|
bitey posted:“Islamophobia” is usually used to describe western anti-muslim bigots. What a waste of a perfectly good word. Islamophobia is mostly a dumb term because it's an attempt at making an "antisemitism, but against Muslims" word which could be used to shut up critics of Islam because they criticize Islam. In doing so, what it really does is replace "racist". Like, if someone says "death to all Arabs, they're nothing but savages" and you say "that's Islamophobic", you say that the bigoted message isn't racist, that it's not against Arabs, but that it's really against Muslims. In doing so, you establish two things: 1. Arabs (and Turks, and Persians, and Berbers, and so on) are defined by their religious obedience. What do you call an Assyrian, or a Maronite, or a Yazedi? A Muslim! They're Arabs, therefore they are Muslims, and them having a different religion is just a mistake on their part. What do you call an Arab who is atheist? A Muslim! Same thing! If some Dylann Roof type murders an Arab who isn't Muslim, it's still a crime of Islamophobia, not of racism. 2. The real victim here is Islam. Not people, but an ideology that they may or may not subscribe to. Most of the time, when you want to accuse someone of Islamophobia, it's more accurate to accuse them of racism. So do that.
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Yeah, things were definitely more liberal in the 70s. And then in 1979 you had the Iranian Islamic revolution, the Grand Mosque seizure in Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Things have largely gone to poo poo after that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I don't think that's what PT6A is saying. Just that, if there's an issue with islam, it's not its supposed Hegemonic Nature because if a Hegemonic Nature keeps a religion from modernizing then Catholics would still be torturing and burning supposed heretics. You can't compare Islam to Catholicism. You can compare Islam to Christianity, or Catholicism to, say, Ibadism or Alevism or whatever. Point is, Islam is broad and diverse and they don't have a single living authority figure recognized by all Muslims to have the power to adapt and change the faith's dogmas. The Pope has that authority for Roman Catholicism, but whatever the Pope says will not really change the minds of Christians who aren't Roman Catholics. (I precise Roman Catholics because there's also these guys, in addition to all the myriad Orthodox and Protestant flavors.) (Also as far as burning supposed heretics goes, the Church didn't do that (directly). They pronounced someone guilty or innocent, but the sentence was left to the local secular power; the Church itself couldn't sentence people to more than a fine or a pilgrimage.) TheImmigrant posted:I'm not sure how the travel habits of Westerners are indicative or causative of religiosity in the Islamic world. You don't think that having a lot of hippies -- enough to affect the local economy -- traveling through certain countries isn't indicative that the religiosity in these countries was at a level compatible with the presence of traveling hippies?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The Catholic Church has been more hegemonic, during its history, than Islam, which immediately schismed hardcare after Muhammed's death. That was my point. The Catholic Church has a centralized hierarchy, Islam as a whole doesn't. Get a reformer Pope, and the Catholic church evolves. How do you get Islam as a whole to evolve? Closest approximation you could find to the Pope would be the Grand Ayatollahs but even then there are several of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
The Vatican would make an awesome museum and I'd gladly visit it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Is this really about Islamism, though? It's not like misplaced "protectiveness" over a daughter's "purity" is a cultural trait only found in Muslim countries. I mean, those are the Dubai Coast Guards he prevented from doing their work. I'd hazard a guess that Dubai is not really a place which would readily be accused of being godlessly secular and laic. The horrible dad is just said to be of Asian origin, which is extremely vague and while he can certainly be both Asian and Muslim, it's not necessarily the case. Sure, looking at Dubai's population statistics on Wikipedia we can assume he's probably Pakistani, but that's not something said in the article itself.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Hammurabi posted:So what the gently caress exactly is the justification given by Iran for burying women deeper and making it much harder for them to escape? You got to hide their boobs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Obviously this isn't me throwing out an "all refugees are fundie idiots" but the obvious is routinely lost on a lot of the Islamist apologists in this thread, so the obvious must be stated. I know about the Taqiya conspiracy theory and all, but, you know, I still think a guy who tore off pages from a Koran to throw them in the toilet is not actually a Daesh sleeper agent.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
The question isn't the buildings, but the strings attached to them. If the mosque comes with a Saudi-provided imam and a bunch of Saudi-provided Korans, you can bet it will propagate the same brand of enlightened, progressive, modern Islam that Saudi Arabia is so fond of supporting everywhere in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
It's funny because the person I personally know in Europe who is the most hostile to Islam is a Moroccan, but please to continue to assume that every immigrant from the Middle East and North Africa is part of a hivemind bent on submitting white people to Islamic theocracy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Well, and this is a theme that shows up a lot in this thread, but it's a case where the ones who are willing to adapt to modern culture are the ones who don't actually follow all the tenets of their religion. And it's not every muslim in the world, but the ones who are coming to Europe aren't mostly the enlightened, modern, more progressive ones, they're mostly from the poorest and least developed parts of the poorest countries in the Islamic world. No, because the people from the poorest and least developed parts of the Islamic world do not actually have the funds to afford to move to Europe. You're looking at 4000€ or more to cross the Mediterranean Sea on an overloaded piece of junk that was meant to have been scrapped 50 years ago (and risk drowning when it inevitably capsizes). Most of the migrants from Muslim countries in Europe are from Turkey (Germany), Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia (France), India and Pakistan (UK).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I, personally, think that Muslims should be allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose, and allowed to produce halal food and eat it, disburse their inheritance as they please, etc. Okay, then. Let's look at the first example: marriage. What does "allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose" mean exactly? Let's look at marriage in France. To get married, you basically go to the local town hall, get some papers ready, and then you sign them, your spouse signs them, the mayor signs them, and you're legally married. Traditionally this is followed by a religious ceremony for those couples who want it (or even two religious ceremonies when the spouses are of two different faiths) but that has no legal relevance. People want to organize a party for their wedding, they organize it according to their wishes. This setup as been going on since 1792, by the way, it's not something that was adopted in the 21st century just to vex Muslims, contrarily to what you no doubt believe. How is that incompatible with the Muslim faith? Why would they need sharia courts in order to get married, and why should then the state recognize a legal power to these sharia courts; when it doesn't recognize one to the churches? Remember, all the Christians there have to get married by the mayor to be legally married; they can get married by the pastor next but it is legally meaningless. This is a principle known as "separation of church and state". What prevents Muslims from getting married legally by the mayor, and then having their religious wedding ceremony with the imam? Nothing. So why is that not satisfactory? I guess the only possible answer is if they want a marriage that would be otherwise illegal according to the laws of the land. This includes polygamy and marrying minors. Alternatively, they might not like the legal status of spouses, since you can't repudiate your wife by telling her to go away three times, instead you have to go through a proper divorce. But then, they could opt for a civil union pact instead of a marriage; the legal benefits are mostly the same but they're much easier to break. TL;DR: sharia courts are needed if you want people to be free to marry several little girls and to then throw them away like used kleenex; they are not needed for actual marriages.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
Fixed-term marriages are just a workaround to disguise legal prostitution. I'm marrying this woman just for a couple hours, yeah it's totally a marriage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yes. I meant to imply that you were a creep for jumping to that as your first example, not to imply that you actually molested children, because I am morally superior to that turd Cat Mattress. I argue that they don't need sharia courts because the existing legal system is perfectly satisfactory to them; you are the one who claim they need to have a parallel legal system so as to bypass existing laws. When you will be wiser and smarter, you will hopefully discover that the morally superior system is the one where the law is the same for everyone; not the one where there are different legal systems for people depending on their ethnicity, religion, or social standing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm referring to your snide insinuations that Muslims who support shari'a are all pedophiles, you worm. The fact that you have piled semiliteracy atop bigotry is sad but not surprising. Muslims who want sharia to override national laws do so because they want a way to commit acts that are illegal. There is no other possible reason. Muslims are perfectly free to live their life according to the principles of their faith as long as they do not go against the law while doing so. Celebrating a wedding with a religious ceremony is legal, buying and eating halal food is legal, etc. It's perfectly possible to be a law-abiding Muslim in Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The views of the minority does not essentially reflect the views of the majority. By your standard, should we then ban Christianity because a few Christians are members of the KKK or other Christian Extremist groups? I can go assault people all I want and claim to be part of the Atheist Militant movement, doesn't mean my views represent the majority of atheists nor that my actions should be used to represent them in their entirety. There is actually some middle ground between "let's ban Islam forever" and "we need to have sharia courts so Muslims can follow their own rules instead of the laws of the land". This middle ground can be summed up by a few principle, most importantly one that is called "separation of church and state". If you want to go "but Christianity bad!", then it's not Europe that's going to disagree. After all, do you want to know why we came up with separation of church and place in the first place? Look here for a start. After a lot of horrible bloodshed, people one day came up with the at the time completely outlandish idea that it was really stupid to slaughter each other because of minute differences in their daily "praise the lord" rituals, and so they decided that religion was a private, personal thing, that everyone was free to have whatever faith they want, and that clerics wouldn't dictate the law anymore. Fast forward to nowadays, there are people slaughtering each other because of minute differences in their daily "praise the lord" rituals just a bit to the south and east of Europe, and there are refugees fleeing the horrible bloodshed over there, and then there are people here arguing that what Europe needs is to welcome these refugees by abolishing the separation of church and state.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Agreed, let's ban high-heeled shoes, makeup, decolletage... I wouldn't oppose banning high heels, because they are health hazards. As for banning makeup, why do you want to oppress middle-eastern culture? It's pretty racist of you to want to ban kohl -- or to think that cosmetics are an exclusively western thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Since people are talking about the burqa ban in France, it might be interesting to take a look at who exactly lobbied the most for it. Spoiler alert: they're women from immigrant communities from Islamic countries. Names like Fadela Amara ("Despite being a practising Muslim, Amara was active in supporting the expulsion from French secondary schools of young Muslim women who wear the hijab, and in supporting the 2003 law on this question") and Samira Bellil. I think you'll find their motivation was quite far from "we must stop teh moossulmen from stealing our white wimmenz" and "we desperate western men want to be able to ogle".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:If there's something that the rise of Daesh has shown it's that isolating and alienating Muslims never ever backfires. I'll send a memo to the European head of states, then. "Do not let your foreign masters create death squads who will routinely slaughter everyone in Muslim towns". Because you never know, gangs of Mormon militiamen backed by the USA might arrive one day and commit massacres in the banlieues!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
German fascists are pathetic amateurs. All they could hope to achieve is hurt a bit someone's fingers. If they were real men, they wouldn't fool around with such cowardly pettiness, they'd enter a halal shop and shoot people inside.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
IMO, a modest woman should dress in a way that does not attract undue attention. Dressing in an exotic, foreign way, regardless of the amount of skin shown or hidden, is a way to stand out from the crowd, and therefore is intrinsically immodest. A pious and virtuous Muslim woman should therefore obey the spirit of her religion and go about bare-headed in countries where women generally go about bare-headed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
An interesting opinion certainly, but I'm afraid splitting people in half is usually illegal in most countries, even as self-defense against ogling.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
According to effectronica's logic, not harassing a veiled woman is validating evil fundamentalist beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
The rule of law necessitates torture, an American post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You can't defend a woman's right to wear what she likes in a liberal democracy by telling her she can't wear this particular type of thing regardless of how much she says she wants to. Like, even if you succeed, you fail. Have you thought that maybe banning the niqab goes to defend women's rights beyond the right to choose how she dresses? You guys would be defending the rights of Jews to proudly wear the yellow star in Nazi Germany, because there might be a handful of them who want to.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
And in doing so, you poo poo over all those who are coerced into doing it against their will.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You would have to first show that a significant number of women are coerced into doing so. Take any town taken over by the Talibans, Daesh, Boko Haram, or other similar jihadist groups; the first thing that happens is that they veil all the women here. Are you claiming it doesn't happen? Or that it doesn't count because it's not in Europe that it happens? That the veil is being imposed on women in Muslim districts of European towns was precisely the reason why groups like NPNS, which I already mentioned, fought to have it banned by law. A bare-headed woman without the protection of a ban is insulted, spit upon, raped, and murdered. These things loving happen, you bloody apologists. Oh but no, we are enlightened and anti-racist, so we whole-heartedly endorse, support and encourage aggressive sexism and the victimization of women, it makes us feel so progressive. Here's some articles that are not being written by WASP men from the USA, but by Muslim women -- which means that you will ignore what they have to say, they're not good Muslim women, a good Muslim woman shuts up and obey. But sorry, I want you to listen to them anyway. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown posted:Of even more concern are young Muslim lives. Little girls are being asked to don hijabs and jilbabs, turned into sexual beings long before puberty. You can even buy stretchy baby hijabs with fake Calvin Klein and Versace logos. Saira Khan posted:Girls as young as four are wearing the hijab to school: that is not a freely made choice. It stops them taking part in education and reaching their potential, and the idea that tiny children need to protect their modesty is abhorrent. I side with Muslim women who reject sexism and oppression. Feel free to side with the cops who protect rapists because it's more important to them to appear non-racist than it is to fight crime. computer parts posted:And by significant, I mean a level equivalent to convince you to also ban high heels if a large enough percentage was determined.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Oh OK, wow, that's a really good reason. We'll get right around to banning high heels right after we've banned tobacco, alcohol, motorised transport, skydiving, fast food, treadmills, sugared drinks, vending machines, and dogs, all of which cause far more physical harm than a particular type of shoe. Cigarettes get "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" labels on their packaging, selling alcohol to people under 21 is prohibited in the USA (at 18 you can drive a car, shoot a gun, star in a porn movie, but you can't buy a drink), you need licenses for operating most types of motorized vehicles, and also to own some types of dogs. Yeah, when a federal administration requires a certified rigger to check your high heel shoes before you put them on, you will be able to use a comparison to skydiving to laugh it off.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm not sure having "THIS WILL loving KILL YOU" written on the burqa would help the situation. Point is tobacco would be banned already if there wasn't a big and powerful lobby behind them that is doing everything it can to prevent the more radical measures that would have been taken long ago otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:OK. I don't need anybody's permission to walk around inverted on my hands. That is a totally unregulated activity. Would you say walking distance X is more hazardous to my health when done in heels, or when done on my hands? Anyway, feel free to revive this tangent to a tangent when it gets marginally relevant, like when women are barred from entering some fancy schmancy reception because they aren't walking on their hands.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The curious thing is that people feel that the way to Yes indeedy that is exactly what is happening. People like Fadela Amara, Samira Bellil, Nadia Benmissi, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Saira Khan are viewing Muslim women as the enemy of civilization. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
These are the names of the people who you accuse of being racist and fascist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
For whom is not being allowed to wear a burqa a punishment? And for whom is being forced to wear it a punishment? What you don't get is that the state banning the burqa frees the women from retribution. Without a ban, a veil-less woman is attacked for "shaming God" and can be killed. With a ban, it's not "her fault" anymore and violences against free-willed women decreases. You put the desires of fundamentalists above the desires of free-willed women, by thinking that those who want to wear it but aren't allowed are more important than those who don't want to wear it but are coerced to. And then you claim that your support of fundamentalists is the One True Way of being a progressive, because any sort of opposition to fundamentalism is fascism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
This is what you call thinking? "You support a ban on clothing, so surely you support extermination camps!" Even brushing aside the stupidity of your hyperbole, it's a lot simpler to enforce a ban on burqa than a ban on telling women to put on burqas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
No, I accused you of endorsing Nazi crimes by opposing opposition to their policies. You like belittling other people's intellect so I'm not surprised that you wouldn't see the nuance. The crux of the issue is that you have liberal-minded Muslim women who want not to wear the veil, but are forced to do so, and they want the veil to be banned so that they can get the force of the state on their side; and you have fundie women who want to wear the veil. You take the side of the latter because it's more liberal in your opinion to support fundamentalism. Then you construe a scenario where fundie women will disobey the ban until police intervention is necessary against them. You know what? As long as the police doesn't rape them and then burn them to death, police intervention against veiled women is preferable to mob intervention against bareheaded women. Banning fundamentalism isn't possible. You can ban objects easily, but you can't ban ideas. If forcing a woman to wear a veil was criminalized while wearing a veil was allowed, then how would you ever know if a woman is wearing a veil out of her own free will or because she was forced to? How are you going to find out? Maybe by arresting her and making her talk? Do you think she'd tell the truth? Or maybe you'd have the police follow her home then raid her house and arrest her whole family? What you say belies that you are entirely disconnected from how the real world works. Banning the veil is the solution that has been suggested and pushed for by Muslim women. They have not suggested putting their husbands in concentration camps; and I doubt that if they had, they would have had much legal success. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Now, you take the position that wearing the veil is determinant. If you wear it of your own free will, you hate gays, democracy, and yourself. This basically sums up why the niqab bans will only make the situation worse, besides their grotesque immorality. Because they take the jihadi view that the West is incompatible with Islam, and seeks to dictate what Islam is and is not, what is allowable and what is not, and says that it's all true. And? Is there any civilization in the Earth's entire history that did not seek to dictate what is allowable and what is not? The flavor of Islam propagated by jihadists is incompatible with the West since it is built as a rejection of all perceived Western values. It's not the case for all flavors of Islam, though. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Hammurabi posted:The thing is is that, if niqabs are banned, then the ones who are being forced to wear them under threat of mutilation or death by their misogynistic family/husband/community would just be forbidden from leaving their homes. Such a ban would not improve things for them. If anything, it would make their lives worse, and it would make it much, much, much less likely that they would ever be able to improve their lives and escape their family/husband/community since they would be isolated completely from the rest of society. Them not going to school anymore would be remarked, sending the social services to investigate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 23:42
|
|