Transcendental Cartoons [Archive] - Page 2

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 09:42 AM

Yes, Hitchens is great when it comes to religion. He has spent equal time bashing Christianity for all of its shortcomings and absurdities.

What Hitchens reserves for Islam is quite different though. He recognizes the uniqueness and it's need for reform. He sees it as a threat to our freedoms. Not your average "shortcomings and absurdities."

---------------

Midtown: Yes indded, "A growing number of imams in Europe and the Middle East have denounced suicide missions and terrorist acts...."

And too bad they are such a minority.

As Muslim author Irshad Manji ( author of The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith.) said in a Q&A interview in the NYTimes:

Questions for Irshad Manji

Q. I think, that many non-Muslims have wondered why they haven't heard more from moderate Muslims in the last couple of years.

A. In part, it is, yes, fear of persecution. I hear that word from many people. And in many cases, people don't know how to speak up. We are routinely taught that the Koran is the final and therefore perfect manifesto of God's will. It's not to be analyzed or interpreted, never mind questioned. So most of us have no clue how to dissent, debate, revise or reform.

Q. There's literalism in Christianity and Judaism, too.

A. But only in Islam is literalism mainstream. Obviously, that doesn't mean that all mainstream Muslims are lobbing bombs at the so-called infidels. It does mean that we don't ask the hard questions. From North Africa to Southeast Asia you have a panoply of different cultures, yet this entire region lags behind the world in terms of economic progress and human rights. The common denominator to all these cultures is Islam. We can't simply dismiss the possibility that Islam itself needs to be reformed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/magazine/21QUESTIONS.html

Who is Irshad Manji?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji

-----------

Quote:

Q. I think, that many non-Muslims have wondered why they haven't heard more from moderate Muslims in the last couple of years.

A. In part, it is, yes, fear of persecution.

--- as I was saying:

"The fact that there is such fear (or is it agreement?) among Muslims to condem such things in today's world tells us quite a bit."

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 09:57 AM

So, you found that lady Manji to agree with you on some stretch of your statement. I'm so thrilled. I've seen her in interviews and would agree with much of what she says too.
Unfortunately for your convoluted position, it does nothing to change what you were busy dismissing beforehand: that moderate Muslims have spoken out continuously and often. You have denied, challenged, and then finally posted something that mentions this reality. Their signed statements, fatwas, quotes, all show many Muslims speaking out. That some would be afraid to speak out when they are in certain surroundings, is understandable. I would be too. Muslims in the USA feel more free to speak out, and DO.
But, I'm glad you understand more clearly now.

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 09:59 AM

"But, I'm glad you understand more clearly now."

LOL.

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 10:00 AM

^open minded and a sense of humor too. Now there's a mensch.

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 10:04 AM

*sigh*

Midtown wrote:

"moderate Muslims have spoken out continuously and often. You have denied, challenged, and then finally posted something that mentions this reality."

Really? Yet on Ap 26th...pages ago ... I wrote in reference to Muslims speaking out:

"Of course he and every other Muslim I know ( and I would venture to guess I have more daily contacts with Muslims the most here) are or would be against this."

------

"Muslims in the USA feel more free to speak out, and DO."

But... why should they have any fear speak out anywhere?

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 10:14 AM

^yup, that was after I questioned you about your "Muslim friends" that you had mentioned before. I mean, I just couldn't picture you hanging out with people who celebrated at exectutions. People who wouldn't speak against killing two young boys. Afraid Muslims. Unfortunately, extracting that kernel of truth wasn't easy. From reading the whole thread, the tone of your position is somewhat different than this new face suddenly appearing, but I am willing to accept this new open mindedness on display. Bravo.

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 10:21 AM

I'm happy to to see that you have recognized that I am open minded:

Now repeat after me:

--- "The fact that there is such fear (or is it agreement?) among Muslims to condem such things in today's world tells us quite a bit."

--- "Only in Islam is literalism mainstream."

--- "(Islam is) a threat to our freedoms."

--- "Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy."

And etc.

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 10:23 AM

But... why should they have any fear speak out anywhere? The regime in power (using religion for its own purposes of control) does not necessarily represent the views of all, or even most, Muslims in a country like Iran (where there is a huge secular, non Arabic tradition) Unless you're braver than I suspect, you would also be afraid of running your mouth publicly, under such a regime. But to lump the regime and ruling clerics together with the opposition (or even the general population) would be silly.

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 10:36 AM

Repeat after you? Now who's pedantic? But in the interest of humoring you, how about this:

--- "The fact that there is such fear (or is it agreement?) among Muslims to condem such things in today's world tells us quite a bit."A stupid statement that we have already debated for pages. You can repeat it as often as you like, but it still doesn't sound intelligent.

--- "Only in Islam is literalism mainstream."Mainstream? Weasel words. The fact that millions of Christians also believe in literal interpretations of the bible, especially in countries where secular education is poor, "tells us quite a bit" about any religion that is trying to displace science and logic in a developing society.

--- "(Islam is) a threat to our freedoms."Zealous Christians are a threat to my freedoms and my rights.

--- "Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy."Seems like every day I open the paper and read about some Christian group trying to insert their religious views into my democracy. Any religion that declares itself to be "the only way" to salvation is a danger to democracy. Your boy Hitchens would agree.

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 11:14 AM

Trying to find Hitchens or any of the Muslim writers that made the above quotes equating Islam with Christianity (well... Christianity does it too.... they are equivalents... etc.) is nonsense. The whole point is that Islam is unique in that regard. To deny that is ridiculous. The ills of modern-day Christianity (the zealots... the fringe) simply cannot compare.

As Manji says:

"I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their fundamentalists. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have absolutists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam today is literalism mainstream. "

----------

"Seems like every day I open the paper and read about some Christian group trying to insert their religious views into my democracy. Any religion that declares itself to be "the only way" to salvation is a danger to democracy. Your boy Hitchens would agree."

And as far as Hitchens goes: do actually read what he wrote in his article about Islam. His writings about Christianity is on a whole other level. That is why what he says about Islam is so revealing. He does NOT see them as equivalents.

We live in Europe and the US, among the most secular countries on earth.... and even though in the US fully 76% of the population identifies its self as Christian there are fundamentals of human rights for women, rights for children (even friggin' animals) divorce, abortion, birth control, gay rights, religious rights ...etc.... no matter what any religion says.

The record is not sterling everywhere... there is always work to be done... and always there is and will be some group trying to reign in rights etc.... but compare any of that to where the law of Islam is the law of the land, where Islam is the majority: "Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy."

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 01:35 PM

Oh boy.

Trying to find Hitchens or any of the Muslim writers that made the above quotes equating Islam with Christianity (well... Christianity does it too.... they are equivalents... etc.) is nonsense.^ I honestly cannot parse the meaning of this statement.

The ills of modern-day Christianity (the zealots... the fringe) simply cannot compare.Here the question really becomes what qualifies as zealotry, and where the fringe begins. Is there one Christian suicide bomber for every Islamic one? (Ignoring the political realities that create suicide bombers in a place like Palestine, as opposed to the relatively rosy life of a young Christian eating a brioche in Italy or the USA)? Of course not. But to say Christians don't commit ills or send death threats would be the real nonsense. Elton John got one, for Christ's sake.

Is there a loud outspoken dissident in Saudi Arabia or Yemen pushing for women's or homosexual rights, to compare with the legions of women's groups and gay groups in the USA or Europe? Hell no. The political realities that make it nearly impossible are obvious. Is it really Islam itself, then? or is it the way the powerful military backed regimes implement fundamental varieties of Islam to keep the masses in check? To keep people out of the media? The typical Persian does not want to see teens executed by some religious zealots. If you don't accept that, then fine, but the news shows us people that are actually fighting for a different Iran.

We live in Europe and the US, among the most secular countries on earth.... with fundamentals of human rights for women, rights for children (even friggin' animals) divorce, abortion, birth control, gay rights, religious rights ...etc....... but compare any of that to where the law of Islam is the law of the land.THANK YOU. And it should be noted that "friggin' animals" rights weren't pushed through because of Christianity but despite it. :cool: Abortion too! Hilarious. :D Ditto birth control. :D:D Gay rights...we've already been there. So that was just crazy talk. If us secular folks weren't smashing them back into the church and out of the law books we'd look a lot more like Yemen. Women pregnant in the house, guns on every hip, and everything.

Then the irrationality continues...we're invited to compare a place like Switzerland or New York to Saudi Arabia or Sudan, as if that will enlighten us on the true difference between Christians and Muslims. It's much more logical to compare countries where the people are educated to a reasonable level. Comparing the mainstream Christianity in Europe or the USA to Islam in some under-educated country is hardly enlightening. Too many other variables get involved, so your comparisons just don't have much elegance. I do know that in a third world under-educated Christian country like Uganda, the Christians were considering the death penalty for homosexuals (much of the brouhaha ginned up by visiting American Evangelicals...go figure). Religion takes the place of reason in such a society. I mentioned this before, but if you're going to ignore things and keep going in circles, then so should I.

You dismiss the ills of Christianity and how they don't compare, yet I can name some truly ill Christians, some ill statements and some grotesquely ill deeds.

Then you have all that messy geopolitical stuff, about how our Christian people in charge of troop deployments prop up the Islamic regimes running many of the countries (for example Saudi Arabia) that we both know are tough places for dissident thinkers to express themselves.

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 01:39 PM

"And as far as Hitchens goes: do actually read what he wrote in his article about Islam."I did, yet it would seem that you haven't read much Hitchens.

His writings about Christianity is on a whole other level.In fact, Mr. Hitchens (not that I even agree with him on most things since he morphed after 9/11) has lots to say about Christianity that are on a pretty scathing level! How about:

"Subject: Is Christianity Good for the World?
In considering the above question (for which my thanks are due to your generosity and hospitality in inviting my response), I have complete confidence in replying in the negative."

"Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral."

or how about:

"If hymns and psalms were sung to sanctify slavery—just to take a recent example—and then sung by abolitionists, then surely the non-fanatical explanation is that morality requires no supernatural sanction? Every Christian church has had to make some apology for its role in the Crusades, slavery, anti-Semitism, and much else. I do not think that such humility discredits faith as such, because I tend to think that faith is a problem to begin with, but I do think that humility will lead to the necessary conclusion that religion is man-made."

So basically, the guy says Christianity is a scourge on the Earth, full of made-up stuff and immoral teachings...the whole shebang... and you want to talk about "levels". Otay.

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 01:57 PM

"And it should be noted that "friggin' animals" rights weren't pushed through because of Christianity but despite it. Abortion too! Hilarious. Ditto birth control. Gay rights...we've already been there. "

^ All achieved within a society composed mostly of Christians and mostly despite obsticles in favour of such reforms. Millions of people who identify themselves as Christians are gay, or practice birth control, or whatever.

"Then the irrationality continues...we're invited to compare a place like Switzerland or New York to Saudi Arabia or Sudan, as if that will enlighten us on the true difference between Christians and Muslims. It's much more logical to compare countries where the people are educated to a reasonable level. "

And it is the Islamic religion that insures that difference:

"From North Africa to Southeast Asia you have a panoply of different cultures, yet this entire region lags behind the world in terms of economic progress and human rights. The common denominator to all these cultures is Islam. We can't simply dismiss the possibility that Islam itself needs to be reformed."

And until that reformation happens, these countries will remain in the Middle-ages.

----------

"Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral."

Agreed. With all he says.

And that is why we have separation of Church and State.

ablarc

May 18th, 2010, 01:57 PM

Q. There's literalism in Christianity and Judaism, too.

A. But only in Islam is literalism mainstream. Obviously, that doesn't mean that all mainstream Muslims are lobbing bombs at the so-called infidels. It does mean that we don't ask the hard questions. From North Africa to Southeast Asia you have a panoply of different cultures, yet this entire region lags behind the world in terms of economic progress and human rights. The common denominator to all these cultures is Islam. We can't simply dismiss the possibility that Islam itself needs to be reformed.
This is the point that every realist must recognize.

Q. I think, that many non-Muslims have wondered why they haven't heard more from moderate Muslims in the last couple of years.

A. In part, it is, yes, fear of persecution.

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 02:11 PM

Here's a list of Islamic countries. (source Wikipedia)

Although the separation of church and state was first theorized by Averroes, most Muslim-majority countries recognize Islam as the state religion.

Check them out for human rights. Start with women and gays.

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Comoros
Egypt
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia (Not exactly an Islamic state but does have Sharia courts along with the secular courts)
Maldives
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Saudi Arabia
Somalia (the newly established coalition government announced in March 2009 that it would implement shari'a as the nation's official judicial system.)
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

Sunni Islam
Algeria
Bangladesh
Comoros
Malaysia
Maldives
Mauritania
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Jordan
Indonesia

Shi'a Islam
Iran
Iraq
Bahrain

^
"From North Africa to Southeast Asia you have a panoply of different cultures, yet this entire region lags behind the world in terms of economic progress and human rights. The common denominator to all these cultures is Islam. We can't simply dismiss the possibility that Islam itself needs to be reformed."

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 02:44 PM

And while most Muslim-majority countries recognize Islam as the state religion (and we can see the results), most Christian majority countries do not recognize Christianity as the state religion.

Countries that do recognize Christian religions as state religion are the following:

Roman Catholic - Jurisdictions which recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion:
Costa Rica
Liechtenstein
Malta
Monaco
Vatican City

--

Eastern Orthodox - Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their state religion:
Cyprus (Cypriot Orthodox Church)
Greece (Church of Greece)
Finland: Finnish Orthodox Church

--

Lutheran - Jurisdictions which recognize a Lutheran church as their state religion:
Denmark (Church of Denmark)
Iceland (Church of Iceland)
Norway (Church of Norway)
Finland: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland

--

Anglican - Jurisdictions that recognise an Anglican church as their state religion:
England (Church of England)

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 02:50 PM

All achieved within a society composed mostly of Christians
Nice wiggle. But misses the point. The so called "Christians" fought against those rights. Do you get it, or not?

all of which begs a question:
What are you considering a "Christian"? Is a person marked "Christian" in the statistics because their parents were Christians, they had a baptism, they believe in certain principals loosely, what? I can't name a single person in my entire social group that goes to church on Sunday, observes things like the Sabbath, or any of it. Yet they would call themselves Christian.

So you can call this country, or Germany, or whatever you like a Christian country, but the truth is that when the majority of their populations were still practicing the organized Christianity in Churches, none of those rights you are trumpeting even existed. When secularists fought for changes against the will of the Church did we have progress in expanding rights.

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 02:52 PM

As for all those lists that you're busy posting, looks fun. Still doesn't negate a single word of what I have said.

MidtownGuy

May 18th, 2010, 02:59 PM

The common denominator to all these cultures is Islam. This is the point that every realist must recognize.

The common denominator in Europe, all during the time when the priests had total power and influence, was Christianity... and the atrocities were numerous. Horrible violence that boggles the mind. Obey or else!

Thank goodness the churches don't have much sway in Europe anymore. That's when things started improving.

Ninjahedge

May 18th, 2010, 03:29 PM

There are many factors besides just religion that come into play in the evolution of a society. One big one is social class structure. How many of these coultries havd had as much of a blending as the european countries since their own rather discriminiatory middle ages?

It seems like the only thing that eventually gets a society to evolve is a FEELING of equality that fosters mutual support and a feeling of security.

The problem seems to be, there was no true industrial revolution in many of these nations, due to more than just their religion, but also their own ruling classes at the time AND teh fact that many did not get world status because of what they did themselves, but merely because of material resource (oil) and other "gifts from god" that did not allow any form of equitable dispersion (not that Western society has that, but take a quick survey of US/European citizens on how many have more than one TV. How many have been to dinner in the past month? The past week? The past 24 hours? You will start to see the disparity).

Does that disparity CAUSE the differences we see? No, but it does nothing to dilute, diffuse or put pressure on it to change.

I do believe pressure needs to be applied to get change to happen, just know that when you push too hard all you get is a stronger resistance.

ablarc

May 18th, 2010, 03:38 PM

MidtownGuy, in my opinion you're going off the deep end.

Chill.

Fabrizio

May 18th, 2010, 03:40 PM

Midtown wrote: "The so called "Christians" fought against those rights. "

And plenty of so-called Christians fought for those rights. The marchers on Washington for civil rights. The reverend MLK. The reverend Jesse Jackson. The radical Priests and Nuns. The very Catholic Kennedys.

You might want to learn about people like Father Daniel Berrigan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan

And Fannie Lou Hamer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Lou_Hamer

But also millions of everyday Americans... and Europeans... who have no problem identifying themselves as Christian and fight for civil rights. You mean all of those for womens rights, gay rights, civil rights etc are athiest or what?

It is you who do not get it.

---

Or perhaps you are getting it:

Midtown wrote: "The common denominator in Europe, all during the time when the priests had total power and influence, was Christianity... and the atrocities were numerous. Horrible violence that boggles the mind. Obey or else!"

^ Absolutely. And that's where Islam is today: back in the Middle-ages.

ablarc

May 18th, 2010, 05:18 PM

Yeah, MG; that was then and this is now. We've got a different crew of religious fanatics bristling around. They're looking for body counts in at least the hundreds.

lofter1

May 18th, 2010, 06:42 PM

ablarc

May 18th, 2010, 07:23 PM

^ Are they calling for someone's death ?

If not, is it because they're Americans or because they're Christians?

212

May 18th, 2010, 07:41 PM

When one of the main rules is not to take the Lord's name (or whoever) in vain, then isn't it a bit far reaching to expect the believers to say, "OK, go ahead -- trash talk my guy. I don't like it but you can do it." ???

Actually, at this link (http://www.dangerousminds.net/index.php/site/categories/C19/P15/) you can see a Catholic nun defend "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano. (Halfway down the page, Sister Wendy.)

Look, freedom of speech is a central tenet of Western society today. Maybe THE central tenet. Muslim religious leaders have every right to condemn insults to their faith. However, it's essential to our social contract that they also must publicly condemn violence and threats against those who insult Islam, however vile the insult. Nobody can find an instance where this has happened -- and that's very troubling!

ablarc

May 18th, 2010, 08:14 PM

Look, freedom of speech is a central tenet of Western society today. Maybe THE central tenet. Muslim religious leaders have every right to condemn insults to their faith. However, it's essential to our social contract that they also must publicly condemn violence and threats against those who insult Islam, however vile the insult. Nobody can find an instance where this has happened -- and that's very troubling!
If this is true, then indeed it is very troubling.

Fabrizio

May 19th, 2010, 07:05 AM

Don't forget those waiting, praying and navigating for The Rapture (http://www.raptureready.com/featured/kelley/jack119.html), the end result being that of the ~ 6,821,785,963 inhabitants (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) of the planet only ~ 117,000 (or whatever random number (http://www.unveilingthebride.com/how-many-survive-the-tribulation-alive) each individual Tribulationist comes up with) will "survive" -- the rest be damned to death + hell.

Aiming for that sh!t is pretty fanatical, too, if you ask me.

I agree. Not as dangereous as the Muslim brand but fanatical and disgusting.

Excuse me gang if I'm predjudiced against those fundamentalist Christians. They're nuts.

I would not want to live among them or have one of their churches next door. No thanks.

At least with the Muslims, the fundamentalists are more prone to be identifiable what with the Burkas, or covered head to toe and with a headscarf... or the men with those long beards and tunics....

lofter1

May 19th, 2010, 08:11 AM

^ Are they [Rapturists] calling for someone's death ?

Those True Believers aim for political and social policies (for related topics, See: Jerusalem, Holy Land, Non-believers, Babylon) that certainly result in the death of those who do not fit into the particular world view espoused by Tribulationists / Rapturists. Of course, they will claim (as all fanatical followers do) that they are merely following the path laid out in their Good Book and that their actions are the Will of G*d. But when it comes time to show us the proof of that course of belief, all that is found is an endless calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Date_setting) of missed dates for the beginning of the End Times (http://www.prophecyproof.org/timing). When it comes to backing things up Faith trumps all else, logic and facts be damned.

MidtownGuy

May 19th, 2010, 11:04 AM

^very true.
------------

So many points have been lobbed at me that my response to the posts made in my absence is long.

fabrizio:
Midtown wrote: "The so called "Christians" fought against those rights. "

And plenty of so-called Christians fought for those rights...MLK...Jackson...Right, so you had Christians fighting for their own people's civil rights, and decent White Christians who joined them for various reasons. But then you had the fervent White Christian S.O.B.s fighting against them. The barbarous acts of KKK type Christians were more in tune with the long history of Christian atrocity toward minority groups than were the actions of the "very catholic Kennedy's".

It was overall a racial issue, and people used their own version of the faith to fortify themselves. I admire the way MLK incorporated his faith into a struggle for a very real and tangible goal of full civil rights for Black people and desegregation, but I can't forget that Christianity was the basis for many excuses for slavery in the first place and people were getting pretty damned sick of seeing fanatical White Christians burning crosses on lawns as a symbol of their faith. In its long two thousand year history, powerful Christians haven't practiced the religion in a way that expanded rights for whoever they deemed a heretic. And that was just about everybody at one point or another. As I said, thank God the Church ain't running things anymore.

I can't help but be amused and bewildered that on one hand Fabrizio seems to link a society being "Christian" with an existence of rights for various groups of people and even animals:

"All achieved within a society composed mostly of Christians..."but he also says this:

"We live in Europe and the US, among the most secular countries on earth.... with fundamentals of human rights for women, rights for children (even friggin' animals) divorce, abortion, birth control, gay rights, religious rights ...etc "So which is it?

Regarding abortion rights, animal rights, gay rights (some other things you listed): most organized Christians who actually practice their faith are opposing these concepts today. You see, I agree with the truth expressed in the part of your statement that suggests more secularism is the key, not being more Christian. ;) But the hard core Christians aren't advocating separation of church and state, at least in America they aren't.

By the way, I wish I had the patience to keep adding quotes around the word "Christian" every time I use it, because I still wonder how we are defining a "Christian" regarding adherence to the total Bible, and how we are defining a "Muslim" regarding adherence to the total Koran. We should be similarly cautious on behalf of both faiths.

Fabrizio, when you say this:

"But also millions of everyday Americans... and Europeans... who have no problem identifying themselves as Christian and fight for civil rights. You mean all of those for womens rights, gay rights, civil rights etc are athiest or what? "
It's basically what I was asking of you in a previous post as well. How are we going to define these terms?

If it's to be merely by how people "identify themselves" then we have a lot of grey zones. I'm hardly suggesting the marchers at a rights protest would all be Atheist...what I am suggesting is that most of them probably lead secular lives far removed from Christians who say they are following the whole Bible. A large number of my friends would self identify as Christian but: they rarely go to church except for family reasons, don't receive communion regularly, don't believe you have to accept Jesus as the only way to heaven or face damnation, think "Limbo" is silly...I could go on and on. So they're not all atheists by any means, they're mostly just like me: they believe in their own interpretation of God that's pretty far from a strict definition of "Christian". We aren't really a Christian nation by any stretch of the word, though probably more so than Europe.

Now something about myself I would like to share...when fabrizio directed me to read about Father Daniel Berrigan, I smiled, not because I was amused by his presumption that I wouldn't know the man's work...but because I admire the man so deeply. I have heard him speak at rallies. He was at a protest against the School of the Americas that I attended as well. I've been active in various protest movements over the years, since my early twenties. Back then I was sampling philosophy as well as the bland food at Friday night dinners with the Socialists on 23rd street. I've hopped planes to be at protests against the FTAA, the World Bank, the SOA, our foreign policy in Latin America such as Plan Columbia...hell I even protested on Pennsylvania Avenue at the first inauguration of George W. Bush.

I'm well aware of beloved leftist activists like Father Berrigan or Roy Bourgeois, who are extraordinary individuals far beyond the norm for anyone, let alone most priests. I've never said there aren't any commendable activist Christians who work for peace and civil rights, but they often get rough treatment... both from within the church, such as threats of excommunication, and from without, like being followed by the feds.

fabrizio wrote:
Absolutely. And that's where Islam is today: back in the Middle-ages.Well yes, wherever the governments aren't secular:cool:; but self identifying Muslims living in the U.S.A, Europe, Turkey, would want to be included, don't you think, as representing Global Islam just as you include the radical Muslims from more troubled parts of the world?

Perhaps the foreign policy answers about how this situation has been perpetuated and how to bring them out of the Middle Ages are just contradictory to the powers that be? In their own countries and in Washington D.C. The problem isn't the lax Muslim guy making falafel, the problem isn't the Muslim mother of 4 children who just goes along with things... the problem is geopolitical.

The effort to bridge differences probably isn't helped much by simplistic analysis, or throwing around insulting generalizations that paint a rosy picture of one's own religion and vilify the other. Isn't this the problem that we as humans keep having among religions? ablarc? you're guilty of this on several occasions now.

For the radical religious: you fight them intellectually and physically if necessary...Christian or Muslim alike...the rest should be acknowledged as allies who can work with us to discredit the uglier side of the faith and reduce terrorism.

I'm not here to be the permanent and ongoing spokesman for Islam, though I do enjoy the part of devil's advocate. I'm certainly not Muslim and a lax Christian at best (a whole other story).

Fabrizio; I have done my best to address most of your statements, but at a certain point the debate just becomes circular. I think I've made my points fairly and made them well to the objective reader. Contrary to ablarc saying I'm "going off the deep end" (by trying to be balanced...go figure!)

So... let's see if today we have anything more nuanced and meaningful to chew on than the simplistic "Islam=Middle Ages...Christianity Yes! Islam No!" mantra we are subjected to for pages.

ablarc

May 19th, 2010, 11:32 AM

Those True Believers aim for political and social policies (for related topics, See: Jerusalem, Holy Land, Non-believers, Babylon) that certainly result in the death of those who do not fit into the particular world view espoused by Tribulationists / Rapturists.
What deaths are those? Tribulationists are idiots, but they're only modestly murderous, if at all. Anyway, I think you're talking about healthcare and its restricted access. That's a policy of right-wingers, most of whom call themselves Christians --but they're really phonies. Nothing in the New Testament requires ill-will or a fascist outlook.

And: are they mainstream "Christians"? The point Hitchens and others make is the point I made some years ago in another thread: if you're a mainstream muslim, you're duty-bound to be an Islamist. And that does make you murderous if you're conscientious about your duties. You can ignore it, but Allah won't let you off the hook; you owe him debit.

facts be damned.
Well ... you said it.

Fabrizio

May 19th, 2010, 11:46 AM

^Yes to all that.

-------------

Midtown: I will get back later. In the meantime: The differences with Islam... a Holy book written while the prophet was alive in texts approved by him rather than in parables written centuries later... the teachings that laws are created by God and not man... the intertwining of religion and government that IS Islam, render the religion unique and disasterous for modern times. Those countries were Islam is the rule of law are the proof.

An aside: one thing that might be interesting to some here for a bit of context: The subject of Islam is not new to me: from the age of 17 to around 20 I converted to the Bahá'í Faith and was very active in the religion. Bahá'í is an ofshoot of Islam.

Yet even when I had left the faith and was living quite a different life in NYC, I was in contact with and had many Bahá'í friends, many from Iran (who had been persecuted by the Islamic gov.). I was even invited to speak at the Bahá'í center in NYC, and did so, but that is another story.

Political activism: my own personal contribution is a book about Italian society during the first year of the Iraq war. Written and illustrated by me and published by the Region of Tuscany together with the Communist Party's Italian General Confederation of Labour.

These are not subjects I take lightly.

lofter1

May 19th, 2010, 11:47 AM

Actually I'm referring to folks who currently inhabit the Holy Regions (in the vicinity of Babylon aka Baghdad and Jerusalem), where the Rapturists want to see the stories in their book fulfilled.

ablarc

May 19th, 2010, 12:11 PM

^ ? ?

So tell us about the "deaths" (your word).

I can tell you about the deaths perpetrated and proposed by Muslims. We've got several threads on this forum dedicated to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center. The deaths, unfortunately, cannot be undone.

Takes courage to get on an airplane these days.

lofter1

May 19th, 2010, 12:37 PM

Need you be told of a war that is ongoing in Iraq, the home of Babylon, were nearly 4,400 Americans have died (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0510/737478.html) along with untold numbers of local inhabitants? Or of the on-going political power plays in and around Israel?

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.

GW Bush; Remarks on the south lawn of the White House (September 16, 2001)

George Bush got memos from Rumsfeld that used Scripture to push Iraq war

NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/05/18/2009-05-18_rummys_memos_suggest_a_crusade_after_all_used_s cripture_to_prod_w_in_iraq_war.html)
May 18, 2009

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent President George Bush top secret wartime memos with cover sheets that mixed Scripture and battle photos to cast the Iraq invasion as a holy Christian crusade.

Rumsfeld, not a man who wore religion on his sleeve, appeared to be trying to manipulate - or curry favor with - the Bible-quoting Bush, according to an explosive story in GQ.

***

Christian Zionists, Israel And The ‘ Second Coming’ (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4930.htm)

... Christian Zionists and premillennial dispensationalists have a pessimistic view of history and wait in eager anticipation for the unfolding of a series of wars and tragedies pointing to the return of Jesus. The establishment of the state of Israel, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, the rise of the Antichrist and the buildup of armies poised to attack Israel, are among the signs leading to the final battle and Jesus’ return. Leading Christian Zionist authorities in Bible prophecy seek to interpret political developments according to the prophetic schedule of events that should unfold according to their view of scripture. As an apocalyptic and dualistic type of theology, the movement looks in history for the escalation of power and influence of satanic forces aligned to the Antichrist, who, as the end draws near, will do battle with Israel and those aligned with it. Judgment will befall nations and individuals according to how they “bless Israel” (Genesis 12:3) ...

Christian Zionism is a growing political and religious movement within the most conservative branches of Protestant fundamentalism, but it can also be found in the broader evangelical branches of Christianity, including the evangelical wings of the mainline Presbyterian, United Methodist, Lutheran and other Protestant churches. It thrives during periods of political and economic unrest such as the present, characterized by international terrorism, global recession and fear of wars in the Middle East. With its pessimistic view of history, Christian Zionism seeks to provide simple and clear answers through a literal and predictive approach to the Bible. Some estimate that 20-25 million American fundamentalist Christians hold these views, and the phenomenon is growing.

ablarc

May 19th, 2010, 01:02 PM

^ lofter, forgive me, but you're really stretching.

lofter1

May 19th, 2010, 09:06 PM

Believe what you will. As we agreed, sometimes logic be damned, eh?

212

May 20th, 2010, 10:24 PM

The point Hitchens and others make is the point I made some years ago in another thread: if you're a mainstream muslim, you're duty-bound to be an Islamist. And that does make you murderous if you're conscientious about your duties.

You really think that the 99.9999% of Muslims who aren't murdering for religion are somehow negligent?

ablarc

May 21st, 2010, 07:49 AM

^ I don't, but many others do.

Not so surprising, eh, since the Koran was written by a warrior.

Statun-Ilandur

May 21st, 2010, 09:42 AM

^ I don't, but many others do.

Not so surprising, eh, since the Koran was written by a warrior.

Let's not forget General Joshua and General Constantine to go along with General Mohammed in the scheme of things.

People high on religion seldom think about or know about a belief system's true origins.

ZippyTheChimp

May 21st, 2010, 10:01 AM

The point Hitchens and others make is the point I made some years ago in another thread: if you're a mainstream muslim, you're duty-bound to be an Islamist. And that does make you murderous if you're conscientious about your duties.The fallacy here is that your perception of a mainstream Muslim is a fact among those Muslims who perceive themselves as mainstream.

Your perception really doesn't matter.

You can draw conclusions about the conscientious duties of many who consider themselves to be mainstream Christians, and be equally wrong.

lofter1

May 21st, 2010, 04:30 PM

And The Winner of The Everybody Draw Mohammad Contest is ...

reason.com (http://reason-contest.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html)
Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch
May 20, 2010

To remind readers of the stakes: In recent months, a Swedish cartoonist that sketched Mohammed as a "roundabout dog" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_controversy) as part of a planned street installation was assaulted during a lecture and, the following week, two extremists attempted to burn his house down. In January, the elderly Danish illustrator Kurt Westergaard, who contributed the most memorable image (of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban) among the dozen cartoons printed in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005, narrowly escaped being murdered by retreating to a panic room in his apartment while an axe-wielding maniac hacked through his door. Just over the past few weeks, Viacom, the owner of Comedy Central, redacted a South Park episode featuring a possible representation of the Prophet after a website "warned" of violence (http://inform.com/culture-and-lifestyle/south-park-cuts-image-mohammed-threat-912440a) and ordered The Daily Show's Islamic correspondent, Aasif Mandvi, not to comment on Islamic extremism (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/05/11/2010-05-11_daily_shows_aasif_mandvi_told_not_to_comment_on _muslim_extremism_after_times_squ.html) (a self-described moderate Muslim, Mandvi is against it) in the wake of a failed terrorist bombing in Times Square.

These egregious events gave immediate and spontaneous rise to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day," the brainchild - or brain fart, depending on your point of view - of a Seattle cartoonist who almost immediately distanced herself from the concept ("I wanted to counter fear, and then I got afraid," she said (http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/20/tonights-show-the-first-amendment/#ixzz0oUmWAQ97)). The concept of depicting the Prophet in both protest of violence and support of free speech remains controversial even among professional cartoonists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051905384.html) and commentators (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8894/) whose contempt for political correctness, speech codes (whether imposed by states as in Europe or by state universities as in the U.S.) is unimpeachable.

But the most striking thing about Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is, in Internet parlance, its distributed nature. If you do an online search for "Draw Mohammed," you will see that, with few exceptions, it has been a vastly decentralized activity. It has taken off like wildfire among individuals, among bloggers, tweeters, and facebookers, all of whom are perhaps a bit to quick in quoting the line, "I'm Spartacus!," an allusion to a movie in which slaves stand up to tyrants by spreading responsibility for revolt across thousands, thus making it impossible to contain ...

... Draw Mohammed day is a sign of pushback, not by the groups you would expect to be at the forefront - the organized press and the elected guardians of the Constitution - but by a sea of individuals who will not stand by silently while forces of both hostility and accomodation collude in narrowing the space for acceptable speech. We are proud to be participants in a project that defends the core of our very slogan: Free Minds and Free Markets. Can free societies engage in speech that some may find greivously insulting, and in doing so can they advance both the debate and the ongoing liberal project? It's not just that they can, but that they must.

Out of the more than 190 submissions we received, we selected the following images as first and second runners up and as a grand prize winner. We hope the artists have thick skin, literally and figuratively. We have chosen not to identify them publicly since specific authorship is very much besides the point. If you need to know who's behind these images, assume Spartacus is the copyright holder.

In coming to a consensus, we discussed standard concerns such as originality of vision, playfulness, a sense of proportion (both in terms of craftmanship and message), and relevance to the goals of the contest.

The single most important element–and the thing that ties these selections together–is that each image forces the viewer to do two things.

First, they consciously call into question the nature of representation, no small matter in fights over whether it is allowed under Islamic law to depict Mohammed (for the historical record, there is no question that the idea that is always wrong is only of recent vintage; there is a long history (http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/artifact-everything-is-not-ill) of sacred and superficial images of the Prophet). The homage to Rene Magritte below states "This is not a pipe. This is Muhammed," playing with the surrealist's famous statement about the necessary disjuncture between a picture and the thing it seeks to represent. Just as the drawing is not a pipe (it's a drawing of a pipe), it cannot be Mohammed even as it insists it is. Even more, it is plainly not even a drawing of Mohammed or of any human figure.

Similarly, the invocation of the popular Where's Waldo? series forces the viewer to ask Where's Mohammed?, and to begin a hunt for a figure in the midst of an overstuffed scene. One assumes the black-robed character in the upper right-hand quadrant of the image is our quarry, but then what does it mean to confer on a small dot any significance whatsoever?

Second, each of the images forces the viewer to actively participate not simply in the creation of meaning but of actually constructing the image itself. This is clearest in our grand prize winner, the image below, which pushes iman and infidel alike to do the work that would condemn them to death under the most extreme reading of injunctions against representing Mohammed.

There is a deeper lesson here: Connect the dots and discover that we all must be Spartacus on Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. And that in a free society, every day is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.

Copyright 2010, Reason Magazine

ablarc

May 21st, 2010, 05:26 PM

Let's not forget General Joshua and General Constantine to go along with General Mohammed in the scheme of things.
Neither Joshua nor Constantine invented a religion. Mohammed did.

People high on religion seldom think about or know about a belief system's true origins.
Not sure this is true.

scumonkey

May 21st, 2010, 05:41 PM

Dots connected...I'm Spartacus! (although #'s 31 & 32 are missing from the drawing)
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/imsparticus.jpg

lofter1

May 21st, 2010, 08:08 PM

Now you've done it ^

Better change your phone number.

scumonkey

May 21st, 2010, 08:28 PM

I'm already prepared!
http://houston.theoffside.com/files/2009/05/disguise.jpg

Statun-Ilandur

May 21st, 2010, 08:36 PM

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. --- Wikipedia “First Council of Nicea”

Christianity came after General/Emperor Constantine ordered the Council of Nicaea.

Before General Constantine, there were only the followers of Jesus and Paul.

The bishops at Nicaea got with the General's program at the point of a sword.

212

May 22nd, 2010, 02:27 PM

Not so surprising, eh, since the Koran was written by a warrior.

Moses, bearer of the Ten Commandments, was a warrior too.

Moses slew an Egyptian himself, ordered the killings of at least 3,000 idolators among the Israelites, and waged war against the Amorites, Og, and the Midianites. After the Midianites' defeat, Moses ordered the deaths of all their male children and non-virgin women (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2031;&version=NKJV;).

212

May 22nd, 2010, 02:55 PM

^ In other words, if Moses were alive today, he'd be a war criminal, guilty of grievous human rights violations.

I don't point this out to disparage Judaism, Christianity or Islam for venerating Moses.

My point is that practicing Jews, Christians and (yes) Muslims are expected to follow religious laws. We're NOT required to copy EVERY good and terrible practice of religious figures through the ages. I don't know why some on this board think that good Muslims are different from anyone else in this respect.

ablarc

May 23rd, 2010, 10:04 AM

Moses is in the Old testament --the chronicle of violence, from which Jesus is held to have liberated his followers. There is no glorification of violence in the New Testament; in it, the big act of violence came upon Jesus himself. He came to teach how to turn the other cheek. Those who call themselves Christians and haven't learned that are phonies. Unfortunately, that's what the majority are. Why judge a creed by the acts of its apostates?

Here are some quotations from another holy book:

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. - 9:123

As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60

Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4

Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51

For the righteous, no hangovers:

Single-minded slaves of Allah... will be honored in the Gardens of delight, on couches facing one another; A cup from a gushing spring is brought round for them, white, delicious to the drinkers, wherein there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby. And with them are those of modest gaze, with lovely eyes, pure as they were hidden eggs. - Surah 37:40-49

Lo! Those who kept their duty will be in a place secure, amid gardens and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one another.... And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. They call therein for every fruit in safety. They taste not death therein, save the first death. And He hath saved them from the doom of hell, a bounty from thy Lord. That is the supreme triumph. - 44:51-57

Those are they who will be brought nigh, in gardens of delight... reclining therein face to face. There wait on them immortal youths... and fair ones with wide, lovely eyes, like unto hidden pearls, reward for what they used to do.... Lo! We have created them a creation, and made them virgins, lovers, friends. - 56:11-37

As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah. - Surah 5:38

See if you can find exhortations to violence in the New Testament (not the Old Testament). The Old Testament is a red herring; in the New Testament, Jesus' specific mission was to put the Old behind.

Most folks who call themselves Christians have been apprised of that, and if their actions run counter, it just means that they're hypocrites.

Most are.

(But you can't blame their creed for that.)

ZippyTheChimp

May 23rd, 2010, 12:47 PM

I'm already prepared!
You're not fooling anyone, you puppet of the infidels.

Fabrizio

May 23rd, 2010, 04:56 PM

In todays NYTimes .... a Q&A on Islam

QUESTIONS FOR AYAAN HIRSI ALI - The Feminist
Interview by DEBORAH SOLOMON

Q - As a Somali native who was raised as a Muslim and grew up to become one of the most outspoken critics of Islam, you fled to Amsterdam and served in the Dutch Parliament before fleeing again, to America. What kind of security do you have here?

A - I don’t go from A to B without being escorted by people who are armed. But please, let’s not talk about my security.

Q - In your new book, “Nomad: From Islam to America,” you urge American Christians to try to talk to American Muslims about the limitations of their faith.

A - We who don’t want radical Islam to spread must compete with the agents of radical Islam. I want to see what would happen if Christians, feminists and Enlightenment thinkers were to start proselytizing in the Muslim community.

Q - That could be dangerous for the proselytizers.

A - It may be, but in the United States we have a police force and the rule of law; we can’t just say something is dangerous and abstain from competing in the marketplace of ideas.

Q - What Islam really needs is a reform branch — Reform Islam, which, like the Reform Jewish movement, would reconcile an ancientfaith with modern ways.

A - The problem is that those of us who were born into Islam and who don’t want to live according to scripture — we don’t have what the Jews have, which is a rabbinical tradition that allows you to ask questions. We also don’t have the church tradition that the Christians have.

Q - You have the mosque.

A - The mosque is not the church.

Q - True. It seems like more of a men’s club.

A - It’s like a men’s club, and it’s a place where you discuss politics. There are some mosques with facilities for women; it’s usually a back room with a back-door entrance.

Q - In this country, you’ve been embraced mostly by conservatives, especially those at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where you’re now a resident fellow. Do you see yourself as a conservative?

A - I don’t. I call myself a liberal, a classical liberal as in John Stuart Mill.

Q - Your own life has been a case study in female subjugation. At age 5, you underwent genital mutilation under the supervision of your Somalian grandmother. Did that include stitching you shut?

A - Of course I had the stitch-up part. If your family is convinced that you should remain a virgin until your wedding night, they’re going to apply the approach where you get sewed.

Q - You were expected to enter into an arranged marriage with a cousin of yours.

A - I just looked at him and told my father, I don’t want to marry him. He said, “My child, your presence is not required.” He went on and conducted the marriage without me.

Q - Have you seen the new film, “Women Without Men,” by Shirin Neshat, which is about four Iranian women in 1953 who are driven to the brink of insanity by the ways of the Muslim men in their lives? One of the women is prohibited from leaving the house by her brother, who dreads being humiliated by her.

A - That is the main difference between the position of Western women and the position of Muslim women. A Western woman is not her brother’s or her father’s property. She’s just herself. She can choose her own lifestyle. But in a Muslim family, the honor of the man is between the legs of a woman. What they think is that she has to be chaste so that their honor can be preserved.

Q - During your years in Amsterdam, you collaborated on the film “Submission” with the journalist Theo Van Gogh, who was consequently killed by an Islamic extremist. Have you been in touch with his mother?

A - Yes. That poor woman. She is one of the strongest women I have ever encountered. She went on national television in Holland and said, I don’t want Ayaan to feel guilty.

Q - Are you in touch with your mother?

A - I talk to her on the phone. She says, Please go back to being a Muslim because that’s the only way that you’re going to have any kind of redemption in the hereafter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23fob-q4-t.html?ref=magazine

----------

More about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her foundation:

http://www.theahafoundation.org/

Fabrizio

May 23rd, 2010, 05:08 PM

A must-read PDF from the AHA Foundation about the plight of so many Muslim women in the US:

WHAT DO WE KNOW?
Facts and figures on the circumstances affecting Muslim girls and women in the United States

Muslim girls and women in the United States face unique obstacles and challenges as a result of their cultural and religious background.

In European countries, governments, social workers, and teachers have increasingly devoted attention towards helping girls and women from an Islamic
background. By contrast, efforts in the United States are lagging behind: because of a lack of awareness and lack of access to basic information many social workers, teachers, educators and law enforcement officials do not recognize the specific circumstances and violations affecting girls and women from Islamic communities.

Following almost a year of information collection and analysis, the AHA Foundation has found that forced marriages, female genital mutilation, and acts of honor violence and honor killings
take place in the United States more often and with a greater degree of severity than is commonly assumed. Acts of violence are often dismissed as isolated, unfortunate events even when they fit into a broader pattern of abuses of women’s rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam and tribal customs.

In many cases, culture and religion are difficult to disentangle. Often, however, religion is invoked to defend intolerable practices involving girls and women in Islamic communities.

Social workers and educators—relying on procedures, standards and guidelines normally developed for Western women in a Western context—often miss warning signs that indicate something is going wrong in Islamic families and Islamic communities. This document contains information meant to raise awareness of the issues that girls and women from an Islamic background in the United States may face – issues and actions that are in violation of U.S. laws.

Criticizing abuses committed in the name of Islam is not the same as criticizing Muslims. All that is possible ought to be done to empower Muslim moderates, to permit them to speak out
without fearing a climate of intimidation created by the fundamentalists in their communities. A growing number of reformist Muslim women and men, in the United States and elsewhere, are in fact calling for a re-interpretation of certain Qur’anic verses used to sanction the subjugation of women. In many ways, these reformers are the successors of previous generations of progressive Muslims and Muslim feminists, but their task is being rendered extremely difficult by the pressure exerted on them by fundamentalists.

America’s Muslim community is extremely diverse, and the vast majority of Muslims wish to integrate into American society. The problem lies with the fundamentalists and the extent to which they exert social and religious control in their communities, and the extent to which they control or dominate U.S. organizations deemed to represent all Muslims.

Full report here: http://www.theahafoundation.org/system/include/resources/files/AHA2009WhatDoWeKnow.pdf

ablarc

May 23rd, 2010, 06:14 PM

The problem is the Koran is plainly on the fundamentalists' side.

It says what it says (see post #310).

Is someone going to rewrite the holy book?

212

May 23rd, 2010, 11:56 PM

Criticizing abuses committed in the name of Islam is not the same as criticizing Muslims. All that is possible ought to be done to empower Muslim moderates, to permit them to speak out without fearing a climate of intimidation created by the fundamentalists in their communities.

Seconded.
Ablarc, what's your message to the Muslim moderates?

Fabrizio

May 24th, 2010, 03:53 AM

ablarc

May 24th, 2010, 07:48 AM

Ablarc, what's your message to the Muslim moderates?
A message to all Muslims:

Join the Unitarian Church. And graft on some harmless middle eastern holidays and practices. Become as toothless and moderate as an Episcopalian.

Or become Jehovah's Witnesses. These folks share many beliefs with Islam (eternal life in the garden), and because they take the New Testament literally, they completely eschew violence and refuse military service (turn the other cheek). That got Hitler so mad he threw them in the concentration camps.

The other true Christian sect is the Quakers. No military service for them either.

Just imagine a formerly muslim world community of Quakers. We could scrap our fleet of drones. :D :)

212

May 24th, 2010, 09:47 AM

A message to all Muslims: Join the Unitarian Church. And graft on some harmless middle eastern holidays and practices.

And something like a ban on the burka might be an important message showing the limits of tolerance of liberal societies..

You can't be serious.

ablarc

May 24th, 2010, 10:09 AM

Can you be serious with fanatics?

lofter1

May 24th, 2010, 10:13 AM

... perhaps their status should be examined.

Doubt that would fly (given our First Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/) mandating non-interference by Government with Religion and all).

The IRS grants tax-exempt status to all sorts of questionable cultish belief systems (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-hassan/its-time-to-end-the-churc_b_555843.html). Even those who fall from grace (http://www.gazette.com/articles/haggard-65454-ted-church.html) are granted absolution by the IRS via application for and designation as a 501(c)(3) (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html).

Fabrizio

May 24th, 2010, 11:59 AM

212: already done in Belgium. Perhaps France next. France is certainly a country I respect and admire. They've created a great society.

And read between the lines of Ablarc's post: he's suggesting a call for reform and total pacifism. Gee.... sounds like genuine spirituality.

Lofter: Agreed but for some reason the FBI has been infiltrating mosques in the US. Sounds like interference to me...

212

May 24th, 2010, 12:18 PM

And something like a ban on the burka might be an important message showing the limits of tolerance of liberal societies.

What exactly do you hope that message is?

ZippyTheChimp

May 24th, 2010, 12:28 PM

Not much, I guess.

That report offers no data, just anecdotal case histories. Typical is "the vast majority of Muslims wish to integrate in to society."

Whatever that means.

So without knowing how big the problem is, it's proposed that we start banning burkas. Whether well intentioned or not, it runs the risk of alienating the "vast majority."

Whatever that is.

Fabrizio

May 24th, 2010, 12:51 PM

^ Why is the Burqua and hijab (Muslim headscarf) banned in public places in Tunisia and Turkey, both countries with a majority Muslim population?

Tunisia

Tunisian authorities say they are encouraging women, instead, to "wear modest dress in line with Tunisian traditions" i.e. no headscarf. In 1981, women with headscarves were banned in schools and government buildings, those who insist on it face losing their jobs. Recently in 2006, the Authorities launched a campaign against the hijab, banning it in some public places, where police stop women on the streets and ask them to remove it, and encourage them not to wear it again. The government described the headscarf as a sectarian form of dress which came uninvited to the country.

Turkey

A headscarved woman in Kalkan, Turkey. The headscarf is banned from universities and public buildings since 1997 in the country.
Turkey is officially a secular state, and the hijab is banned in universities and public buildings - this includes libraries or government buildings. The ban was first in place during the 1980 military coup, but the law was strengthened more in 1997. Over the years thousands of women have been arrested or prosecuted for refusing to take off the hijab or protesting against the ban, by the secular institution. There has been an increase in the number of people who wear the hijab particularly in Ankara and Istanbul. There has been some unofficial relaxation of the ban under governments led by Islamic-oriented parties in recent years,[74] for example the current government of the AKP are willing to lift the ban in universities, however the new law was upheld by the constitutional court, and on the other hand the military sees itself as the protector of secularism. The ban has been highly controversial since its implementation, in a country where 99% are either practicing or nominal Muslims. Around 30-35% of Turkish women wear the hijab, although more women wear a cultural headscarf that isn't a symbol of the Qu'ran. This is often mistaken by some people, who instead assume that the headscarf in Turkish research only symbolises the hijab and not the cultural one. This is why many people think that a majority of Turkish women wear islamic covering. In cities like Istanbul and Ankara most women do not cover their heads. In some cities in eastern Turkey where the AKP has much support more of the women cover their heads.
Turkey is a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923. Atatürk saw headscarves as backward-looking and an obstacle to his campaign to secularize and modernize the new Turkish Republic. Kemalist ideology continues to emphasize secularism, despite the majority of Turks being Muslims. Until 1960's female students or public servants wearing headscarves were not seen in Turkey.

On February 7, 2008, the Turkish Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution, allowing women to wear the headscarf in Turkish universities, arguing that many women would not seek an education if they could not wear the hijab. The decision was met with powerful opposition and protests from secularists. On June 5, 2008, the Constitutional Court of Turkey reinstated the ban on constitutional grounds of the secularity of the state. Headscarves had become a focal point of the conflict between the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the secularist establishment, which includes the courts, universities, and army. The ruling was widely seen as a victory for Turks who claim this maintains Turkey's separation of state and religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country

Fabrizio

May 24th, 2010, 01:05 PM

That report offers no data, just anecdotal case histories.

The artcle is well footnoted and has 5 pages of references.

And Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to have the creds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Fabrizio

May 24th, 2010, 01:19 PM

An opinion piece: the burqa has nothing to do with religion. It is a way for fanatical men to control women....

Opinion: Why France is right about the burqa
MAR 2, 2010 16:01 EST

by Olivier Guitta

PARIS, France — In his 2009 Cairo address to the Muslim world, U.S. President Barack Obama mentioned no fewer than three times the issue of the headscarf, or hijab. Each time, his purpose was to stress “the right of women and girls to wear the hijab” — but never their right not to wear it.

Needless to say, Obama’s stance did not gain him popularity among a large portion of Muslim women who had been angling to be free of the hijab for quite some time.

In truth, many Muslim women seek relief from the pressure to cover themselves. It is these sentiments that led to France’s initial law in 2004 that banned all exterior religious signs, not just Muslim ones, from public schools. And it is these sentiments that have pushed France to currently consider the partial burqa ban in public spaces — and rightfully so.

The ban on the burqa — the outer garment that covers a woman from head to toe — denounces a practice that has nothing to do with religion, but rather is a way for fanatical men to have dominion over women. If passed, France’s partial burqa ban will protect a woman’s right to freedom and dignity. She will no longer be obliged to cover herself, but can do so in some instances if she chooses to.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has made his stance crystal clear, saying the burqa is not “welcome in France” and that it “is not a religious issue but rather a question of freedom and of women’s dignity.”

Fadela Amara, his secretary of state for urban policies and herself a Muslim, echoed his opinion: “The burqa confiscates a woman’s existence. By and large, those who wear it are victims. I favor banning this coffin for women’s basic liberties. The burqa is proof of the presence of Muslim fundamentalists on our soil and of the politicization of Islam.”

Abdelali Mamoun, an imam in Guyancourt, near Paris, also concurs, saying that the Islamists are behind this trend. Of them he said, “Even if they are not jihadists, they hate the West, they spit on the kuffars, the infidels, but they take advantage of all the French social services.”

France has come under fire for being intolerant of Muslims — interestingly, by both radical Muslims and American pundits. But in actuality, Europe and a number of Muslim countries are already moving in France’s direction.

For example, in the Netherlands, a law bans the burqa in schools and public transportation; in Sweden, Italy, Luxembourg and some Belgian cities, the burqa is theoretically banned altogether and Egypt’s religious Al-Azhar University has just banned the niqab (full-face veil) stating that it has nothing to do with the Koran. Gamal al-Banna, the Egyptian brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, goes further: “Neither the Koran, nor the hadith require women to wear a headscarf.”

Tunisia is another Muslim country actively going after the hijab. In 2006, President Ben Ali, feeling the growing influence of Islamists in Tunisian society through the rapid increase of hijabs, reactivated a 1981 decree banning the wearing of the hijab in government offices, schools, universities, and public places in general.

Islamists will stop at nothing to veil women. Sometimes they try to buy resistance. Some French Muslim families, for instance, are paid 500 euros (about $680) per quarter by extremist Muslim organizations just to have their daughters wear the hijab.

But what Islamists use most is intimidation. A survey conducted in France in May 2003 found that 77 percent of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups. A series in the newspaper Liberation in 2003 documented how Muslim women and girls in France who refuse to wear the hijab are insulted, rejected and often physically threatened by Muslim males. Muslim women who try to rebel are considered “whores” and treated as outcasts.

In fact, around the globe millions of women are forced to wear the veil for fear of physical retribution. And the fear is well-founded. Every year hundreds of women in Pakistan and Afghanistan alone are killed, have acid thrown in their faces or are otherwise maimed by male fanatics for the simple reason that they were not covered.

For Islamists, veiling women is a way to control society, hence their ferocious determination to do so. Not coincidentally, it is one of the only issues on which Sunni and Shia extremists agree. It’s not by chance that the spreading of the veil really took off in 1979 after Iran’s Islamic regime came to power and Saudi Arabia’s radicalization wave following the foiled coup.

Some Shiite militias in Iraq have actually started forcing women — Muslim or not — to wear the veil or face the consequences. Interestingly, Al Qaeda through its Islamic Maghreb branch also joined the debate by accusing France of “religious terrorism” and threatening terror attacks in France and/or against French interests.

Last but not least, the burqa is also potentially a security hazard because it prevents others from being able to identify the person wearing it. For instance, there have been numerous cases of terrorists blowing themselves up in Iraq and Afghanistan while wearing a burqa, and some others have tried to escape while under the cloak of one.

The burqa has nothing to do with freedom of religion but with basic human rights. Europe appears to understand this. Let’s hope America will one day, too.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/03/02/opinion-why-france-is-right-about-the-burqa/

ZippyTheChimp

May 24th, 2010, 01:23 PM

No problem with credentials, but a report publishes its findings if they exist, not leave you to pore over footnoted material to find stuff that may or may not be there.

Priest A did this to a little boy.

Priest B did that to a little girl.

Priest C (to horrible to talk about).

"The vast majority of Catholic priests do not abuse children, and just want to follow their vocation."

Whatever that means.

Well, we don't know. So just to be sure, let's deny all priests any access to children.

As mentioned in another thread, the burka is almost non-existent in the US, but let's ban it anyway.

212

May 24th, 2010, 01:39 PM

Can you be serious with fanatics?

In your estimate, what number of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims are fanatics?

Fabrizio

May 24th, 2010, 02:39 PM

While ablarc is coming up with the correct number, I think it should be noted that around 50 countries are governed by Islamic law. That is a lot of people who live under it's sphere. Right or wrong, fundamentalist Islam defines how many see Islam.

----

Oh and back to my question: "Why is the Burqua and hijab (Muslim headscarf) banned in public places in Tunisia and Turkey, both countries with a majority Muslim population?"

lofter1

May 24th, 2010, 03:40 PM

Lofter: Agreed but for some reason the FBI has been infiltrating mosques in the US. Sounds like interference to me...

I should have been clearer about the 1st Am.: Forbids Government Interference with the ESTABLISHMENT or the PROHIBITION of Religion, not necessarily barring interference or investigation of the operation of same.

No doubt the PATRIOT ACT gives the FBI loads of new leeway to look into anything they like.

Jasonik

May 24th, 2010, 03:51 PM

Regarding lofter1's posting (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8368&p=325625&viewfull=1#post325625) of the Reason contest winners, there is one which seems familiar...

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9505&d=1274473596

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/2424/notprophet1ro.jpg

...but art is fundamentally derivative by nature. (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8368&p=82113&viewfull=1#post82113)

lofter1

May 24th, 2010, 04:56 PM

How The Taliban See The War

The Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/how-the-taliban-see-the-war.html)
24 MAY 2010 04:34 PM

Packer reviews (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2010/05/my-life-with-the-taliban.html) the memoir of Abdul Salam Zaeef, who served as Afghanistan's ambassador to Pakistan during Taliban rule. Zaeef was detained for three years at Gitmo and released without charge. Packer calls his memoir, My Life with the Taliban "perhaps the best, and maybe even the only, way for readers here to begin to grasp the world view of this xenophobic and opaque movement."

Keep in mind that Zaeef is sometimes referred to as a moderate:

The Americans have won the hatred of all Afghans, he concludes, and will lose the war as the Soviets lost theirs: the whole world is turning away from the U.S. and coming to see the justice of the Islamic cause. Like any religious revolutionary, Zaeef is certain that history and faith will soon rhyme. His entire story is saturated in righteousness; all the hardships he endures are redeemed by the solidarity of the faithful, whose superiority to non-Muslims is taken for granted. Zaeef doesn’t even pay lip service to the notion of equal rights for all: the only outrage is what’s done to Muslims, because they are Muslims and better than the rest of humanity. This world view is founded on such chauvinism that Americans, with our automatic assumptions about equality, might fail to notice it. “My Life with the Taliban” shows that, while all wars are foolish, some wars are not a matter of mere misunderstanding—that beneath the superficial differences of clothing and facial hair lie more profound differences that can’t be reconciled.

ablarc

May 24th, 2010, 06:28 PM

In your estimate, what number of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims are fanatics?
Between a third and a fifth.

212

May 24th, 2010, 08:13 PM

^ Ablarc, I think your natural impulse is to be fair. :)

I'd agree that a lot of Muslims are intolerant toward other religions. A lot fewer have directly supported any kind of violence against other people with other beliefs.

As always, the question is how to empower those in the middle and marginalize the extremists.

I'm pretty sure that anti-Islamic discrimination (most blatantly the minaret ban) has the opposite effect.

212

May 24th, 2010, 08:39 PM

Oh and back to my question: "Why is the Burqua and hijab (Muslim headscarf) banned in public places in Tunisia and Turkey, both countries with a majority Muslim population?"

Different countries have different social contracts.

Religious pluralism and expression are guaranteed in the United States -- it's in the Bill of Rights. Postwar Europe also has a tradition of pluralism. Take the European Charter of Fundamental Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

I'm personally ambivalent about hijab, and I think the burqa is terrible. But deviating from religious tolerance to specifically ban an Islamic practice harms our liberty.
Also, I think it will most likely backfire. Discrimination tends to radicalize people.

Fabrizio

May 25th, 2010, 02:59 AM

" But deviating from religious tolerance to specifically ban an Islamic practice harms our liberty. "

^Then the Islamic practice of multiple wives, forced marraige and genital mutilation is OK too?

ablarc

May 25th, 2010, 09:27 AM

^ Ablarc, I think your natural impulse is to be fair. :)

I think when you accept the hospitality of a country you have labored long and hard to enter legally … you owe that country some allegiance. And that has ALWAYS meant jettisoning certain customs in order to fit in. If you don’t believe that, try a spaghetti al carne in the USA vs. one in Florence. Italian-Americans fit in.

I'd agree that a lot of Muslims are intolerant toward other religions. A lot fewer have directly supported any kind of violence against other people with other beliefs.

Isn’t that a little like praising most folks for not doing genocide? Could we expect more?

As always, the question is how to empower those in the middle and marginalize the extremists.

Because the ones in the middle are moderate, they’re susceptible to threats from others that they themselves –out of common decency—would never threaten.

I'm pretty sure that anti-Islamic discrimination (most blatantly the minaret ban) has the opposite effect.

Oh, I dunno … minarets take different shapes in different places. You can tell Sarajevo is a Muslim city by its traditional minarets (is it in fact so much a Muslim city?); if you were Swiss, I’m sure you wouldn’t want Zurich looking like an Islamic city. After all, a guy with a megaphone doesn’t really need a neo-Turkish tower to get his message out; he could be operating out of the 17th story of an office building.

I think it’s time, when folks emigrate to a host country, for them to recognize that the rules of courtesy call for a modicum of adherence to local customs. The problem, of course, occurs when the Koran –a blueprint for world conquest—foresees that” local custom” will in time be “universal custom.”

So … why bother?

Fabrizio

May 25th, 2010, 10:05 AM

^ "I think it’s time, when folks emigrate to a host country, for them to recognize that the rules of courtesy call for a modicum of adherence to local customs. "

Did you all see the newscasts of the American mothers in Iran to meet their children held in jail over there?

All of them... including the daughter being held in jail... were shown wearing head scarves. Iran, as with other Islamic countries, has a tradition which on their soil we are required to respect.

The respect should be reciprocal.

ablarc

May 25th, 2010, 10:40 AM

You're forgetting God.

He's said by muslims to be in charge both there and here and everywhere.

Whereas to us, he's just someone in whom we vaguely trust (according to the dime).

This is a religious war in which only one side is really religious.

Since our becoming religious fanatics is undesirable, the path before us is to get these folks to either abandon their benighted religion or modify it so it's not such a menace in the 21st Century.

lofter1

May 25th, 2010, 11:41 AM

What is the way to respond to an opposing force when those with the power think this way?

Like any religious revolutionary, Zaeef is certain that history and faith will soon rhyme. His entire story is saturated in righteousness; all the hardships he endures are redeemed by the solidarity of the faithful, whose superiority to non-Muslims is taken for granted. Zaeef doesn’t even pay lip service to the notion of equal rights for all: the only outrage is what’s done to Muslims, because they are Muslims and better than the rest of humanity. This world view is founded on such chauvinism that Americans, with our automatic assumptions about equality, might fail to notice it. “My Life with the Taliban” shows that, while all wars are foolish, some wars are not a matter of mere misunderstanding—that beneath the superficial differences of clothing and facial hair lie more profound differences that can’t be reconciled.

In matters of the world, what course to take when dealing with irreconcilable differences?

ablarc

May 25th, 2010, 11:55 AM

What is the way to respond to an opposing force when those with the power think this way?

In matters of the world, what course to take when dealing with irreconcilable differences?
Seduction.

It's also called love.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Fabrizio

May 25th, 2010, 12:55 PM

From the Koran:

Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. Sura 9:29

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. Sura 9:73

Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship will become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. Sura 5:51

Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Sura 48:29

ablarc

May 25th, 2010, 01:49 PM

The issue is cut and dry:

If you're not a believer, you have an implacable enemy.

212

May 26th, 2010, 06:22 AM

" But deviating from religious tolerance to specifically ban an Islamic practice harms our liberty. "

^Then the Islamic practice of multiple wives, forced marraige and genital mutilation is OK too?

Of these, only allowing multiple wives is really an "Islamic practice". Forced marriage and genital mutilation are cultural practices in some Islamic societies (not all), and also in non-Islamic societies.

To answer your question directly: We stand by human rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) over religious/cultural practices when they conflict.

212

May 26th, 2010, 06:30 AM

What is the way to respond to an opposing force when those with the power think this way?

Like any religious revolutionary, Zaeef is certain that history and faith will soon rhyme.

In matters of the world, what course to take when dealing with irreconcilable differences?

Zaeef was spokesman for one of the world's worst regimes. He was a paid liar in denying al Qaeda's role in the 9/11 attacks. Opposing him is the right thing to do.

212

May 26th, 2010, 06:55 AM

From the Koran:

Originally Posted by Koran

Here's a good, searchable site from the University of Southern California, for checking the full context of these quotes, and for various translations.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

When read in context (a battle fought against some pagan groups in Arabia, terms of surrender after the war that allowed them to keep their faiths, etc.), the meaning of most of these Suras is clarified. Though Islam is undoubtedly a missionary religion that seeks converts, these Suras are not a call for holy war against the rest of the globe.

Fabrizio

May 26th, 2010, 07:32 AM

The Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement.... yeah, I'm sure their translations are the standard for the Muslim world. Please.

How do you really think Most muslims living under Muslim regimes see this quote? How do you think it is taught in Mosques around the world? :

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship will become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. Sura 5:51"

-----

A list of verses that "promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such. "

http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php

(^ I'm unable to validate this website so i'm posting it for what it's worth)

----

We stand by human rights[/URL] over religious/cultural practices when they conflict.

That is why European and some Middle East governments are moving to ban the Burqua.

Sharia law (Muslim law) is also contrary to our concept of human rights.

Ninjahedge

May 26th, 2010, 04:06 PM

If it is true that Mosques are "like a men’s club, and it’s a place where you discuss politics. There are some mosques with facilities for women; it’s usually a back room with a back-door entrance."

Then perhaps their status should be examined.

And something like a ban on the burka might be an important message showing the limits of tolerance of liberal societies.

Fab, I think the way to go about it is kind of what people have been trying, but afraid to enact.

First, a requirement of facial exposure for identification. You cannot get a license or any form of ID if nobody can tell who you are.

THEN you do the motivation to get ID, something that will make it so that the men in the family will want their women to have ID's. Something like food stamps, but it would have to be targeted at the groups most responsible for this degradation. Tax refunds having to have family members ID'd would be one way. Something that would make it so that there was not a direct connection between the money and having the visual ID.

Once that is done, requiring this kind of ID to be presented when using a credit card or other thing will passively prompt these men to allow their women to do so, or have them working their own butts off to do the work they cannot have their women do because of their own archaic rules......

But this is just one step. Others would need to be taken or this would be nothing more than an irritant producing minimally quantifiable results.

ablarc

May 26th, 2010, 06:52 PM

Ninj, I sometimes don't respond to your posts because I can't really tell what you're saying. The above is an example. What exactly are you proposing?

212

May 27th, 2010, 01:05 AM

How do you really think Most muslims living under Muslim regimes see this quote? How do you think it is taught in Mosques around the world? :

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship will become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers. Sura 5:51"

Here's one answer.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/friends.htm

Fabrizio

May 27th, 2010, 01:56 AM

I only got this far:

"In the first place, we would like to stress that Islam urges all Muslims to deal kindly and justly with all people.

Would you tell me about human rights in Islamic countries? How are women and gays treated?

----

Do read this from the BBC about Sharia law. Be sure to read down below: "Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, a British Muslim, addresses some common questions about Sharia." It is hilarious double-talk and absolutely contrary to the progress made in basic human rights over the last century. :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml

ablarc

May 27th, 2010, 07:19 AM

Dark Ages.

212

May 27th, 2010, 09:20 AM

I only got this far:

"In the first place, we would like to stress that Islam urges all Muslims to deal kindly and justly with all people.

Would you tell me about human rights in Islamic countries?

If you favor moderate Islam over extremist Islam, why dismiss so quickly a prominent cleric (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503614805&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaCounselorE/FatwaCounselorE) publicly saying moderate things (http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/friends.htm)?

Instead you like to post the most extreme-sounding verses fully out-of-context -- in effect, endorsing bin Laden's simplistic arguments. Bizarre. Are you that hot for a culture war?

FYI, IslamOnline (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1118742803355&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/Page/FatwaCounselE) (according to Wikipedia, the world's second-most-visited Islamic website) has a lot of Q&A's from regular Muslims to clerics about Islamic laws. There's plenty you'll disagree with from a Christian or secular point of view, but at least it's a window on how Muslims practice their religion today. And it's fascinating: a huge range of questions about sexual mores, workplace behavior, family relations, dealings with other religions, politics, earthquake relief ...

Here is an answer about the Koran's view of Christians and Jews (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1216208233963&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar).

Fabrizio

May 27th, 2010, 12:56 PM

212: stay on topic and refrain from making this about me, motives etc.

I said the following:

"I only got this far:

"In the first place, we would like to stress that Islam urges all Muslims to deal kindly and justly with all people."

^ Would you tell me about human rights in Islamic countries? How are women and gays treated?"

--------

I made this observation:

"Do read this from the BBC about Sharia law. Be sure to read down below: "Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, a British Muslim, addresses some common questions about Sharia." It is hilarious double-talk and absolutely contrary to the progress made in basic human rights over the last century. :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...sharia_1.shtml"

----

^ Please comment on the above: are the observations valid or not? And the question I ask: would you have an answer?

The rest has no place here.

You do not see me questioning your motives or stating my opinions about you. Ok?

------

As for the "prominent cleric publicly saying moderate things?" : I do not care who he is.... I simply questioned his statement: "In the first place, we would like to stress that Islam urges all Muslims to deal kindly and justly with all people."

Tell me about Islamic law in practice. Does it urge all Muslims to deal kindly and justly with all people? Gays, women? You tell me.

ablarc

May 27th, 2010, 05:01 PM

What is justice?

212

May 27th, 2010, 09:35 PM

212: stay on topic and refrain from making this about me, motives etc.

Fair enough, Fabrizio. I take it back.

"Do read this from the BBC about Sharia law. Be sure to read down below: "Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, a British Muslim, addresses some common questions about Sharia." It is hilarious double-talk and absolutely contrary to the progress made in basic human rights over the last century.

Which of her statements did you think were hilarious double-talk?

212

May 27th, 2010, 09:56 PM

Tell me about Islamic law in practice. Does it urge all Muslims to deal kindly and justly with all people? Gays, women? You tell me.

Here's a Q&A on IslamOnline about "Feelings of Lesbianism: How to Overcome?"

The answer is the type of thing you'd hear commonly in America 40 years ago, or from some in the American religious right today (maybe about 20% of Americans). I hope we can all progress beyond it.

lofter1

May 28th, 2010, 10:35 AM

Brainwashing by the Taliban, using the poor of Pakistan by transforming kids into "live ammunition." In their effort to clear the world of Infidels, the Taliban promises them glories in the afterlife when their "bodies will be put back together" and they will enter Paradise ...

How The Taliban Turn Children Into Suicide Bombers

The Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/how-the-taliban-turn-children-into-suicide-bombers.html)
May 28, 2010

VIDEO (http://www.ted.com/talks/sharmeen_obaid_chinoy_inside_a_school_for_suicide_ bombers.html): Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy: Inside a school for suicide bombers

Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy: Filmmaker (http://www.ted.com/speakers/sharmeen_obaid_chinoy.html)

Filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy takes on a terrifying question: How does the Taliban convince children to become suicide bombers? Propaganda footage from a training camp is intercut with her interviews of young camp graduates. A shocking vision.

Why you should listen to her:

Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy is a film producer and journalist who has worked on 14 films for major networks in the United States and Britain. Her films include Children of the Taliban (http://sharmeenobaidfilms.com/films/pakistans-taliban-generation) (with Dan Edge), The Lost Generation (http://sharmeenobaidfilms.com/films/the-lost-generation) (about Iraqi exiles) and Afghanistan Unveiled (http://sharmeenobaidfilms.com/films/lifting-the-veil). Her work has taken her around the world, where she has filmed and worked with refugees, women’s advocacy groups and human rights defenders. By bringing their voices to the outside world, she has often helped them bring about a critical change in their community.

Obaid-Chinoy helped found the Citizens Archive of Pakistan, a nonprofit, volunteer organization that fosters and promotes community-wide interest in the culture and history of Pakistan. Citizens Archive works with thousands of children, teaching critical thinking skills and instilling a sense of pride about their history and identity.

Obaid-Chinoy is a TED2010 Fellow (http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/394).

"By bringing the voices of the ordinary people faced with extraordinary challenges to television screens around the world, I hope to affect change in one community at a time."

Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy in BusinessWeek

Ninjahedge

May 31st, 2010, 07:42 PM

Abl, the base of what I am saying is that you do not make the Burqua illegal, you make it inconvenient.

You do not make it so that there is anything presented to directly oppose. You just make it so that if they decide to stay "traditional" it would be an annoying PITA for the men that force their women to do this.

lofter1

September 16th, 2010, 12:49 PM

On the Advice of the FBI, Cartoonist Molly Norris Disappears From View

Her work won't be in Seattle Weekly anymore, or anywhere else.

SEATTLE WEEKLY (http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09-15/news/on-the-advice-of-the-fbi-cartoonist-molly-norris-disappears-from-view/)
By Mark D. Fefer
Sep 15 2010

You may have noticed that Molly Norris (http://www.seattleweekly.com/related/to/Molly+Norris/)' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly.

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (http://www.seattleweekly.com/related/to/Everybody+Draw+Mohammed+Day/)" cartoon.

Norris views the situation with her customary sense of the world's complexity, and absurdity. When FBI agents, on a recent visit, instructed her to always keep watch for anyone following her, she responded, "Well, at least it'll keep me from being so self-involved!" It was, she says, the first time the agents managed a smile. She likens the situation to cancer—it might basically be nothing, it might be urgent and serious, it might go away and never return, or it might pop up again when she least expects it.

We're hoping the religious bigots go into full and immediate remission, and we wish her the best.

© 2010 Seattle Weekly, LLC, All rights reserved.