Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[infamous]

Maybe I will be banned.

 

It happened to Galilao.

 

It happened to Darwin.

 

 

There is always a penalty for pointing out uncomfortable truths.

I really don't see any comparison to Galileo or Darwin as being of equal relevance sebby....... I don't believe anyone of our moderators or administrators sees themselves equal in stature and neither should any of our members. We all put our pants on the same way around here and it might be good if everyone else recognized this fact..........................Infy

[Buffy]

In my experience, walking this tight rope is extremely difficult. But it is not racist for trying.

Its so difficult to have manners. So many children have problems with saying "please" and "thank you." We "manners freaks" ought to just stick our heads where the sun don't shine. So many humans are not worthy of being kind and nice to that its hardly worth the super-human effort required to be polite.

 

One word. All ya need is *one* word. My goodness. I'm so sorry that we weirdos are making it so difficult for ya.

 

But you tried! And look! It worked!

Now, Buffy [and others] I ask, do you think what I have just said is racist?

Nope! You qualified it!

 

Now the thing is that you've at least gotten into a grey area, so its easier to hide any biases you might have. But the Gestalt of this last post still betrays a seeming belief that "most" Muslims think the way you're describing.

 

I'll leave that alone for now, but point out one example: "extremist" actually does *not* refer to "a small minority" but rather one who advocates action with severe or irrevocable consequences. Your "clarification" seems solely intended to make sure that we all know that "most" Muslims advocate the things you're describing. That's arguable, rather than being explicitly racist.

 

On the other hand it begs you to show proof of the truth of your broad assertions. And the broader you make them and the more you support them by saying "its obvious" the less seriously people will take them.

 

What once were vices are manners now, :)

Buffy

[jackson33]

being or trying to appear politically correct, denying certain generally accepted concepts and a display of personal opinion are in general not consistent. they can not be expressed with in a single context for that opinion to remain plausible.

 

there were 19 persons involved with what has become known as 9-11. in some manner 10 other events have happened which involved people having been caught or known fugitives, in ten other nations. the opinions of three national leaders and around 100 religious leaders of one faith from every nation on this planet have suggested this was a retaliation action against certain peoples for one reason or another. all these are what is call a "Islamic Extremist Ideology", with in the Islamic faith. they trained, worked with and dreamed the same things OBL, acted on his wishes and felt their final rewards would be the same.

 

a survey made by the BBC, found 65% of their Muslim population and in all countries surveyed, over 50% of their brothers did not believe any of what i mentioned above was done by Muslims or with OBL approval, while over 95% of the total population did think so. side notes include very high approvals for OBL ranging up to 85%.

 

this to me is a trend. it has nothing to do with my religious or national attitude. i am not concerned with political correctness nor do i pretend to practice it. in fact i was born and was raised in a diversity most would think impossible. any opinions i may have would not favor my own race. the folks i was raised with, lived with, married, had kids with and associated with would probably agree in total with what is my opinion. 95% of the (all) US population supports the existence and support of Israel, yet less than 2% of these people are Jewish. this issue itself is part of the above ideology and enhances the trend.

 

i find it difficult to understand how the status quo, do nothing, let things be or simply to ignore what is a pending problem will help the true Islamic Faith members or those of other faiths to some conclusion. in a world with such dynamic reliance on each others wishes the problem has to be solved. this will not be done with PC, diplomacy or opinions of a few written on some forum.

 

Sebby; Buffy, has a problem with me. its personal and i really don't care why.

i use the same name, give the same opinions where ever i go and have probably crossed her path elsewhere. on your comments with her, she has not mentioned that women are held back under Islamic Law, which means one of two things i cannot mention. however, when some one calls another racist, the racist is usually the accuser...

[PsyCho]

"education has to be by Islamic law and of course no females allowed. now the best part, 72 virgins and eternity...just kill an infidel."

Jackson

 

Sigh...... :) :) ;) ;) :D :applause:

 

It is a matter of fact that the “72 virgins” construct does not exist either in the Qur’an or in the most authentic of the Hadith compendia. Its origins are in a book by a 9th century Muslim scholar, Al-Tabarani, in his Mu`jam. The conclusion is that this construct does not form part of the Islamic faith...

 

When it comes to the mistreatment of women (as well as homosexuals etc.,) within religious texts, it should be pointed out that:

 

a) It is not unique to the Koran (I refer you to the 4 bible passages below)

 

:cheer: There is a healthy argument between scholars of the Koran that part of the problem is translation and interpretation of the lanuage (as Sebbysteiny has use in his defence also, but on the other side of the fence)

 

c) When it comes to genocide; BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY!! (you don't have to look far to find ample examples both in recent and remote history. I'm afraid it's impossible to do a head count and tally up a winner; genocide is genocide, and that stain is on both western and eastern religions)

 

Bible Quotes

I promise this is the only time I will resort to this

 

Massacre of women and children

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

(Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

 

Rape of Women

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

Nice huh.... Sounding familiar to anyone?

 

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

(Judges 5:30 NAB)

 

Murder of Homosexuals

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

 

Genocide

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

(I Samuel 6:19)

 

The point of this is to demonstrate out how ridicously narrow sighted we are being. The extreme elements in ANY society will always draw the greatest attention, but they by no means represent the majority.. The Majority don't make interesting news. As for "conservative Muslims" I'm afraid firstly again they come as a spectrum, secondly when it comes to DENIAL of WOMENS RIGHTS then conservative christians are just as guilty (wrong place for abortion arguments etc., Plenty of references in the bible to suppresion of women (read it!)), and in fact if you do adopt this viewpoint then you might as well expand it to "conservatism is wrong"..

 

This again supports my argument how the war on terror is providing yet another justification to villify an entire group. I'm afraid the world does not break down into "good vs. evil" (but the human psyche is prone to falling into that baison), but when we are made to be afraid (through media/political hype) then it is easy for us to fall in line with that thinking. Stop confusing sects with religions in general.

 

Also western media (particulary US I'm afraid) is highly unlikly to either highlight, be critical of or even report christain extreamism, hate crimes, atrocities etc., It's just a fact of the system...

 

show proof of the truth of your broad assertions

 

Hear hear :) throughout this entire debate there has been very little evidence or references to back up certain controversial claims...

 

I just want to AGAIN point out the analogy when viewing modern art; it should be examined within the CONTEXT IT AROSE (social, geographical, political), AND THE HISTORY THAT PRECEDED IT... These are useful rules when also examining religion, as it can provide an element of understanding to certain situations, and should force us to step back from our default twentyfirst centuary western perspective.

 

This is not being PC, this is being open minded to all the facts; they are two different things... I could be equally as critical of Islam, though the nature of opinions being offered force an opposing stance to western beliefs which merely reflects the members of this forum.

 

Rant fin

[HydrogenBond]

There is nothing to fear but fear itself. The war on terror is less a counter measure to an actual threat, as it is the countermeasure to fear. Since 91l, nothing has happened in the US, yet there is still the push to do more. A perfect record, i.e., 100%. is not enough to appease the irrational fear. We need to be better than perfect. We need 150%. We need 100% for reality and 50% for the illusionary fear. Think logically, mortality from terroism is not even in the top ten of mortality risks, yet it has been pushed to the top of resource allocation.

 

The bedfellows of the terrorists are the media. They both use fear to sell their soap. The media has done more to spread and perpetuate the fear than the terrorist themselves. Yet the media is not treated as allies of the terrorists or the number one source of psychological fear in our country. Picture if the media decided to make an airline accident the center of their new terrorist fear campagn. For the next 5 years, they look at nothing but the fearful side of flying and all the things that "could go wrong". They could beat enough fear into the naive population that flying will be avoided and regulated to the nth degree. Luckily, big business threathens the media terrorists with lack of sponsorship. This snaps them out of this angle, but doesn't prevent them from spreading fear in other directions.

[PsyCho]

Donnie Darko comes to mind.......

[Buffy]

i find it difficult to understand how the status quo, do nothing, let things be or simply to ignore what is a pending problem will help the true Islamic Faith members or those of other faiths to some conclusion.

This little debate of course is a perfect example: You don't seem to be pursuaded by people who don't share your opinion. Why is it that you think that the members of the Islamic faith would be any more open to the persuasion of outsiders than you are? In fact, if you're going to persuade them, don't you think that attacking all, including those who are moderate might be counter-productive?

 

Do you think its fair to say that any opposition to your opinions constitutes promoting "doing nothing?" Would you say it would be fair for me to characterise your position as one that advocates war with all Muslims until they learn their lesson and submit to our superiority? You almost say it here:

in a world with such dynamic reliance on each others wishes the problem has to be solved. this will not be done with PC, diplomacy or opinions of a few written on some forum.

So if there is "such dynamic reliance on each others wishes" your first step might be to look a little bit beyond your positions. Its a big world out there! Conversely, if you think that "such dynamic reliance on each others wishes" is the *problem*, then you might think about who gets to be dictator and does what's good for us. Watch out, that might be Hillary! :eek:

Sebby; Buffy, has a problem with me. its personal and i really don't care why.

Someone disagrees with your opinion and its personal? :eek:

 

Naw, really: the issues I'm raising get to the core of what you're advocating. I'm trying to point out that demonization of all Muslims and promoting the idea that their faith makes it impossible to live peacefully with them, and war is innevitable, is actually a good way to *avoid* solving the problem. Unfortunately rather than actually trying to discuss what the various approaches might be, resorting to "its a personal attack" indicates that you don't have much scientific support for your theory.

 

I really know nothing about you. I find quite a few of your posts both enlightening and interesting. I find others are worth arguing with, and I'd love to engage you, but it won't go very far if you think that anyone who disagrees with you hates you. Heck, how could I hate you? That's not PC!

she has not mentioned that women are held back under Islamic Law,

Maybe not in this thread, but you haven't asked me about it until now, so here ya go! Just comparing the Quran to the Bible, you'll actually find far more legal protections for women in the former document. As has been noted in many of the threads in the Theology forum here, its generally accepted that the Book handed down from God is the final word on the faith, far more important than its present-day interpreters and church leaders. Thus, to say that "Islamic Law holds back women" has its basis in the absolute--it certainly does not match the Equal Rights Amendment--but to speak comparitively, it does pretty darn well versus the Bible.

 

Irrespective of what the books say, there are a plethora of faiths that they have spawned, differing drastically by sect, Reform Judaism and Lutheranism being incredibly liberal when it comes to women's equality (and Shi'a being more open-minded than Sunni's by the way), while others promote severe restrictions on women because they "need protection." These are as wide and varied in *every* faith: Islam is not a monolithic woman-hating faith by definition.

 

Similarly, there are Islamic societies--e.g. the Taliban/conservative Pashtun--who treat women horrifically, arguably much worse than just about any western society. At the same time, we silently tolerate the radical polygamous societies right here in America, only occasionally going after the most egregious examples. In many places in America I'm an uppity feminazi who is harming my child's health and well-being by choosing not to be married. I condemn both groups vehemently, and indeed I do consider the Taliban one of the most horrendous social groups in history, but I also do not consider it a result of them being Islamic, but rather that they are patriarchal societies that are scared to death of women. I find the same sort of misogynist behavior right here in America. My ascribing this to scared males rather than dumping it on Islam is not a personal attack on you! honest!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but It looks like you see this as a black and white issue, while I see it as shades of grey. I assure you that's not a "personal attack:" its an honest disagreement about interpretation of the facts.

 

which means one of two things i cannot mention.

C'mon. Why not? :)

 

Buffy, you ignorant slut, :phones:

Buffy

[jackson33]

Phy Cho; first i prefer no discussion on religion. even what we are talking about is based on or interpretation of theology.

 

what we are told or is available to read is all i can relate to. if you are telling me that nothing but the original script is part of any faith, we have most of humanity running around ill advised. i think the New Testament came out sometime after the Old Testament. the Pope adds a little now and then for his flock and leaders of all faiths have been known to add or take away from the originals.

 

if you are trying to say the schools in some Islamic Run communities do not say anything about 72 virgins and so on, fine. your calling a lot of people lier's and i have no problem with that. i am told by the religious leaders in that faith these human sacrifices are based on a premise, which you say is not. this means you know more than them and maybe should be there helping my cause.

 

on Islamic law, practices i see daily and the general opinion of western Islamic ladies, this law is firmly opposed to any possible advancement of them.

to the American and i am one, no religion or the views of one can justly be part of a government of a total people. women are half any Islamic State and by this law not allowed a voice, to say nothing about non-Islamic people. this is today not yesterday or 1000 years ago...

 

yes, the Bible and the mainstay of all religion, placed women in some dark hole as needed and justified anything the power in man could control. i have written much on Slavery and all the justifications given through religious rhetoric. it was, has been and will continue to be a black eye on all religion.

frankly from my readings the "Quoran" preached humane treatment of male slaves, giving prominence to other then Blacks, held in slavery, but gave no mention of woman, other than they could not posses. the others gave no treatment status to any slave.

 

hopefully i am open minded. my preference is a resolution to a problem but all i am seeing are dead fast stances based on letting thing go on the way they are. it is not going to be as i feel it should, this is obvious. Islamic law will prevail in Islamic nations, woman and dogs will be equals and the men will control with an iron fist. i have no problem with this, but when it looks as though it will spill over into my world, something is going to hit the fan. i have four girls, helped raise three others and even the thought, they could or their girls would ever be treated in the manner is not a palatable thought. last i heard there were about 50 cases when a Islamic male married a western woman, had kids and ran back home, w/o the woman but with the kid or kids.

i might add here, even with extradition treaties, if no home state law is broken the treaty is void--women have no rights.

 

i do not give post or link to them, for reasons. most what i say is from memory. occasionally i will double check an item, when as this discussion, i feel its importance. when i "google or yhoo" i use the question mode. this morning for instance i used --Islamic view of the west-- and got much of what i feel your questioning.

[jackson33]

There is nothing to fear but fear itself. The war on terror is less a counter measure to an actual threat, as it is the countermeasure to fear. Since 91l, nothing has happened in the US, yet there is still the push to do more. A perfect record, i.e., 100%. is not enough to appease the irrational fear. We need to be better than perfect. We need 150%. We need 100% for reality and 50% for the illusionary fear. Think logically, mortality from terroism is not even in the top ten of mortality risks, yet it has been pushed to the top of resource allocation.

 

The bedfellows of the terrorists are the media. They both use fear to sell their soap. The media has done more to spread and perpetuate the fear than the terrorist themselves. Yet the media is not treated as allies of the terrorists or the number one source of psychological fear in our country. Picture if the media decided to make an airline accident the center of their new terrorist fear campagn. For the next 5 years, they look at nothing but the fearful side of flying and all the things that "could go wrong". They could beat enough fear into the naive population that flying will be avoided and regulated to the nth degree. Luckily, big business threathens the media terrorists with lack of sponsorship. This snaps them out of this angle, but doesn't prevent them from spreading fear in other directions.

 

in a manner of speaking, you are probably correct. a little to much to do about nothing. what little is going on is simple disruption, such as trying to get a drivers license in a vale, disruption of air traffic to pray and praise Laden or attempting to force issue concerning traditions.

 

we only know of five or six plans here, that were disrupted and a few dozen over seas and can only guess whats not known. the 20 or so incidents from overseas are not our problem or our fight or certainly not our concern.

 

let up for a few years, like we did in 93 and see what happens. id rather play some stupid games now, then the serious game that will come with another hit. an ounce or prevention is worth.....

[sebbysteiny]

Firstly, I think Buffy has handled this contriversial discussion very diplomatically. I'm impressed enough to think a QP is in order.

 

Secondly, I am feeling greatly happy that my spark of inspiration from the streets of Salvador that was the central thesis of the last post, the replacement of the word 'extremist' with 'conservative', has worked.

 

Now, Buffy [and others] I ask, do you think what I have just said is racist?

 

Nope! You qualified it!

 

Nobody else has used the 'R' word yet.

 

Success.

 

The entire point was trying to express the opinions I believe to be true without being branded a racist. I know that it is not a racist opinion but it is extremely easy to be branded as one. But the use of the word 'conservitive' has not just breached the 'racist' obsticle, it has also provided much greater illumination of what I believe is happening in Islamic society.

 

Of course it's not the magic persuasion bullet, but it's certainly magic gunpowder.

 

Now the thing is that you've at least gotten into a grey area

Perfect. I see shades of grey. Alot of shades of grey. More shades of grey than there are colours in the rainbow.

 

Its so difficult to have manners. So many children have problems with saying "please" and "thank you."

 

True. But the problem of stating the problems with the conservative influence in Muslim society is that it is extraordinarily difficult linguistics, far harder than simply adding a 'please' or 'thankyou' to a demand.

 

I'll leave that alone for now, but point out one example: "extremist" actually does *not* refer to "a small minority" but rather one who advocates action with severe or irrevocable consequences.

 

That is what people who have bought into the term intend. But unavoidably implied into that term is a notion of relative 'exremism'.

 

But the Gestalt of this last post still betrays a seeming belief that "most" Muslims think the way you're describing.

 

Not "most" but the conservative elements, which in some countries is also "most".

 

Your "clarification" seems solely intended to make sure that we all know that "most" Muslims advocate the things you're describing. That's arguable, rather than being explicitly racist.

 

That's correct. It is not my intention to convince and assert. My intention is to put forward my views on Islamic society as informatively as possible without being or being branded a racist. It seems I have succeeded.

 

On the other hand it begs you to show proof of the truth of your broad assertions.

 

A challenge I will gladly accept. And now that the word 'racist' is not being thrown about, I think this debate will be quite productive. I'll wait for my next post though.

 

It is a matter of fact that the “72 virgins” construct does not exist either in the Qur’an or in the most authentic of the Hadith compendia. Its origins are in a book by a 9th century Muslim scholar, Al-Tabarani, in his Mu`jam. The conclusion is that this construct does not form part of the Islamic faith...

 

When it comes to the mistreatment of women (as well as homosexuals etc.,) within religious texts, it should be pointed out that ....

 

Your analysis of the holy texts is quite accurate. But in my view irrelivant.

 

Having had experience making the arguments Jackson33 has been trying to put forward, I think I may be speaking for him too, but he can correct me if I am wrong.

 

I am not interested in the text or the religion as perceived by scholars. I am interested ONLY in how that religion is perceived by their followers.

 

A holy text could say something like 'and women are to have a completely equal place in society and nothing justifies any alternative treatment', but if that phrase is INTERPRETTED BY THE FOLLOWING MASSES as permitting severe beating of women, say, but arguing that after marriage they stop being 'women' or something, then I still say that the religion has a serious problem with womens rights.

 

So it's not Allah that I criticise, it's the people who follow him.

 

The fact is that when a Muslim declares he is gay even in, say, Britain, his life becomes immediately in danger and he may have to go into hiding or face daily beatings and death. That simply does not happen in the conservative Christian community. Nor do 'honour killings' of adulterous wives or girls who have had premarital sex.

 

Also, I am not interested in history. I am entirely interested in present day problems and solutions. I cannot see how any historical wrongs from within our own societies hundreds of years ago can have any effect whatsoever on my quest to find and solve present day problems.

 

Similarly, there are Islamic societies--e.g. the Taliban/conservative Pashtun--who treat women horrifically, arguably much worse than just about any western society.

 

There really is no argument. Women get stoned for having an afair in Taliban / conservative Pashtun type governments.

 

At the same time, we silently tolerate the radical polygamous societies right here in America, only occasionally going after the most egregious examples. In many places in America I'm an uppity feminazi who is harming my child's health and well-being by choosing not to be married. I condemn both groups vehemently, and indeed I do consider the Taliban one of the most horrendous social groups in history, but I also do not consider it a result of them being Islamic, but rather that they are patriarchal societies that are scared to death of women. I find the same sort of misogynist behavior right here in America. My ascribing this to scared males rather than dumping it on Islam is not a personal attack on you! honest!

 

You may get condemned. But does your father pick a husband for you and beat you every day you refuse to accept? Are you allowed to drive and work? Are you denied education? Are you forced to cover your head and body leaving nothing but your eyes or face being further beaten, tortured or even killed? Does society pressure you to have female circumsicion to demonstrate your total devotion to your man at the expense of all physical pleasure?

 

In conservative America, you draw criticism for expressing your strong views on feminism and abortion.

 

In the conservative Arab world, you draw strong criticism for expressing your opinion at all.

 

I really cannot see a comparison.

 

This little debate of course is a perfect example: You don't seem to be pursuaded by people who don't share your opinion. Why is it that you think that the members of the Islamic faith would be any more open to the persuasion of outsiders than you are?

 

Again, I think you got lost in Jackson's verbiage. I think when he talked about helping the 'true Islamic faith members' he was talking about the liberal Muslim members of the community. And 'help' does not mean 'attack'. I think it meant, 'empower'.

 

 

she has not mentioned that women are held back under Islamic Law,

Maybe not in this thread, but you haven't asked me about it until now, so here ya go! Just comparing the Quran to the Bible, you'll actually find far more legal protections for women in the former document.

 

I think you have dodged the issue. It matters not what the words of the Quoran are. All that matters is how they are interpretted. And to find that out, you have to research the beliefs of the Quoran. You might start by trying to find out what motivated a Cleric, well versed in the Quoran, to state that Western women are 'provoking rape' by their dress. When religious preachers all give such a message, it becomes the religious message regardless of the words of the religious texts.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but It looks like [Jackson] see this as a black and white issue, while I see it as shades of grey.

 

I don't agree. I know you will disagree but I don't think you see enough of the different shades of grey yet.

[PsyCho]

if you are trying to say the schools in some Islamic Run communities do not say anything about 72 virgins and so on, fine. your calling a lot of people lier's and i have no problem with that.

 

Not lier's, just misinformed...

 

1) Houri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(under hadith... May i highlight the final sentence in that paragraph whichreads... As a hadith, it does not exist in the Qur'an either, which is used as the basis for all mainstream sects of Islam.)

 

2) Beliefnet Guide to Islam author answers questions about Islam -- Beliefnet.com

 

3) Islam and the Concept of Martyrdom - Amina

 

4) Islam Hijacked, by Professor Reuven Firestone

 

5) MidEast Web - The Quran (copy of the Qur'an)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsyCho

Similarly, there are Islamic societies--e.g. the Taliban/conservative Pashtun--who treat women horrifically, arguably much worse than just about any western society.

 

There really is no argument. Women get stoned for having an afair in Taliban / conservative Pashtun type governments.

Moot point but Buffy posted that

Not "most" but the conservative elements, which in some countries is also "most".

sebbysteiny

And that provides the context for military intervention, ignoring the many countries who we (western world) do dealings with day in, day out.. At what point does it threaten you so much you feel pre-emptive attacks are the way forward... I feel threatened by the conservative elements in the US, I feel they are a danger to world security, looking after a minority rather than majority, but I'm NOT going to ever seriously suggest (even if I could in this theoretical landscape we're building) that we pre-emptively launch aggressive military action...

I still say that the religion has a serious problem with womens rights.

Most do... It's true but I should stress this is a CULTURAL phenomena, not strictly religious. There are many countries who have this and worse philosophies that are not dictated through these means.. It is an argument that has to be solved academically and through educated debate. Not aggression..

 

The fact is that when a Muslim declares he is gay even in, say, Britain, his life becomes immediately in danger and he may have to go into hiding or face daily beatings and death.

 

Yes true in a certain respect, but let's face it not specific to a particular religion and bigger risks out there... AND it has only had acceptance in the UK relatively recently (The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalises male homosexual behaviour in England and Wales), and even now it's a hot potatoe of a subject..

 

BBC NEWS | UK | Gay man's killing 'tip of the iceberg'

BBC NEWS | England | London | Men jailed for gay barman murder

Sistani removes

Welcome to Imaan UK website

Pam's House Blend

 

Also, I am not interested in history. I am entirely interested in present day problems and solutions. I cannot see how any historical wrongs from within our own societies hundreds of years ago can have any effect whatsoever on my quest to find and solve present day problems.

 

Without understanding history and HOW these situations emerged, the context and point of view of the other group how can progress ever be made? Also history helps us understand WHY things are as they are now; and can provide us with valuable lessons on how to manage situations and move things in a progressive way, mutually constructive rather than destructive.

Western women are 'provoking rape' by their dress.

 

It's a point of view, dated but there. I have heard PARENTS (white, caucasian, of religion X) come out with similar sentiments.. Generation thing.

 

In the conservative Arab world, you draw strong criticism for expressing your opinion at all.

 

That is not unique (to Arab world) and not universally true (nor universally false)

 

In conservative America, you draw criticism for expressing your strong views on feminism and abortion.

Well, if by criticism you mean direct threats to your life and family by "extreamists" (who some may argue could be branded as a form of terrorism, home grown..):

 

Doctor Murdered as Anti-Abortion Violence and Terrorism Continue

 

Finally:

 

PhyCho; first i prefer no discussion on religion. even what we are talking about is based on or interpretation of theology.

Jackson

 

That's the point, you've hit the nail right on the head...... THIS is what "terrorism" has done to us; from the actions of a MINORITY it has led us to brand the MAJORITY. We throw around this term without much thought to exactely whom we are branding, nor the immense damage we are doing. 19.2% of the worlds population is Muslim (vs. 29.9% Christian) and fewer than 15% of Muslims are Arab, Since when did we previously feel it was our right to "save" people from this religion. We are clearly going to have to find a different tact based on mutual understanding, tolerence and development as HUMANS. 10 years ago we did not think like this, what's changed huh? We simply can not feel as an "advanced western society" we have a right and duty to show people the way, even though we may not be correct and are often blind to that fact; many child rearing studies bear this out.. But honestly, who are we to criticise!!

[sebbysteiny]

if you are trying to say the schools in some Islamic Run communities do not say anything about 72 virgins and so on, fine. your calling a lot of people lier's and i have no problem with that.

 

Not lier's, just misinformed...

 

1) Houri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(under hadith... May i highlight the final sentence in that paragraph whichreads... As a hadith, it does not exist in the Qur'an either, which is used as the basis for all mainstream sects of Islam.)

 

2) Beliefnet Guide to Islam author answers questions about Islam -- Beliefnet.com

 

3) Islam and the Concept of Martyrdom - Amina

 

4) Islam Hijacked, by Professor Reuven Firestone

 

5) MidEast Web - The Quran (copy of the Qur'an)

 

1) I cannot see how Wikopedia's interpretation of the Quoran shows anything about whether the 72 virgins ACTUALLY IS TAUGHT as being sanctioned by Islam in schools of some Middle Eastern countries.

 

2) Nor can I see how beleifnet.com's analysis of the Quoran is relavent here.

 

3) Link 3 did not work as I got temporary computer problems.

 

4) Nor can I see how Rabbi Reuven Firestone's interesting but personal analysis of the Quoranic texts are relavant here. He even admitted that Islam has been 'hijacked'. If you believe that Islam is defined by the texts and not how it is interpretted, then simply because you describe those with loathsome interpretations as 'hijacking' Islam, that does not mean that those 'hijacked' opinions are not being taught AS ISLAM in some schools in some middle Eastern countries.

 

5) Nor can I see how selected quotations of the Quoran help establish how it is taught.

 

Establishing the meaning of a text does not establish how it is taught or believed to be any more than arguing that proof of evolution shows that intelligent design is not taught in some schools.

 

I still say that the religion has a serious problem with womens rights.

 

Most do

 

All police forces use agressive measures to maintain order. That does not mean you can compare a person being forced to the ground and handcuffed with Sadam Huisains gassing of the Kurds.

 

The word of the day in my calender is 'extent'.

 

There really is no argument. Women get stoned for having an afair in Taliban / conservative Pashtun type governments.

 

And that provides the context for military intervention[?]

 

Nobody said it did. But this is just one sympotom of the perverse interpretation of Islam pervailant in conservative Muslim circles. Another is that blowing up innocent infidels by a Muslim is a heroic act and worthy of 'martyrdom'. Having said that, conservative Muslims are split as to whether this heroic deed is 'effective' or 'necessary'. Some of these then take up the cause. This direct threat to the human right to life of Western citizens provides the context for military action.

 

Without understanding history and HOW these situations emerged, the context and point of view of the other group how can progress ever be made?

 

By looking at the present day problems and the needs and desires of each people. If that includes historical grudges, so be it.

 

But that does not justify letting Islam off the hook simply because Christianity made similar errors 900 years ago. The crusades are COMPLETELY irrelivant to the present day problems.

 

In conservative America, you draw criticism for expressing your strong views on feminism and abortion.

Well, if by criticism you mean direct threats to your life and family by "extreamists" (who some may argue could be branded as a form of terrorism, home grown..):

 

Doctor Murdered as Anti-Abortion Violence and Terrorism Continue

 

You have shown no evidence that women who discuss womens rights passionately are in personal and physical danger. Perhaps you could find a RELAVENT example. What next, find a killer on death row who is a religious Christian and then say that makes Chistianity equivilent to the every day beatings and oppression of women by conservative influenced Islamic society?

[InfiniteNow]

Sebby,

 

Would it be possible for you to paint with a more detailed brush? Can you avoid smearing entire groups of people? A horse with blinders on never sees the meadow. :shrug:

[Dov Henis]

I'm trying to point out that demonization of all Muslims and promoting the idea that their faith makes it impossible to live peacefully with them, and war is innevitable, is actually a good way to *avoid* solving the problem. Unfortunately rather than actually trying to discuss what the various approaches might be, resorting to "its a personal attack" indicates that you don't have much scientific support for your theory.

 

 

- I do not know what jackson33's theory is and if it is supported scientifically. I do know that what I have been observing and experiencing since childhood long ago re the relationship between "Islamic" and "Western" "broad phenotypes" ( each has sub sets) is a plain and simple biological darwinian struggle. Repeating ad nauseam, this is the 21st century and it's time we all understand that culture is biology and that ethnic-cultural phenotypes struggle to survive.

 

- A spirited discussion re details of a messy explodable web of cultural aspects would not contribute to its undoing as long as we do not understand the biological factors of the constituent genetic types. I wonder, Buffy, if you might suggest just a beginning of how to go about "trying to discuss what the various approaches might be" when each of the two "broad phenotypes" must plainly either modify itself or desist. This is a case of real biological life, not a discussion forum...

 

- I can think of two possible approaches to defuse the explodable web, the Alexander-the-great mode of swording the unopenable knot or the Jewish Grandma's way. I prefer the JG way because it is practical, not drastic and allows for educational adjustments of both sides in a situation where "discussion" between the clashing phenotypes is futile.

 

- The JG way:

 

Bobbe (JG) finally agreed to babysit one night for her daughter. On the way out the daughter and husband pointed at a Child's Psychology (Spock) book on the table and suggested she seek there solution if problem arises with her 6-yr old grandson.

 

Upon their late return they find the boy sound asleep and ask Bobbe if she had any trouble with little Mark.

 

"Well, yes, there was a small problem..." says she.

 

"Did you use the book?" they ask.

 

"Yes" she says.

 

"How?"

 

"I put him on my knees and gave him a good spanking on his behind with the book..." she says,"Psychology Schmycology..." says she, "To Bobbe you don't answer 'kiss my ***'..."

 

 

Dov

[Buffy]

I wonder, Buffy, if you might suggest just a beginning of how to go about "trying to discuss what the various approaches might be" when each of the two "broad phenotypes" must plainly either modify itself or desist. This is a case of real biological life, not a discussion forum...

I believe that this mapping is too generic: if you have read the above, it is my argument that the behaviors being displayed are not unique to either "phenotype" nor are they found in every (or even a *majority*) instance of the "phenotype" and I have presented evidence to show this. I think it is up to you to show that the "broadness" of the definition is justified.

 

To use your parable, if Bubbe's grandson says "kiss my ***" and runs away, is it okay for Bubbe to spank her granddaughter because she's his sister and happens to still be in the room?

 

Unintended consequences,

Buffy

[PsyCho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsyCho

Originally Posted by Jackson

There really is no argument. Women get stoned for having an afair in Taliban / conservative Pashtun type governments.

 

And that provides the context for military intervention[?]

sebbysteiny

 

If you must quote sections please try not to cut and paste different segments together to fit your argument. There you have taken one thing that I DENIED stating in any of my arguments and was referring you to the correct auther; and you have mis-quoted it by following it with a later segment, I resent this :phones: ; ... I refer you back to the original passage in which you stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffy

But the Gestalt of this last post still betrays a seeming belief that "most" Muslims think the way you're describing.

 

Not "most" but the conservative elements, which in some countries is also "most".

sebbysteiny

 

I replied by merely questioning that statement, asking if "conservatism" plus "religion" provides the context for pre-emptive action, given some of the other powers we do dealings with...

 

The quotes were trying to PROVE that 72 virgins are not actually in the Qu'ran, and provide a context for understanding that splinter. Hence they are relivant. More so because if there is ever going to be a way to move forward from this, it will come from understanding the arguments; only then can we question how it is taught..

 

And you make the broad generalisations that "most" muslims believe this, I doubt that can neither be proved nor disproved but am certain it is hugely dependent which country you examine. However I will grant you the Qu'ran refers to martyrdom, and that hadith is a later addition to that. It is a small subtext, and parallels with the biblical passages alluding to acts of justified violence in the name of god (of which there are MANY). It is important to know because martyrdom does not automatically mean "kill all the infidels", and is an area that can be used to try and stabilise situations. But it will follow our actions. Also there is no question that the interpretation if Heaven in the Qu'ran is certainly more sexually explicit compared to the Bible, and I think this is has led to the two lines becoming blurred. I have a great many friends who are muslim, and I know for a FACT that those I have asked do not believe in "72 virgins"...

 

Okay... Moving on...

That does not mean you can compare a person being forced to the ground and handcuffed with Sadam Huisains gassing of the Kurds.

sebbysteiny

 

Nor was I trying to, merely pointing out many countries have problems with human rights issues (including womens rights) and is not UNIQUE to the case in question...

 

BBC NEWS | Americas | UN body criticises US on rights

But that does not justify letting Islam off the hook simply because Christianity made similar errors 900 years ago. The crusades are COMPLETELY irrelivant to the present day problems.

sebbysteiny

 

I am not refering just to the crusades and DELIBRATELY had not mentioned them, but thanks for doing so :D And I think the general thrust of the argument was not against Christians (though there are many examples), but western denial of the massacres we commit; such as the My Lai Massacre, the Khiam massacre, the Sabra and Shatila massacre and the Dasht-i-Leili massacre to name but a few more modern examples....

 

Also if you choose not to look at history fine, but it blinds you ever understanding the issues at hand. True, a solution in the present must be found, but in order to start a dialogue (to allow peaceful resolutions), then the parties have to feel you have a grasp of their issues. It's like trying to understand the result of a chemical reaction, but not being at all interested in what went into it, and how it was carried out....

 

FINALLY:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsyCho

Originally Posted by Me

In conservative America, you draw criticism for expressing your strong views on feminism and abortion.

sebbysteiny

Well, if by criticism you mean direct threats to your life and family by "extreamists" (who some may argue could be branded as a form of terrorism, home grown..):

 

Doctor Murdered as Anti-Abortion Violence and Terrorism Continue

Psycho

 

You have shown no evidence that women who discuss womens rights passionately are in personal and physical danger. Perhaps you could find a RELAVENT example.

sebbysteiny

 

Several points:

 

1) You did not qualify that you were dicussing women, merely the undefined 2nd person; referring to us all.

 

2) I PROVED that by having strong views on abortion (which to undertake the stress and danger of working in US abortion clinics you must have both that and a deep respect for women), be you male or female, you put your life at risk.

 

3) It demonstrates another form of terrorism that is just as relivant, and for certain individuals much more relivant. The same is true for extreamist Animal rights protestors who send letter bombs.

 

4) Did anyone else feel it was an inappropriate and irrelivant point given your argument.

 

Just because you may not agree with it, does not mean you can brush it under the carpet as irrelivant :hihi:

[Dov Henis]

Please forgive me for being a phudnick (a nudnick w/a PhD); I still wonder, Buffy, if you might suggest just a beginning of how to go about "trying to discuss what the various approaches might be". What and how might who "discuss" with whom in order to start a process leading to cessation of what kinds of terror where etc.,

 

Wondering,

 

Dov