before they stick their noses into another society half-way around the world? Liberals defend pornography as freedom of speech, but how does pornography treat women?
Actually, they do. Many, I would venture to say most, women's groups, though typically labelled as left and liberal, but when it comes to pornography, particularly of underaged women, they are against it. This is one of those wacky instances when liberals and conservatives have a common purpose, sometimes for a different reason.

I would also make the point that I PERSONALLY think it is better to err on the side of liberalism, i.e. not taking away people's freedoms unless it infringes on someone else's freedoms, rather than conservatism and tkaing away freedoms because we have some feeling something is inappropriate. The former is a more consistent guiding principle while the latter is more arbitrary.

JamesKrieger

July 22, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by yguy
Forget it, Doc. Having a conversation with a machine is boring.

Translation: yguy finds addressing fallacies in his arguments boring.

Of course, this is evident in many threads he is involved in, where he continues to refuse to address the logical fallacies he commits.

yguy, if you would like to educate yourself on what Dr. Rick meant by the fallacy of equivocation, here you go:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Of course, that is, unless you find correct use of logic "boring."

Silent Acorns

July 22, 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am defending a center. Until the liberals get a center, they will have nothing to defend. They will just be attacking everybody to the right of themselves, labelling them oppressors.
Liberals do have a centre. It just happens to be to the left of your personal limits. Why do conservatives always attack everybody to the left of themselves, labelling them as destroyers of cultural tradition?
Originally posted by NonContradiction
Why don't the liberals raise hell about the way the pornography industry treats teenage girls who are lured into the business? Why don't they liberate these teenage girls, first, before they stick their noses into another society half-way around the world? Liberals defend pornography as freedom of speech, but how does pornography treat women?
We've dealt with this on another thread. Generally, conservatives overstate the frequency of such abuses and liberals are just as willing to condemn such abuses when they do happen. In my opinion, exploitation in pornography is more about employers exploiting their workers than society exploiting women.

NonContradiction

July 22, 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
Unfortunately, I still have no idea how havnig a center relates to this discussion. I am still interested in why you think it is ok to marginalize women.

I would suggest reading a little bit about deconstruction theory, Jacque Derrida, for a detailed explanation. What is center will marginalize whatever is off-center. Centrism marginalizes. Do you get it now? What does an egocentric person do? Doesn't he marginalize everybody else? You complain about Islam marginalizing women, but what you fail to realize is that whatever you define to be at the center marginalizes everybody else in a like manner. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around completely naked, then you are to the right of a nudist. You are marginalizing nudists.

I hate to be black and white, but this isn't an issue where there are many gradations. You either support women having a say in their dress or you don't, and the OP was about women who are forced to cover up. FORCED.

You are really hung up on the word FORCED. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around naked, then you must acknowledge that the FORCE of law can be used to make people put some clothes on. The issue isn't FORCE, so stop bringing it up. The issue is how much clothing is society willing to FORCE upon people. Where is the CENTER? Where do you draw the line?

Actually, they do. Many, I would venture to say most, women's groups, though typically labelled as left and liberal, but when it comes to pornography, particularly of underaged women, they are against it. This is one of those wacky instances when liberals and conservatives have a common purpose, sometimes for a different reason.

If liberals and conservatives are against it, then what is the problem? Why does it still exist? You are talking nonsense. If liberals wanted to make it a big issue, they would, and I doubt very seriously that the conservatives would try to stop them. Pornography exploits men and women and liberals defend it as freedom of speech. Face it.

cheetah

July 22, 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I would suggest reading a little bit about deconstruction theory, Jacque Derrida, for a detailed explanation. What is center will marginalize whatever is off-center. Centrism marginalizes. Do you get it now? What does an egocentric person do? Doesn't he marginalize everybody else? You complain about Islam marginalizing women, but what you fail to realize is that whatever you define to be at the center marginalizes everybody else in a like manner. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around completely naked, then you are to the right of a nudist. You are marginalizing nudists. That's ridiculous. Allowing women to have a say on the shaping of their lives is marginalizing who exactly? IS it marginalizing men's ability to control them? Wah wah. Is you can show me that my definition of women being enabled to shape their future as the center "marginalizes everyone else," I'll be stunned.

Originally posted by NonContradiction

You are really hung up on the word FORCED. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around naked, then you must acknowledge that the FORCE of law can be used to make people put some clothes on. The issue isn't FORCE, so stop bringing it up. The issue is how much clothing is society willing to FORCE upon people. Where is the CENTER? Where do you draw the line?
You are really hung up on the way people dress. I am not, but am hung up on letting people have the power to make decisions and participate in community decision making. A topic which you keep avoiding, only because, I assume, you have nothing valuable to say. We don't force nudists to wear clothing. Nudists participate in the decision making process, so if they want something they aren't getting (i.e. the ability to go nude in public), they should speak up and make their influence known. This topic is totally different in that women in those cultures do not have that opportunity. So, don't bother replying to me about clothing ANYMORE please. The substantive discussion would be why it's ok to refuse women the right to participate in decision-making and instead decision must be made for them without their input.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

If liberals and conservatives are against it, then what is the problem? Why does it still exist? You are talking nonsense. If liberals wanted to make it a big issue, they would, and I doubt very seriously that the conservatives would try to stop them. Pornography exploits men and women and liberals defend it as freedom of speech. Face it. Not all liberals or all conservatives are against it. Pronography is way better than the Muslim cultures we are talking about here, because at least in (legal) pornography, there is consent by all parties. Each person involved has made that decision for themselves and have only themselves to blame if they don't like the outcome. While there is some question about societal pressures and economic facotrs, there is no question that if a woman wanted to get out of the porn industry, no one would be allowed to restrict that freedom, whereas Muslim women that want a different life path for themselves other than not being allowed to drive automobiles and being forced to wear clothing they may not want to are, well, SOL, I guess. That's the distinction, not whether it is obscene or not. In pornography, no one is being hurt, in those Muslim cultures, women's rights are being trampled.

trekbette

July 22, 2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Brahma's atheist
Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women?

This is the exact reason as I understand it. A women's hair and skin need to be covered because women are nothing but sexual beings and a man can't help but take what he sees.

I don't agree with this at all and I would bet even money that most Muslim men and women also don't think this is the way. However, it is a small group that make and enforce the laws and some of these laws have been around for 1000s of years and as such, are not flexible.

Try to remember that in the Western world, while these ideas are outdated and even offensive, in those countries, a women would never think of going out uncovered. Not necessarily because a man won't let her, but because that is the only way she has ever lived. We can't always put our morals on someone else's culture.

I am not saying rape is okay. Please don't interpret what I've said to even imply that. Rape is wrong. Always.

Treacle Worshipper

July 23, 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You are really hung up on the word FORCED. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around naked, then you must acknowledge that the FORCE of law can be used to make people put some clothes on. The issue isn't FORCE, so stop bringing it up. The issue is how much clothing is society willing to FORCE upon people. Where is the CENTER? Where do you draw the line?

If I understand British law correctly, there is no "indecent exposure" charge where women are concerned - we cannot be prosecuted for walking around nude, altho' you will not see this very often due to the climate. However, you will see women on beaches on sunny days taking advantage of this.
As far as men are concerned, I understand an indecent exposure charge can only be brought if he was deliberately trying to cause offence or distress to a woman by waving his dick around. This is why male streakers aren't prosecuted, and why it can sometimes be difficult to prosecute flashers.
So, British law isn't forcing clothing upon anyone. And I don't think people should be legally obliged to wear anything that they don't want to. People wander round naked & semi-naked in hot climates & they don't have any problems with it. It's just a body, what's the beef?

Wasn't there some Italian mayor who forced women over a certain weight & age to cover up on the beach because they offended the "beautiful people" or reflected badly on his town by being ugly or something? Pretty disgusting attitude, if you ask me. The other extreme of "women are so attractive we must cover them up or men won't be able to cope 'cos they're incapable of thinking with anything above their waist". Insulting to both men & women, imo.

TW

Ab_Normal

July 23, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
That is not just a Muslim trait it happnes in western societies as well.

Mind you it is interesting that you think of "their culture" and post a story about the most non-muslim Arab ME country which happens to be full of western soldiers, I do believe that the rape figures for Vietnam also went through the roof during occupation as well. It probably has much to do with the desparation of the people and the lack of any hope.

I'd be interested in comparisons btween Oman, Jordan, Iran, Brunei, Qatar, Syria and Egypt with western (read christianised) cultures of equal economic standing. Would you for example expect the rape figures for California to be higher or lower than Qatar and why?

Amen-Moses

That was just the most recent story I could remember, and I only had a few moments to Google it up (posting from work, you know). I will agree that Iraq isn't the best example of a stable Muslim culture. However, I do remember hearing about honor killings in other countries (mostly the 'Stans). Probably won't have time to do much research though - we're gussying up the office for the visit of the company president (yawn).

NonContradiction

July 23, 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
You are really hung up on the way people dress.

Liberals can be very tedious. I will try once again here to be understood. You don't have to agree with me, and you probably won't, but at least try to understand what I am saying to you.

I am NOT hung up on the way people dress. What I AM hung up on is where does society draw the line. If you are to the right of nudists, and believe that we should have laws against public nudity, then you are marginalizing nudists. The fact that nudists can voice their views and participate in the process doesn't change the fact that they will be marginalized if the majority doesn't agree with them. You, and the rest of the liberals, can refuse to acknowledge this point, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

You are really hung up on the way people dress. I am not, but am hung up on letting people have the power to make decisions and participate in community decision making. A topic which you keep avoiding, only because, I assume, you have nothing valuable to say. We don't force nudists to wear clothing.

In America, we do have laws against public nudity, which does imply the use of force. Nudists can NOT, by law, walk into a public building in the nude. You are hung up on the use of FORCE.

Nudists can participate in the decision making process, so if they want something they aren't getting (i.e. the ability to go nude in public), they should speak up and make their influence known.

See above.

This topic is totally different in that women in those cultures do not have that opportunity. So, don't bother replying to me about clothing ANYMORE please.

NOBODY has been focusing on clothing. I have been focusing on where to draw the line, and so far none of the liberals here have been able to answer that question.

In pornography, no one is being hurt, in those Muslim cultures, women's rights are being trampled.

What do you mean that no one is getting hurt? Just a minute ago, you told me that teenage girls were getting hurt and that conservatives and liberals should stand together. Now you are telling me that no one is getting hurt. Which is it? The fact that the teenage girls and pornographers are consenting adults doesn't change the fact that somebody is getting hurt.

Your hypocrisy is so obvious here. You raise hell about what you believe to be the oppression of women half way around the world, yet in your own country teenage girls are being exploited and you say that no one is getting hurt. They are getting hurt, and whether they consent to it or not doesn't change the fact that they are getting hurt.

cheetah

July 23, 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Liberals can be very tedious. I will try once again here to be understood. You don't have to agree with me, and you probably won't, but at least try to understand what I am saying to you.
Actually, you are getting quite tiresome in your refusal to acknowledge that there is a significant, qualitative difference between women not being able to participate in their own decision-making and nudists that are simply unsuccessful ni swaying the public to their beliefs (if indeed they did want to go about nude everywhere). If you don't see a difference there, this discussion will never go anywhere.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

I am NOT hung up on the way people dress. What I AM hung up on is where does society draw the line. If you are to the right of nudists, and believe that we should have laws against public nudity, then you are marginalizing nudists. The fact that nudists can voice their views and participate in the process doesn't change the fact that they will be marginalized if the majority doesn't agree with them. You, and the rest of the liberals, can refuse to acknowledge this point, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true.
OK, whatever you say. You aren't hung up on clothing. You are simply using clothing as the straw man in the argument to divert our attention from the real focus, which is women's rights to be involved in decision-making. And you're incorrect about marginalizing nudists. In a democracy it is their responsibility to exercise their freedoms if they want something. We as non-theists do the same. We lament that we are not the majority and we do not get special rights, and often we fight against it. We particularly fight against having the constitution trampled. We have the ability to fight back against being marginalized, which we are having varying degrees of success at. In a culture where women cannot participate, they do not have the ability to fight back against being marginalized. Again, a qualitative difference that you refuse to see.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

NOBODY has been focusing on clothing. I have been focusing on where to draw the line, and so far none of the liberals here have been able to answer that question.
What does that have to do with anything? Why are we talking about drawing the line? We wouldn't have to be talking about drawing the line between indecency and decency if women were allowed to participate in the decision-making in those cultures about what is decent. Then, the people would have their say and the decision would be made. it is fine that different cultures have different standards of what is decent and what is not. What is not fine is forcing those views on fully mentally competent women and not letting them have a say. This discussion is not about drawing a line, but is yet another straw man you are using to accuse us of meddling in affairs we don't belong in and draw attention away from the fact that basic human rights are being violated.

Originally posted by NonContradiction

What do you mean that no one is getting hurt? Just a minute ago, you told me that teenage girls were getting hurt and that conservatives and liberals should stand together. Now you are telling me that no one is getting hurt. Which is it? The fact that the teenage girls and pornographers are consenting adults doesn't change the fact that somebody is getting hurt. Actually, I did not tell you that. I simply told you some groups were working together against pornography. This may happen sometimes, and I don't deny that underage pornography is wrong, and here is why: because girls who are underage are not competent to make consent to those actions. This is not comparable to regular pornography, where everyone is of age and has made consent and, if they were getting hurt, could make the decision to leave. It is also not comparable to those oppressive cultures, because in those circumstances, people of full mental competence are not given the power to consent and are therefore being hurt by having their right to consent or not consent taken away. Full grown women are treated as animals that do not have the mental capacity to take care of themselves.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

Your hypocrisy is so obvious here. You raise hell about what you believe to be the oppression of women half way around the world, yet in your own country teenage girls are being exploited and you say that no one is getting hurt. They are getting hurt, and whether they consent to it or not doesn't change the fact that they are getting hurt. Again, you NEED to recognize the distinction between people over the age of consent and people under it. You say whether they consent or not they are getting hurt? how do you know? And if they are, why don't they leave? They have that freedom here in America, and if they choose not to exercise, am very sorry for them, but it's their own responsibility to exercise their freedoms. Again, in the oppressive cultures we are talking about, women do not have the right to exercise any freedom to extricate themselves from a situation or role they are being harmed by. We cannot hold the government or society accountabel for a person who chooses not to exercise freedoms they have, but we will hold the society or government responsible that strips fully developed women of those rights.

Timberline

July 23, 2003, 02:31 PM

I am NOT hung up on the way people dress. What I AM hung up on is where does society draw the line.

It's not about the clothes, and it's not about the inhumanity. It's about where is the center. The liberals have no center.

Actually, it's about discrimination. Why are you drawing one line for men and another line for women?

Here's my center: People should wear whatever clothes are practical and sensible for the activity they're engaged in. It's that simple. "People" includes women, and "activities" may include outdoor recreation, sports, and jobs that occasionally involve rolling up one's sleeves. That means I can put on shorts and a t-shirt and play tennis on a summer day--and so can my sister. If you want to discriminate against women like my sister, please explain how that's any more moral than discriminating against blacks...or against Muslims.

MollyMac

July 23, 2003, 04:37 PM

Cheetah, honey, I applaud your patience and the clarity of your arguments

NonContradiction, I have read and reread your posts in an attempt to make sense of them I have miserably failed to do so. I have extracted from your posts the following - they are not in the correct order.

�Who appointed you to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive?�
�What I AM hung up on is where does society draw the line.�
�I have been focusing on on where to draw the line, and so far none of the liberals here have been able to answer that question.�
�The real issue here, Dr Rick, is who draws the line for the way a woman dresses?�
�The problem with the far left is that they keep moving the line, always testing the laws against obscenity.�
�Who appointed you to draw the line here?�
�You can assert that Islam is repressive and oppressive, but it�s merely an assertion on your part unless you can successfully argue that you are the one who should be drawing the line.�
�It�s about the clothes, and it�s not about the inhumanity. It�s about where is the center. The liberal have no center.�
�I am defending a center. Until the liberals get a center, they will have nothing to defend. They will just be attacking everybody to the right of themselves, labelling them oppressors.�
�The conservatives have typically defined the center. The liberals, on the other hand, have been constantly moving the goal posts, so they now no longer know what center is anymore. When we say that somebody is on the right or the left, what do we mean by that? Right of what? Left of what? Where is the center?�
�Where is the CENTER? Where do you draw the line?�
�What is center will marginalize whatever is off-center. Centrism marginalizes.
�Why should I be labelled �oppressive� or �repressive� if I am not as liberal as you?�
�You fail to realize is that whatever you define to be at the center marginalizes everybody else in a like manner.�

Observations:
You are obsessed with categorising people as liberal, conservative, left, right, whatever. You are obsessed with "the center" without once having defined what you mean by it. Nor have you said why it is important - you have only insisted that it is. You are obsessed with the question of "who draws the line." You have also not explained this. You have continually avoided the point Cheetah has made about women participating in decision-making preferring instead to obsess about �the center� and �who draws the line�

Comments:
Some people cannot be categorised in the way you insist. Indeed, many of us are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Nudists, for example. I don't know any but I would put money on the fact that you will find amongst their number a range of views on such issues as abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, pornography. You will find a similar range of views amongst people who are opposed to public nudity. You will find people who are extremely liberal on everything, who are nevertheless opposed to public nudity. Their reasons for opposing public nudity may be: they find it difficult to stomach the sight of some or all naked bodies; they love the sight of naked bodies but are sensitive to feelings of people of a different age or different culture who live in their community; they are the parent of a young child and are stressed out coping with said child pointing at strangers and commenting in a loud voice on aspects of their appearance � even when fully dressed. People take all kinds of things when formulating their viewpoints - and they don't give the centre a second thought. Does that make their views irrelevant? Is it important who draws the line or where the line is drawn?

On pornography, you said:
�If liberals and conservatives are against it, then what is the problem? Why does it still exist?

Because there are people to whom the labels you insist on using simply don't apply. Some people don't give a shit about anything except lining their own pockets or getting their sexual kicks. Some people have no conscience. However, all countries in the west have some kind of legislation in respect of pornography. No western government forces people to participate in it or to buy it (which is why it is not a useful comparison to the observations made about women being legally forced to wear burqas). Here in the UK the legislation is strict, the sex trade is under constant scrutiny and a huge amount of money, time and resources are spent on combating the sexual slave trade. Personally, I, along with many other 'liberals' have spent over 30 years objecting, protesting and campaigning against the sexual exploitation of women and children and I resent your ignorant mischaracterization of us. I would defend, however, the right of adult women to work in the sex industry provided it is their entirely free choice that they do so - that is where I draw my line and I don't give a shit about where anyone else draws theirs.

When people make judgements on ethical issues they might use their reason, their humanity, their ability to empathise with people of a different age/gender/culture or they might disregard all of these and follow the teachings of their religion. They may seek to rationalise the teachings of their religion, claiming that it is in fact the most humane way of doing things, or they may not. What they do not do is think: 'Hmm�well I'm a liberal/conservative. What is the correct liberal/conservative thing to do in this position.' They do not think 'Where is the centre?' because, in fact, the centre is totally and utterly irrelevant.

When I make judgements about things I consider how I would feel if I was in that position, how I would feel if this happened to one of my loved ones, what are the possible consequences of doing this/not doing this etc. I try to follow the golden rule: Do as you would be done by, or don�t do as you wouldn�t be done by. I consider all these things and I make my judgement. I remain, however, open to persuasion. If I am presented with a rational convincing argument I may change my mind. Whatever I decide, I will try to persuade people to my way of thinking but I may be persuaded to their way of thinking instead. What I try not do is stereotype people, erect straw men or invent a load of bullshit about lines, centres etc. If you want this discussion to go anywhere other than round in a n ever-decreasing circle, I suggest you consider doing likewise.

Treacle Worshipper

July 24, 2003, 09:06 AM

MollyMac: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

TW

Nowhere357

July 24, 2003, 09:23 AM

Yes, great post MollyMac, lucid and right on.

NonContradiction

July 24, 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by cheetah
Actually, you are getting quite tiresome in your refusal to acknowledge that there is a significant, qualitative difference between women not being able to participate in their own decision-making and nudists that are simply unsuccessful ni swaying the public to their beliefs (if indeed they did want to go about nude everywhere). If you don't see a difference there, this discussion will never go anywhere.

Of course, there is a difference. Who said that there wasn't? The end result is the still the same, though, and that was the essence of my point. Somebody in the end is going to be marginalized, whether they participate in the process or not. Liberals can talk nonsense about how nobody should be marginalized in society, but the truth is, from a practical point of view, it's unavoidable. Liberals, themselves, marginalize those who oppose them.

Democracy does NOT imply fairness. One can freely voice his opinion, participate in the process, and still be marginalized. Why do you think that we have a bill of rights in the constitution? Is it not to protect a minority from being marginalized by a majority?

Islam is a religion, based on the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The rules in Islam are not up for democratic vote, whether they are rules about women's or men's dress. If somebody doesn't like the rules, then they should be allowed to freely leave the country and live with people, like you, who are interested in liberating them from what you perceive to be the shackles of a backward religion. I think that you would be surprised to find out how many Muslim women believe that you are the ones who are in shackles. You just don't realize it.

OK, whatever you say. You aren't hung up on clothing. You are simply using clothing as the straw man in the argument to divert our attention from the real focus, which is women's rights to be involved in decision-making. And you're incorrect about marginalizing nudists. In a democracy it is their responsibility to exercise their freedoms if they want something. We as non-theists do the same. We lament that we are not the majority and we do not get special rights, and often we fight against it. We particularly fight against having the constitution trampled. We have the ability to fight back against being marginalized, which we are having varying degrees of success at.

For once, I would like to hear liberals be honest with themselves and others. You complain about being marginalized in society, but we all know that if you were ever to get complete control in society that you would do the same thing that was done to you. You would marginalize all who oppose you. We all discriminate against people, let's face it. It's not the discrimination that is bad, but rather the question is on what basis are we going to discriminate against people. Jewish liberals, for years, have decried discrimination against blacks, Jews, women, and gays, yet at the same time, they created an apartheid state in the M.E. which denies Arabs the same legal rights accorded to Jews. I don't want to get into a discussion about the M.E. here; I just wanted to use it as an example to illustrate my point.

In a culture where women cannot participate, they do not have the ability to fight back against being marginalized. Again, a qualitative difference that you refuse to see.

No, I do see the difference. I just don't agree with you, but you refuse to try to understand how somebody could think differently than you do. I don't think that liberals have the right to go half way around the world, trying to liberate people from what THEY perceive to be an oppressive religion. Leave those people and their religion alone. Perhaps, many of them don't want to be liberated by you liberals? If there are women who want to leave, and you want to help them leave, then I have no problem with that. However, if you want to stick your nose into their religion, their culture, their tradition, and tell them what you think is right and wrong, when they didn't ask you for your opinion, then I do have a problem with that.

Why are we talking about drawing the line?

Because that is the issue, remember? We are not talking about clothes, right?

We wouldn't have to be talking about drawing the line between indecency and decency if women were allowed to participate in the decision-making in those cultures about what is decent.

That is not true. Everybody would have to talk about where to draw the line, a vote would be taken, and all people who opposed the majority would be marginalized. I am sure that wouldn't be a problem for you, as long as your opinion prevailed. Marginalizing others seems to be okay with you as long as you are not the one being marginalized.

Look... why don't the liberals stop running around the world trying to liberate people from their religion, their tradition, and their culture. Who do you people think you are?

it is fine that different cultures have different standards of what is decent and what is not.

It doesn't appear to be okay with you.

NonContradiction

July 24, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by MollyMac
Cheetah, honey, I applaud your patience and the clarity of your arguments

NonContradiction, I have read and reread your posts in an attempt to make sense of them I have miserably failed to do so.

It looks as though we have an Amen corner here. Liberals can tell each other that their nonsense makes sense, but it doesn't change the truth.

Silent Acorns

July 24, 2003, 03:18 PM

NonContradiction, is it your position that the female dress laws in Islamic countries is just a societal standard to define acceptable, and unacceptable dress? Are you saying that these laws are just a reflection of another culture's different values? That these laws only represent a more conservative dress code, and that the differences between our laws and their laws is only a matter of degree and not kind, much like the speed limit in one state may be 55 mph in one state and 70 mph in another?

Nowhere357

July 24, 2003, 04:50 PM

Noncontradiction would have a point, if Muslim women were permitted to dress as they choose, and they choose bhurkas.

But that's not the case, is it?

Dr Rick

July 24, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Noncontradiction would have a point, if Muslim women were permitted to dress as they choose, and they choose bhurkas.

But that's not the case, is it?

Many Muslim woman "choose" burqas, and also choose never to travel in public without a male; that would be your "choice," too, if the likely alternative was a beating or an "honor killing."

Amen-Moses

July 24, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Noncontradiction would have a point, if Muslim women were permitted to dress as they choose, and they choose bhurkas.

But that's not the case, is it?

Actually in many cases it is, in Pakistan for example many younger women have given it up but the older ones continue the tradition, whenever one of the younger ones is raped the older ones say "see we told you!"

Amen-Moses

Edited to add that even here in the UK I see Muslim women who are covered up, many of them married to western men.

cheetah

July 24, 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Amen-Moses

Edited to add that even here in the UK I see Muslim women who are covered up, many of them married to western men.

Which just adds to the point that it's not *how* you dress that matters to most of us, it's whether or not the choice was made by the dressed person or by someone imposing a dress code on them.

NonContradiction

July 24, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
NonContradiction, is it your position that the female dress laws in Islamic countries is just a societal standard to define acceptable, and unacceptable dress? Are you saying that these laws are just a reflection of another culture's different values?

Culture follows from the religion and not the other way around. Therefore, in any given culture, in any Muslim country, that culture may or may not reflect the religion of Islam. Many people in the Muslim world follow culture, therefore, if you were to ask them to reference a text in their religion to support their tradition, they may or may not be able to do so.

This is a Muslim problem, not a problem for Westerners to stick their noses into and dictate to them how they should or should not govern themselves. Who do the liberals think they are?

I am sick of the lying, hypocritical liberals slandering the religion of Islam because it's not as liberal as they think it should be. The fact of the matter is that women had very few, if any, rights when Islam arrived on the scene. Female infanticide was widely practiced, women could not inherit, and they were often discriminated against in other ways. In fact, they could be inherited against their will, as if they were nothing more than property. Islam gave women rights that they never had before in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Of course, all of this doesn't mean anything to the liberals because they believe that Islam didn't go far enough. That's fine, and that's their opinion, but they shouldn't distort the record by portraying Islam as an ignorant, backward religion that is oppressive towards women. Islam gave women, slaves, and poor people rights that no one else was willing to give them in the world at that time. Islam may not be as liberal as modern liberals think it should be, and I have no problem with them expressing their opinions, but they should stop distorting the truth because they have an agenda that they want to further.

Pain Paien

July 24, 2003, 09:31 PM

Dr Rick

July 24, 2003, 11:04 PM

This is a Muslim problem, not a problem for Westerners to stick their noses into and dictate to them how they should or should not govern themselves. Who do the liberals think they are?

The primary reason the oppression of women is a problem for Muslims in the first place is because Westerners are complaining about it. If it wasn't for Western influence and pressure, the misogyny still practiced and codified into law throughout the Middle East might not even be an issue.

I am sick of the lying, hypocritical liberals slandering the religion of Islam because it's not as liberal as they think it should be. and Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage.

Who is the lying hypocrite?

The fact of the matter is that women had very few, if any, rights when Islam arrived on the scene. Female infanticide was widely practiced, women could not inherit, and they were often discriminated against in other ways.

To this day, in many Islamic countries, a woman gets to inherit only half of what a man gets, her word in a court is worth half of a man's, she can't travel without a man's permission, she can't even drive unless her husband gives permission, she can be raped by her husband, she can be killed if she "disgraces" her family, she can be tortured to death if she has sex outside of marriage, she can have her genitals mutilated with neither consent nor anesthesia, and she has to cover her body almost completely in public.

Yup, those lying, slanderous, hypocritical liberals are really bent upon ruining a good thing.

Of course, all of this doesn't mean anything to the liberals because they believe that Islam didn't go far enough.

Sheesh...It even seems at times like the liberals want women to be treated as if they should be able to make their own decisions or something...

...they shouldn't distort the record by portraying Islam as an ignorant, backward religion that is oppressive towards women.

Should they instead portray it as as expressive of "girl-power"?

Islam gave women, slaves, and poor people rights that no one else was willing to give them in the world at that time.

Ingrates...give them an inch, and just the very next millineum, they suddenly want equality.

Islam may not be as liberal as modern liberals think it should be...

"may"?

I have no problem with them expressing their opinions...

Opinions don't bother him; it's when they tell the truth that he really gets stoked.

NonContradiction complains that "liberals" lie about Islam, when infact it is he that does. Notice how he doesn't actually quote any of the putative lies or distortions; that's because there aren't any except those coming from him.

Theli

July 25, 2003, 03:44 AM

Overlooking this whole thread the issue seems more to be a powerstruggle between two factions (in this case gender) than a moral issue. Should we place moral judgement on the one faction in a society that has the upperhand? Or should we accept it as natural?

July 25, 2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by meritocrat
So?

What makes your morality superior to Islamic sensibilities?

Some might argue that there ARE no universal rights!!

Which comes first, primary human rights or Islamic sensibilities?

July 25, 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by yguy
As to how women dress I would merely have them realize that by dressing in a sexually provacative manner they are making an unconscious choice to attract the the kind of man who will focus on her sexuality rather than her personhood.

And even presuming solely for arguments' sake that's true, the point that she is attracting people who focus on her sexuality means what?

Is there a presumption here?

NonContradiction

July 25, 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
To this day, in many Islamic countries, a woman gets to inherit only half of what a man gets, her word in a court is worth half of a man's, she can't travel without a man's permission, she can't even drive unless her husband gives permission, she can be raped by her husband, she can be killed if she "disgraces" her family, she can be tortured to death if she has sex outside of marriage, she can have her genitals mutilated with neither consent nor anesthesia, and she has to cover her body almost completely in public.

Yup, those lying, slanderous, hypocritical liberals are really bent upon ruining a good thing.

Some of what you say is religion, and some of what you say is culture. It doesn't really matter to you, though, because it all fits your agenda.

What is interesting here is how the two cultures view each other. When Arabs view the Jerry Springer show, via satllite, only the most simple-minded Arabs would think that the American people are as far left as he is. Only the most simple-minded Arabs would think that the neo-Nazi groups, skin heads, and abortion clinic terrorists represent the conservatives in America.

What the lying, hypocritical liberals on the far left are doing here is to take examples from Muslims on the far right and then using those examples to portray Muslims and Islam in a negative manner. All of this only incites more hatred and enmity towards the masses of Muslims and their religion. What is ironic here is that these far left liberals, at the same they are slandering the masses of Muslims and their religion, at a time when hatred and enmity towards Islam and Muslims is at an all time high after 9/11, these same liberals are offering legal counsel to the weak and marginalized Muslim community in America that is having its civil rights trampled upon by the John Ashcrofts and the George Bushs. They slander Islam and Muslims and then turn around and defend their civil rights as a marginalized, oppressed minority community in America. The whole affair is sick. The liberals on the far left are as sick as the conservatives on the far right; they just don't see their own sickness.

Yup, those lying, slanderous, hypocritical liberals are really bent upon ruining a good thing.

Yes, I think that they are. There is a lot of good in Islam.

Who is the lying hypocrite?

You tell me. The Jewish liberals that marched for black civil rights in the south while at the same time they supported the creation of an apartheid state in the M.E., were they not being hypocritical? How about the Jewish liberals that became Reagan conservatives so that Israel could get a fat pay check for having been an ally in Reagan's war against the so called "evil empire", were they not being hypocritical?

Yes, there are a lot of lying, hypocritical liberals on the far left that don't miss an opportunity to slander Muslims and their religion by using examples of right-wing extremists like the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Listening to them talk, one could walk away thinking that all Muslim women are walking around with mutilated genitals.

contracycle

July 25, 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Yes, there are a lot of lying, hypocritical liberals on the far left that don't miss an opportunity to slander Muslims and their religion by using examples of right-wing extremists like the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Listening to them talk, one could walk away thinking that all Muslim women are walking around with mutilated genitals.

Yep. Islamophobia is a big bandwagon, and there are plenty of people on it.

What is interesting here is how the two cultures view each other. When Arabs view the Jerry Springer show, via satllite, only the most simple-minded Arabs would think that the American people are as far left as he is. Only the most simple-minded Arabs would think that the neo-Nazi groups, skin heads, and abortion clinic terrorists represent the conservatives in America.

Well said there. I've seen a couple of debates run by the BBC and Channel 4 carried out live between the states and Islamic capitals. It was quite easy to see that even the allegedly liberal Americans were heavily committed to their Western self-righteousness. By comparison, the Islamic members were much more reasoned and rational, accepted nuances and did not apply collective punishment to anywhere near the same degree.

Silent Acorns

July 25, 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Culture follows from the religion and not the other way around. Therefore, in any given culture, in any Muslim country, that culture may or may not reflect the religion of Islam. Many people in the Muslim world follow culture, therefore, if you were to ask them to reference a text in their religion to support their tradition, they may or may not be able to do so.
I think you're contradicting yourself here. If culture follows from religion then culture in Muslim countries must refect the religion of Islam, even if only indirectly. So which is it, does cluture follow from religion or the other way around, or are two separate forces that have a complex interaction? I'd argue the latter.
This is a Muslim problem, not a problem for Westerners to stick their noses into and dictate to them how they should or should not govern themselves. Who do the liberals think they are?
Sorry, it's a human problem. Drawing the boundary between the involved and uninvolved parties based on religion or geography is artificial. One could easily have argued that the genocide in Rwanda was an African problem, or that burning "witches" was a christian problem, but that doesn't cut it with me. Also, no one here has the power to dictate anything, and we have every right to put diplomatic and economic pressure on other countries if we feel they violate basic human rights.
I am sick of the lying, hypocritical liberals slandering the religion of Islam because it's not as liberal as they think it should be.
Could you please point out how liberals are liars and hypocrits? Something with more teeth than just "liberals don't fight porn in their backyard, but fight for women's rights in other countries".
The fact of the matter is that women had very few, if any, rights when Islam arrived on the scene. Female infanticide was widely practiced, women could not inherit, and they were often discriminated against in other ways. In fact, they could be inherited against their will, as if they were nothing more than property. Islam gave women rights that they never had before in pre-Islamic Arabia.
This is true. Islam represented a real gain for women when it first arrived. 1300 years ago! What has it done for women since then? Why should all progress stop there? Why should we sit on the sidelines saying to ourselves, "this is terrible, women are suffering horribly ... ahh, but it's a Muslim problem. Let them deal with it, maybe they'll change in a few hundred years..."?
Of course, all of this doesn't mean anything to the liberals because they believe that Islam didn't go far enough. That's fine, and that's their opinion, but they shouldn't distort the record by portraying Islam as an ignorant, backward religion that is oppressive towards women.
This would have more impact on me if I was a christian, but being an atheist I am free to conclude that all ancient religions are ignorant and backward without being hypocritical.
Islam gave women, slaves, and poor people rights that no one else was willing to give them in the world at that time. Islam may not be as liberal as modern liberals think it should be, and I have no problem with them expressing their opinions, but they should stop distorting the truth because they have an agenda that they want to further.
Again, that was 1300 years ago. Islam was a force for progress then, and I'll credit it with that. Today, however, is another matter ...

MollyMac

July 25, 2003, 01:38 PM

Hello Contracycle

I don't see anything remotely contentious about your post, which leaves me wondering why you bothered posting. This discussion, if IIRC, is about women's rights though NonContradiction has done his best to avoid the subject and turn it into a discussion about something else, which IMO he should really have started a separate thread about.

Have you read the OP? If so, do you have anything to say about it?

Molly

NonContradiction

July 25, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
I think you're contradicting yourself here. If culture follows from religion then culture in Muslim countries must refect the religion of Islam, even if only indirectly.

There was no such thing as "Islamic culture" at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad established a religion, not a culture. After his death, an Islamic culture grew out of that religion. As I said before, in any given Muslim country, you may or may not find that the culture there refects the religion. In India, for example, it's not unusual to find Hindu culture mixed with Islamic culture. Why is this so difficult for the liberals to understand?

So which is it, does cluture follow from religion or the other way around, or are two separate forces that have a complex interaction? I'd argue the latter.

There is no contradiction. See above.

Could you please point out how liberals are liars and hypocrits? Something with more teeth than just "liberals don't fight porn in their backyard, but fight for women's rights in other countries".

The international Leftists have portrayed themselves as liberators, but the truth is that they have enslaved more people than they have liberated. The cure has always been worst than the disease, and the examples are numerous. The French Revolution, Marxism-Leninism, and the liberal economic policies of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society are all good examples. Why do you think conservatives, as inept as George Bush is, can still be elected in America? Is it not because of the failed, liberal, economic policies of the past which have created a dependent class of people? Also, I have already mentioned the hypocrisy of Jewish liberals fighting for civil rights in America while at the same time they created an apartheid state in the M.E.

This is true. Islam represented a real gain for women when it first arrived. 1300 years ago! What has it done for women since then? Why should all progress stop there?

I agree with you. I think that Islam was a real gain for women 1300 years ago. It was also a real gain for men. I also think that Islam is still a real gain for men and women, despite the Islamophobia prevalent.

This would have more impact on me if I was a christian, but being an atheist I am free to conclude that all ancient religions are ignorant and backward without being hypocritical.

This is just more liberal garbage. Religion, tradition, and culture is backward and dogmatic, whereas liberalism is rational and forward thinking. Hah! See the above examples of the liberal experiments that have been conducted upon humanity as if they were lab rats. Yes, the liberals are always full of new ideas. The problem is that none of them have worked very well. The truth is that the cure has been worst than the disease. Islam is the solution to Christian conservatism, not liberalism.

Silent Acorns

July 25, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The international Leftists have portrayed themselves as liberators, but the truth is that they have enslaved more people than they have liberated. The cure has always been worst than the disease, and the examples are numerous. The French Revolution, Marxism-Leninism, and the liberal economic policies of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society are all good examples.
First, You're mighty liberal with your use of the label "liberal". Second, I don't see how any of there are examples of having "enslaved more people than they have liberated". Leninist Russia may have been pretty bad, but one could easily argue that it was an impovement on Tsarist Russia (which is especially appropriate given the way you defend Islam). The same could be said for the French Revolution. As for your comment about Johnson, I fail to see how his policies "enslaved" anyone. Finally, your comment about "cure has always been worst than the disease" is clearly ridiculous. Modern Liberal Democracy is the direct result of liberal philosophy in action. Do you seriously believe that we would be better off with Feudalism?

Why do you think conservatives, as inept as George Bush is, can still be elected in America? Is it not because of the failed, liberal, economic policies of the past which have created a dependent class of people?
Conservatives get elected because many people like things the way they are now, or because they think society should be less permissive. Liberals get elected because many think things could be better if society was more permissive. If liberalism is really such a scourge then you should be arguing for the elimination of such liberal concepts as "free speech", "freedom of worship", and "free elections". For a person who complains so much that Islam is not synonomous with Taliban, it's strange that you seem to have the same attitude as the Taliban towards liberalism.
I agree with you. I think that Islam was a real gain for women 1300 years ago. It was also a real gain for men. I also think that Islam is still a real gain for men and women, despite the Islamophobia prevalent.
How is it still a real gain - other than allowing people to know the supposed will of god? From my perspective, it has been an agent of, at best, glacial progress. The solution to many of the probelms in the Middle East is the growth of Liberal Islam and some form of Secular Humanism. Yes, it's a model based on what happened in the West over the past 200+ years, but it's a model that works. Plus, they'd have the advantage of hindsight to avoid many of the pitfalls the West encountered. I don't know what you're advocating, but it seems to be that the Middle East would be a paradise if only the Liberal West would leave it alone.
This is just more liberal garbage. Religion, tradition, and culture is backward and dogmatic, whereas liberalism is rational and forward thinking. Hah!
Religion, by definition, is dogmatic and backward looking. I didn't say anything about tradition and culture, but obviously they have strong elements of backwardness and dogmatism as well.
Yes, the liberals are always full of new ideas. The problem is that none of them have worked very well. The truth is that the cure has been worst than the disease.
Would I be correct to conclude from this that you think the West was better off in the middle ages than it is now?
Islam is the solution to Christian conservatism, not liberalism.
Moving from Christian Conservatism to Islamic Conservatism would amount to little more than exchanging one out-dated book for another. It wouldn't change anything of substance.

MollyMac

July 25, 2003, 07:04 PM

posted by NonContradiction
It looks as though we have an Amen corner here. Liberals can tell each other that their nonsense makes sense, but it doesn't change the truth.
Well thank you so much for your carefully considered response to my post. It must have taken you ages.:rolleyes:

However, I notice that you had no answer to the point I made about your obsession with categorising people and in persist in doing so. I won�t bother repeating the point, I will confine myself to saying that using the word �liberal� to describe virtually everyone you disagree with (and dismissing the remainder as �right wing�) does not help your argument but makes you sound extremely ignorant.

In response to other posts, you said this:

For once, I would like to hear liberals be honest with themselves and others. You complain about being marginalized in society, but we all know that if you were ever to get complete control in society that you would do the same thing that was done to you. You would marginalize all who oppose you. Liberals can talk nonsense about how nobody should be marginalized in society, but the truth is, from a practical point of view, it's unavoidable. Liberals, themselves, marginalize those who oppose them.

And this:

Everybody would have to talk about where to draw the line, a vote would be taken, and all people who opposed the majority would be marginalized. I am sure that wouldn't be a problem for you, as long as your opinion prevailed. Marginalizing others seems to be okay with you as long as you are not the one being marginalized.

And this:

I don't think that liberals have the right to go half way around the world, trying to liberate people from what THEY perceive to be an oppressive religion. Leave those people and their religion alone.

You�re right. Liberals don�t have to go half way round the world because so many muslims prefer to come and practise their oppressive religion in freer, more tolerant and liberal societies where they can do so at the expense of the idiotic liberals you despise.

I live in the London Borough of Brent which has a population of just over a quarter of a million. According to the 2001 census the population of Brent comprised the following religions: Christian 47.7%, Hindu 17.2 %, Muslim 12.3 %, Jewish 2.5%, Other 1.8%. The remaining18.5% have no religion.

There are 86 publicly funded schools of which 61 are non-denominational and attended by children of all religions and of no religion. The remaining faith schools are allowed to discriminate on religious ground both in terms of student intake and employment of teaching staff . Two of these schools are muslim schools � for girls only. Here is a picture of them in their charming, compulsory school uniform:

http://www.radwan.cwc.net/032_5a.jpg

This school � which I, an atheist, help to fund through the taxes I pay, is a place where girls aged 4-11 will receive an education �guided by Islamic principles�.

I'd just like to add that amongst the many places in Brent, were theists of all persuasions can go and indulge their bizarre and irrational beliefs in the supernatural, are three mosques.

Does this sound like a �liberal� community to you, NonContradiction? If not, why not? If yes then please explain to me exactly how you think the minority muslim community are being marginalized?

I will say one more thing: you have chosen not to engage with me, you have not responded to any of my posts, you have not asked my opinion on anything, you have simply dismissed me as a �liberal� � a dirty word in your vocabulary. But as I said before people are not so easily categorised. I am liberal on some issues but on others I am not. For example, unlike the democratically elected representatives of the London Borough of Brent � every last one a �liberal�, according to your all-embracing definition - I am not a �multiculturist�. You will never hear me argue that different cultures should be treated with equal respect. Why should I � an atheist - be expected to show respect for Christian, Islamic or Jewish cultures whose views I find despicable? I resent the fact that I pay taxes to �educate� children according to the misogynistic and homophobic principles of their religion, whichever religion that is.

I believe some societies, some cultures are better than others because they are more just, more free, more enlightened, more conducive to human progress. Some cultures are better than others because they recognise that women are half the human race and entitled to the same basic human rights as the other half.

Don�t bother asking me who appointed me to draw the line and all that crap � nobody did. This is just my opinion and I am entitled to hold it and to argue it just as you are entitled to ignore it, as I am sure you will.

yguy

July 25, 2003, 07:22 PM

JB01

July 25, 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
This is just more liberal garbage...

I don't usually like to involve myself in political arguments (especially when they're already off-topic for their threads), but I just want to register how bizarre I think this is. Every time I've seen the left criticized lately in America by those calling themselves conservatives, it's been with accusations of moral relativism. According to what I've seen from the American right, "liberals" bend over backwards to be "culturally sensitive" to other peoples' value systems, to the point (they claim) of endorsing immoral policies and even endangering national security! It's the conservatives who continually trumpet the supposed superiority of western culture to the backwardness of the Islamic world. It wasn't a left-wing pundit who said we should forcefully convert Muslims in other countries to Christianity; it was Ann Coulter.

With regard to Israel's social policies, too, it's been conservatives in America who have been and are the most unanimously supportive and uncritical of Israel. The most consistent home-grown source of criticism of Israeli policy has been from those on the far left, e.g., Chomsky.

So what the hell are you talking about?

NonContradiction

July 25, 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by JB01
According to what I've seen from the American right, "liberals" bend over backwards to be "culturally sensitive" to other peoples' value systems, to the point (they claim) of endorsing immoral policies and even endangering national security! It's the conservatives who continually trumpet the supposed superiority of western culture to the backwardness of the Islamic world. It wasn't a left-wing pundit who said we should forcefully convert Muslims in other countries to Christianity; it was Ann Coulter.

With regard to Israel's social policies, too, it's been conservatives in America who have been and are the most unanimously supportive and uncritical of Israel. The most consistent home-grown source of criticism of Israeli policy has been from those on the far left, e.g., Chomsky.

So what the hell are you talking about?

It's not just the people on the Christian right that are Islam bashing. People on the far-left are also guilty of it, as evidenced in this thread. In fact, in many ways, the far left and the far right are very much alike.

If these two civilizations - the Islamic and the Western - are ever going to have any hope of understanding each other and living in peace, they need to become more willing to learn more about each other. Islam bashing, IMO, isn't going to foster that understanding. But rather, instead, it's going create nothing but hard feelings and resentment.

Educated Muslims probably understand Western civilization a lot better than educated Westerners understand the Islamic civilization. For one thing, more Muslims live in the west than Westerners live in the Muslim world. Secondly, many Muslims received their education from Western institutions so that does give them an advantage.

It's very difficult to characterize all people a certain way, but the liberal/conservative distinction is quite useful in understanding the political spectrum. First of all, what do we mean by liberal and conservative in the west? In Western civilization, the liberal/conservative distinction can be quite deceiving. The reason is that in Western civilization two distinct liberal movements grew out of the feudal society in the Middle Ages. One was classical liberal and the other one was modern liberal.

I quote from The Politics of Bad Faith, by David Horowitz.

Looking back on the two-hundred year history now past, we can see it is not simply a unitary conflict between revolution and ancien regime (the paradigm in which counterrevolution would be synonymous with reaction, revolution with social progress). It is the conflict of two distinct revolutionary traditions. The struggle that has shaped our age has not been between the old order and the new revolution, but between two revolutionary paths to the modern world, two different paradigms of the European Enlightenment that took root, respectively, in America and France.

The revolutionary path that France took, what I call the modern liberal movement, or the far-Left, has been very hostile, not only towards Christianity, but also towards Islam as well. There isn't much difference, in the end, between Ann Coulter and the far-Left.

From the Western perspective, I would have to say that Islam is to the left of feudalism and to the right of liberalism.

I will address your question about Israel's social policies in another post.

All of this is off topic, but as Cheetah has said many times in the past, this isn't about clothes. She is right. This whole affair is a lot bigger than clothes. It's about politics as much as it is about clothes.

NonContradiction

July 26, 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
First, You're mighty liberal with your use of the label "liberal". Second, I don't see how any of there are examples of having "enslaved more people than they have liberated". Leninist Russia may have been pretty bad, but one could easily argue that it was an impovement on Tsarist Russia (which is especially appropriate given the way you defend Islam). The same could be said for the French Revolution. As for your comment about Johnson, I fail to see how his policies "enslaved" anyone. Finally, your comment about "cure has always been worst than the disease" is clearly ridiculous. Modern Liberal Democracy is the direct result of liberal philosophy in action. Do you seriously believe that we would be better off with Feudalism?

Yguy has already made many of the comments that I would have made. However, I will make the following comment. You say that modern liberal democracy is the direct result of liberal philosophy in action. What you don't seem to realize is that many of the people that you are labeling as conservatives are, in fact, liberals. They are classical liberals. They may not be as liberal as you, thank God for that, but they are, nonetheless, liberals. The problem with the people on the far-left is they think that anybody to the right of them must be a dogmatic conservative.

As I have said before, there isn't really much difference between the people on the far-left and the neo-Nazi skin heads on the far-right. They all tend to be hard-headed people. They are all extremists, otherwise, they wouldn't be on the far-right or the far-left. I really do object to people on the far-left being called liberals. Liberty, liberal, and liberation all come from the same root word. The truth is the far-left has a history of enslaving people in the name of liberation, and although I have provided mumerous examples for you of that, you have denied all of them. That's arrogance. You simply choose to stck your head in the sand and deny the truth. You can deny the truth all you want. It doesn't make it any less true.

Given the liberal society that we live in now, the people on the far-right have been virtually marginalized. I think that has been a good thing, but I am also looking forward to the day when the people on the far-left will be marginalized as well. I believe that day will come a lot sooner than most people think.

Conservatives get elected because many people like things the way they are now, or because they think society should be less permissive.

Or perhaps they believe that liberals on the far-Left can be as oppressive as conservatives on the far-Right? People, by nature, don't like extremists.

Liberals get elected because many think things could be better if society was more permissive. If liberalism is really such a scourge then you should be arguing for the elimination of such liberal concepts as "free speech", "freedom of worship", and "free elections".

This is just more hypocrisy from the far-left. They are as intolerant of people to the right of them as the neo-Nazis are of people to the left of them. Yet they talk about "free speech". Liberalism is just a cover for their hidden agenda.

For a person who complains so much that Islam is not synonomous with Taliban, it's strange that you seem to have the same attitude as the Taliban towards liberalism.

This is another tactic of the far-Left - characterize anybody to the right of them as being on the far-Right. The truth is I am to the right of you and the left of the Taliban. I don't expect you, and a lot of other people here, to make these kinds of distinctions.

The solution to many of the probelms in the Middle East is the growth of Liberal Islam and some form of Secular Humanism. Yes, it's a model based on what happened in the West over the past 200+ years, but it's a model that works. Plus, they'd have the advantage of hindsight to avoid many of the pitfalls the West encountered.

Oh please...I feel like I am going to vomit here. The truth is the Arab world would have been a lot better off without the far-Left liberals going to the M.E. to liberate them from their perceived shackles of religion. Saddam Hussein was educated in the far-Left Marxist-Lenin tradition in Russia. Same holds true for Syria. Gamal Abdul-Nasser in the 60's, with his far-Left policies, completely ruined the economy of Egypt, which to this day still hasn't recovered. The Arab world still suffers from the same backwardness that Russia suffers from today. It wasn't the religion of Islam that did that to them, but rather the bone-headed policies of people on the far-Left that ruined once beautiful thriving countries. You simply don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The thing that kills me about people on the far-Left is that wherever they have gone in the world, they have left behind nothing but pain and misery from their failed liberal experiments, yet they are too arrogant to admit it.

What many people fail to realize is that liberalism in the west was a revolution against the feudal system. The Islamic world never had a feudal system, so what makes people think that the Islamic world needs Western style liberalism? If anything, the Islamic world needs to be liberated from liberalism.

I don't know what you're advocating, but it seems to be that the Middle East would be a paradise if only the Liberal West would leave it alone.

I am not that simplistic in my thinking as people on the far-Right or far-Left are. I don't believe that getting rid of the people on the far-Left will solve all of the problems of the world. The far-Right has created their share of problems in the world, also.

Would I be correct to conclude from this that you think the West was better off in the middle ages than it is now?

Classical liberalism was better for the west than modern liberalism was.

Moving from Christian Conservatism to Islamic Conservatism would amount to little more than exchanging one out-dated book for another. It wouldn't change anything of substance.

This is just more garbage from the far-Left. If past performance is any indicator of future performance, it doesn't appear as though you have anything better.

NonContradiction

July 26, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by MollyMac
However, I notice that you had no answer to the point I made about your obsession with categorising people and in persist in doing so.

It's like the colors of the rainbow. They all fit on the color spectrum somewhere. At times it may be difficult to see exactly where they fit, granted, but they do fit somewhere. With people on the far-Left, it's obvious where they fit on the political spectrum.

I won�t bother repeating the point, I will confine myself to saying that using the word �liberal� to describe virtually everyne you disagree with (and dismissing the remainder as �right wing�) does not help your argument but makes you sound extremely ignorant.

My gosh! This is exactly the same thing that I have been saying about the far-Left! They categorize everybody to the right of them as being right-wing. Classical liberals are liberals, but they are to the right of you so you call them conservatives. When I say that I am to the left of the Taliban, it doesn't matter to you people. For once, I would love to hear you guys tell me that the far-Left is as whacked out as the far-Right.

You�re right. Liberals don�t have to go half way round the world because so many muslims prefer to come and practise their oppressive religion in freer, more tolerant and liberal societies where they can do so at the expense of the idiotic liberals you despise.

Their oppressive religion? And you call yourself tolerant of other people's religion? I don't think so.

I live in the London Borough of Brent which has a population of just over a quarter of a million. According to the 2001 census the population of Brent comprised the following religions: Christian 47.7%, Hindu 17.2 %, Muslim 12.3 %, Jewish 2.5%, Other 1.8%. The remaining18.5% have no religion.

There are 86 publicly funded schools of which 61 are non-denominational and attended by children of all religions and of no religion. The remaining faith schools are allowed to discriminate on religious ground both in terms of student intake and employment of teaching staff . Two of these schools are muslim schools � for girls only.

This school � which I, an atheist, help to fund through the taxes I pay, is a place where girls aged 4-11 will receive an education �guided by Islamic principles�.

I don't think that you should have to pay a dime for any religious school, whether it's Muslim or Christian.

Does this sound like a �liberal� community to you, NonContradiction? If not, why not? If yes then please explain to me exactly how you think the minority muslim community are being marginalized?

I can't speak for the Muslim community in London, but I can tell you, without doubt, that the Muslim community in America is being marginalized, especially after 9/11.

I will say one more thing: you have chosen not to engage with me, you have not responded to any of my posts, you have not asked my opinion on anything, you have simply dismissed me as a �liberal� � a dirty word in your vocabulary. But as I said before people are not so easily categorised. I am liberal on some issues but on others I am not. For example, unlike the democratically elected representatives of the London Borough of Brent � every last one a �liberal�, according to your all-embracing definition - I am not a �multiculturist�. You will never hear me argue that different cultures should be treated with equal respect. Why should I � an atheist - be expected to show respect for Christian, Islamic or Jewish cultures whose views I find despicable? I resent the fact that I pay taxes to �educate� children according to the misogynistic and homophobic principles of their religion, whichever religion that is.

If Islam was misogynistic, it wouldn't have given women more rights than they ever had before at the time. What is ridiculous with people like you on the far-Left is that you don't decry the pre-Islamic pagan culture that completely marginalized women. Instead, you bash Islam.

You say that you find Islam to be despicable. I find homosexuality to be despicable. Why do you blame me for what you do yourself?You are as intolerant of Islam as I am of homosexuality. Why is it okay for you be intolerant, but it's not okay for me to be intolerant? This is just more hypocritical garbage from the far-Left.

I believe some societies, some cultures are better than others because they are more just, more free, more enlightened, more conducive to human progress. Some cultures are better than others because they recognise that women are half the human race and entitled to the same basic human rights as the other half.

Don�t bother asking me who appointed me to draw the line and all that crap � nobody did. This is just my opinion and I am entitled to hold it and to argue it just as you are entitled to ignore it, as I am sure you will.

Asking somebody where to draw the line isn't a bunch of crap. If you want to attack Islam as being misogynistic, because the line it draws isn't agreeable to you, then you better be prepared to defend your own line. So far, none of the liberals on the far-Left have been willing to do that.

Timberline

July 26, 2003, 12:35 PM

You say that you find Islam to be despicable. I find homosexuality to be despicable. Why do you blame me for what you do yourself?You are as intolerant of Islam as I am of homosexuality. Why is it okay for you be intolerant, but it's not okay for me to be intolerant? This is just more hypocritical garbage

You realize, of course, that someone can come back at you with this:

You say that you find homosexuality to be despicable. I find Islam to be despicable. Why do you blame me for what you do yourself?You are as intolerant of homosexuality as I am of Islam. Why is it okay for you be intolerant, but it's not okay for me to be intolerant? This is just more hypocritical garbage.

(Going off on a tangent for a moment, genetically-caused sexual preferences and the doctrines and customs of Islam are like apples and oranges. Your analogy would have worked better if you had cited another set of doctrines: the Democratic Party platform, for example.)

Now, getting back to the matter at hand, you still haven't explained why you want to discriminate against my sister. Nor have you explained how doing so is more moral than, say, discriminating against Muslims.

Timberline

July 26, 2003, 12:45 PM

What is ridiculous with people like you on the far-Left is that you don't decry the pre-Islamic pagan culture that completely marginalized women. Instead, you bash Islam.

Oh, come on. The reason no one decries the pre-Islamic pagan culture is because it's dead. It's been dead for 1300 years. Shall we talk about the terrible cruelty of the ancient Aztec sacrifices, too?

If these ancient religions had 1 billion followers today, and were still marginalizing women or carving open the hearts of sacrificial victims, then yes, plenty of people--and not just on the far-left--would be criticizing them.

Silent Acorns

July 26, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You say that modern liberal democracy is the direct result of liberal philosophy in action. What you don't seem to realize is that many of the people that you are labeling as conservatives are, in fact, liberals. They are classical liberals. They may not be as liberal as you, thank God for that, but they are, nonetheless, liberals. The problem with the people on the far-left is they think that anybody to the right of them must be a dogmatic conservative.
The version of Islam that I am criticizing here is an example of "classical liberalism"? Are you nuts? Or are you just completely losing site of what we're talking about here? And for IPU's sake, please stop using "far-left" and "liberals" as if they were synonymous.
I really do object to people on the far-left being called liberals. Liberty, liberal, and liberation all come from the same root word.
This is extremely ironic given the fact that you have been blasting away calling the Reign of Terror and even Stalanism (via your aparent agreement with yguy) as examples of "liberalism". What I'm arguing is that the middle east needs modern secular liberal democracy if it's going to improve. Not the way Bush is trying to do it though. It should be a result of internal politics. My problem with Islam, as it exists in the Middle East today, is that it's trying to prevent this from happening. It stands squarely against what you call "classical liberalism".
The truth is the far-left has a history of enslaving people in the name of liberation, and although I have provided mumerous examples for you of that, you have denied all of them.
That's because I find most of them to be laughable examples of liberalism. I never said the Reign of Terror or Stalanism were good. I just said that the excesses of Feudalism were just as bad, if not worse.
I am also looking forward to the day when the people on the far-left will be marginalized as well.
What the hell are you talking about? The left is far more marginalized than the right. Especially at the extremes.
Or perhaps they believe that liberals on the far-Left can be as oppressive as conservatives on the far-Right?
There you go again, calling liberals the "far-left".
This is another tactic of the far-Left - characterize anybody to the right of them as being on the far-Right.
That's a standard tactic of all political philosophies. Even centrists do this.
It wasn't the religion of Islam that did that to them, but rather the bone-headed policies of people on the far-Left that ruined once beautiful thriving countries.
This is laughable. Make up your mind who you are attacking. The �far-left� in the democratic west had absolutely no role the history of the Middle East. And even if they did, it would still be irrelevant because we�re not talking about �far-left� ideas or socialism. We�re talking about the rights of women to control their own lives in societies that won�t let them. You are the one who claims that I should just ignore their plight and not even comment about it because it�s none of my business as a non-Muslim. You are the one who claims that the Middle East would be better off as �left of the Taliban� theocracies than as liberal democracies. Of course British and American versions of imperialism bear considerable blame for the mess that is the modern Middle East. But since I�m neither British nor American, and since they never even tried to set up liberal democracies in the Middle East, I fail to see the relevance to my position.
What many people fail to realize is that liberalism in the west was a revolution against the feudal system. The Islamic world never had a feudal system, so what makes people think that the Islamic world needs Western style liberalism?
It doesn�t have to be �Western style� per se, but I think they would be better off if they were liberal (in the proper sense, not your silly �everything that I hate� sense) and democratic. And since I�m an atheist and believe that all religion is an artificial man-made disease on humanity, I don�t think the religion of Islamic mullahs should have any special role in controlling policy (i.e. the middle east does not need more Irans).

MollyMac

July 26, 2003, 04:01 PM

Greetings, NC

Is this addressed to me?
This is exactly the same thing that I have been saying about the far-Left! They categorize everybody to the right of them as being right-wing. Classical liberals are liberals, but they are to the right of you so you call them conservatives.
Do I take it you have now decided to reclassify me? Actually no, I call classical liberals, classical liberals. What is this compulsion you have of putting words in people�s mouths?
When I say that I am to the left of the Taliban, it doesn't matter to you people.
I'm not sure who you mean by "you people". I represent only myself and answer on my own behalf. I've made it clear that I think your habit of categorising people is a nonsense and I am not interested in how you categorise yourself. I am only interested in the actual opinions and arguments you express. Is that OK?
For once, I would love to hear you guys tell me that the far-Left is as whacked out as the far-Right.
Let me make you happy:

The far-Left is as whacked out as the far-Right.

Is that better? Oh�but does that mean you�re going to have to find a new label to pin on me now that liberal and far left don�t seem to fit? :eek:
Their oppressive religion? And you call yourself tolerant of other people's religion? I don't think so.
Excuse me? When have you ever heard me claim that I am tolerant of religion? You haven�t. I thought that everything I have said in my posts would have made my feelings about religion apparent. But evidently not so let me spell it out:
I am probably one of the least tolerant of religion people alive.
Is that any clearer?
I can't speak for the Muslim community in London, but I can tell you, without doubt, that the Muslim community in America is being marginalized, especially after 9/11.
So you have shifted from a stance of saying a minority is by definition marginalized to saying that a minority you have personal knowledge of is marginalized. That�s more like it.:)
You say that you find Islam to be despicable. I find homosexuality to be despicable. Why do you blame me for what you do yourself? You are as intolerant of Islam as I am of homosexuality. Why is it okay for you be intolerant, but it's not okay for me to be intolerant? This is just more hypocritical garbage from the far-Left.
This may be hard for you to comprehend but actually it doesn�t come from the �far left� - it comes from me, an individual who considers each issue on its own merit and makes up her own mind rather than just spouting the teachings of a particular doctrine be it political or religious.

More importantly, it isn�t hypocritical garbage. I despise homophobic religions and cultures because I have compassion and empathy for human beings, regardless of whether they were born men or women, black or white, straight or gay. And because I have compassion and empathy I also believe that people have certain basic human rights and one of those rights is the right for consenting adults to make love.

Religion is not congenital, it is a belief system. It is something you choose. It is indefensible.
What is ridiculous with people like you on the far-Left is that you don't decry the pre-Islamic pagan culture that completely marginalized women. Instead, you bash Islam.
Why those pre-Islamic pagan swine!! How dare they have completely marginalized women! If I�d abeen around 1300 years ago I would have despised them!!
Asking somebody where to draw the line isn't a bunch of crap. If you want to attack Islam as being misogynistic, because the line it draws isn't agreeable to you, then you better be prepared to defend your own line. So far, none of the liberals on the far-Left have been willing to do that.
Bollocks. Another shift in position. Instead of your oft-repeated mantra of �Who draws the line?� It�s now �defend your line�. I don�t think I could have made it any clearer that I am prepared to argue and defend my opinions ad infinitum and I�d hazard a guess that every other poster on this board would do the same. Deal with it.

MollyMac

July 26, 2003, 04:04 PM

Interesting article by Azam Kamguian (http://www.secularism.org.uk/azam.htm)
Seems pertinent to this thread.

NonContradiction

July 26, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by MollyMac
Interesting article by Azam Kamguian (http://www.secularism.org.uk/azam.htm)
Seems pertinent to this thread.

Azam Kamguian is an Iranian writer and women's rights activist. She was born in 1958 and started her political activities as a socialist in 1976

Look at your source. You are quoting leftist sources which are biased to your point of view! Bring me a recognized university, with well renowned scholars, that is willing to say that Islam is a misogynistic religion. And even if you could, I could bring you an equal number of scholars who wouldn't agree with you that Islam is misogynistic. Karen Armstrong, the well renowned religious scholar, would be one that comes to mind. This is nothing more than religious bigotry that you are espousing here, yet the liberals accuse the Right of bigotry against blacks and others. This is just more liberal hypocrisy.

MollyMac

July 27, 2003, 11:34 AM

I didn�t �quote from sources�, I provided a link that I thought anyone looking through this thread might be interested in seeing, particularly as it was written by a woman from a muslim background, who grew up in the Middle East. Of course I chose an article that I agree with and I don�t understand why you should feel indignant about this � I�m hardly going to link to an article by an apologist for Islam am I? Your dismissing it out of hand because it�s not biased to your point of view, rather than attempting to argue with any of the points made in the article, does not surprise me, however.

It is evident, NC, that you don�t really understand why most of us come to these boards. If I may quote from the board�s policy and rules:

The Secular Web discussion forum strives to be an intellectually stimulating environment in which discussants exchange ideas in the spirit of discovery (my emphasis). Poisoning that environment with acrimony is highly discouraged. Please exercise tact and refrain from insulting others or disrupting ongoing discussions with inflammatory speech.

Many theists, including a few muslims, come here and engage in civil and intelligent debate with us atheists. They generally manage to do this without being patronising, without being dismissive, without ascribing to their opponents things they did not actually say, without resorting to diversionary tactics, without stereotyping, without making unsubstantiated allegations of their �hypocrisy� and their �bigotry�.

As I said in a previous post, I am open to persuasion. If I am presented with a rational convincing argument I may change my mind. I will try to persuade people to my way of thinking but I may be persuaded to their way of thinking instead. I have responded to your arguments to the best of my ability and not once have I stereotyped or been dismissive of you. Frankly, I expected you to reciprocate this courtesy but you did not.

You have proved, throughout this thread, that you are not interested in an exchange of ideas, you are not interested in � or perhaps capable of - meaningful debate. The tone of many of your posts has been extremely acrimonious and inflammatory and frankly, I�ve got better things to do with my time than waste it here.

JB01

July 27, 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction

This is nothing more than religious bigotry that you are espousing here, yet the liberals accuse the Right of bigotry against blacks and others. This is just more liberal hypocrisy.

In case you hadn't noticed, NonC, this is an atheist board, populated by atheists from all over the political spectrum. We are not all "liberals", but most of us, whether left, right, center or undefinable share the belief that all religions, especially the Abrahamic Big Three of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are pernicious, oppressive nonsense and ought ideally to be done away with entirely. There's simply no reason to put a political label on this viewpoint; the continuum of beliefs regarding religion is orthogonal to the continuum of political orientations.

NonContradiction

July 27, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by JB01
In case you hadn't noticed, NonC, this is an atheist board, populated by atheists from all over the political spectrum.

You underestimate my intelligence, but that is good for me.

We are not all "liberals",

Where did I say that you were? I am well aware of the fact that many atheists could be considered to be conservatives. Some atheists are to the right of other atheists, but they are all to the left of Christian conservatives. This isn't about atheists, anyway, so I don't know why you are bringing it up.

but most of us, whether left, right, center or undefinable share the belief that all religions, especially the Abrahamic Big Three of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are pernicious, oppressive nonsense and ought ideally to be done away with entirely.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is to stick your noses where they don't belong and try to liberate people who don't want to be liberated by you. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right in your assertion that Islam is oppressive. The problem is your alternative is much worse than what we have. Your cure is worse than the disease, but you refuse to admit it. You are not the great liberators of humanity, face it. Perhaps in your minds, but not in my mind or the minds of many other people..

Who appointed you as ruler of the world? What right do you have to say that these religions should be done away with entirely? You should take a good look at the arrogant statements that you are making here. Why don't you just leave the Muslim people alone if they don't want to be liberated by you? Are you the police of the world?

Nowhere357

July 27, 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Who appointed you as ruler of the world? What right do you have to say that these religions should be done away with entirely? You should take a good look at the arrogant statements that you are making here. Why don't you just leave the Muslim people alone if they don't want to be liberated by you? Are you the police of the world?
This to me is the only argument with merit you have shared here.

But the bottom line is drawn in the sand - and those who stand for justice and tolerance are going to oppose those who don't.

yguy

July 27, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is to stick your noses where they don't belong and try to liberate people who don't want to be liberated by you.

The problem I have with this is that so many Muslims seem intent upon sticking their noses where they don't belong by means of intimidation ranging from shrill demands for "tolerance" to outright terrorism. I think Molly's fears somewhat misapplied to Christianity, but as regards Islam, it seems to breed oppression in whatever parts of the world it holds sway; and, showing as it does no discernible proclivity to "live and let live", is arguably a danger to any society which has such a proclivity. "Tolerance", in fact, could be the very gateway through which the Trojan Horse is allowed to enter the city.

NonContradiction

July 27, 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
This to me is the only argument with merit you have shared here.

But the bottom line is drawn in the sand - and those who stand for justice and tolerance are going to oppose those who don't.

Justice and tolerance? Liberals make bone-headed comments like "we should do away with all of the Abrahamic religions" and then, with the same breath, they talk about tolerance. And WHERE is this bottom line drawn in the sand? And WHO drew the line?

What liberals fail to realize is that, sooner or later, all liberals become conservatives if their revolutionary efforts are successful. They become the new conservatives.

Silent Acorns

July 27, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
What you are not entitled to is to stick your noses where they don't belong and try to liberate people who don't want to be liberated by you.
1. Who are you to say where our noses belong?
2. Who says they don't want to be liberated?
3. Who says we're going to be doing the liberating?
Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right in your assertion that Islam is oppressive. The problem is your alternative is much worse than what we have.
You keep saying this but I fail to see how the people of the Middle East are better off than the people of the West. You keep saying this as if it's obvious. It isn't.
You are not the great liberators of humanity, face it.
I don't think anyone here said we were. I think you're under the false impression that we want to invade the Middle East and set up governments there as we see fit. I have no clue where you got that idea from.
Who appointed you as ruler of the world?
No one, and we don't pretend to be the rulers of the world. Get a grip on yourself. There's a big difference between pointing out oppression and desiring to rule the world.
What right do you have to say that these religions should be done away with entirely?
First of all, it's granted by my national constitution. Secondly, I'm not advocating the elimination of religion by force. Rather, I'm encouraging all people to stop being superstitious, accept reality, and make the world a better place by leaving religion in the dustbin of history where it belongs. By the way, in case you don't know it, I don't have an army and I wouldn't use it even if I did.
Why don't you just leave the Muslim people alone if they don't want to be liberated by you?
Again, the only one here saying they don't want to be liberated is you. To make matters worse, when someone quotes someone who does want to be liberated you label them a "leftist" and therefore biased and irrelevant. Many women (and men) in the middle east do want to be liberated.

NonContradiction

July 27, 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by yguy
The problem I have with this is that so many Muslims seem intent upon sticking their noses where they don't belong by means of intimidation ranging from shrill demands for "tolerance" to outright terrorism.

I am not so sure that I would characterize it as "sticking their noses into other people's business". Most of the Muslims that I know of are reactive, not proactive. They came to America to make money, like everybody else. The only reason they are involved in the civil rights movement in America, a leftist movement, is because they are being discriminated against by the Christian conservatives. I am against Muslims allying themselves with the liberals, which should come as no surprise to you, but I belong to a small minority within the Muslim community.

The history of the Islamic civilization is intertwined with Western civilization. It's a very complicated issue that needs to demystified and unravelled.. In fact, the problems in the M.E., right now, can all be traced back in history. Unless we now where we have been, we will never which way to go in the future. The "terrorism" in the world right now is rooted in this history, and somebody like George Bush, a conservative Christian, with his own baggage, isn't going to be able to solve the problem of terrorism.

Nowhere357

July 27, 2003, 03:18 PM

NonContradiction
Justice and tolerance? Liberals make bone-headed comments like "we should do away with all of the Abrahamic religions" and then, with the same breath, they talk about tolerance.
No. Molly made it clear to you that she speaks for herself. You look silly claiming otherwise.

And WHERE is this bottom line drawn in the sand?
Anywhere injustice and intolerance rears it's ugly head.

And WHO drew the line?
I'd draw it myself if it didn't already exist. But people have been opposing tyranny for a long time - I'm just picking my side.

What liberals fail to realize is that, sooner or later, all liberals become conservatives if their revolutionary efforts are successful. They become the new conservatives.
Everytime your super-wide brush is brought out, it makes your position look foolish. Put that thing away, because otherwise it's too hard to take you seriously.

If someone's position REQUIRES that they tell other people how they feel or what they think, that position is seen as weak and pathetic. Drop the liberal/conservative crap, and discuss the issues. Just a suggestion.

yguy

July 27, 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am not so sure that I would characterize it as "sticking their noses into other people's business". Most of the Muslims that I know of are reactive, not proactive.

Swell, but that kind of Muslim isn't the problem.

They came to America to make money, like everybody else. The only reason they are involved in the civil rights movement in America, a leftist movement, is because they are being discriminated against by the Christian conservatives.

Until there is a readily discernible line drawn between Islam at large and Islamic fundamentalism as practiced in countries like Iran, discrimination - in the strict sense of the word - is justified at present.

I am against Muslims allying themselves with the liberals, which should come as no surprise to you, but I belong to a small minority within the Muslim community.

The history of the Islamic civilization is intertwined with Western civilization. It's a very complicated issue that needs to demystified and unravelled.. In fact, the problems in the M.E., right now, can all be traced back in history. Unless we now where we have been, we will never which way to go in the future. The "terrorism" in the world right now is rooted in this history, and somebody like George Bush, a conservative Christian, with his own baggage, isn't going to be able to solve the problem of terrorism.

What does his being a Christian conservative have to do with his ability to solve the problem?

As for baggage, Islamic fundamentalism has its own to deal with - the treatment of woman as chattel and hatred of Jews being glaring examples.

NonContradiction

July 27, 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by yguy
I think Molly's fears somewhat misapplied to Christianity, but as regards Islam, it seems to breed oppression in whatever parts of the world it holds sway; and, showing as it does no discernible proclivity to "live and let live", is arguably a danger to any society which has such a proclivity.

If we want to understand the relationship between Islam and the West, we must go back to the Middle Ages, because this where things went horribly wrong for the Muslims. The Muslim society was a just, progressive society, although it wasn't perfect, and the feudal society in the West was oppressive and backward. So what went wrong? It's almost as if the two societies traded places. These are the questions we must all explore if there is ever going to be peace between the two worlds.

If Islam was a repressive, backwards religion that oppresses people, then how does one explain the "Golden Age" of Islam? The feudal society of Europe never experienced a "Golden Age" and it never would have in a million years - make it two billion years. The two societies are completely different and the reasons for their backwardness are completely different, and the solution to these problems are completely different. What I object to is Western liberals who think that what worked in the mordern world to free itself from feudalism is going to work in the M.E., whether the Muslims want it or not. To think this way is to totally disregard the history of a people who have made great contributions to the progress of humanity. We don't want a solution to our problems to be imposed upon us by the West.

Pain Paien

July 27, 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to is to stick your noses where they don't belong and try to liberate people who don't want to be liberated by you.

How would you know if they want to be liberated or not? It would appear you're the one who's claiming omniscience, not the "liberals". Secondly, if you viewed women as people, I expect your opinion might differ.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right in your assertion that Islam is oppressive. The problem is your alternative is much worse than what we have.

Which alternative? Treating women like human beings? Yes, that would be truly heinous.

Your cure is worse than the disease, but you refuse to admit it.

You sound just as ridiculous as those who believe in a zionist conspiracy. Yes, those evil liberals are out to control the world, which is why American media has become so much more conservative. Oh, and liberals eat babies, too. The reason people "refuse" to admit to your accusations is because you refuse to do anything except hurl vague spurious generalizations. Perhaps if you managed to actually make points, rather than spouting obtuse rants that have the reek of paranoid conspiracy theories, people might respond more positively.

You are not the great liberators of humanity, face it.

No one claimed to be "great liberators". It's just that we believe that oppressing people is wrong and would like to see it brought to an end. How egotistical of us "liberals".

Perhaps in your minds, but not in my mind or the minds of many other people..

You have no idea what's going on in any of our minds, or, as evidenced by your sweeping attacks, any desire to. What appears to be the problem is that you are not able to separate your mind from those of other people. Are you the appointed representative for every Muslim in world? If not, it would appear it is you who is being egotistical.

Who appointed you as ruler of the world?

You, it would appear, because no one else ever claimed to be. In addition, you're the only one who's speaking out against giving people control of their own lives.

What right do you have to say that these religions should be done away with entirely?

Again, it would appear it's only you who wants to restrict human rights. In this case, that of free speech. I suppose if you had your way, everyone would have to keep quiet or agree with you.

You should take a good look at the arrogant statements that you are making here.

You should take a good look at a mirror. You might see a hypocrite looking back.

Why don't you just leave the Muslim people alone if they don't want to be liberated by you? Are you the police of the world?

Why don't you quit pretending you speak for anyone other than yourself? Again, if you viewed women as human beings, you might understand why we desire to give them the choice to decide if they want to be "Muslim people" in the first place. We don't need to be police to have empathy.

Apathist

July 27, 2003, 04:18 PM

As I became aware of the Middle East, I wondered why EVERYONE bowed during prayer, and why ALL women were covered up. I thought it seemed strange.

Then I learned about the "religious police". They all had BETTER toe the line, OR ELSE.

I'm sure the Middle Eastern countries don't want the west to push them around, but I'm also sure that if they don't clean their own house, we'll clean it for them. The world is getting smaller, and tyranny can not be tolerated anymore. It's running out of places to hide.

NonContradiction

July 27, 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by NonCon
And WHERE is this bottom line drawn in the sand?

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Anywhere injustice and intolerance rears it's ugly head.

This is really a very dumb statement for somebody of your intelligence to be making. I am asking you WHERE do you draw the line between justice and injustice and you answer me by telling me "anywhere injustice rears its ugly head." Do you call that an answer?

I'd draw it myself if it didn't already exist. But people have been opposing tyranny for a long time - I'm just picking my side.

Why don't you try defining WHERE the line between justice and injustice should be drawn. It's amazing how liberals argue against Christians drawing a line in the sand, yet when it comes to Islam, they are so sure of themselves
that they are just and Islam is unjust. How do you KNOW that you are so right? This is just more liberal hypocrisy.

Everytime your super-wide brush is brought out, it makes your position look foolish. Put that thing away, because otherwise it's too hard to take you seriously.

If someone's position REQUIRES that they tell other people how they feel or what they think, that position is seen as weak and pathetic. Drop the liberal/conservative crap, and discuss the issues. Just a suggestion.

Everyone fits somewhere on the political spectrum, just like every color of the rainbow fits somewhere on the color spectrum. The liberal/conservative distinction, given a paradigm that gives those terms meaning, is very useful.

NonContradiction

July 27, 2003, 05:36 PM

There is a crucial point that goes flying over the heads of liberals - if liberals ever draw a line and defend that line, then they would no longer be liberals. They would merely be defining a new status quo which they would have to defend if they ever defeat the old order. In other words, the liberals would become the new conservatives and then another group of liberals would emerge in that new paradigm. The terms - liberal/conservative - are terms which have a fixed meaning only within a paradigm. It's the paradigm that these terms are used in that give them their meaning.

If liberals ever take a stand and defend a line drawn in the sand, then they are no longer liberals. They are conservatives in a new paradigm. Liberals are rebels without a cause.

Pain Paien

July 27, 2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
There is a crucial point that goes flying over the heads of liberals - if liberals ever draw a line and defend that line, then they would no longer be liberals. They would merely be defining a new status quo which they would have to defend if they ever defeat the old order. In other words, the liberals would become the new conservatives and then another group of liberals would emerge in that new paradigm. The terms - liberal/conservative - are terms which have a fixed meaning only within a paradigm. It's the paradigm that these terms are used in that give them their meaning.

If liberals ever take a stand and defend a line drawn in the sand, then they are no longer liberals. They are conservatives in a new paradigm. Liberals are rebels without a cause.

If you had any critical thinking capabilities, this would have made you realize how useless your ridiculous sweeping generalizations are. As it is, however, you wrapped up the reasons why your paranoid rants against "liberals" are vacuous quite nicely.

yguy

July 27, 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If we want to understand the relationship between Islam and the West, we must go back to the Middle Ages, because this where things went horribly wrong for the Muslims. The Muslim society was a just, progressive society, although it wasn't perfect, and the feudal society in the West was oppressive and backward. So what went wrong? It's almost as if the two societies traded places. These are the questions we must all explore if there is ever going to be peace between the two worlds.

So in your opinion, what went wrong?

If Islam was a repressive, backwards religion that oppresses people, then how does one explain the "Golden Age" of Islam? The feudal society of Europe never experienced a "Golden Age" and it never would have in a million years - make it two billion years.

The Renaissance doesn't count? How is it different from this "Golden Age"?

The two societies are completely different and the reasons for their backwardness are completely different, and the solution to these problems are completely different. What I object to is Western liberals who think that what worked in the mordern world to free itself from feudalism is going to work in the M.E., whether the Muslims want it or not. To think this way is to totally disregard the history of a people who have made great contributions to the progress of humanity. We don't want a solution to our problems to be imposed upon us by the West.

Neither do I - but if they don't clean up their act at least to the extent that they stop harboring terrorists who hate America, we'll have to do it anyway for our own survival.

Apathist

July 27, 2003, 10:23 PM

NonContradiction
If liberals ever take a stand and defend a line drawn in the sand, then they are no longer liberals. They are conservatives in a new paradigm. Liberals are rebels without a cause.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all. It looks like english, but carries no meaning that I can see.

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by NonCon
If liberals ever take a stand and defend a line drawn in the sand, then they are no longer liberals. They are conservatives in a new paradigm. Liberals are rebels without a cause.

Originally posted by Apathist
Sorry, this makes no sense at all. It looks like english, but carries no meaning that I can see.

To some people it makes sense and to others it doesn't. Such is life. If liberals are successful in their revolutionary efforts, then they will become the new conservatves. It's not that difficult to understand.

During the feudal period in Europe, the conservatives were feudalists. The liberals during the Enlightenment split into camps - the classical liberals, and the modern liberals. The classical liberals, influenced by the philosphy of John Locke and the British Enlightenment, became the new conservatives. The modern liberals, influenced by the French Enlightenment, became the new liberals. If, and when, another paradigm comes along, then the meaning of liberal/conservative will change again. It's not rocket science.

Silent Acorns

July 28, 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
During the feudal period in Europe, the conservatives were feudalists. The liberals during the Enlightenment split into camps - the classical liberals, and the modern liberals. The classical liberals, influenced by the philosphy of John Locke and the British Enlightenment, became the new conservatives. The modern liberals, influenced by the French Enlightenment, became the new liberals. If, and when, another paradigm comes along, then the meaning of liberal/conservative will change again. It's not rocket science.
Please tell me what is the difference between a "modern" liberal and a "classical" liberal w.r.t. the issue of this thread: what is the reasoning behind female dress laws in the Middle East and is this reasoning justified?

And please, stop with all this "paradigm" and "liberals become the new conservatives" talk. We understand what you're getting at with this, we really do. We just don't see the relevance to the issue at hand.

Daleth

July 28, 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
To some people it makes sense and to others it doesn't. Such is life. If liberals are successful in their revolutionary efforts, then they will become the new conservatves. It's not that difficult to understand. Same thing as saying revolution makes new masters out of old slaves. It's a truism, and rather meaningless in that it doesn't take the significance out of the revolution or make the goals of the liberals unimportant. The changes accomplished by either are still worth working for in their eyes. You're the one making this big distinction between liberal and conservative, and then you add it doesn't matter because if the liberals are successful they will be tomorrow's conservatives (trying to conserve the successes they've had). So why do you keep talking about liberals? In the end we're all the same, right? If you want to talk politics, there's a whole board for that.

Apathist

July 28, 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's not rocket science.
True! Rocket science is sensible! :cool:

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Daleth
Same thing as saying revolution makes new masters out of old slaves.

Yes, and then the liberals become as conservative as their masters were. Liberalism is great if you want to destroy an old order. However, it doesn't work very well if you want to build and preserve a new order. Like I said, it's not rocket science, but the liberals refuse to get the point.

The changes accomplished by either are still worth working for in their eyes. You're the one making this big distinction between liberal and conservative, and then you add it doesn't matter because if the liberals are successful they will be tomorrow's conservatives (trying to conserve the successes they've had). So why do you keep talking about liberals?

I never said that the distinction between liberals and conservatives wouldn't matter if the liberals were successful..

In the end we're all the same, right? If you want to talk politics, there's a whole board for that.

Some people were saying that I was making clothes the issue. It's not about clothes, and it never has been. It's about politics.

Buddrow_Wilson

July 28, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's not about clothes, and it never has been. It's about politics.

Saying its about politics doesn't give the issue justice. Its plainly about basic human rights and in that regard we certainly have every right to state our opinions and express what we feel should be done about it, if anything. That you are trying to make this an conservative/liberal issue strikes me as odd. Is in not the conservative faction that was so gung-ho to "liberate" the Iraqis?

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
Please tell me what is the difference between a "modern" liberal and a "classical" liberal w.r.t. the issue of this thread: what is the reasoning behind female dress laws in the Middle East and is this reasoning justified?

What is the reasoning behind dress laws in the M.E. and is this reasoning justified? Why should Muslims have to justify to you the way they dress? Are they on trial here? The modern liberals have already condemned Islam as being oppressive towards women, even though they can't prove it, so why should we even have a trial?

And please, stop with all this "paradigm" and "liberals become the new conservatives" talk. We understand what you're getting at with this, we really do.

I don't think so. If the liberals understood, then they wouldn't be liberals.

We just don't see the relevance to the issue at hand.

Women's dress is a political football. The issue isn't about clothes. It's about whether or not Islam is oppressive towards women, and the liberals, so far, have been unable to prove their case. Perhaps, they can make a case against the Taliban, but they have also failed to prove that the Taliban reflects the religion of Islam. The liberals simply don't have a case.

Pain Paien

July 28, 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Yes, and then the liberals become as conservative as their masters were. Liberalism is great if you want to destroy an old order. However, it doesn't work very well if you want to build and preserve a new order. Like I said, it's not rocket science, but the liberals refuse to get the point.

Your liberal bogeymen "refuse" to get you because you don't make points at all. You've spouted nothing but obtuse, meaningless, incoherant drivel. If you began to make posts that weren't solely constituted of bigoted platitudes, perhaps you'd get responses more to your liking.

Some people were saying that I was making clothes the issue. It's not about clothes, and it never has been. It's about politics.

What the discussion is actually about is human rights. You would see that if you (or the religion of Islam) considered women as full human beings.

Pain Paien

July 28, 2003, 07:28 PM

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
Saying its about politics doesn't give the issue justice. Its plainly about basic human rights and in that regard we certainly have every right to state our opinions and express what we feel should be done about it, if anything.

Liberals have a right to bring charges against Islam as being an oppressive religion. What they don't have right to do is to condemn Islam as being an oppressive religion without a trial. They haven't proven their case, and the best they can do, so it appears, is to bring a former Muslim who was a left-wing socialist as a witness for their side. Karen Armstrong, a NON-Muslim, well renowned religious scholar would disagree, for good reasons, with the charge that Islam is an oppressive religion towards women. The bottom line here is that the liberals have failed to prove their case against Islam beyond a reasonable doubt, and so this affair becomes nothing more than a political witch-hunt against Islam.

That you are trying to make this an conservative/liberal issue strikes me as odd.

I don't see why it strikes you as odd. This is nothing more than a political witch-hunt against Islam, much in the same way that the Monicka Lewinsky affair was a political witch-hunt against Clinton. It's all about politics.

Pain Paien

July 28, 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Karen Armstrong, a NON-Muslim, well renowned religious scholar would disagree, for good reasons, with the charge that Islam is an oppressive religion towards women.

Then why don't you provide an article instead of babbling? So far, "liberals" have been the only ones here making any effort to contribute.

The bottom line here is that the liberals have failed to prove their case against Islam beyond a reasonable doubt, and so this affair becomes nothing more than a political witch-hunt against Islam.

No one ever claimed all Islamic states were equally opressive, but if being forced to wear burkas from childhood doesn't show opression to you, there's likely nothing that will convince you.

Nowhere357

July 28, 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The liberals simply don't have a case.
Pay close attention please, because this is very complicated. We care not at all how Muslim women dress. We care that they are FORCED to dress that way, under threat of immediate severe physical punishment.

Now, carry on with your rabid anti-liberal blah-blahing, if you like. This will help us see that you have no defense for the inhumane treatment of women by Muslim governments.

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Pain Paien
A hint to understanding: we consider women as worthy of consideration.

The liberals haven't proven that Islam doesn't consider women worthy.

So you're asserting openly that you possess the one and only truth, and liberals are all wrong. What a nice example of your hypocricy.

And the minute the liberals stand FOR something and defend it, then they won't be liberals anymore.

No, the issue isn't about clothes. Only you have had trouble seeing that. Now that you actually understand the issue is human rights, and not politics, perhaps this debate will improve.

Human rights is intertwined with politics. I don't see how you can separate the two. The justification of the American Revolution from England was that "certain inalienable rights" were being violated.

The case is already clear, except to you.

That isn't true. I am not the only one who doesn't believe that Islam oppresses women.

The article MollyMac provided was quite lucid. If you weren't completely biased you would have seen it as evidence, but then it WAS written by a woman.

As I said before, bring me the work of a religious scholar at a reputable university that says that Islam is misogynistic. I have already brought you one who says it is not.

Pain Paien

July 28, 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The liberals haven't proven that Islam doesn't consider women worthy.

As I said, if you don't consider being forced to wear burkas opressive, you're blind.

As I said before, bring me the work of a religious scholar at a reputable university that says that Islam is misogynistic. I have already brought you one.

You didn't bring anything. You gave a name. Don't pretend you've done anything other than rant. If you want to begin to present a reasonable argument, however, feel free to do so.

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 09:01 PM

The liberals are out on a political witch-hunt to disparage Islam by asserting that Islam is misogynistic, in the same way that Hitler was anti-semitic. Hitler hated the Jews, and there is plenty of evidence that he did. Bring me the same kind of conclusive evidence that Islam hates women. There is plenty of evidence that the KKK hates black people. Bring the same kind of conclusive evidence that Islam hates women.

Buddrow_Wilson

July 28, 2003, 09:11 PM

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Pain Paien
As I said, if you don't consider being forced to wear burkas opressive, you're blind.

Where is your evidence that Islam forces women to wear burqas? You could make an argument that the Taliban forced women to wear burqas, thereby oppressing women, but you have failed to prove that Islam supports forcing women to wear burqas. I have already covered this before. Why don't you try reading what I write.

Originally posted by NonCon
As I said before, bring me the work of a religious scholar at a reputable university that says that Islam is misogynistic. I have already brought you one.

Originally posted by Pain Paien
You didn't bring anything. You gave a name. Don't pretend you've done anything other than rant. If you want to begin to present a reasonable argument, however, feel free to do so.

I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is upon the liberals to prove that Islam is misogynistic since they are the ones making these allegations. I don't have to prove that Islam is innocent. It's your job to prove that Islam is guilty. So far the liberals have been blowing nothing but hot air. I have already brought evidence that Islam gave women rights that they never had before in pre-Islamic Arabia. If Islam was misogynistic, as the lying hypocritical liberals say it is, then why did Islam give those rights to women? Islam would have just protected the status quo - a conservative thing to do. Instead, Islam liberated women, although not as far as you think it should have. The bottom line to all of this is that you and the rest of the liberals don't have a case. It's nothing more than a political witch-hunt to disparage a beautiful religion.

If one talks to many liberals, one would think that the M.E. is over-run with mullahs and religious police lurking behind every corner, that in every other family there are honor killings or girls are having their genitalia mutilated, or that women can't drive all over the Muslim world and are imprisoned in their houses. Prove to the world that Islam is misogynistic, in the same way that Hitler was anti-semitic, or shut up.

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
Hate isn't really the issue.

The term "misogynistic" is being used here. Unless you want to change the meaning of the word misogynistic, then you don't have a case.

mi�sog�y�nis�tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-sj-nstk) also mi�sog�y�nous (-sj-ns)
adj.
Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

Hell, it could be done out of "love" and only to protect them from predatory men, but the fact remains that its oppression.

You are just asserting that Islam oppress women, but you haven't proved anything. Stop making assertions like a Christian fundamentalist and start supporting what you are saying. The facts in the case indicate otherwise.

It wouldn't take too much of a stretch to apply your reasoning to the KKK. Perhaps they felt it was the blacks place to remain non-citizens for religious/political reasons, but not that they hate them. I mean, who's gonna pick the cottin?

Your statement is so way out there that I am not even going to comment on it.

Buddrow_Wilson

July 28, 2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Your statement is so way out there that I am not even going to comment on it.

I imagine many of us feel the same way about some of your statements.

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Nowhere357
We care that they are FORCED to dress that way, under threat of immediate severe physical punishment.

Most societies in the world have obscenity laws which force men and women to cover their nakedness. The issue isn't about the use of FORCE, which we have already covered, so stick to the issue. Prove to the world that Islam is misogynistic. Put up or shut up.

Now, carry on with your rabid anti-liberal blah-blahing, if you like. This will help us see that you have no defense for the inhumane treatment of women by Muslim governments.

You really have a tough time focusing on the issue here. We are talking about the religion of Islam. We are not talking about the Taliban, the Ayatollah's, or the Wahhabis. We are talking about the religion of Islam and how it treats women. Prove to the world that Islam is misogynistic and oppresses women.

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
I imagine many of us feel the same way about some of your statements.

That's fine. I am not the one bringing allegations against somebody's religion which I can't support. If liberals are so righteous, caring for humanity as they say they do, then why do they have to lie? Why spread lies about somebody's religion if you are so confident that his religion is nonsense? Liberals are just showing their own insecurities by doing so.

winstonjen

July 28, 2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is upon the liberals to prove that Islam is misogynistic since they are the ones making these allegations. I don't have to prove that Islam is innocent. It's your job to prove that Islam is guilty. So far the liberals have been blowing nothing but hot air. I have already brought evidence that Islam gave women rights that they never had before in pre-Islamic Arabia. If Islam was misogynistic, as the lying hypocritical liberals say it is, then why did Islam give those rights to women?

Ah, you must be referring to the right to breathe, and the forced right to be castrated at birth so they cannot feel pleasure during sex, and so they aren't 'tempted' to have an affair. Islam, like the OT, is designed by MEN, for MEN. The Taliban was a repressive Islamic theocracy.

It's nothing more than a political witch-hunt to disparage a beautiful religion.

Talk about an oxymoron. :rolleyes:

NonContradiction

July 28, 2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by winstonjen
Ah, you must be referring to the right to breathe, and the forced right to be castrated at birth so they cannot feel pleasure during sex, and so they aren't 'tempted' to have an affair. Islam, like the OT, is designed by MEN, for MEN. The Taliban was a repressive Islamic theocracy.

I know that most of the people here probably have above average intelligence; therefore, there should be no excuse for people not knowing how to read. The issue is whether or not ISLAM is oppressive towards women. We are not talking about the Taliban, unless you can demonstrate that the religion of ISLAM supports the position adopted by the Taliban. If Islam is so oppressive, and the liberals are fighting for social justice as they claim, then why do the liberals feel as though they have to spread lies about Islam? Is it part of their "social justice" program to spread lies about somebody's religion in order to disparage it because it conflicts with their agenda? If Islam is as bad as liberals say it is, then why do they have to lie about it?

I am actually in a very good situation here. If the liberals stop spreading lies about Islam, then it's good for me. If they continue to spread lies about Islam, then it gives me an opportunity to point out what lying hypocrites they really are. That's good for me also. I can't lose.

Pain Paien

July 29, 2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
If Islam was misogynistic, as the lying hypocritical liberals say it is, then why did Islam give those rights to women?

You're like a sad parody of your own position. Your posts in this thread have just been a twisted masturbatory rant which you've used to preach your bigotry. Comments like this show why attempting at reasonable debate is a complete waste of time, and you're too pitiful to be amusing.

I'll leave with a tidbit of Qur'an translation I found, not for your benefit, of course, since obviously you can't overcome your fanatical dogmatic mindlessness even for the sake of appearance.

Al-Baqara (The Cow) 2:282

O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah. For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

From: www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/

Pain Paien

July 29, 2003, 01:03 AM

Here's another part I rather fancied:

An-Nisa (The Women) 4:34

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

contracycle

July 29, 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by MollyMac
[B]
I don't see anything remotely contentious about your post, which leaves me wondering why you bothered posting.
[b]

Becuase the West is refining Islamophobia to the point of racism. It's perfectly vcalid to criticise aspects of Islam; it is not valid to take extremist stances in Islam and extend them to every indivudal Muslim. And yet, this is done frequently: Islam is denounced as an evil religion while we still tell our soldiers that dying for pro patria is a valuable thing and that their righteousness promises them a place in heaven afterwards.

This discussion, if IIRC, is about women's rights though NonContradiction has done his best to avoid the subject and turn it into a discussion about something else, which IMO he should really have started a separate thread about.

NonContradiction has correctly identified the vast majority of Islam-bashing as political opportunism. Denouncing tha alien other is always an easy way to whip the troops into a frenzy of bloodlust. It's quote striking that while the plight of womne in Afghanistan had been current in Leftists circles for decades, the conservative right has fallen on this particular issue when Afghanistan "needed" to be invaded. And then did nothing to help the women concerned.

The wests alleged disgust at Islam is hypocrisy of the first water, and indicates clearly how easy it is to gain unwitting compliance by simple racist demonising of the opposition. Tha taliban were criticised for blowing up statues, and yet its apparently so reasonable as to be unremarked when American troops do the same to Saddams statuery. In both cases, the perpetrators felt they had a divine right to carry out their actions.

If we really want to be helpful, we are wasting our time. By all means - attack organisations, and groups, who implement specific policies. Criticise their idological assumptions and governmental praxes. But do not apply primitive collective punishment on the whole of Islam; that is, as NC has pointed out, nothing but bigotry in its own right. And it will be completely ignored by moderate liberal Muslims, of which there are a large number.

Timberline

July 29, 2003, 05:23 AM

The issue is whether or not ISLAM is oppressive towards women. We are not talking about the Taliban, unless you can demonstrate that the religion of ISLAM supports the position adopted by the Taliban.

In an ideal Islamic society, would women be perfectly free to wear shorts and t-shirts and play sports outdoors? Would they be able to do so without legal restrictions and without being taught from an early age that they are sinning against God if they do so? Would a woman's testimony in court and her inheritance be the same as a man's (not half)?

If you answered no to any of those questions, then it is your version of Islam, not the Taliban's, that I'm critcizing.

Look, I get it. You really like Islam, and it pains you that others don't like it. The way you keep bringing up the Taliban, it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that if Islam's critics only knew the "real" Islam, then they'd like it too. So why don't you define exactly what "real" Islam is, in your opinion, rather than all these evasive tangents about far-left liberals and the extremist Taliban. That would help the discussion.

Goober

July 29, 2003, 05:23 AM

The Koran does say that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's. That's surely an example of mysogeny in Islam. Sorry, I can't find the exact passage though.

Edit: Apologies, I only skimmed through the thread. I see Pain Paien beat me to it. Oh well, disregard.

Timberline

July 29, 2003, 06:26 AM

NonContradiction has correctly identified the vast majority of Islam-bashing as political opportunism.

The "left" and "right" have different motivations for criticizing Islam, and I think it's a mistake to conflate the two. Not all criticism of Islam is based on on racism or recent political opportunism. Lately, however, I've noticed a tendency to automatically brand as a "bigot" or "Islamophobe" anyone who utters a peep about Islam.

Sure, Pat Roberton is a bigot, but an activist who's been campaigning for decades for women's rights in Afghanistan or other Islamic societies is not. I don't think the latter voice suddenly should be told to whisper just because the former voice has started shouting. I don't think the "left" should switch gears and start defending Islamic ideology just because the "right," for all the wrong reasons, has started attacking it.

It's perfectly valid to criticise aspects of Islam; it is not valid to take extremist stances in Islam and extend them to every indivudal Muslim.

Many of the aspects of Islam being criticized in this thread are not, I suspect, entirely "extremist" stances. Various degrees of limiting, restrictive dress for girls and women appear quite popular even among moderate western Muslims. Various degrees of segregation between men and women also appear fairly mainstream. Do they have the right to embrace these beliefs and customs? Of course. Just as others have the right to point out how unhealthy, unfair, and impractical those beliefs are. Same as with any other religion, political system or ideology.

MollyMac

July 29, 2003, 07:09 AM

Contracycle,

Again there is nothing contentious in your post, or particularly relevant either - unless, like NC, you are suggesting that we (and by 'we' I mean the individuals posting on this thread, not the entire western world) should not criticise aspects of Islam or Islamic culture that would seem to have a bearing on human rights. That, as I've said before, is what THIS particular thread is about and that is why it is in MF&P and not in Political Discussions.

contracycle

July 29, 2003, 08:05 AM

I most certainly NOT say that Islam is not a suitable candidate for crticism. Indeed, I have done so myself.

This is wholly distinct from the application of collective punishment and the apparent cavalier dismissal of degrees of fervour in Islamic societies. Criticism of Islam is valid; the criticism IN THIS THREAD appears to me to be beyond the pale.

contracycle

July 29, 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Timberline
[B]I don't think the "left" should switch gears and start defending Islamic ideology just because the "right," for all the wrong reasons, has started attacking it.

False premise. I am also committed to internationalism; IMO this obliges me to defend *people* in other places and countries regardless of their religion or lack therefo. And seeing as this argument is being directly exploited to justify military action against Islamic culture, I don't think much of it is honest criticism; it is mostly self-serving political opportunism.

Dr Rick

July 29, 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Bring me a recognized university, with well renowned scholars, that is willing to say that Islam is a misogynistic religion. And even if you could, I could bring you an equal number of scholars who wouldn't agree with you that Islam is misogynistic.

Such a meaningless claim is possible because there is no single source for "Islam;" it is a disjointed collection of contradictions that allows one to justify any number of conclusions. Here 's a response from Free Life, Issue 20, August 1994 to another Islamic apologist, Dr. Badawi, who wrote The Status of Women in Islam
Dr Badawi begins:

"The accusation that Islam oppresses women is nothing new but a perpetuation of the centuries old deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of the Western world." (p.5)

He concludes, inter alia:

"It is impossible for anyone to justify any mistreatment of women by any decree of rule embodied in the Islamic Law, nor could anyone dare to cancel, reduce, or distort the clear-cut legal rights of women given in Islamic Law." (p.23)

Taken in their ordinary, natural meaning, these claims are false, and are easily demonstrated to be false.

Let us first examine Dr Badawi's use of the term "Islamic Law". This is not, as some of his readers might suppose, a single, unambiguous body of law - such as can be found in the Code Napoleon, or even, if with considerable training, in the English common law. It is derived from many sources. First there is the Koran, which is a long and not always clear text allegedly dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel. Second there are the hadith, which are the traditional stories of what Mohammed said and did on various occasions. Since there are nearly two million of these, and they often contradict one another, there has been much room for dispute as to their collective meaning. Third, there is the ijima, or the consensus of opinion among learned Moslems. Fourth, there is qiyas, this being a process of analogical reasoning by which, in the absence of any other rule, a case is to be decided in a manner consistent with the existing body of law.

This aside, Islam has over the centuries divided into many sects, each with its own doctrinal emphases and accretions. It is therefore quite impossible - except on the most obvious sectarian grounds - to claim the existence of any single Islamic Law, or any "clear-cut legal rights" held under it. This allows Dr Badawi to sweep aside many objections to his argument based on actual practice in Islamic societies. Or so it would were he only to admit the existence of these practices. He says nothing of female circumcision, or the selling of brides, or the power of life and death often possessed - and often exercised - by Moslem men over their womenfolk. He does, however, allude to them in the expected manner:

It is... a fact that during the downward cycle of Islamic Civilisation, [Islamic] teachings were not adhered to by many people who profess to be Muslims. (p.23)

Yet even if we follow Dr Badawi's advice, to "make any original and unbiased study of the sources of these teachings", we find much that falls short of what is normally meant by equality - and much that is at least inconsistent with his claims.

Take, for example, marriage. Here, Dr Badawi contradicts himself. He claims that husbands and wives "have equal rights and claims on one another". (p.16) He immediately adds that husbands have the exclusive "responsibility" of leadership. His biological justification for this is irrelevant - and would remain so were it true. An equality of rights and claims, plus leadership! There is a twisting of words that Hewlett Johnson himself might not have dared make so crudely.

Turning to divorce, Dr Badawi makes no explicit claim, but uses a form of words that implies an equality of rights. This is not an equality recognised by any Islamic jurist uninfluenced by Western legal concepts. The general outline of Islamic divorce law - an outline more or less accepted by all jurists before this century - was summarised thus by the Privy Council in 1861:

It appears that by the Mohammedan law divorce may be made in either of two forms: Talak or Khoola.

A divorce by Talak is the mere arbitrary act of the husband, who may repudiate his wife at his own pleasure. But if he adopts that course he is liable to repay her dowry, or dyn-mohr, and, as it seems, to give up any jewels or paraphernalia belonging to her.

A divorce by Khoola is a divorce with the consent, and at the instance, of the wife, in which she gives or agrees to give a consideration to the husband for her release from the marriage tie. In such a case the terms of the bargain are a matter of arrangement between the husband and wife, and the wife may, as the consideration, release her dyn-mohr and other rights, or make any other agreement for the benefit of the husband.1

A man can divorce his wife at any time, without consent. A woman must negotiate and then often buy her way out of an unsuitable marriage. Again, some equality!2

But Dr Badawi goes further. He appeals to the Koran. This, he says, provides clear cut evidence that woman is completely equated with man in the sight of God in terms of her rights and responsibilities. (p.13)

I have not space to quote his appeals to the Koran on this point: my readers may find them in chapters 74:38, 3:195, 4:124, 2:36, 7:24-24, and 20:121. Anyone who reads them will find nothing of any substance. I will instead make my own appeal, quoting chapter 24:31:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of any physical needs (ie, eunuchs), or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments."3

Let us ignore that if this is the direct Word of God, it sanctions slavery and involuntary castration. I will only say that it has been used, together with other verses of the same kind, to justify at least the economic oppression of women in traditional Islamic societies. It limits the range of employments open to them - partly by imposing a dress code incompatible with many occupations, and partly by forbidding contact with any man not related to them.

Turning to formal equality before the law, take chapter 4:15- 16:

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they do testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful."

The commentary here leaves it open whether "lewdness" means simple fornication or homosexual intercourse. But the procedural meaning is plain. Men can get away with repentance: women are shut away for life unless God himself comes down to say otherwise...

What's become clear is that when we look at the practices of many ME countries, Islamic apologists will often try to argue, as is being done on this thread, a type of "No True Scotsman" fallacy: that the mistreatment of women is not representative of Islam even though it is practiced in so many Muslim countries and justified by various interpretations of Islam. These apologist would have us believe that the stoning of women under Shari'a, the burqa, female genital mutilation, and the honor killings that we abhor aren't really due to Islam; it must be just some kind of weird coincidence that these practices only occur in Muslim-dominated societies.

Silent Acorns

July 29, 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
What is the reasoning behind dress laws in the M.E. and is this reasoning justified? Why should Muslims have to justify to you the way they dress? Are they on trial here? The modern liberals have already condemned Islam as being oppressive towards women, even though they can't prove it, so why should we even have a trial?/
Please stop getting so excited and relax. No one is on trial here, we're merely trying to engage in some enlighted debate. I was only asking what the reasoning behid the rules are and how these rules are justified. From my position, the dress laws seem to be oppressive in many countries where the dominant religion is Islam. I would like to know how and why these laws are considered to be necessary. In my opinion, the onus is upon the lawmaker to show that the law is justified. So far you haven't provided a single reason why I should consider these laws a good thing. All you've said is little more than "Shut up! I hate you!".
The issue isn't about clothes. It's about whether or not Islam is oppressive towards women, and the liberals, so far, have been unable to prove their case. Perhaps, they can make a case against the Taliban, but they have also failed to prove that the Taliban reflects the religion of Islam.
Personally, I couldn't care less if these laws were mandated by the Koran or local culture. The important thing is that women are suffering in these countries and they deserve our support. It seems clear to me though that the the degree of suppression that women face is proportional to the local power of radical Islamists. You can say all you want that these extremists do not represent the "True Islam", but the fact remains that many think they do.

Finally, it seems to me that even if the source of these laws is 100% cultural and 0% religious, then I am forced to conclude that Islam has little power to ease the plight of women in these countries. Whether this is due to a flaw in Islam, improper practice of the Islamic faith, or some other reason remains to be seen. The only force that seems to be helping women is the influence of "classical liberal" thought encouraging people in places like Iran to take political power out of the hands of the Theocratic hierarchy. Unfortunately, the theocrats are willing to be ruthless to maintain their hold on power.

MollyMac

July 29, 2003, 12:37 PM

posted by contracyle
Criticism of Islam is valid; the criticism IN THIS THREAD appears to me to be beyond the pale.
In that case why don't you tell us which parts of which posts appear to you to be beyond the pale and then tell us why? That way other people can defend their ideas or be persuaded to see things your way. When you use 'the west', 'we' and the imperative 'do not' I have no idea who you are talking to. So try getting off your soapbox and engaging in a debate!

NonContradiction

July 29, 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Goober
The Koran does say that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's. That's surely an example of mysogeny in Islam. Sorry, I can't find the exact passage though.

Edit: Apologies, I only skimmed through the thread. I see Pain Paien beat me to it. Oh well, disregard.

So you find an example of what you believe to be misogyny, and then you are going to disregard all of the other examples in Islam which indicate that Islam isn't misogynistic. You completely disregard the fact that in pre-Islamic Arabia a woman's testimony was worth nothing.

Islam liberated women and gave them rights that they didn't have before in pre-Islamic Arabia. If the Leftist radicals here were being honest, they would have to admit to this fact. They would admit, also, that there simply isn't enough conclusive evidence to convict Islam of misogyny. At that point, we could then argue over why Islam didn't treat women and men with complete equality, which is really the main issue, IMO. Islam stopped short of complete equality, true, but to assert that Islam was, and is, oppressive to women is nothing more than bigotry from the Leftist radicals. It's politically motivated.

It's the extremists on the Left and the Right who have threatened world peace more than anybody else in the modern world.

Silent Acorns

July 29, 2003, 01:06 PM

Silent Acorns

July 29, 2003, 01:14 PM

I'm sorry, but I missed this line.
Originally posted by NonContradiction
Islam stopped short of complete equality, true, but to assert that Islam was, and is, oppressive to women is nothing more than bigotry from the Leftist radicals.
I take it then that your answer to my question above would be either (2) or (3). As far as I'm concerned if Islam grants women less rights than it does men, then it is politically oppressive by definition unless the discrepancy can somehow be justified.

As far as I'm concerned, you've just said that Islam oppresses women. I guess that makes you a "Lefitist radical".

July 29, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The liberals are out on a political witch-hunt to disparage Islam by asserting that Islam is misogynistic, in the same way that Hitler was anti-semitic. Hitler hated the Jews, and there is plenty of evidence that he did. Bring me the same kind of conclusive evidence that Islam hates women. There is plenty of evidence that the KKK hates black people. Bring the same kind of conclusive evidence that Islam hates women.
dk: I tend to agree with you NonContradiction. In Islam they cover women out of a sense of mystery and respect. Traditional female dress symbolizes the respect Moslems hold for human life, and by extension women because they conceive, carry, deliver and mother human life. We in the US, who claim to be culturally superior with our economy, war toys, technology and industry evaluate women on appearance alone, with no appreciation for the inner mystery of womanhood. We debase women with a plethora of tortures like fake boobs/eyes/lips/noses/noses/chin/hair/etc, Botox injections, liposuction, fat farms, eating disorders, cosmetics and pornography. We don�t cover women because they are sacred, we objectify women as material sex objects without any innate dignity at all. Go figure, our post modern secular material world is a glass house where one and four women are sexually assaulted. We have no license to throw stones. We are every bit as extreme as Arab Wahabiism, and every bit as blind to our own prejudices, bigotry and hypocrisy.

NonContradiction

July 29, 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Timberline
In an ideal Islamic society, would women be perfectly free to wear shorts and t-shirts and play sports outdoors?

Yes, as long as there aren't men standing around like it's a baywatch episode, watching Pamela Anderson's fake boobs bounce up and down. Islam doesn't prohibit women from wearing shorts and T-shirts, or playing sports outdoors. Remember, the issue here isn't clothes, anyway.

Would a woman's testimony in court and her inheritance be the same as a man's (not half)?

No.

If you answered no to any of those questions, then it is your version of Islam, not the Taliban's, that I'm critcizing.

That is fine. Anyone has a right to voice his/her opinion about Islam. What you don't have a right to do is cross the line and accuse somebody's religion of being misogynistic unless you can support those claims. Why can't you understand this?

Look, I get it. You really like Islam, and it pains you that others don't like it.

No, you don't understand. What pains me is not that others don't like Islam. I don't expect everybody to like Islam, and that is fine with me. What pains me is when people engage in a slander campaign against somebody else's religion because they have their own agenda that they want to forward. They claim to be against bigotry, yet they wind up being just as bigoted as the people on the far-Right are towards Islam. It's hypocrisy, and some people are going to see it for what it is worth.

Dr Rick

July 29, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
So you find an example of what you believe to be misogyny, and then you are going to disregard all of the other examples in Islam which indicate that Islam isn't misogynistic. You completely disregard the fact that in pre-Islamic Arabia a woman's testimony was worth nothing.

You completely discount the fact that in many places to this day, a woman gets to inherit only half of what a man gets, her word in a court is worth half of a man's, she can't travel without a man's permission, she can't even drive unless her husband gives permission, she can be raped by her husband, she can be killed if she "disgraces" her family, she can be tortured to death if she has sex outside of marriage, she can have her genitals mutilated with neither consent nor anesthesia, and she has to cover her body almost completely in public.

It's good that a religion helped to stop a bunch of barbarians from continuing the practice of burying their infant daughters alive, but that does not justify current Islamic practices. Slavery had some positive aspects to it, as well, but that does not make all criticism of it unjust and unwarranted.

Islam liberated women and gave them rights that they didn't have before in pre-Islamic Arabia.

This does not justify current Islamic practices.

We could then argue over why Islam didn't treat women and men with complete equality, which is really the main issue, IMO.

We know why it doesn't; it's oppressively anti-woman.

Islam stopped short of complete equality, true, but to assert that Islam was, and is, oppressive to women is nothing more than bigotry from the Leftist radicals. It's politically motivated.

Irrelevant, unconvincing, and irrational; that Islam stopped short of being entirely oppressive does not mean that we should accept it without criticism instead of demanding equality and an end to misogynistic practices.

It's the extremists on the Left and the Right who have threatened world peace more than anybody else in the modern world.

An irrelevant rant; nothing but an attempt to shift the topic away from Islamic oppression of women.

...yet they wind up being just as bigoted as the people on the far-Right are towards Islam. It's hypocrisy, and some people are going to see it for what it is worth.

Looking at the facts and condemning burqas, honor killings, unequal inheritance, and the rationale behind them is not bigotry; irrationally defending a fixed religious belief that is prejudicely antipathetic towards women is, however.

themistocles

July 29, 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick

Looking at the facts and condemning burqas, honor killings, unequal inheritance, and the rationale behind them is not bigotry; irrationally defending a fixed religious belief that is prejudicely antipathetic towards women is, however.

Here, here. Well said.

MollyMac

July 29, 2003, 04:01 PM

Thank you for your contribution, dk.
In Islam they cover women out of a sense of mystery and respect.
And which particular verse of the Qu�ran are you quoting here? While you are looking it up, you might care to consider why a group of women of Islamic backgrounds believed it necessary to form themselves into a Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East (http://www.eclipse.co.uk/women/) and chose as number 4 in their charter �Prohibition of imposing the Islamic dress code and veil. Freedom of clothing�.

Any ideas? Perhaps the link to the article by Azam Kamguian that I provided in a previous post might help you. Here�s an extract:

"Girl pupils are under enormous pressure in school as well as in the society. The veil (hijab) is imposed on them by force. This deprives them of free movement, the ability to play and happiness and enjoyment in social activities. School authorities spy on girls to see if they wear make up, if they talk about boys or if they have the pictures of artists and so on. Even pupils are intimidated to spy on their parents and report to the school authority about their parent's life style or whether their female relatives offend against Islamic rules at home. This has produced a system of inquisition in schools. The environment is full of repression and control, the control of children's minds and behaviour.

Friendship among girls and boys is forbidden, considered as a sin and punishable. Girls are under strict scrutiny. Their talking, walking, laughing, dress and movement is controlled and monitored carefully. Teachers and principals punish girls physically and psychologically if their veil is not worn properly even while they play.

In Iran the legal age for girls to be married is nine according to Islam. It is a law to celebrate girls' ninth birthday as a day they are considered as mature women. School authorities celebrate this day and hold a ceremony. It is called the Takleaf celebration. On the Takleaf celebration girls have to wear a completely white hijab which covers their bodies completely. A clergyman talks about girls' role in the society and warns them of evil, Fitna (which means ciaos) and western culture. He reminds girls that their duty is to prevent corruption by wearing proper hijab. From this day onward, girls are banned from playing with boys other than their brothers, who are mahrams. It is forbidden for girls to laugh loudly. They have to pray to god five times a day. They are told that if they do not wear the veil properly or if their hair appears out of the veil, they will be punished in hell and snakes will grow on their heads.�

Does this sound like �respect� to you?

But if the word of mere Middle Eastern women doesn�t count for anything with you, perhaps the word of a Middle Eastern man or two will have greater impact:

Islam's Shame Lifting the Veil of Tears by Ibn Warraq (http://www.eclipse.co.uk/women/warraqwomen.htm)

"Islam is deeply anti-woman. Islam is the fundamental cause of the repression of Muslim women and remains the major obstacle to the evolution of their position.Islam has always considered women as creatures inferior in every way: physically, intellectually, and morally. This negative vision is divinely sanctioned in the Koran, corroborated by the hadiths, and perpetuated by the commentaries of the theologians, the custodians of Muslim dogma and ignorance."

Women as seen in Islam by Omid Zareian (http://www.eclipse.co.uk/women/womenasseen.htm)

"According to Islam and its philosophy, women are a manifestation of evil as Adam was kicked out of Eden because of Eve's evil soul. Women are dangers based on their sexuality and they must be controlled. It is the women who must dress properly (covering themselves with the veil, the hijab), to avoid titillating a man's sexual lust and the madness which leads to promiscuity of intercourse."

Now then,
We debase women with a plethora of tortures like fake boobs/eyes/lips/noses/noses/chin/hair/etc, Botox injections, liposuction, fat farms, eating disorders, cosmetics and pornography. We don't cover women because they are sacred, we objectify women as material sex objects without any innate dignity at all.
Interesting point and if you would care to start a thread on the topic of cultural pressures on women in the west, I would be delighted to join in. But the reason it has no bearing here is that women in the west are not forced against their will to do any of these things. We may be our own worst enemies but at the end of the day it�s our choice and our basic human rights remain intact.

Next?

NonContradiction

July 29, 2003, 04:32 PM

Dr. Rick
You completely discount the fact that in many places to this day, a woman gets to inherit only half of what a man gets, her word in a court is worth half of a man's, she can't travel without a man's permission, she can't even drive unless her husband gives permission, she can be raped by her husband, she can be killed if she "disgraces" her family, she can be tortured to death if she has sex outside of marriage, she can have her genitals mutilated with neither consent nor anesthesia, and she has to cover her body almost completely in public.

The problem here, Dr. Rick, is that you lump female genital mutilation, among other things, in with women inheriting half of what a man does. You do this, IMO, because you want to disparage Islam, and I don't think that it's fair as I have said so many times before. Why do you keep doing it? Why do you keep bringing up female genital mutilation when there isn't one shred of evidence that this is from Islam? Bring me some text from Islam, in the same manner that you brought verses from the Quran about a woman's inheritence being half that of a man, that advocates or is in any way, shape, or form related to female genital mutilation. Why do you claim to stand for "social fairness", yet you engage in unfair debating tactics to disparage the religion of your opponent? You say that all of these practices are "Islamic practices", but this is nothing but a lie. The truth is that some of these practices are Islamic and some are not. This is just more hypocrisy, which I am going to continue to point out, so why don't you just stop doing it. I don't think that you can stop.

NonCon
Islam liberated women and gave them rights that they didn't have before in pre-Islamic Arabia.
Dr. Rick
This does not justify current Islamic practices.
When you start distinguishing between what is, and is not, an Islamic practice, then perhaps we could move forward. I don't think that your prejudice is going to allow you to do that, quite frankly.

Dr. Rick
We know why it doesn't; it's oppressively anti-woman.
You haven't demonstrated that Islam is bigoted, but you have demonstrated that you are. Why does this point escape you?
NonCon
Islam stopped short of complete equality, true, but to assert that Islam was, and is, oppressive to women is nothing more than bigotry from the Leftist radicals. It's politically motivated.
Dr. Rick
Irrelevant, unconvincing, and irrational; that Islam stopped short of being entirely oppressive does not mean that we should accept it without criticism instead of demanding equality and an end to misogynistic practices.

The feminist agenda, which advocates complete equality between the sexes, is a far-Left agenda, as is the socialist agenda. Trying to eliminate all inequalities between the rich and the poor, thereby making everybody equal, is what destroyed the Russian economy, among other things. Wherever the far-Left has gone in the world, with their message of complete equality, by FORCE, if necessary, they have created nothing but pain and misery. The problem with complete equality is that it doesn't work. Instead of focusing on making men and women equal, or rich and poor equal, Islam focuses on how women should be treated by men, how poor people should be treated by the rich.

The agenda of the far-Left destroyed the economy of the Soviet Union. Similarly, the agenda of the far-Left is destroying gender relationships. If one destroys gender relationships, one destroys familial relationaships. If one destroys familial relationships, one destroys the society. It's not rocket science.

The agenda of the far-Left in Russia, which was supposed to liberate the poor people, in the end, oppressed rich and poor alike. The agenda of the far-Left in America, which was supposed to liberate women, in the end, has oppressed men and women alike. Why are so many people so blind to this reality? This is the great hypocrisy of the far-Left. The great liberators of humanity are nothing more than the great oppressors of humanity, yet they accuse others of oppression, and refuse to admit to their own. I could scream.

winstonjen

July 29, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction

The agenda of the far-Left destroyed the economy of the Soviet Union. Similarly, the agenda of the far-Left is destroying gender relationships. If one destroys gender relationships, one destroys familial relationaships. If one destroys familial relationships, one destroys the society. It's not rocket science.

The agenda of the far-Left in Russia, which was supposed to liberate the poor people, in the end, oppressed rich and poor alike. The agenda of the far-Left in America, which was supposed to liberate women, in the end, has oppressed men and women alike. Why are so many people so blind to this reality? This is the great hypocrisy of the far-Left. The great liberators of humanity are nothing more than the great oppressors of humanity, yet they accuse others of oppression, and refuse to admit to their own. I could scream.

BZZZZZT! Communism failed because of its leaders and corruption. It sounds good in theory, but it fails in practice. Equal rights and equal opportunity for both sexes would not result in the same thing.

Tell you what, NonCon, you have a sex change and live as a woman in a fucked up, fundy Islamic country where you get beaten for removing a glove, and then talk about oppression. It's easy to claim that things should be done a certain way WHEN YOU ARE NOT AFFECTED BY IT!

Silent Acorns

July 29, 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The agenda of the far-Left in Russia, which was supposed to liberate the poor people, in the end, oppressed rich and poor alike. The agenda of the far-Left in America, which was supposed to liberate women, in the end, has oppressed men and women alike. Why are so many people so blind to this reality?
Perhaps it is because your argument is of the following form:

X is an example of Agenda A
Y is an example of Agenda A
Y was a failure

Therefore, X is a failure.

This is bad logic, plain and simple.

I could just as easily "argue" the following:

Islam is an example of Religious thinking.
Satanism is an example of religious thinking.
Satanism is evil.

Therefore, Islam is evil.

And you would be fully justified in laughing me off as a fool.

If you want to show that political equality of the sexes is a failure, stop attacking economic socialism and stick to the issue of gender equality. You could start by explaining how movements to give women equal political rights as men have "oppressed men and women alike". It would be particularily helpful if you use examples from the democratic west, not Communist Russia.

Silent Acorns

July 29, 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The problem here, Dr. Rick, is that you lump female genital mutilation, among other things, in with women inheriting half of what a man does.
Please feel free to point out which aspects are not part of Islam and defend only those that are. I suspect however, that you can't defend them and prefer instead to cry indignation hoping that we'll forget about the rest. We won't.

Based on your "defense" of Islam, I am forced to conclude two things:

1) Islam does not consider women deserving of equal treatment before the law with respect to men
2) Islam is incapable of protecting women from numerous henious practices even when it is the dominant religion

Or are you going to claim that female genital mutilation is common in the M.E. because of the radical left?

Dr Rick

July 29, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Why do you keep bringing up female genital mutilation when there isn't one shred of evidence that this is from Islam?

It is clearly assosciated with and justified today by Islam:

Bring me some text from Islam, in the same manner that you brought verses from the Quran about a woman's inheritence being half that of a man, that advocates or is in any way, shape, or form related to female genital mutilation.

"FGM predates Islam and is not practised by the majority of Muslims, but has acquired a religious dimension. Where it is practised by Muslims, religion is frequently cited as a reason. Many of those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practise and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject. The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it. In one case, in answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying "reduce but do not destroy" - report from Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm)

Another hadith proclaims: "Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)." - Al-shawkani, Nayl Al-awtar, Dar Al-Jeel, Beirut, 1973, vol. 1, p. 139.

And just in case some apologist want's to suggest that because these are hadiths and not of the Qur'an, they aren't really so important:

"Male circumcision is clearly a Muslim tradition. Although it is not prescribed [mandatory] in the Qur'an, it was definitely approved of by the Prophet...FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Minaret of Freedom Institute

Now, watch, everyone; just as before...

Firstly, Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage...

...when shown the truth...

posted by Rr Rick: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2023502.stm

"Amina Lawal, 30, was sentenced to death for becoming pregnant after her divorce, which is considered as adultery under Nigeria's interpretation of the Islamic law, or Sharia.

...NC, having been caught once again in another of his transparent falsehoods ("FGM occurs today only in Muslim dominated societies but there is not 'one shred of evidence' that it has anything to do with Islam." :rolleyes: ) will respond by calling those with whom he disagrees "hypocrites," "liars," and "bigots."

I could scream.

Try to imagine how those poor women feel.

Farren

July 29, 2003, 06:52 PM

Dr Rick, NonContradiction,

I've got a couple of Muslim friends (I'm a former Catholic Athiest). Down here in Johannesburg there are a wide range of different practices among Muslims, ranging from liberal to conservative.

It almost goes without saying that all of my Muslim friends are of a liberal slant. The conservatives keep very much to themselves and cover their women from head to toe in black, with only the eyes visible.

But the liberal ones are another kettle of fish altogether, Many of the women cover their heads but wear tights or jeans and tight tops, so if the intent is to stifle male desire, it certainly doesn't achieve this effect.

One of my close friends (who married an anglo woman and moved to Perth, Australia) declared himself a unitarian although he still shows respect to his family and tradition when he is here by going to mosque and celebrating Ead. I count his family as being among my own.

His mother is the breadwinner of the family and curiously is more devout than his father. That said, she has consistently invited all of his friends (including myself and a jewish woman) to Ead celebrations, even going so far as to lay out a sumptious vegetarian spread, knowing that many of us are vegetarians.

His father recently went on Haj and confided in me when he returned that the Saudi's treat women in a disgusting fashion, in addition to lamenting the fact that his son, in many places in the middle east, would be guilty of the "crime" of apostacy, while a christian would not.

Dr Rick, the reason I'm recounting this is that, while I consider Islam ultimately an irrational belief system, I see in it the grains of a religion that can show, and has at many points in history shown, tolerance and compassion. In this form it could equally be a force for good as for oppression.

It was not unheard of for Christian scholars to flee the oppressive Catholic Church in Europes dark ages for more enlightened Muslim lands. At many points in history Islam has been vastly more tolerant of Jews, Christians and even athiests than the Christian west. In Moorish Spain, Women were often major landowners, administrators and scholars before being supplanted by a more macho, Christian European culture.

I think anyone raised in a predominantly Christian culture can easily discern between a liberal Catholic or Quaker and a funadamentalist Baptist. Islam too, I think, expresses itself in different ways, depending on the economic and cultural pre-eminence of Islam among the worlds nations and the quality of life of individual Muslims.

This, I think, is at the heart of Islamic fundamentalism. Islam no longer enjoys the cultural or economic pre-eminence it enjoyed in times past, and the individual Muslim in the Middle East does not enjoy many of the material advantages of many western nations.

There is a misconception that returning to the conditions of a millenium and a half ago will somehow address all of the woes of the modern middle eastern or african muslim, and in this memetic soil fundamentalism takes root and grows.

Dr Rick, I do think your criticism of many of the practices of Muslim Cultures are fair. I find the practices you've most strongly condemned disgusting. But I can also see how an educated and erudite Muslim would be angry that you lump him together with the practitioners of FGM, and hold him accountable (I'm assuming Noncontradiction is Muslim).

NonContradiction, while you argue that issues such as FGM are not prescriptions of Islam, don't you feel that in aguing that, you should equally condemn such practices - and your brethren that practice it?

If Islam is an evangelical religion (my understanding is that it is), surely it is in its best interest to recognise and condemn practices that bring it into disrepute? The stubborn denial of any good aspects of Islam in both the West and East is borne out of a deafening silence with respect to the failures of Islamic culture from Muslims themselves, giving the appearance of immense hypocrisy.

I'm aware that Islam dictates that each person judges their own conscience and themselves before pointing out the failings of others, and this is often offered as a reason why Muslims do not condemn other Muslims. But this manifests as massive hypocrisy when the same Muslims who use this as a defense are only too willing to point out the failings of non-Muslims.

I don't think the spirit of the OP was about women simply covering their heads, but about the extreme expression of that idea, where women must cover so much of themselves so absolutely that they are not only anonymized, but massively discomforted and inconvenienced - and about the non-voluntary nature of these things.

I think MollyMac's earlier link to an atheist who grew up in Iran was extremely salient in this regard. Any argument that women choose this existence is rendered absurd by the exeption. If a single woman decides that the prescriptions of the prevailing faith are wrong, and is forced to abide by them, that single woman is proof that no argument to the effect that all women of that faith accept their lot is a lie.

I think, in defending Islam, you have not addressed this issue at all. Similarly, I believe you have not answered the charge that, in its severest form, covering women absolutely dehumanises them and strips them of the choice required to stop such practices as FGM.

Dr Rick

July 29, 2003, 07:39 PM

Farren, your observations are thoughtful, but I'm at a loss to understand why you would conclude that I have "lump[ed NC] together with the practitioners of FGM, and hold him accountable"?

He lumped himself in that group. My argument is against Islam; NC is a target only to the extent that he defends it and then calls others and me "hypocritical, slandering/lying bigots" for pointing-out it's oppressive nature and what it has done to encourage and allow misogyny to flourish.

I am highly critical of the USA and so wouldn't consider someone condemning the war on Iraq as "lumping" me with the warmongers, yet I would certainly expect him to if I came out defending Bush and Co. come hell or high water as NC is attempting to defend Islam. He calls us "bigots" for both condemning specific practices against women in Muslim-dominated countries and Islam in general for providing justification for the oppression, but the burqa and FGM all have two things in common: they are both justified by their current practioners based upon Islam, and they are both oppressive against women.

You know, I have some acquantences from the deep South; they're good ole' boys, and though they have never lynched "a nigger," they show much in common with the bigots that did when they plaster Confederate flag decals upon their trucks as they praise the Confederacy and curse the Union. I'm not criticising "liberal" Muslims here any more than I am criticising "liberal" Southern democrats when I denounce the Confederacy and if necessary, those that would still defend it.

What exactly are you saying? That we shouldn't criticize a belief because some of its followers aren't as mean as some others? That completely misses the point; it's Islam and its apologists that have earned my scorn and condemnation; NC is in the firing-line because he placed himself there, not by his beliefs, but because of his defense and minimization of Islam's oppression.

NonContradiction

July 29, 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
He lumped himself in that group. My argument is against Islam; NC is a target only to the extent that he defends it and then calls others and me "hypocritical, slandering/lying bigots" for pointing-out it's oppressive nature and what it has done to encourage and allow misogyny to flourish.

Do you expect Muslim moderates to just sit on their hands and let you carelessly slander their religion? If I am going to commit myself to any belief, in anything, then I am going to defend that belief. I have carefully considered what I like and don't like about Islam and have decided that Islam strikes a reasonable balance between egoism and altruism. I don't believe that individual rights should be exalted to the extent that the individual has no responsibility towards the collective, nor do I believe that collective rights should be exalted to the extent that they trample upon the rights of individuals. Islam, many times in the Quran, calls for moderation.

Islam didn't try to make people equal, and I think that there is tremendous wisdom in the fact it didn't do so. Islam didn't outright abolish slavery, but it did set down very strict guidelines how a slave was to be treated. If a slave woman gave birth to a son, then the son was born a free man. Also, Islam made the freeing of slaves as an expiation in oaths. Islam dealt with the issue of slavery, and the abuses of slavery, in a very pragmatic way.

Similarly, Islam dealt with the abuses of the rich towards the poor, not by a redistribution of wealth until everybody was equal, but by abolishing usury and instituting Zakat (annual charity tax of 2.5% on the wealth of an individual). The fact that Zakat is a tax on wealth shows great wisdom. First of all, it's a tax that cannot increase or decrease because it's a religious institution; therefore, the wealthy know what the rule is always going to be. Secondly, it's a tax on wealth and not income; therefore, the wealthy are encouraged to become wealthier, and by doing so the poor receive more money in Zakat. Everybody benefits, unlike a progressive income tax, which penalizes people for working hard to become wealthy.

Finally, Islam dealt with the abuses of men towards women, not by making women and men equal, but by focusing on how they are to be treated. Men are the guardians and protectors of women and children. They go to war, fight, and die for them so that they may live in honor and dignity. They provide for them and give them the security that they need. In turn, women provide for men what men need, emotionally and physically.

I don't disagree with you that women have been abused, and are continuing to be abused. From the Muslim perspective, I don't understand why men in the West don't protect their women. How many women feel trapped in the pornography industry or living a life of prostitution? Where are the men? Where are the men to guard the honor and dignity of their daughters, sisters and mothers? A simple man came to Muhammad and told him that he liked Islam, but he wanted a special dispensation so that he could continue to fornicate. Muhammad, being the wise man that he was, instead of getting angry at him, he said to him, "Would you want somebody to fornicate with your mother?" Would you want somebody to fornicate with your sister? Would you want somebody to fornicate with your daughter? The conclusion was obvious to the man, and it should be obvious to everyone else.

I don't disagree with many of the things that the far-Left says about the Right. I don't disagree with many of the things Karl Marx said about the abuses of his time. What I disgree with them on is the solution to the problem. I don't believe that class-warfare and gender-warfare is the way to go. The agenda of equality, which came out of the French Enlightenment, has been an abject failure, IMO. I think that Islam is a much better way to go, but I doubt that I would ever convince you of that.

The problem with you, Dr. Rick, is that you are not giving a very balanced picture. You are painting Islam with only one color. Therefore, even if you are not prejudiced against Islam, it sure is coming across that way, and I can only judge by appearances.

Pain Paien

July 30, 2003, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Finally, Islam dealt with the abuses of men towards women, not by making women and men equal, but by focusing on how they are to be treated. Men are the guardians and protectors of women and children. They go to war, fight, and die for them so that they may live in honor and dignity. They provide for them and give them the security that they need. In turn, women provide for men what men need, emotionally and physically.

So this is why all Muslim countries treat women so justly? If I had only known that Islam had already dealt with abuse, I might have been lucid enough to ignore the abuses that occur. Many praises to Islam for "focusing" on how women should be treated: like objects. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Just so we're clear though, the forced wearing of burkas is an example of the efficacy of this Islamic solution?

One more clarification though...these women are forced to wear burkas "so that they may live in honor and dignity", right?

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Farren, your observations are thoughtful, but I'm at a loss to understand why you would conclude that I have "lump[ed NC] together with the practitioners of FGM, and hold him accountable"?

He lumped himself in that group. My argument is against Islam; NC is a target only to the extent that he defends it
It appears as though you are saying here that anyone who is an apologist for Islam must, by the nature of Islam, be an extremist since Islam is an extreme religion in your view. Therefore, a moderate Muslim, according to you, would be one who would sit, quitely, listening to someone attack Islam and not say anything in defense of Islam. Your position here seems to be very extreme.

I am highly critical of the USA and so wouldn't consider someone condemning the war on Iraq as "lumping" me with the warmongers, yet I would certainly expect him to if I came out defending Bush and Co. come hell or high water as NC is attempting to defend Islam.

If someone isn't going to defend his/her religion, come hell or high water, then why believe in it? For that reason, I am not a Christian.

You know, I have some acquantences from the deep South; they're good ole' boys, and though they have never lynched "a nigger," they show much in common with the bigots that did when they plaster Confederate flag decals upon their trucks as they praise the Confederacy and curse the Union. I'm not criticising "liberal" Muslims here any more than I am criticising "liberal" Southern democrats when I denounce the Confederacy and if necessary, those that would still defend it.

Your analogies would be insulting to most Muslims - good ole' boys and "niggers"? Islam isn't a religion of Nazis, racists, and misogynists, as you want to portray it. It sounds like you want to say that anyone who defends Islam must be a right-wing extremist, but that simply isn't true.

What exactly are you saying? That we shouldn't criticize a belief because some of its followers aren't as mean as some others? That completely misses the point; it's Islam and its apologists that have earned my scorn and condemnation;

So don't be surprised when we fire back at you by calling you a hypocritical, slandering/lying bigot. You are all of those things because you don't see your own bigotry towards Islam. There is a lot of good in Islam, but your hatred is blinding you to the good.

NC is in the firing-line because he placed himself there, not by his beliefs, but because of his defense and minimization of Islam's oppression.

So any Muslim who defends the verse that states that a Muslim woman should inherit half that of a man is a misogynist? Some Muslims argue that, since men have been the providers of women, for the most part through history, it makes sense that they should get more than the woman. You can disagree, that's fine, but to accuse someone of misogyny because of that verse, or other verses like it, is ridiculous. Especially, given the fact that a woman couldn't even inherit, at all, in pre-Islamic Arabia.

winstonjen

July 30, 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
So don't be surprised when we fire back at you by calling you a hypocritical, slandering/lying bigot. You are all of those things because you don't see your own bigotry towards Islam. There is a lot of good in Islam, but your hatred is blinding you to the good.

There is a lot of evil in Islam, but your dogma is blinding you to the evil.

Just because good things come from a religion does not mean that the bad things about it are OK.

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by winstonjen
There is a lot of evil in Islam, but your dogma is blinding you to the evil.

Just because good things come from a religion does not mean that the bad things about it are OK.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is, what you perceive to be, evil in Islam. You haven't proven that, but let's assume that there is. Since the Quran cannot be changed, we must either accept all of it or reject all of it. I cannot say that I reject the verse which governs the inheritance of women, but I accept everything else. Take one verse out of the Quran and it's no longer the Quran. So what I would have to do is to evaluate whether or not the good outweighs the evil. Also, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Quran is flawed and so it should be rejected. The problem is that everything else is flawed also. The ideologies of the Left have proven themselves to be seriously flawed, and surely the Bible of the Christians on the Right is seriously flawed also. So nothing is perfect. It becomes a matter of evaluating what we think is best. Islam strikes a nice balance, as far as I can see, between the egoism/individualism of the Right and the altruism/collectivism of the Left.

What the far-Left wants to do is to find whatever text in Islam that people would possibly perceive to be flawed so that they can further their own agenda of class and gender warfare. Since the "social justice" of Islam is in competition with the "social justice" of the far-Left, they are going to do everything in their power to discredit their competition. These attacks on Islam by the far-Left are politically motivated, whether you want to admit to it or not.

Dr Rick

July 30, 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It appears as though you are saying here that anyone who is an apologist for Islam must, by the nature of Islam, be an extremist...Islam isn't a religion of Nazis, racists, and misogynists, as you want to portray it. It sounds like you want to say that anyone who defends Islam must be a right-wing extremist...So any Muslim who defends the verse that states that a Muslim woman should inherit half that of a man is a misogynist?

It appears as though you can't reasonably defend or explain Islamic oppression, so you just argue strawmen, post ad hominems, and lie.

So don't be surprised when we fire back at you by calling you a hypocritical, slandering/lying bigot.

I'm not at all surprised, just disappointed; I was hoping for a rational and informative argument, and would have thought that someone who practices the religion and is bold enough to post on this forum would be up to the task.

I'm curious, NC: do you think calling me names is a good argument in favor of Islam? You've been shown how Islam is oppressive and been caught posting falsehoods about it; do you think you've defended your religion well up to this point with your strawmen and ad hominems? Do you think that since there's "a lot of good in Islam" (no one here has argued otherwise, btw), anyone who condemns the bad is a "hypocritical, slandering/lying bigot"? Do you think anyone else besides you believes that calling such names makes arguments against Islamic oppression invalid?

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NC is in the firing-line because he placed himself there, not by his beliefs, but because of his defense and minimization of Islam's oppression.

I am in the firing line here because of my beliefs. If I am going to defend the Quran, then I have to defend all of the verses in the Quran and not just the ones that I think would be easy to defend. You, on the other hand, have chosen only to attack those verses which you think are easy to attack.

What exactly are you saying? That we shouldn't criticize a belief because some of its followers aren't as mean as some others?

Critcizing a belief is one thing and politically motivated attacks are something quite different. For example, to acknowledge that Islam did liberate women from the ignorance of pre-Islamic Arabia, but you don't think that it went far enough would be criticism. However, ignoring the rights that Islam gave women at the time, which they didn't have before, and calling it misogynistic isn't criticism. Why can't you see the difference? Calling Muhammad a misogynistic, anti-semitic pedophile isn't criticism. It's slander.

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
I was hoping for a rational and informative argument,

What a joke that statement is. Here is a tip: If you want a rational and informative debate with a Muslim, don't start out by calling Muhammad a misogynistic pedophile. You haven't played the anti-semite card, yet, but I know it's there. Most Muslims think that I am crazy for even talking to people like you. Maybe they are right.

I'm curious, NC: do you think calling me names is a good argument in favor of Islam?

I don't believe that I have called you any name that wasn't true, unlike your slander of Muhammad. If you don't want to be called those names, then I would suggest that you stop slandering Muhammad.

You've been shown how Islam is oppressive and been caught posting falsehoods about it; do you think you've defended your religion well up to this point with your strawmen and ad hominems?

I am very happy knowing that I have argued successfully that your attacks on Islam are politically motivated. Rational debate is left for people who know how not to cross the line.

Do you think that since there's "a lot of good in Islam" (no one here has argued otherwise, btw), anyone who condemns the bad is a "hypocritical, slandering/lying bigot"?

There is a difference between condemning and criticizing. I think that you need to learn the difference between the two: stop condemning and start criticizing. You may even learn that what you believe in can be criticized also.

Do you think anyone else besides you believes that calling such names makes arguments against Islamic oppression invalid?

I don't know. You would have to ask them.

yguy

July 30, 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Calling Muhammad a misogynistic, anti-semitic pedophile isn't criticism. It's slander.

You deny, then, that he consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9?

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by yguy
You deny, then, that he consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9?
Yes, I have already covered why earlier in the thread.
Dr. Rick
He married Aisha when she was just 6 years old and had intercouse with her when she was at the ripe ole' age of 9.
NonCon
From the primary sources (such as they are) a strong case can be made that AIsha was around 19 when the marriage was consummated.

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375

Silent Acorns

July 30, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Here is a tip: If you want a rational and informative debate with a Muslim, don't start out by calling Muhammad a misogynistic pedophile.
Excuse me, but when did Dr. Rick (or anyone else in this thread) call Mohammad a "misogynistic pedophile"?

<Edit: OK, I know where you are getting this from but I still think you're exagerating the wording to support your claim that Dr. Rick's posts are "hate filled".>
I don't believe that I have called you any name that wasn't true, unlike your slander of Muhammad. If you don't want to be called those names, then I would suggest that you stop slandering Muhammad.
I think you've become unhinged in your obvious rage.

Dr Rick

July 30, 2003, 11:18 AM

Ayesha was one of Muhammed's nine wives, though he would advise other men to only marry up to four women.

From the Rational Thinking (http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/ayesha_age.htm) website:

"The majority of Muslims agree that Ayesha was only 9 years old when the Prophet married her. The following site makes no apology for her young age and accuses the modernists for humbugging the Westerns morality and denying the truth.

http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Polemics/aishah.html

This site also defends Muhammad for marrying Ayesha at 9 claiming that girls reach puberty at that age and therefore are considered adult and having sex with them at such tender age is acceptable.

http://bismikaallahuma.faithweb.com/aishah.html

However there are some �modernist� Muslims who dispute this fact. They argue:

(taken from http://www.understanding-islam.com/ri/mi-004.htm) [NC's linked apologist site]

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

Answer:
Even if we assume this narrative to be accurate, we have no reason to give it more weight than those that are so detailed about Ayesha�s age, describing her playing with her dolls, talking about her girlfriends coming to play with her and hiding when Muhammad entered the room, her memories of playing on the swing when her mother called her and washed her face and took her to Muhammad, her ignorance of what was going on and her �surprise� when Muhammad got into action taking his role as the husband, etc. These events are more likely to be remembered by someone of her childhood than when a particular Surah was revealed. It is more probable that a person confuse one Surah with the other than confuse all those details of her own life."

Dr Rick

July 30, 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't know. You would have to ask them.

Okay, I will;

"Hey, everyone else; does NC think anyone else besides him believes that calling such names makes arguments against Islamic oppression invalid?"

:D

yguy

July 30, 2003, 11:29 AM

From the site referred to by NonContradiction (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=307)

The author writes:

"I respect his opinion, but disagree with him completely. Not only this WAS the tradition of the Arabs, it is still their tradition and it has become the tradition of other counties that converted to Islam. Even up to this day it is very common to find girls as young as 9-years given for matrimony. Of course the reason that no one objected to the marriage of Muhammad and a 9-year-old girl, is because it was a costume. The reason when it was reported in so many hadithes that neither the author nor the scholars objected is because it was nothing out of the ordinary."

For our purposes, we are not concerned with any later Muslim traditions, which may, obviously, have been influenced by the incorrect information regarding Ayesha's (ra) age. <snip>

I find it interesting that the apologist for Mohammed declines to address the issue of whether the crime imputed to Mohammed is being perpetrated en masse by a significant percentage of modern Muslims. Could it be that they believe he bedded Aisha at 9 and are only following in his footsteps?

Silent Acorns

July 30, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is, what you perceive to be, evil in Islam. You haven't proven that, but let's assume that there is. Since the Quran cannot be changed, we must either accept all of it or reject all of it. I cannot say that I reject the verse which governs the inheritance of women, but I accept everything else. Take one verse out of the Quran and it's no longer the Quran.
Why not? Why must the Quaran be accepted in whole or regected in whole? Why can't you (or me, or anyone else) read the Quaran with a historian's eye and reject certain passages that were meant for a different time, a time when limiting, but not eliminating, the evils of slavery and the non-status of women could be considered a giant leap in human dignity.

The problem I have with Islam it three-fold:

1) It gives women less rights less than it gives men
Your defense of this (that women and men are different and therefore shouldn't be treated identically) would be much better if gave women more rights than men in some areas and men more rights in others. Instead, it grants men a certain number of rights, and then gives women a fraction of these. This kind of system implies that women are less valuable to society than men and thus encourages misogyny, even if it doesn't endorse it outright. It is thinking like "the Quaran cannot be changed" that perpetuates these unjust inequities. Islamic law needs to be liberalized. It's 1300 years out-of-date. The conditions that may have justified it back then no longer exist.

2) It condones slavery by limiting it's excesses rather than condemning slavery outright
To me, this proves that Islam was an important step but certainly not the last one. There can be no moral justification for slavery. No matter how limited the form.

3) While it may not explicitly endorse great evils like FGM, it fails to clearly condemn them
Because of this, these practices are rampant in many parts of the Islamic world. Perhaps my strongest criticism of Islam is that it doesn't work very well in practise. It claims to provide a moral code for justice, but it fails to address barbaric and evil practises like FGM. There are giant holes in the code. An effective moral code would clearly condemn FGM. The fact that it doesn't proves that the code is flawed. Whether it is fatally flawed I leave for Muslims to decide, but at a minimum the code should be changed.

July 30, 2003, 12:59 PM

dk: In Islam they cover women out of a sense of mystery and respect.
MollyMac: And which particular verse of the Qu�ran are you quoting here? While you are looking it up, you might care to consider why a group of women of Islamic backgrounds believed it necessary to form themselves into a Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East and chose as number 4 in their charter �Prohibition of imposing the Islamic dress code and veil. Freedom of clothing�.
Any ideas? Perhaps the link to the article by Azam Kamguian that I provided in a previous post might help you. Here�s an extract:
dk: I don�t believe I mentioned the Koran, but I think it says men and women should dress modestly. I think Western culture has become consumed with appearances, and it warps our perspective, policies and judgment. I simply don�t understand what �freedom of clothing� means. It�s my opinion that the most radical Islamic sects grow and prosper in response to the threat they perceive from Western culture. I�m not sure why they perceive us as a threat, maybe it was the last century, for example the war to end all wars, the war against tyranny, and the cold war to make the world safe for democracy. hmmm, surprise, surprise, Islamic nations and peoples feel threatened by the West, and sometimes respond with extreme prejudice?

Millions of Wahhabi Moslems have actually attended US Universities. In fact after 9/11 our Universities had a conniption at the prospect of Arab student visas being scrutinized, because the lost revenues threatened to send their finances into a tailspin. Check out the leadership of Moslem terrorists organizations, most have been education at Western Universities.

Do Moslem schools use metal detectors, armed hall guards, drug sniffing dogs, and security cameras too? No, that would be the US educracy. If Moslem women suffer from a dogmatic education then... the violence, illiteracy, obesity and security that bastardizes US public schools indicates a super crisis for the super power. Our system runs amok with special interests groups, dogmatists and social engineer�s. Clearly this was not the answer. In my opinion, the real problem stems from the wolf in sheep�s clothing, not the clothing. How can we hope to reform Islam without being able to put our own house in order.

Hey, did you know in October US public schools instructed children to disguise themselves as goblins, vampires, ghouls, etc� to extort and terrorize the community. Can you imagine, in Philadelphia and Detroit on the night before Halloween people celebrate Devil's Night by burning cars, people�s homes and vacant buildings. I wonder what Moslem theologians think about our special secular hedonism.

On a more serious note, as a rule I find cultural issues couched in historical context more persuasive than the hyperbole of sexist rheteric. But that�s just me. I�ve noticed fanaticism usually gets a fanatic response, one fanatic more corrupt than the next. What do you suggest, perhaps a fatwa on Islamic machismo?
dk: We debase women with a plethora of tortures like fake boobs/eyes/lips/noses/noses/chin/hair/etc, Botox injections, liposuction, fat farms, eating disorders, cosmetics and pornography. We don't cover women because they are sacred, we objectify women as material sex objects without any innate dignity at all.

MollyMac: Interesting point and if you would care to start a thread on the topic of cultural pressures on women in the west, I would be delighted to join in. But the reason it has no bearing here is that women in the west are not forced against their will to do any of these things. We may be our own worst enemies but at the end of the day it�s our choice and our basic human rights remain intact.
dk: I disagree, if we (Western Civilization) are ever to live in peace with Moslem nations and people it will be on a basis of mutual respect and self interest. There are around 2 billion Moslems in the world today. At the end of the WW II Western Civilization made up about 30% of the world's population, today it�s around 14%, and falling fast. Western Europe can�t raise enough healthy productive children to field an army, maintain infrastructure or run their industry complex. The US isn�t doing much better, but is blessed with a plethora of cheap illegal Hispanic labor. The baby boomers will retire on a bankrupt social security system in 20 years reducing our workforce by 1/4.

Prolific Moslems generally find the US cultural hegemony offensive, hypocritical and debasing. Our secular society teaches sexually equality on one hand as 1/3 of US children are raised in single mother homes that hover around the poverty line. How did the late Senator Patrick Moynihan put it? Oh yeh, �Defining Deviancy Down�. Our civilization, culture, men, women and children have a serious problems we can't admit to ourselves. Like the fanatics of Islam we're blind to our own ignorance.

Next?

Dr Rick

July 30, 2003, 01:31 PM

NonContradiction making his "rational" argument:This is just more hypocrisy...you have demonstrated that you are [bigoted]...[To sa:] This is just more liberal garbage...That's arrogance. You simply choose to stck your head in the sand and deny the truth...This is just more hypocrisy from the far-left...This is another tactic of the far-Left...Oh please...I feel like I am going to vomit here...How do you (Nowhere357) KNOW that you are so right? This is just more liberal hypocrisy...Your [cheetah's] hypocrisy is so obvious here...You are talking nonsense...
...and giving some swell internet etiquete advice, as well:
...the lying, hypocritical liberals slandering the religion of Islam...the lying, hypocritical liberals...there are a lot of lying, hypocritical liberals[note: NC has repeatedly lied about Islamic justification for oppressing women and mutilating their gentials with such gems as "Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage" and "there isn't one shred of evidence that [FGM] is from Islam"]...Calling Muhammad a misogynistic, anti-semitic pedophile isn't criticism...So don't be surprised when we fire back at you by calling you a hypocritical, slandering/lying bigot. You are all of those things because you don't see your own bigotry towards Islam...Here is a tip: If you want a rational and informative debate with a Muslim, don't start out by calling Muhammad a misogynistic pedophile.

Here's what I actually posted on page 3 of this thread:
�No one is allowed to wed more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them, to buy (women), as many as he wants.� Ibn Hazam, vol. 6, part 9, pp. 441, 467.

Mohammed is estimated by scholars to have had somewhere
between 15-25 wives. Almost all agree that he had more that the Quran permits for other Muslims.

He married Aisha when she was just 6 years old and had intercouse with her when she was at the ripe ole' age of 9.

One of his first wives had two other husbands at the time she married him.

Allowing oneself to engage in pedophilia and hypocrisy is hardly a sign of sexual liberation; nor is blindly following the teachings of such a pervert an indication of free or decent thoughts."

NonContradiction explains why he's "not a Christian":
If someone isn't going to defend his/her religion, come hell or high water, then why believe in it?

Indeed, why believe in it?

For that reason, I am not a Christian.

Oh...does whether or not there's any rational reason to accept one form of god-belief over all the others (there are about 10,000 gods that have been worshipped at one time or another, and about 150 of those still are) enter into this thought process at all?

Farren

July 30, 2003, 02:23 PM

Dr Rick, having read the entire thread (I didn't the first time), I retract my earlier criticism.

MollyMac

July 30, 2003, 05:33 PM

posted by Dr Rick
"Hey, everyone else; does NC think anyone else besides him believes that calling such names makes arguments against Islamic oppression invalid?"
Judging from the content of his posts, I would guess that he does indeed think this, which is why he is now on my ignore list.

dk - It's late and I'm tired and I'm having great difficulty seeing how much of your post relates to mine but I will have a go at responding to at least some of it.
posted by dk
I think Western culture has become consumed with appearances, and it warps our perspective, policies and judgment. I agree Western culture has become consumed with appearances but I'm not sure how it warps our perspective, policies and judgement. Care to give an example? I think it's fair to say that Islamic societies are obsessed with appearances, or rather with the appearances of the female half of the population - that�s why they enforce such a strict dress code under threat of such barbaric punishment.
I simply don't understand what "freedom of clothing" means.
Let me make a suggestion: Ask the Middle Eastern women who are demanding freedom of clothing what it means to them. The link I provided for the Committee to Defend Women's Rights in the Middle East has two email addresses on it.
It's my opinion that the most radical Islamic sects grow and prosper in response to the threat they perceive from Western culture. I'm not sure why they perceive us as a threat, maybe it was the last century, for example the war to end all wars, the war against tyranny, and the cold war to make the world safe for democracy. hmmm, surprise, surprise, Islamic nations and peoples feel threatened by the West, and sometimes respond with extreme prejudice?
I'm not sure why you have responded to my post with this comment since I haven't said anything about the growth of radical Islamic sects or their response to any perceived threat from the West. In my post I confined myself to drawing your attention to the fact some women and men from Islamic backgrounds experience Islam as an oppressive, anti-woman religion and I did this only because you had suggested that Islamic dress codes were something to do with respect.
Millions of Wahhabi Moslems have actually attended US Universities. In fact after 9/11 our Universities had a conniption at the prospect of Arab student visas being scrutinized, because the lost revenues threatened to send their finances into a tailspin. Check out the leadership of Moslem terrorists organizations, most have been education at Western Universities.
And your point is?
Do Moslem schools use metal detectors, armed hall guards, drug sniffing dogs, and security cameras too? No, that would be the US educracy. If Moslem women suffer from a dogmatic education then... the violence, illiteracy, obesity and security that bastardizes US public schools indicates a super crisis for the super power. Our system runs amok with special interests groups, dogmatists and social engineer's. Clearly this was not the answer.
And your point is? Honestly dk, I haven't a clue why you're telling me this stuff. I can assure I have a thoroughly healthy contempt for virtually everything American. Does that make you feel better? I'm a Brit and I find your assumption that I would be remotely interested in the security arrangements of your public schools or any of the other points you care to make about US culture and the US economy quite bewildering!
In my opinion, the real problem stems from the wolf in sheep's clothing, not the clothing.
It sounds as if you think the views of those women who hate being forced against their will to be clad from head to foot in hot, oppressive garments and are demanding freedom of clothing don't matter. Is that right?
How can we hope to reform Islam without being able to put our own house in order.
I hope by 'we' you are not including me! At the risk of sounding like an NC sympathiser, how arrogant to assume that non-muslims have any right to interfere with Islam. Islam cannot be reformed. It is a religion and it is prescriptive. The very word 'Islam' means submission to the will of God (which, IMO, is why present day Islamic societies are paralysed in ignorance. If everything is the will of Allah, then there is no room for new ideas, personal empowerment and individuality. Instead there is unsustainable population growth and a poorer quality of life as the Islamic world falls further and further behind the West).
However, like all religions its tenets are open to subjective interpretation. I have muslim friends, both women and men, who - much like xian cherry pickers - take from their religion what they want and ignore the rest. My own humble mission is to support them in defending their right to do this and oppose those whose stricter interpretation has a detrimental effect on human rights.
Hey, did you know in October US public schools instructed children to disguise themselves as goblins, vampires, ghouls, etc� to extort and terrorize the community. Can you imagine, in Philadelphia and Detroit on the night before Halloween people celebrate Devil's Night by burning cars, people's homes and vacant buildings. I wonder what Moslem theologians think about our special secular hedonism.
I couldn't care less what theologians of any brand of theism think about anything. Personally, I have always found the American predilection for making such a big thing out of Halloween (Devil's Night? Never heard of it) incomprehensible and the manner in which they celebrate it (allowing children to go begging and threatening around the neighbourhood) abominable. But I don't see what that's got to do with anything.
On a more serious note, as a rule I find cultural issues couched in historical context more persuasive than the hyperbole of sexist rheteric. But that's just me. I've noticed fanaticism usually gets a fanatic response, one fanatic more corrupt than the next. What do you suggest, perhaps a fatwa on Islamic machismo?
This is what you call a serious note? No I don�t suggest a fatwa. I don�t believe in fatwas, which I understand to be a sacred term of Islam meaning �a religious ruling�. I had rather thought the contents of my posts would reveal that I am not religious, much less a muslim but an atheist and � more importantly - a humanist, therefore I believe in trying to persuade people through discussion and argument rather than through issuing fatwas. Sorry if my arguments sound like so much �sexist rhetoric� or �fanaticism� to you but as I have said repeatedly, I am open to persuasion to a different point of view by reasoned, rational and relevant argument alone. So far, I haven�t been presented with any.

Arctish

July 30, 2003, 06:07 PM

Hello everyone, I'm Gemma. I am fairly new to this site, and I have been reading posts on several threads with great interest. I have not yet seen anyone on this thread make any reference to the very tragic fire in Saudi Arabia this past March, but I believe this incident illustrates several points which have been made by others. The issue of forcing women and girls to wear burquas, abayas, etc. in public or face beatings and/or other punishment IS a human rights issue, not simply a cultural conflict between Islam and western values.
The story may be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

School fires occur everywhere in the world, but under what circumstances would it ever be acceptable to force students to remain inside the building before the fire has been extinguished? In Islamic countries which do not enforce the strict dress code of the Wahabbi sect, such as Indonesia,Turkey,and even Iran,such a response by religous authorities is almost unimaginable. In Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, not one member of the mutaween has yet to be punished for his role in this tragedy leaving open the possibility it may happen again. This is wrong, plain and simple.

Silent Acorns

July 30, 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Gemma
Hello everyone, I'm Gemma. I am fairly new to this site, and I have been reading posts on several threads with great interest. I have not yet seen anyone on this thread make any reference to the very tragic fire in Saudi Arabia this past March, but I believe this incident illustrates several points which have been made by others.

The story may be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm
Welcome Genna!

I was thinking about mentioning this incident, but I didn't have a source or link.

Thanks.

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Here's what I actually posted on page 3 of this thread:
?No one is allowed to wed more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them, to buy (women), as many as he wants.? Ibn Hazam, vol. 6, part 9, pp. 441, 467.

I think that you missed something in the translation. You can NOT buy and sell women in Islam. Slaves, male and female, were bought and sold. I suppose that you want to bash Islam, now, for not having abolished slavery with one swoop of hand. Go right ahead.

Mohammed is estimated by scholars to have had somewhere
between 15-25 wives. Almost all agree that he had more that the Quran permits for other Muslims.

And your point is what?

He married Aisha when she was just 6 years old and had intercouse with her when she was at the ripe ole' age of 9.

I have already covered this twice - once with you, and once with yguy. Why do you keep bringing it up?

One of his first wives had two other husbands at the time she married him.

I asked you before which wife you were referring to, but you didn't respond. Would you care to do so now?

Allowing oneself to engage in pedophilia and hypocrisy is hardly a sign of sexual liberation; nor is blindly following the teachings of such a pervert an indication of free or decent thoughts."

You haven't established that he was a pedophile, so until you do, this is nothing more than more Islam bashing.

NonCon
If someone isn't going to defend his/her religion, come hell or high water, then why believe in it?

Dr. Rick
Indeed, why believe in it?

I believe in Islam because it's a viable alternative to the failed ideologies on the Left and the fanaticism of the Bible thumpers on the Right. When you come up with a better alternative, let me know.

Oh...does whether or not there's any rational reason to accept one form of god-belief over all the others (there are about 10,000 gods that have been worshipped at one time or another, and about 150 of those still are) enter into this thought process at all?

I chose a religion, and the God of the religion came with it. It was a packaged deal. If you can provide a better alternative, as I have already said, be my guest.

Here is a link to a biblechat discussion of people calling Muhammad a madman pedophile. How does it feel to fit in with the extremists on the Right?
http://killdevilhill.com/biblechat/messages2/27967.html

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Gemma
. In Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, not one member of the mutaween has yet to be punished for his role in this tragedy leaving open the possibility it may happen again. This is wrong, plain and simple.

I think that it's bone-headed stupid.

From BBC article
Families of the victims have been incensed over the deaths.

Remember, the families of those victims, who were incensed over the deaths, are Muslims too. To condemn Islam for the ignorance and stupidity of these people is wrong, though.

yguy

July 30, 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You haven't established that he was a pedophile, so until you do, this is nothing more than more Islam bashing.

It doesn't matter, as many Muslims have effectively made the "lie" true by practicing what they appear to believe Mohommed practiced. I mean, does anybody really care whether he was a pedophile except insofar as the incident has become a de facto source of Islamic moral doctrine?

NonContradiction

July 30, 2003, 07:09 PM

Amen-Moses

July 30, 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by yguy
It doesn't matter, as many Muslims have effectively made the "lie" true by practicing what they appear to believe Mohommed practiced. I mean, does anybody really care whether he was a pedophile except insofar as the incident has become a de facto source of Islamic moral doctrine?

Up until around 150 years ago it was perfectly legal to marry (and to presumably consumate the marriage) a 9 year old in many christian nations as well (Britain being one of them!) does this mean that all christians are paedophiles by extension?

Amen-Moses

yguy

July 30, 2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Up until around 150 years ago it was perfectly legal to marry (and to presumably consumate the marriage) a 9 year old in many christian nations as well (Britain being one of them!) does this mean that all christians are paedophiles by extension?

Amen-Moses

First of all, no one has said that all Muslims are pedophiles because some apparently are. As to your question, yes, if we were having this discussion 150 years ago it would be as valid to criticize Christianity as it is to criticize Islam today in this regard, given your premise.

yguy

July 30, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am not sure what you are driving at here at all.

Put it together with this, and see if it doesn't come together:

Originally posted by yguy
From the site referred to by NonContradiction (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=307)

The author writes:

"I respect his opinion, but disagree with him completely. Not only this WAS the tradition of the Arabs, it is still their tradition and it has become the tradition of other counties that converted to Islam. Even up to this day it is very common to find girls as young as 9-years given for matrimony. Of course the reason that no one objected to the marriage of Muhammad and a 9-year-old girl, is because it was a costume. The reason when it was reported in so many hadithes that neither the author nor the scholars objected is because it was nothing out of the ordinary."

For our purposes, we are not concerned with any later Muslim traditions, which may, obviously, have been influenced by the incorrect information regarding Ayesha's (ra) age. <snip>

I find it interesting that the apologist for Mohammed declines to address the issue of whether the crime imputed to Mohammed is being perpetrated en masse by a significant percentage of modern Muslims. Could it be that they believe he bedded Aisha at 9 and are only following in his footsteps?

Dr Rick

July 30, 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Here is a link to a biblechat discussion of people calling Muhammad a madman pedophile. How does it feel to fit in with the extremists on the Right?

This is the equivalent of linking to an Islamic terrorist-supporting website and asking a Muslim such as NC "how does it feel to fit in with the terrorists?"

I think that you missed something in the translation. You can NOT buy and sell women in Islam. Slaves, male and female, were bought and sold.

I think your lies and rationalizations are getting worse. So now we are supposed to believe that one can buy and sell female slaves in Islam but not women? Are female slaves not women in your view?

Malik 362:1221 Ibn Fahd said "I have some slave girls who are better than my wives, but I do not desire that they should all become pregnant. Shall I do azl(withdrawal) with them?" Hajjaj said "They are your fields of cultivation. If you wish to irrigate them do so, if not keep them dry."

Malik 365:1245 A man said, "My wife has willfully given my slavegirl with whom I used to cohabit her own milk to drink. What is my relationship to the slave girl ?" Omar said "Punish your wife and go into your slave girl"

I believe in Islam because it's a viable alternative to the failed ideologies on the Left and the fanaticism of the Bible thumpers on the Right.

False dichotomy

I asked you before which wife you were referring to, but you didn't respond. Would you care to do so now?

Since I don't have my source at hand, I'll retract that assertion until I can find it, again.

And your point [about Mohammed having more wives than the Quran permits] is what?

Religion has blinded you more than it blinds most.

I have already covered this twice - once with you, and once with yguy. Why do you keep bringing it up?

It was brought up again as part of a larger post to show that you have once again lied. And you never addressed it; you just linked to a site that goes against what most Muslims and scholars believe.

You haven't established that he was a pedophile, so until you do, this is nothing more than more Islam bashing.

It's been well-established that he married and had sex with a very young girl before she was ten years-old, and the sites that have the evidence have been provided as links. That you choose to ignore them doesn't make them go away.

NonContradiction

July 31, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by NonCon
Here is a link to a biblechat discussion of people calling Muhammad a madman pedophile. How does it feel to fit in with the extremists on the Right?
Originally posted by Dr. Rick
This is the equivalent of linking to an Islamic terrorist-supporting website and asking a Muslim such as NC "how does it feel to fit in with the terrorists?"
It's not the same at all because I am not a terrorist. You, on the other hand, have proven that you are every bit an extremist as much as they are. The extremists on the Right and the Left are the same. They just don't see it in each other.
I think your lies and rationalizations are getting worse. So now we are supposed to believe that one can buy and sell female slaves in Islam but not women? Are female slaves not women in your view?
What is your problem? In your original post you used the word "women". If you use the word "women" it implies that any woman, free or slave, could be bought and sold. The correct translation would be female slaves and not women.
NonCon
I believe in Islam because it's a viable alternative to the failed ideologies on the Left and the fanaticism of the Bible thumpers on the Right.
Dr. Rick
False dichotomy
How is it a false dichotomy? I am not limiting anybody's choices here. I am merely saying that, among all of the religions and ideologies, Islam is a viable alternative. I don't think that Buddhism or Hinduism is going to be able to challenge the ideologies of the Left or the Christianity of the Right. Islam, on the other hand, shows some promise, despite the smear campaign by people like you.

NonCon
You haven't established that he was a pedophile, so until you do, this is nothing more than more Islam bashing.

Dr. Rick
It's been well-established that he married and had sex with a very young girl before she was ten years-old, and the sites that have the evidence have been provided as links. That you choose to ignore them doesn't make them go away.

It hasn't been well established that he had sex with a girl before she was ten. I provided you with research that shows that there has to be a discrepancy somewhere. At best, there is inconclusive evidence that he did have sex with a girl before she was ten. You are the one who chooses to ignore the facts of the case because you have become blinded by your own bigotry. I don't expect you to stop spewing your venom anytime soon.

Nowhere357

July 31, 2003, 01:47 AM

I just want to say how nice it is to see such a bloody train wreck which doesn't involve homophobia!

winstonjen

July 31, 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's not the same at all because I am not a terrorist. You, on the other hand, have proven that you are every bit an extremist as much as they are. The extremists on the Right and the Left are the same. They just don't see it in each other.

Righties don't see extremism in Lefties and Lefties don't see it in Righties? Quick, QoS, here's some new Nutwatch material! :D

What is your problem? In your original post you used the word "women". If you use the word "women" it implies that any woman, free or slave, could be bought and sold. The correct translation would be female slaves and not women.

And you still haven't addressed the issue. Are female slaves women under Islam, and are all women slaves? Yes or no to both questions, please.

How is it a false dichotomy? I am not limiting anybody's choices here. I am merely saying that, among all of the religions and ideologies, Islam is a viable alternative. I don't think that Buddhism or Hinduism is going to be able to challenge the ideologies of the Left or the Christianity of the Right. Islam, on the other hand, shows some promise, despite the smear campaign by people like you.

No religion that espouses 'kill the infidels', which equates to 'kill anyone who doesn't believe exactly like you' has any promise to be anything but detrimental to humanity.

It hasn't been well established that he had sex with a girl before she was ten. I provided you with research that shows that there has to be a discrepancy somewhere. At best, there is inconclusive evidence that he did have sex with a girl before she was ten. You are the one who chooses to ignore the facts of the case because you have become blinded by your own bigotry. I don't expect you to stop spewing your venom anytime soon.

I'm sure we feel the same about you.

NonContradiction

July 31, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by NonCon
It's not the same at all because I am not a terrorist. You, on the other hand, have proven that you are every bit an extremist as much as they are. The extremists on the Right and the Left are the same. They just don't see it in each other.

Originally posted by winstonjen
Righties don't see extremism in Lefties and Lefties don't see it in Righties? Quick, QoS, here's some new Nutwatch material!

You didn't address the point. You, and the rest of your cohorts on the far-Left, are as every bit extremists as are the people on the far-Right, or the Muslim extremists. The extremists are the nutwatch material.

Originally posted by winstonjen
And you still haven't addressed the issue. Are female slaves women under Islam, and are all women slaves? Yes or no to both questions, please.

I have already made myself very clear. It's incorrect to say that women could be bought and sold because it implies that any woman, free or slave, could be bought and sold.

Originally posted by winstonjen
No religion that espouses 'kill the infidels', which equates to 'kill anyone who doesn't believe exactly like you' has any promise to be anything but detrimental to humanity.

I was waiting for somebody to raise this issue. What took you so long? I am surprised that no one has played the anti-semite card yet. Where is your evidence that Islam teaches to "kill the infidels" who don't believe in Islam?

I know what verse that you are going to use, and I also know about all of the other verses that you are going to ignore which give, in the end, a very balanced picture. The objective of the far-Left is to present Islam as an extremist religion, which is detrimental to humanity, but the truth is that Islam isn't an extremist religion. The truth is that the people on the far-Left, the far-Right, along with the Muslim radicals, are the extremists, and they are the ones who are detrimental to humanity. Pot, kettle, black. The extremists on the far-Left are continuing to demonstrate that they are lying, hypocritical bigots. It's the extremists from among the Muslims, from the far-Right, and the far-Left who are the biggest threat to world peace.

Silent Acorns

July 31, 2003, 12:17 PM

NonCon, I notice that you choose not to reply to my posts anymore. I hope that you'll answer this question at least:

What is your definition of "Far-Left"?

You have repeatedly labeled almost everyone here as members of the far-left, but I have seen very little to back this claim up. Would I be correct to assume that, it is your opinion that anyone who believes women deserve the same political rights as men is a "Far-left Radical"?

NonContradiction

July 31, 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Silent Acorns
What is your definition of "Far-Left"?

The agenda of the far-Left can best be described, taking a quote from Rousseau, "to FORCE men to be free". The far-Left has a radical agenda of equality, which they believe grants them the justification to impose that agneda upon everyone else in the name of "social justice".

You have repeatedly labeled almost everyone here as members of the far-left, but I have seen very little to back this claim up.

That doesn't surprise me. Perhaps you should look harder. There are some moderates here, so the keyword in your statement is "almost everybody".

Would I be correct to assume that, it is your opinion that anyone who believes women deserve the same political rights as men is a "Far-left Radical"?

If you want to make men and women completely equal, and you are willing to use FORCE to achieve your objective, then you are on the far-Left. Class-warfare and gender-warfare are agendas of the far-Left.

Of course, all of this doesn't mean that everybody on the Right or the Left are extremists. The moderates on the Left and the Right, along with the Muslim moderates, even though they all have completely different platforms, they believe that criticizing is better than condemning. Extremists don't know where to draw the line because they have gone way beyond it. Moderates CRITICIZE each other, whereas extremists CONDEMN each other. Condemnation leads to physical violence. It's the next logical step.

Dr Rick

July 31, 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally asked by Silent Acorns
NonCon...it is your opinion that anyone who believes women deserve the same political rights as men is a "Far-left Radical"?

Answer by NonContradiction
If you want to make men and women completely equal, and you are willing to use FORCE to achieve your objective, then you are on the far-Left. Class-warfare and gender-warfare are agendas of the far-Left.

Of course, all of this doesn't mean that everybody on the Right or the Left are extremists. The moderates on the Left and the Right, along with the Muslim moderates, even though they all have completely different platforms, they believe that criticizing is better than condemning...

To put it a bit more succinctly, his answer is "Yes."

Nowhere357

July 31, 2003, 02:12 PM

Then no one here is far left. We have no interest in forcing people to be free. The force is directed at those who deny the freedom of people. Once free, a person is free to shackle himself if he chooses.

See the difference?

Silent Acorns

July 31, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The agenda of the far-Left can best be described, taking a quote from Rousseau, "to FORCE men to be free". The far-Left has a radical agenda of equality, which they believe grants them the justification to impose that agneda upon everyone else in the name of "social justice".
OK, at least that's a workable definition. Now please point out where I (whom you have called far-left on numerous occasions) endorsed the use of force to free women in Islamic countries?
That doesn't surprise me. Perhaps you should look harder. There are some moderates here, so the keyword in your statement is "almost everybody".
What I mean is that you have labeled many people here as "far left" without explaining how you came to this conclusion.
If you want to make men and women completely equal, and you are willing to use FORCE to achieve your objective, then you are on the far-Left. Class-warfare and gender-warfare are agendas of the far-Left.
First, I'm not sure what you mean by "completely equal". What I want is for men and women to be treated equaly before the law. For example, Islamic law states that two female witnesses carry the same legal weight as one man. This is an obvious inequity, and if you support it you should be able to say why you support it. You have given a reason (not a good one, in my opinion, but a reason none the less) for the inequity in inheritance, do you have a good reason for this one?
Extremists don't know where to draw the line because they have gone way beyond it. Moderates CRITICIZE each other, whereas extremists CONDEMN each other. Condemnation leads to physical violence. It's the next logical step.
As far as I'm concerned, I've only been criticizing. Could you please explain what (to you) is the fundamental difference between a critique and a condemnation? According to my dictionary, the two are synonyms.

Criticize: 1. to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly. 2. to find fault with : point out the faults of

Condemn: 1. to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation. 2. to pronounce guilty

By the way, which of the following are critiques, and which are condemnations?

Yes, the liberals are always full of new ideas. The problem is that none of them have worked very well. The truth is that the cure has been worst than the disease.

This is just more hypocrisy from the far-left. They are as intolerant of people to the right of them as the neo-Nazis are of people to the left of them. Yet they talk about "free speech". Liberalism is just a cover for their hidden agenda.

The thing that kills me about people on the far-Left is that wherever they have gone in the world, they have left behind nothing but pain and misery from their failed liberal experiments, yet they are too arrogant to admit it.

This is just more garbage from the far-Left. If past performance is any indicator of future performance, it doesn't appear as though you have anything better.