This week in Islam

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, that's bullshit.  If there is something that is not true on this thread, say so, and let the poster defend it.  If it is true, it belongs on this thread.   If you don't like that, even though it's true, you should ask yourself why.  But only if you want to.  I wouldn't presume to dictate.

As for Jonas's comment, did the Nazis tell the truth about Jews much?  Did the Jews have as much to tell about as Islam?

In propaganda truth doesn't matter.  If a Jew assaulted a woman, he would be held up as representative of the rapacious Jewish nature, regardless of whether or not Jews assaulted women more, less or as much as any other group.  I see that regularly on these forums: a Syrian Muslim who touches girls at a swimming pool is held up as proof that Muslims are pedophiles.  If a Jew was caught engaging in criminal behavior, he would be presented as proof that Jews were inclined to criminal.   If a Muslim is caught engaging in criminal behavior, it is presented here as a feature of being Muslim - not that the individual is a criminal, but that Muslims are criminals.

Jews looked different, they believed differently, they dressed differently, they had their own customs: all of this was used to persuade Germans that Jews were too different to be accepted as part of German culture.  They were portrayed as a threat to German culture, that they wanted to take over and become masters over German citizens.  

All of this is happening with Muslims today in many places, not just on this forum.  They look different, they have different beliefs, they have different customs and so  they are presented as too different to fit into our Western culture,  that they want to take over and become masters over us all.  The similarities in the anti-Jew propaganda then and the anti-Muslim propaganda now is pretty striking really.

This isn't to say that I think posters here are a bunch of Nazis or are deliberately spreading propaganda because they hate Muslims.  For the most part, they are simply fooled by the propaganda and are spreading it with the best of intentions, for the good of their country and culture.  Exactly as the Germans did, no doubt. 

I am also not suggesting that this will lead to mass murder of Muslims in Western countries; I very much doubt that would happen.  Still, I think it's important to counter this propaganda: remind people that most Muslims are not the ones featured on the 6:00 news, even if they do have some conservative religious views about gays or women, or think apostasy is the worst possible sin.

And if you are uncomfortable comparing Nazi anti-Jew rhetoric with today's anti-Muslim rhetoric, perhaps you should ask yourself why that would be.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In propaganda truth doesn't matter.  If a Jew assaulted a woman, he would be held up as representative of the rapacious Jewish nature, regardless of whether or not Jews assaulted women more, less or as much as any other group.  I see that regularly on these forums: a Syrian Muslim who touches girls at a swimming pool is held up as proof that Muslims are pedophiles.  If a Jew was caught engaging in criminal behavior, he would be presented as proof that Jews were inclined to criminal.   If a Muslim is caught engaging in criminal behavior, it is presented here as a feature of being Muslim - not that the individual is a criminal, but that Muslims are criminals.

Jews looked different, they believed differently, they dressed differently, they had their own customs: all of this was used to persuade Germans that Jews were too different to be accepted as part of German culture.  They were portrayed as a threat to German culture, that they wanted to take over and become masters over German citizens.  

All of this is happening with Muslims today in many places, not just on this forum.  They look different, they have different beliefs, they have different customs and so  they are presented as too different to fit into our Western culture,  that they want to take over and become masters over us all.  The similarities in the anti-Jew propaganda then and the anti-Muslim propaganda now is pretty striking really.

This isn't to say that I think posters here are a bunch of Nazis or are deliberately spreading propaganda because they hate Muslims.  For the most part, they are simply fooled by the propaganda and are spreading it with the best of intentions, for the good of their country and culture.  Exactly as the Germans did, no doubt. 

I am also not suggesting that this will lead to mass murder of Muslims in Western countries; I very much doubt that would happen.  Still, I think it's important to counter this propaganda: remind people that most Muslims are not the ones featured on the 6:00 news, even if they do have some conservative religious views about gays or women, or think apostasy is the worst possible sin.

And if you are uncomfortable comparing Nazi anti-Jew rhetoric with today's anti-Muslim rhetoric, perhaps you should ask yourself why that would be.

 

It's because it's nonsense.  I don't have to ask.  What did you think when you saw the reaction to Asia Bibi's acquittal?  Anti Muslim rhetoric on the BBC?  Granted, they didn't spend much time on the British government's cowardice regarding asylum.

Like I said, if you don't think it's true, argue the point.  If you think someone is falling for propaganda, why not say so?  We are here to argue, after all.

I'll give you Burma and China, but I was never a big fan of those governments anyway.  To me, they are up there with those who allow religion to govern a country.  Both are oppressive.  I'm okay with comparing China and Burma to Nazi Germany.  I'm not okay with comparing a bullied kid in a Huddersfield elementary school to Anne Frank.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If you think someone is falling for propaganda, why not say so? 

I did say so.  And I presented my argument.  

Quote

I'm not okay with comparing a bullied kid in a Huddersfield elementary school to Anne Frank.

Are you suggesting that no Jewish kid in Nazi Germany was ever bullied long before Anne Frank was hiding in an attic?   Do you think that anti-Semitism burst full upon German consciousness, followed the next month by concentration camps and ovens?  Nah, took years of increasing propaganda to get to that point

In any case, I did not say that we in Canada or the States or anywhere else in the Western world was on track for Muslim genocide.  I suspect social media, with all its faults, would be key in preventing that, just as its key in spreading the propaganda that gets the kid in Huddersfield bullied.  I expect the worst that would happen is the refusal of Muslims into Western countries, potentially expelling Muslims from Western countries, perhaps even making the practice of Islam illegal here.  Bad, but not as bad as genocide, though it would still leave us at risk of having to apologize to Muslims at some point in the future.  Guess it all depends on how many people can be persuaded that Muslims are completely unacceptable  because they are Muslim.

And yes, I am aware that other groups, especially Jews, are targets of rhetoric that results in kids being bullied.  That isn't a reason to ignore anti-Muslim rhetoric, imo.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I did say so.  And I presented my argument.  

Are you suggesting that no Jewish kid in Nazi Germany was ever bullied long before Anne Frank was hiding in an attic?   Do you think that anti-Semitism burst full upon German consciousness, followed the next month by concentration camps and ovens?  Nah, took years of increasing propaganda to get to that point

In any case, I did not say that we in Canada or the States or anywhere else in the Western world was on track for Muslim genocide.  I suspect social media, with all its faults, would be key in preventing that, just as its key in spreading the propaganda that gets the kid in Huddersfield bullied.  I expect the worst that would happen is the refusal of Muslims into Western countries, potentially expelling Muslims from Western countries, perhaps even making the practice of Islam illegal here.  Bad, but not as bad as genocide, though it would still leave us at risk of having to apologize to Muslims at some point in the future.  Guess it all depends on how many people can be persuaded that Muslims are completely unacceptable  because they are Muslim.

And yes, I am aware that other groups, especially Jews, are targets of rhetoric that results in kids being bullied.  That isn't a reason to ignore anti-Muslim rhetoric, imo.

How much of the reason for the kids bullying do you think rests with the propaganda, and how much do you think is due to feelings brought on by the actions of Pakistani men in Northern England?  Thousands (that's thousands, with 3 zeros) of young working class girls were abused by them.  Kids bully.  They are nasty.  I personally would prefer the kid wasn't bullied at all, having been a victim just as much as he was. (No propaganda.  I was just fat)

I hope there is no refusal of Muslims into Western countries, beyond normal immigration procedures, but I would like them, and anyone else, to made absolutely certain of the country and culture they were being graciously allowed to join, and also made absolutely certain that barbaric cultural practices (Harper's best idea) would not be allowed.  Then I would enforce that, and deport miscreants.  Up to press, I believe the UK has had no convictions for FGM.  How do you think that figure compares to the actual number that take place in the UK?  I'll accept a wild guess.  I don't know either.  I just don't have a problem with telling people they are bad if they do bad things.  I don't understand people who do.

You compare Islam to Jewry in terms of their susceptibility to a new Nazi uprising (which I do not agree is anywhere on the horizon.  With AGW I think we are all susceptible, but I don't think religion will enter into it) but I don't believe the state of Islam in the world today is comparable in any way to the state of world Jewry in the middle of the twentieth century.  Neither in terms of visibility nor vulnerability.

Edit>  Rereading this, I should stress that I am aware of the grey area between religion and culture, and apply my contempt and disdain equally to those I consider bad people doing bad things regardless of motivation.

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

How much of the reason for the kids bullying do you think rests with the propaganda, and how much do you think is due to feelings brought on by the actions of Pakistani men in Northern England?  Thousands (that's thousands, with 3 zeros) of young working class girls were abused by them.  Kids bully.  They are nasty.  I personally would prefer the kid wasn't bullied at all, having been a victim just as much as he was. (No propaganda.  I was just fat)

 

Yes, those gangs are horrific.  They target kids and young women who are vulnerable to provide them to those who have an interest, and Asians make up the majority of those gangs.  At the same time, White guys make up 100% of gangs (two or more) who target kids because the men are pedophiles.  Both are horrific crimes and so destructive to the kids involved, but where is the outrage over groups of White pedophiles preying on kids?   Where are the stories in the media, and the posts and discussions online?  

The story about Pakistani sex gangs are true; the propaganda is how that story is used to support the narrative of Muslims as pedophiles and criminals who victimize girls.  The White guy pedophile groups are ignored.  

This story is about 80 coaches, in the UK, who have been convicted of child sex abuse; one of those guys victimized 50 kids.  But that story barely makes a ripple on the world stage, though it may be big news in the UK, I don't know.  But it's certainly not mentioned on these kinds of forums.  What do you suppose would be the story if these were 80 Muslim guys, hmmm?  The alt-right would at that story out and spread by their unknowing minions in seconds.  We would certainly see it here as more proof of Muslim barbarism.

All these crimes are horrific, and my goal is not to dismiss or downgrade the crimes of Pakistanis or Muslims by saying White guys are as bad, but only to highlight the difference in the way these stories are disseminated.

Quote

 

I hope there is no refusal of Muslims into Western countries, beyond normal immigration procedures, but I would like them, and anyone else, to made absolutely certain of the country and culture they were being graciously allowed to join, and also made absolutely certain that barbaric cultural practices (Harper's best idea) would not be allowed.  Then I would enforce that, and deport miscreants.  Up to press, I believe the UK has had no convictions for FGM.  How do you think that figure compares to the actual number that take place in the UK?  I'll accept a wild guess.  I don't know either.  I just don't have a problem with telling people they are bad if they do bad things.  I don't understand people who do.

You compare Islam to Jewry in terms of their susceptibility to a new Nazi uprising (which I do not agree is anywhere on the horizon.  With AGW I think we are all susceptible, but I don't think religion will enter into it) but I don't believe the state of Islam in the world today is comparable in any way to the state of world Jewry in the middle of the twentieth century.  Neither in terms of visibility nor vulnerability.

Edit>  Rereading this, I should stress that I am aware of the grey area between religion and culture, and apply my contempt and disdain equally to those I consider bad people doing bad things regardless of motivation.

 

For the rest, I will try to get back after work.   Thanks for the actual discussion.

[DogOnPorch]

"Asians".....

[scribblet]

Fear of radical Islam and its spread across the west is historically and logically justified while branding those who speak out against it’s spread can be described is a type of Stockholm syndrome.  And no, I'm not saying ALL Muslims are abusers, terrorists or hate Jews for that matter.  If I were Jewish, I would be particularly afraid of a malignant strain of that religion/culture that not only hates Jews but wants them eradicated.  The rise in anti antisemitism particularly across Europe is indicative of this. 
There are other people who sadly abuse children but not on such an industrial scale as what is happening now. not to mention the huge cover up.   

 

[Argus]

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

In propaganda truth doesn't matter.  If a Jew assaulted a woman, he would be held up as representative of the rapacious Jewish nature, regardless of whether or not Jews assaulted women more, less or as much as any other group. 

That simply is not true. Jews are not known to assault women so their religion would be ignored. Now if it happened repeatedly, that would be different.

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

I see that regularly on these forums: a Syrian Muslim who touches girls at a swimming pool is held up as proof that Muslims are pedophiles. 

Why do you think that is? Why would a Muslim be held up thusly but not, say, a Chinese man, or a Sikh? Could it not be because of the history of Islam, because it's prophet married a nine year old girl, and because for hundreds of years thereafter it became routine to marry little girls off?

Pedophilia is permitted in the Qur'an, was practiced by Prophet Muhammad and his companions, and some Muslims today continue to commit the crime, following their prophet's example.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sABVWUxfwIk

 

 

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Notice that the daily run-of-the-mill terrorism perpetuated by Islam...destroying villages in Africa...or bombing a remote cafe...are just...well....meh?

Nobody bothers as it just isn't 9-11 enough...

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

On 12/5/2018 at 8:34 PM, bcsapper said:

I hope there is no refusal of Muslims into Western countries, beyond normal immigration procedures, but I would like them, and anyone else, to made absolutely certain of the country and culture they were being graciously allowed to join, and also made absolutely certain that barbaric cultural practices (Harper's best idea) would not be allowed.  Then I would enforce that, and deport miscreants.  Up to press, I believe the UK has had no convictions for FGM.

I agree that we could do a better job of protecting girls from FGM and of prosecuting the people who do it.  The issue I have with this is that FGM is not a Muslim practice and yet it is presented primarily as a Muslim practice:  many, many girls are at threat of FGM, including Christian girls.  In some countries, FGM is practiced by Christians in greater numbers than by Muslims.   The Embera people, in Columbia, practice FGM: they practice a shamanistic type religion.   

Because Muslims are popularly considered to be the primary practicers of FGM, what would happen if a "Barbaric Practices" law were passed?  People would be looking at Muslims, reporting them - doing their duty to save/protect girls.  In the meanwhile, Christian girls and others would be considered 'safe' even as they are also victimized.  Addressing the issue of FGM requires that people understand it's not just Muslim girls who are at risk, but all girls from certain cultural backgrounds or certain countries.

Quote

 How do you think that figure compares to the actual number that take place in the UK?  I'll accept a wild guess.  I don't know either.  I just don't have a problem with telling people they are bad if they do bad things.  I don't understand people who do.

I don't know who does that, though.  I know I get accused of it often enough, but it generally comes after a conversation that goes something like this:   (someone):  A Muslim did this terrible thing!  Muslims do terrible things!  It's because of their religion!  (me)  Yes, that Muslim did a terrible thing, but not all Muslims do that.  (someone)  You refuse to listen to the truth about Muslims, how terrible they are and how they are driven to do terrible things by their religion! 

So when the accusation is made about people who are ok with Muslims doing terrible things is made, I take it with a grain of salt.

Quote

You compare Islam to Jewry in terms of their susceptibility to a new Nazi uprising (which I do not agree is anywhere on the horizon.  With AGW I think we are all susceptible, but I don't think religion will enter into it) but I don't believe the state of Islam in the world today is comparable in any way to the state of world Jewry in the middle of the twentieth century.  Neither in terms of visibility nor vulnerability.

I agree that for various reasons, Muslims are not at risk of enduring what Jews endured at the hands of Nazis and I don't mean to imply that they are.  The comparison I am trying to draw is the similarity of the anti-Muslim rhetoric now to the anti-Jew rhetoric used by the Nazis.  The same themes are prevalent in both:  (This group) is different; they are not like us; they do not fit into our culture; we are superior to them; they are dangerous; they will rape our women; they want to take over.  The same tropes were used against Japanese during World War two, prior to their being incarcerated and having all their property confiscated.

Quote

Edit>  Rereading this, I should stress that I am aware of the grey area between religion and culture, and apply my contempt and disdain equally to those I consider bad people doing bad things regardless of motivation.

It's complicated all way round.  I think religion and culture are intertwined strongly, so while something like FGM predates both Islam and Christianity, it's also true that as those religions became common in the areas where FGM was practiced, FGM became a religious practice.   That's why I think FGM has to be addressed separate from religion, and that is how it's addressed in the countries where it's common by the government and by aid agencies who are trying to eradicate it.  If we in the West are going to address it effectively, we also need to remove the 'religion' from it.   

Edited December 7, 2018 by dialamah

[dialamah]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

1.  That simply is not true. Jews are not known to assault women so their religion would be ignored. Now if it happened repeatedly, that would be different.

2. Why do you think that is? Why would a Muslim be held up thusly but not, say, a Chinese man, or a Sikh? Could it not be because of the history of Islam, because it's prophet married a nine year old girl, and because for hundreds of years thereafter it became routine to marry little girls off?

3. Pedophilia is permitted in the Qur'an, was practiced by Prophet Muhammad and his companions, and some Muslims today continue to commit the crime, following their prophet's example.

. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sABVWUxfwIk

1.  Nonetheless, the Nazis regularly posted stories about how the Jews were raping German women.  You should do some research.

2.  You should do some research about White Nationalists and the alt-right movement.  Muslims are an easy target, because they engage in terrorism in Western countries, and it's bloody easy to make them the 'bogeyman'.  Have you never been struck by how many sources there are for you to find 'all the bad things Muslims do'?  Or how often these stories are 'recycled' to appear new?  Or how often they are just outright lies, as was the story Scribblet posted the other day about a Muslim waitress who 'refused' to serve Christians?

3.  How old Aisha was when Mohammed married her is disputed.  Some put her at 9, some put her at 15, some put her as old as 20.  Also, in many cultures throughout history, a 'betrothal' was the same as 'marriage', without the sex and the terms could be used interchangeably.     In any case, early marriages were extremely common throughout history - even if she was 9, Mohammed would have been following custom, not engaging in pedophilia, and as would be the custom, sex would not happen until she reached puberty, likely around 12 or 13.   

Consider that Mary is thought to be around 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph and gave birth to Jesus.  Consider that in some States, it is *still* lawful to marry a girl off at 12.  This is not to claim that it's common or condoned now but only as an indication of historical norms - something you demand people consider when it comes to the treatment of aboriginal children in Canada.  That you refuse to consider any historical context here, or even acknowledge the dispute about Aisha's age more learned people than you have, and continue to insist it was 'pedophilia' is your bigotry in action.

Edited December 7, 2018 by dialamah

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

1.  Nonetheless, the Nazis regularly posted stories about how the Jews were raping German women.  You should do some research.

2.  You should do some research about White Nationalists and the alt-right movement.  Muslims are an easy target, because they engage in terrorism in Western countries, and it's bloody easy to make them the 'bogeyman'.  Have you never been struck by how many sources there are for you to find 'all the bad things Muslims do'?  Or how often these stories are 'recycled' to appear new?  Or how often they are just outright lies, as was the story Scribblet posted the other day about a Muslim waitress who 'refused' to serve Christians?

3.  How old Aisha was when Mohammed married her is disputed.  Some put her at 9, some put her at 15, some put her as old as 20.  Also, in many cultures throughout history, a 'betrothal' was the same as 'marriage', without the sex and the terms could be used interchangeably.     In any case, early marriages were extremely common throughout history - even if she was 9, Mohammed would have been following custom, not engaging in pedophilia, and as would be the custom, sex would not happen until she reached puberty, likely around 12 or 13.   

Consider that Mary is thought to be around 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph and gave birth to Jesus.  Consider that in some States, it is *still* lawful to marry a girl off at 12.  This is not to claim that it's common or condoned now but only as an indication of historical norms - something you demand people consider when it comes to the treatment of aboriginal children in Canada.  That you refuse to consider any historical context here, or even acknowledge the dispute about Aisha's age more learned people than you have, and continue to insist it was 'pedophilia' is your bigotry in action.

1) The Nazis didn't arrest, try, jail and then allow a certain amount of press freedom to report on those Jews they alleged were raping German women.  If they had, any they did probably weren't.  I know it's not your contention that the men in those photographs we see in The Guardian and The Independent are not guilty of the crimes, but rather are there as an attempt to stir up hatred.  A society cannot refrain from telling the truth due to that fear.

2) Here's the thing.  White nationalists are bastards.  They are not nice people at all.  I'm white, and, according to the dictionary, a nationalist. (I'm a populist too according to them.  Should I be worried?) But I'm not offended when someone calls them that.  That said, I freely admit to having no idea when right ends and alt-right starts.

 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Because Muslims are popularly considered to be the primary practicers of FGM, what would happen if a "Barbaric Practices" law were passed?  People would be looking at Muslims, reporting them - doing their duty to save/protect girls.  In the meanwhile, Christian girls and others would be considered 'safe' even as they are also victimized. 

Poppycock.

You have such a low opinion of white people, it's ridiculous. 

Really??  Muslims would not be allowed to perform FGM but everyone else would?  Bullshit.

 

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-female-genital-mutilation-fgm/4-fgm-canada

https://www.kidsnewtocanada.ca/screening/fgm

 

You find me anything in those documents about Canada's laws on FGM which single out Muslims.  Officially, there is nothing in there that states Muslims can't do it, but everyone else can.

Unofficially, yes, Muslims are singled out because the majority of practicers of it are Muslim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

 

Quote

 

Religious views on female genital mutilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There is a widespread view among practitioners of female genital mutilation (FGM) that it is a religious requirement,^[1][2][3][7] although prevalence rates often vary according to geography and ethnic group, sometimes differing along national lines within the same ethnicity.^[8] There is an ongoing debate about the extent to which the practice's continuation is influenced by custom, social pressure, lack of health-care information, and the position of women in society.^[a] The procedures confer no health benefits and can lead to serious health problems.^[6][10]

Figures from UNICEF in 2016 suggested that FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries, Yemen, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Indonesia. Over 200 million women and girls are thought to be living with it in those 30 countries. The highest percentages are found in Somalia, Guinea, Mali, Egypt, and Sudan, where 87–98 percent of women had experienced it.^[11]

FGM is practised predominantly within certain Muslim societies,^[12] but it also exists within some adjacent Christian and animist groups.^[13] 

 

When the majority of practicers of FGM are Muslim, I dont' believe it's discriminatory to tailor campaigns against it to their particular brand of religion or culture, including the religious arguments against it.

Incidently,  there has never been a conviction for FGM in Canada in spite of it being shown to be performed here and people taking their girls out of the country to have  it done.

Your Muslims are quite safe from being charged with it.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Goddess

[Guest]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree that we could do a better job of protecting girls from FGM and of prosecuting the people who do it.  The issue I have with this is that FGM is not a Muslim practice and yet it is presented primarily as a Muslim practice:  many, many girls are at threat of FGM, including Christian girls.  In some countries, FGM is practiced by Christians in greater numbers than by Muslims.   The Embera people, in Columbia, practice FGM: they practice a shamanistic type religion.   

Because Muslims are popularly considered to be the primary practicers of FGM, what would happen if a "Barbaric Practices" law were passed?  People would be looking at Muslims, reporting them - doing their duty to save/protect girls.  In the meanwhile, Christian girls and others would be considered 'safe' even as they are also victimized.  Addressing the issue of FGM requires that people understand it's not just Muslim girls who are at risk, but all girls from certain cultural backgrounds or certain countries.

I don't know who does that, though.  I know I get accused of it often enough, but it generally comes after a conversation that goes something like this:   (someone):  A Muslim did this terrible thing!  Muslims do terrible things!  It's because of their religion!  (me)  Yes, that Muslim did a terrible thing, but not all Muslims do that.  (someone)  You refuse to listen to the truth about Muslims, how terrible they are and how they are driven to do terrible things by their religion! 

So when the accusation is made about people who are ok with Muslims doing terrible things is made, I take it with a grain of salt.

I agree that for various reasons, Muslims are not at risk of enduring what Jews endured at the hands of Nazis and I don't mean to imply that they are.  The comparison I am trying to draw is the similarity of the anti-Muslim rhetoric now to the anti-Jew rhetoric used by the Nazis.  The same themes are prevalent in both:  (This group) is different; they are not like us; they do not fit into our culture; we are superior to them; they are dangerous; they will rape our women; they want to take over.  The same tropes were used against Japanese during World War two, prior to their being incarcerated and having all their property confiscated.

It's complicated all way round.  I think religion and culture are intertwined strongly, so while something like FGM predates both Islam and Christianity, it's also true that as those religions became common in the areas where FGM was practiced, FGM became a religious practice.   That's why I think FGM has to be addressed separate from religion, and that is how it's addressed in the countries where it's common by the government and by aid agencies who are trying to eradicate it.  If we in the West are going to address it effectively, we also need to remove the 'religion' from it.   

Yes, on rereading my last post I realised I had better include that caveat about the grey area between religion and culture.  I would have the law enforced fully and in the full view of society regardless of race, religion, culture, etc.  Deal with the fallout if there is one, but stick to it, regardless. 

I disagree with your second paragraph.  I think there are people who think differently about behaviour based on who it is too, but in my world, they are the ones who are willing to overlook it based on race, religion and colour, more than overly castigate it based on those things.  Unfortunately, your grain of salt can have unforeseen consequences, as was seen in northern England.  (That would have been for my reasons, not yours)

When it comes to rhetoric, the trick is to figure out what is valid and what is not.  Same with any issue.  I literally could not care less about someone who is brown and wears sandals. 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by bcsapper

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

1.  Nonetheless, the Nazis regularly posted stories about how the Jews were raping German women.  You should do some research.

I'm not interested in what the bloody nazis did. We're talking about here, today.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

2.  You should do some research about White Nationalists and the alt-right movement.  Muslims are an easy target, because they engage in terrorism in Western countries, and it's bloody easy to make them the 'bogeyman'.

The main targets of such groups are blacks, Jews and Liberals. A lot of them even make common cause with Muslims because they hate Jews too.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

3.  How old Aisha was when Mohammed married her is disputed.  Some put her at 9, some put her at 15, some put her as old as 20. 

And yet, as the Muslim scholar in the video points out, there is ZERO documentary evidence to suggest she was older than SIX when she was married, and NINE when the marriage was consummated. Yet there are considerable writings to say that she was, in fact, SIX and NINE. And that is what the majority of the Muslim world believes.

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Consider that Mary is thought to be around 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph and gave birth to Jesus. 

We don't know how old Mary was. We only know that it was the tradition in that land at that time, to marry girls off at puberty. Note: six is NOT puberty.
Mary was older than 12 but still a virgin because the marriage had not been consummated. 

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Consider that in some States, it is *still* lawful to marry a girl off at 12.  This is not to claim that it's common or condoned now but only as an indication of historical norms - something you demand people consider when it comes to the treatment of aboriginal children in Canada.  That you refuse to consider any historical context here, or even acknowledge the dispute about Aisha's age more learned people than you have, and continue to insist it was 'pedophilia' is your bigotry in action.

The situation here is that this entire religion is built up to worship God through Muhammad as the most perfect man. Worshipers are taught that everything he said and did was perfect and godly and that everyone should take him as their example. I have no particular interest in condemning Muhammad for his behaviour at that time. The problem is that the followers of Muhammad continue to take him as their example of how they themselves should behave TODAY. And Muhammad was indeed a product of his time; a vicious warrior prince who slaughtered and raped his way across the middle east. No one is suggesting we take the behaviour and beliefs of previous prime ministers from previous centuries as our model for values and behaviour today. So your comparison utterly lacks logic. Which is hardly surprising, since logic is ever your enemy as you continue your determined defense of Islam.

[DogOnPorch]

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 

https://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_7_62.php

(for those not familiar with Islam, Sahih Bukhari is the most reliable and trusted of the Hadiths...the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.)

Dialamah can pretend otherwise if she chooses...but the vast majority of practicing Muslims trust the Sahih Bukari implicitly. 

Meanwhile, in Australia...Imams are marrying-off 14 year olds.

Hey...it's an improvement, I suppose.

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

You have such a low opinion of white people, it's ridiculous. 

No idea how you got that from what I posted.  

As for the rest of your post:

I said that in the case of a barbaric practices law, the perception that FGM is strictlya Muslim practice would result in "the public" only looking at and reporting Muslim suspects and assuming Christians and other girls from areas that practice FGM were safe.  You do recall that a "tip line" was part of his proposal, do you not?

Why is it such a problem for you I think the Christian/other girls who suffer FGM are equally as important as the Muslim girls?  Why do we all have to act like its a Muslim problem, as if the 70% of Coptic Christians in Egypt aren't also victims, or the 87% of cut Catholic girls in Eritrea don't exist?  If FGM is such a Muslim issue, why do Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have such low rates?  Are you concerned about FGM and how to address it, or are you concerned that including all the girls who suffer will weaken the  "Islam is exceptionally evil" narrative?   

Your Muslims are quite safe from being charged with it.

A page or two ago, I agreed with you that the US legal system failed those two girls when the judge decided the law hadn't been properly written.  Just two posts ago, I agreed with Sapper that we (Canada) could do a better job of protecting girls and prosecuting practioners.  I fully support legal consequences for people who cut girls and I have said so many times.

 Nonetheless, you imply that I don't think Muslims should be held accountable.  Pathetic.  Clearly,  you have no good argument against my points and so your only recourse is ignore what I say and make unfounded accusations against me.  

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

the perception that FGM is strictlya Muslim practice would result in "the public" only looking at and reporting Muslim suspects

Again, a very low opinion of the average Canadian.  Again, you state that people will only be concerned about Muslims doing it and ignore any other group.  That is utter bullshit.

 

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why is it such a problem for you I think the Christian/other girls who suffer FGM are equally as important as the Muslim girls? 

Nice try. No where did I  say that Christian girls who have it done to them are less important.   YOU are the one arguing that other groups who do it would not be important to "the public".   That "the public" wouldn't care if any other group did it.  What is that view based on, other than you view all white people as racist Islamophhobes?

 

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Are you concerned about FGM and how to address it, or are you concerned that including all the girls who suffer will weaken the  "Islam is exceptionally evil" narrative?   

I didn't invent the fact that it is predominantly a Muslim issue.  No where did I say it never happens amongst any other group.  In fact, the information I shared stated that very thing.

Why is it so important to you that this issue - which is predominantly a Muslim one (even the articles state that Christians who adopt it are in communities adjacent to Muslim countries where it is the norm) - not be addressed to Muslims?

 

 

That was neither implied,, nor said.  That is just your fanatical persecution complex warping your comprehension of any discussion about Islam.  As usual.  Which is why you have to lie and re-word what I wrote.

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

you imply that I don't think Muslims should be held accountable.

 

[Goddess]

27 minutes ago, dialamah said:

as if the 70% of Coptic Christians in Egypt aren't also victims

I don't know where you pulled your stats from (out of your arse apparently) but :

Quote

The Coptic Christian population in Egypt is the largest Christian community in the Middle East and North Africa standing at between 10% - 15% of Egypt's population 

And yet 90% of Egyptian women are victims of FGM.  Again, the number of Chritians doing it are miniscule and are almost all found living in or adjacent to Muslim countries.  For them I would consider it a "cultural" thing.  For Muslims, it is the religion.  The practice was adopted and promulgated by Muslims many centuries ago.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

That was neither implied,, nor said.  That is just your fanatical persecution complex warping your comprehension of any discussion about Islam.  As usual.  Which is why you have to lie and re-word what I wrote.

You posted this:

8 hours ago, Goddess said:

Incidently,  there has never been a conviction for FGM in Canada in spite of it being shown to be performed here and people taking their girls out of the country to have  it done.

Your Muslims are quite safe from being charged with it.

What exactly were you implying, Goddess, if not that I don't think Muslims should be held accountable for practicing FGM?  Care to explain?  

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, on rereading my last post I realised I had better include that caveat about the grey area between religion and culture.  I would have the law enforced fully and in the full view of society regardless of race, religion, culture, etc.  Deal with the fallout if there is one, but stick to it, regardless. 

Yeah, the law should be enforced regardless of race, religion, culture, wealth, power or influence.  We're not perfect by any means, but we're still a damn sight better than many countries in the world.

Quote

I disagree with your second paragraph.  I think there are people who think differently about behaviour based on who it is too, but in my world, they are the ones who are willing to overlook it based on race, religion and colour, more than overly castigate it based on those things. 

Can't always agree, I guess.   

Quote

Unfortunately, your grain of salt can have unforeseen consequences, as was seen in northern England.  (That would have been for my reasons, not yours)

Not sure what you mean here.

Quote

When it comes to rhetoric, the trick is to figure out what is valid and what is not.  Same with any issue.  I literally could not care less about someone who is brown and wears sandals. 

I was harassed in high school because some of my friends had black hair, brown eyes and foreign sounding names.  Hearing people make demeaning remarks about 'towelheads' is a very different experience to being called a 'snake charmer', a 'Paki'lover',  and to have someone hold their nose as you walk by with your East Indian friend.   That experience no doubt has something to do with my reaction to the rhetoric I see here.   

[dialamah]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm not interested in what the bloody nazis did. We're talking about here, today.

I was talking about the similarity of anti-Jew propaganda by the Nazis and current anti-Muslim propaganda when you butted in.  If you aren't interested, why did you butt in?

9 hours ago, Argus said:

The main targets of such groups are blacks, Jews and Liberals.

Pew Report:  European Muslims primary targets  of nationalist political parties and politicians.

Quote

Since the Trump administration came into office, anti-Muslim sentiment has become a glue that binds this administration’s national security leadership with anti-Muslim organizations, White nationalist organizations, and anti-government militia. This cross alliance has correlated with a steady spike in anti-Muslim denial of religious accommodation in jails, detention facilities and places of employment, FBI inappropriately targeting Muslim individuals, as well as an increase in harassment and hate crimes against those perceived to be Muslim.

Quote

 

Across Europe, nationalist and far-right parties have made significant electoral gains.

Although the parties involved span a broad political spectrum, there are some common themes, such as hostility to immigration, anti-Islamic rhetoric and Euroscepticism.

 

 

Quote

A lot of them even make common cause with Muslims because they hate Jews too.

Seems to be just the opposite:  Jews and alt-right are making common cause against Muslims.

Quote

And yet, as the Muslim scholar in the video points out, there is ZERO documentary evidence to suggest she was older than SIX when she was married, and NINE when the marriage was consummated. Yet there are considerable writings to say that she was, in fact, SIX and NINE. And that is what the majority of the Muslim world believes.

There is documented evidence that she was older.   In any case, young marriages were the custom; consummation of the marriage was commonly waited upon until the girl was a 'physical adult' - namely menstruation.  IF Aisha was 7 at marriage, with marriage consummated at age 9, that does not mean Mohammed was a pedophile; girls can begin menstruating any time from age 9 to 16, with the average being between 12 and 13 years.  He would have been following the exact customs of his day.  Historical context and customs is important to you when it comes to Sir John A Macdonald and Residential Schools, but not when it comes to a religion you don't like.   

10 hours ago, Argus said:

We don't know how old Mary was. We only know that it was the tradition in that land at that time, to marry girls off at puberty.

  https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/mary-a-teenage-bride-and-mother

Quote

Some customs of biblical Palestine continued through the centuries, and after her trip to the Near East around 1910, Alma White commented on the age of marriage in Palestine, “A girl is usually married in her twelfth or thirteenth year, and sometimes as early as her tenth year.” [4] W. M. Thompson, a missionary in the Middle East for some 30 years, attests to the same thing. [5] James Neil points out that everyone married, because they felt obligated to fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, and that, “Girls are ‘given in marriage’ at eleven or twelve years of age, though this is not the limit. They are frequently married as young as nine….” [6]

Note these key words:  Biblical Palestine, 1900s, frequently married as young as nine.   Mohammed and Aisha become less and less remarkable, eh?

Quote

Note: six is NOT puberty.

True, but it has been common throughout history to 'marry' children off at very young ages, and then the girl lives with her parents till puberty, when the marriage can be consummated.

Quote

Mary was older than 12 but still a virgin because the marriage had not been consummated. 

Seriously?  She was pregnant.  Maybe Joseph didn't consummate the marriage, but someone sure did.

 

10 hours ago, Argus said:

The problem is that the followers of Muhammad continue to take him as their example of how they themselves should behave TODAY.

Really?  So, you can provide evidence that Muslim men today are busily marrying six-year-olds, and then consummating the marriage when she turns nine?    You can't, because it doesn't happen.   

Quote

Which is hardly surprising, since logic is ever your enemy

I would say it's the guy who keeps insisting Muslims are pedophiles because Mohammed followed the customs of the day is the one who lacks logic.

Quote

as you continue your determined defense of Islam calling out bigoted beliefs.

FIFY.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

 Not sure what you mean here.

My fault.  It was your fourth (single line) paragraph.  I don't know why I said second. 

Quote

I was harassed in high school because some of my friends had black hair, brown eyes and foreign sounding names.  Hearing people make demeaning remarks about 'towelheads' is a very different experience to being called a 'snake charmer', a 'Paki'lover',  and to have someone hold their nose as you walk by with your East Indian friend.   That experience no doubt has something to do with my reaction to the rhetoric I see here.   

Funnily enough, growing up in one of the most mixed race cities in the world, and having Indian, Pakistani and West Indian friends, I don't remember anything at all like that happening at school.  Fat?  Smart?  Wear glasses and carry your books in a satchel?  Best carry some ointment as well.  But racial differences just seemed normal.  The only way it was different was with religion.  I do not remember any religion other than Christianity ever being so much as mentioned.  The big fights were always between Catholic and Protestant schools.

Edited December 8, 2018 by bcsapper

[Argus]

 

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

I was talking about the similarity of anti-Jew propaganda by the Nazis and current anti-Muslim propaganda when you butted in.  If you aren't interested, why did you butt in?

No. You were INVENTING similarities. The undeniable difference being that the things said about Jews were largely wrong, while the complaints about Muslims are largely right.

 

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

There is documented evidence that she was older.   In any case, young marriages were the custom; consummation of the marriage was commonly waited upon until the girl was a 'physical adult' - namely menstruation.  IF Aisha was 7 at marriage, with marriage consummated at age 9, that does not mean Mohammed was a pedophile;

And that doesn't matter. All that matters is that 95% of Muslims believe he married a six year old and consummated the marriage at 9. Which is why sex with young girls is not considered to be a particularly bad thing in the Muslim world. As far as I'm aware there are no laws specific to sex with children in the Islamic world. And while many national governments post laws with regard to the minimum age those are regularly ignored.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-children-marry-age-nine-islamic-law-diyanet-government-chp-mp-investigation-muslim-a8142131.html

 

[dialamah]

On 12/8/2018 at 9:44 AM, Argus said:

No. You were INVENTING similarities. The undeniable difference being that the things said about Jews were largely wrong, while the complaints about Muslims are largely right.

I am not the only one who sees the similarities between anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

From Lindsey Green, a Senior Fellow with Humanity in Action:

Quote

In both cases of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia we see that religion is used as a powerful tool to create fear and maintain the status quo. In his movie “Fitna”, Geert Wilders used quotes from the Qur’an several times, thereby endorsing an image of the “terrorist Muslim”. The common pre-WWII stereotype of the Jew that wants to take over the world and rule is highly comparable with the terrorist Muslim that will chop off your head if you do not obey the rule of Islam. An element of fear is that “Europe” will no longer be Europe, but a “Eurabia” in which native (Christian) Europeans will no longer have a say. The difference is that the Jews were seen to be “penetrating” from within, and the Muslims are “invading” from outside; nevertheless the effect, is similar. 

Brian Klug, from Oxford University writes: 
 

Quote

 

The content of the concept would be a set or subset of traits that flesh out the form, describing what the ‘Jew’ is like; for example arrogant, legalistic, cunning, conniving, clannish, rootless, parasitic, power-grabbing, money-grubbing, and so on. At any given moment in time, the set is open-ended. And, as time passes, new traits might be added while others drop out. Moreover, in different instances of antisemitism different traits or combinations of traits might be selected or emphasized. But there is a family resemblance between the different instances that holds the concept together. It is the same, mutatis mutandis, with Islamophobia; and in this point of similarity the analogy between the two concepts is at its strongest. They share the same general logic.

The specific logic of antisemitism and Islamophobia, however, is determined by the content of the concepts. That is to say, in each case there is a particular bigoted discourse, and this discourse is shaped by the particular traits that make up the figures of ‘Jew’ and ‘Muslim’ respectively.

 

From a former White Supremacist:

Quote

As a former White Supremacist, I see endless parallels between the anti Islamics and anti semetic theories. In fact, I feel they just recycled their claims about the Jews and now use them on Muslims either instead of Jews, or along with them.

 

From an essay by a Richard Silverstein. ( I'm aware that Isreal doesn't like this guy and that you'll reject everything he says out of hand.   People not so blinded by partisanship may find it interesting, however.)
 

Quote

 

Many Jews expend considerable amounts of energy denying that Islamophobia exists or, if it exists, that it is nowhere near as threatening or potent to its Muslim victims as anti-Semitism is to Jews. Part of the reason for this denial is that many Jews view Muslims and Arabs as enemies of Israel. This fear and mistrust itself often becomes Islamophobia. But even if it doesn’t, Jews who blame these two groups for Israel’s predicament can ill-afford to see any commonality with their perceived enemy.

This bifurcation between Jews and Muslims costs both religions critical allies who could help each other fight against religious bigotry. Whether Jews wish to acknowledge this commonality or not, our historical plight as “the hated ones” shares much with Muslims.  To give but one small example: while I don’t think much of the spectacle of Israelis (in Paris, an Israeli Jewish journalist and in Berlin, an Israeli Palestinian) who don kippot in Arab neighborhoods daring Muslims to assault them, the truth is that this is precisely the same form of bigotry Muslim women who wear the hijab and Sikh men who wear the turban, endure.

 

Most of these articles also point out how anti-Semitism and Anti-Muslim rhetoric are different,  which I have already acknowledged in my discussion with BCSapper, as well as the difference between 'then' and 'now', which means the likelihood of a genocide against Muslims by Westerners is practically nil; that there are pockets of the world where Muslim genocide is being attempted isn't particularly relevant, imo.