This week in Islam

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Quran does say that rape is okay in certain circumstances...what the right hand possesses.

So which Muslims are the terrorists? How does an infidel like me know which Muslims are murderous and which Muslims aren't?...playing wait and see seems inadvisable.

I'm sure Dia would allow women to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary to protect themselves from rape by men.  I'm sure she would allow women to be aware of the signs that a man could be dangerous - the way he dresses, the way he acts, the things he says.  I'm sure she allows that women who take precautions and try to be aware of their surroundings do not hate ALL men.

But her standards are different for how we approach Muslim extremism.  We are to automatically assume (not just assume but to actually believe) that ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs.  We are racist Islamophobes or xenophobes if we want to take reasonable precautions or are aware that certain types of Muslim dress, actions and speech would indicate a higher likelihood of extremism and danger.  She also does not allow that taking precautions (either as a country or an individuals) and being aware does not mean that a person hates ALL Muslims.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm sure Dia would allow women to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary to protect themselves from rape by men.  I'm sure she would allow women to be aware of the signs that a man could be dangerous - the way he dresses, the way he acts, the things he says.  I'm sure she allows that women who take precautions and try to be aware of their surroundings do not hate ALL men.

But her standards are different for how we approach Muslim extremism.  We are to automatically assume (not just assume but to actually believe) that ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs.  We are racist Islamophobes or xenophobes if we want to take reasonable precautions or are aware that certain types of Muslim dress, actions and speech would indicate a higher likelihood of extremism and danger.  She also does not allow that taking precautions (either as a country or an individuals) and being aware does not mean that a person hates ALL Muslims.

 

Folks bandy about the word xenophobia without ever knowing who Xenophon was or what he did...and why he did it. There's a good reason for ol' Xenophon...The Stranger...to dislike the "other"...ie The Persians.

 

[scribblet]

This is a reminder that Hamas is a truly evil organization.  A terrorist shot 7 Jews on Sunday night, including a woman who was eight months pregnant shooting her in the stomach. The baby, a Canadian citizen, was delivered but died today -  Hamas is celebrating. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-claims-deadly-ofra-terror-attack-after-israel-kills-suspected-shooter/

 

 

 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

But that's exactly the point - we don't know.  So women take a LOT of precautions.  

Going with your analogy - are ALL women misandrysts who take precautions against getting drugged and raped?  Do all women who take those precautions HATE men?  

If these women were wanting government to take action against virtually all men, then yes.

I agree, women do take precautiins against being raped by men, based on their personal assessment of risk.

But when a man shows up on the news because he's raped someone, women do not go on social media saying "Where are all the men condemning these rapists?" or "Here is more proof that men are prone to rape.  The government must do more!  Men must not be allowed in bars and clubs where women are, unless they pass a special security screening." 

If my daughter, granddaughter, sister, friend were to start dating a Muslim I would advise them to be particularly aware of the cultural and religious norms that may make them poor relationship material.  I would advise them the same should they start dating a South Asian, certain Christian sects, obsevant Jews etc.  I would do this in the same spirit as I would advise them to watch their drinks while out in public, and to be aware of their surroundings at all times.  

That is the difference, in my opinion, between taking reasonable precautions based on understood group behaviors and tipping over into fear-mongering and phobia.  

[Goddess]

23 minutes ago, dialamah said:

based on their personal assessment of risk.

And do you allow us to each make our own personal assessment of risk?  What YOU are willing to risk personally may be different from what another person is willing to risk.  Your granddaughter may feel your advice on being cautious is just you being an Islamophobe.  Perhaps if she's in love, she is more willing to risk certain things than you would be willing to risk for yourself.

You told me one time that I was probably exposed to more fundamentalist Muslims where I was living than other people who perhaps live in bigger cities and Muslims are not such new immigrants.  I agreed with you.

You insist there are NO no-go zones in Europe or any other country.  None.  At all.  That it is all just fear-mongering and lies.  But when I've seen interviews of those who live near or in these no-go zones and when I have talked to Europeans who are dealing with them and the lack of integration from the Muslim community, I accept their own personal assessment of risk.  I understand that their risk - living in or near no-go zones - is likely greater than the politicians who live in giant houses with security gates or a person who lives in a big city and works with well-integrated Muslims.

Given that assessment, why do you  not allow my own personal assessment of my own risks?  Why do insist that the risk is the same for all people?  Why do you insist that everyone agree with and adopt YOUR personal assessment of risk or else they are racist Islamophobes?

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

But her standards are different for how we approach Muslim extremism.  We are to automatically assume (not just assume but to actually believe) that ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs.  

Where have I said ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs?  I have posted here for 3 years, and you'll not find a post from me claiming that at all.

You will find posts where I have said the following:

°Muslims are generally more conservative than Westerners;

°Islamic countries are especially poor at human rights.

°Islamic countries and culture is patriarchal; 

°extemism is a problem around the world;

°Worldwide, Muslims are over-represented among terrorists,

°Muslims condemn terrorism just as we do. 

°Authorities in Canada and the US consider rightwing terrorism a more significant threat in Canada than Islamic terrorism; 

Tell me, how does a left-of-center like me know which rightwingers, such as you and DoP, are murderous and which rightwingers aren't?... playing wait and see seems inadvisable.  Therefore, I propose that the government screen all right wingers for security risks.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Where have I said ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs? 

I said you want everyone to act on the assumption/belief that there are no Muslim extremists and that they are all peaceful.  

They are not all peaceful.  And there is no way to tell which are extremists unless you look at their dress, their actions and their speech.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

And there is no way to tell which are extremists unless you look at their dress, their actions and their speech.

By some people's standards a woman in a hijab is an extremist and it is inconceivable that she might herself be 'progressive' or gay.  Why would I trust such flimsy criteria?

Their speech might give one a better idea of where their heart is, so I agree ... Talking to someone can help determine how extreme they are.  It also can provide an opportunity to present counter arguments to extreme positions held.  

And one's actions are by far the best way to determine how extreme they are.  Thats why I believe that an individual should be held responsible for his or her crime, rather than many people responsible for an individual's crime.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

By some people's standards a woman in a hijab is an extremist and it is inconceivable that she might herself be 'progressive' or gay.  Why would I trust such flimsy criteria?

Is it any flimsier than your assessment that she might be very progressive or gay?  

You said before when I questioned you that you agreed that it is MORE likely that she is being forced by extremism to wear it, than that she is gay.  As someone else pointed out - there could be a chance the person under the KKK hood is very progressive or black,  But what are the chances, really?

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Goddess

[dialamah]

25 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Is it any flimsier than your assessment that she might be very progressive or gay?  You said before when I questioned you that you agreed that it is MORE likely that she is being forced by extremism to wear it, than that she is gay. 

Yup, I did.  Doesn't mean that any individual IS being forced, however, just as its not a guarantee that a woman with a black eye got it from her husband, despite the prevalence of domestic abuse.  However much one might suspect, they aren't going to send the cops around to arrest her husband without at least "talking" to her to find out exactly what is happening.  Why would we treat a woman in a hijab any differently? 

As someone else pointed out - there

could be a chance the person under the KKK hood is very progressive or black,  But what are the chances, really?

KKK is a group that was specifically formed to combat the government policy of reconstruction at the time, which included elevating the rights of Black people.  Its belief system is simple and limited to a belief in the supremacy of the White race.   

Islam is a religion with a huge variety of beliefs, many sects and 1.5 billion adherents running the gamut from pacifist to violent extremist; from socially progressive to socially conservative.   

Attempts to compare the two groups fail.

Edited December 13, 2018 by dialamah

[dialamah]

27 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Is it any flimsier than your assessment that she might be very progressive or gay? 

The difference being that I say "She could be forced, she might want to wear it, she might be very progressive or even gay, even in a hijab.  More information is needed".   

Others say "She is wearing a hijab, I have all the information I need, she and/or her husband is an extremist, cannot be progressive, cannot be gay."

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Yup.  Doesn't mean that any individual IS being forced, however, just as its not a guarantee that a woman with a black eye got it from her husband, despite the prevalence of domestic abuse.  However much one might suspect, they aren't going to send the cops around to arrest her husband without at least "talking" to her to find out exactly what is happening.  Why would we treat a woman in a hijab any differently? 

 

[/quote]As someone else pointed out - there could be a chance the person under the KKK hood is very progressive or black,  But what are the chances, really?[/quote]

KKK is a group that was specifically formed to combat the government policy of reconstruction at the time, which included elevating the rights of Black people.  Its belief system is simple and limited to a belief in the supremacy of the White race.   

Islam is a religion with a huge variety of beliefs, many sects and 1.5 billion adherents running the gamut from pacifist to violent extremist; from socially progressive to socially conservative.   

Attempts to compare the two groups fail.

I wasn't comparing the goals of the 2 groups.  I was pointing out that your "don't ask, don't judge" mentality with Islam is very different from your attitude towards other groups - in that you feel free to judge them based on their dress/actions and speech, but Islam is "hands off" for you.

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I wasn't comparing the goals of the 2 groups.  I was pointing out that your "don't ask, don't judge" mentality with Islam is very different from your attitude towards other groups - in that you feel free to judge them based on their dress/actions and speech, but Islam is "hands off" for you.

What other group, specifically?

[Goddess]

Like it or not, Dia, we are all judged and we all judge others by how they appear - how they dress, how they act, their facial expressions, mannerisms, etc.  Even Muslims judge others by how they dress and act.  Many hijabi women and Muslim men judge Western women as whores for not wearing headcoverings in public - modesty to them is a garment you put on, not a quality of character..  That is a fact. 

As uncomfortable as that makes you feel in regard to Muslims, it is a fact of life.

If a person chooses to wear KKK or skinhead gear, is it really the fault of OTHER PEOPLE when they are judged for those choices?

Hijabs have a long, bloody history  of being very bad for women.  In fact, the PRESENT existence of hijabs is a sad story of women being abused, killed and beaten in every Muslim-ruled country and many times when they are seen in Western culture as well.

It's wonderful that YOUR brain can shut that truth out and view hijabs as progressive symbols of women's empowerment and freedom.  I think they should pick another symbol.  This one has too much of a bloody, horrible past.

I am sorry that you think this view of hijabs makes me a horrible, judgy, critical, unloving, racist **insert whatever else you want to call me** person.

I'm not sure there is any way for you to convince me that hijabs are a wonderful and innocent fashion choice for women.

 

[Goddess]

22 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What other group, specifically?

When you see people in KKK hoods or skinhead/Nazi regalia (also extreme beliefs) - do you give them the benefit of the doubt?  Do you say, "Hmmmm......He's wearing a swastika t-shirt.  But he  COULD be progressive and actually love Jews and black people.  Better not judge."   or  "Hmmmmmm......He's wearing a KKK hood.  But he could be black under there.  Or gay.  Better not judge"

I doubt you do.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

When you see people in KKK hoods or skinhead/Nazi regalia (also extreme beliefs) - do you give them the benefit of the doubt? 

Probably not.

And I repeat:  Muslims have a much broader range of beliefs than Nazis or KKK members.  Attempting to define them all according to the most extreme example does not work.  It makes as little sense as assuming that wearing a crucifix means someone believes exactly as Betsy does - abortion is wrong, gays are evil and liberals are going to hell.  A crucifix would likely indicate the wearer has a strong religious faith, but beyond that you'd have to talk to them to know just exactly what that means to them.  That is the benefit of the doubt I give to Muslims. 

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Muslims have a much broader range of beliefs than Nazis or KKK members.  Attempting to define them all according to the most extreme example does not work. 

Except both of the examples  are evidence of extreme beliefs. 

Just because YOU don't see it as an extremist belief - women can never leave the house or be in public without a headcovering simply because they are women and therefore automatically inferior to men and subservient to all and must display this "mark" of their inferiority at all times - does not mean others do not see that as extremist.

I agree that not ALL women who have to wear them are being bullied and forced into it, but let's face it - the majority are.  Again, it is a garment that has been used throughout history to abuse and kill women, to strip them of any humanity, to make them into objects.  THAT IS ITS PURPOSE.  THAT IS ITS ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING.

The fact that some women now want to pretend that its a symbol of women's empowerment and freedom, in no way legitimizes this garment.  Well, maybe for you, but not for me.

The Catholic cross has never been anything but a symbol of the Christian faith - a symbol that either sex can choose to wear or not wear (and I'm not talking about the  "wear it or else you get beaten or killed" type of choice,  I'm talking a real, actual CHOICE here). People who dont' wear a cross are not beaten or killed for not wearing it.  I dont' suppose most Catholics care too much whether anyone else wears one or not.  This is not the case with hijabs.  Muslims (in general) are VERY interested in who is wearing them and who is not.  I know you have disagreed in the past - that there is no harrassment amongst Muslims to conform to the hijab, but you are wrong on that one.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Like it or not, Dia, we are all judged and we all judge others by how they appear - how they dress, how they act, their facial expressions, mannerisms, etc.  

Agreed.  That I consciously resist doing this doesn't mean I don't anyway.  I am always catching myself making assumptions about people before knowing anything about them.  Pretty human trait, I'd say, but not necessary.

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

It's wonderful that YOUR brain can shut that truth out and view hijabs as progressive symbols of women's empowerment and freedom

"Shut the truth out".  I have heard and seen Muslim women say they "choose" to wear hijab and I am willing to respect that, at an individual level, regardless of how I view the hijab in the context of Islamic female oppression.  Perhaps the people shutting the truth out are those who see the hijab as proof positive that the wearer is oppressed and/or an extremist, regardless of what she herself might say, if she was asked.

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I am sorry that you think this view of hijabs makes me a horrible, judgy, critical, unloving, racist **insert whatever else you want to call me** person.

Nah, you are just a little confused is all.  

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I'm not sure there is any way for you to convince me that hijabs are a wonderful and innocent fashion choice for women.

Not trying to convince you of that.  At most, I object to you making assumptions about these women and apparently deciding it is your duty, and your right, to dictate to these women what they may or may not wear, and expecting or wanting the government to impose your beliefs on them. There are enough women who "choose" the hijab that doing anything but accepting them seems wrong to me.  That doesn't mean I am unaware or do not wonder if a woman is "choosing" or not.   Aware of the potential of coercion is why I would likely support legislation limiting them to adult women, or at least age 15 or 16.  Younger than that and the "freedom" from parental influence seems too suspect, to me.  Same reason why I give Khadr the benefit of the doubt on his terrorists activities, by the way.  

Edited December 13, 2018 by dialamah

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

deciding it is your duty, and your right, to dictate to these women what they may or may not wear, and expecting or wanting the government to impose your beliefs on them.

  Yes.  In my spare time, I like to run around the city searching out women in hijabs to confront them, violently if necessary, until they take them off or else I rip them off their heads.

You do realize the difference between discussing this topic with you and others here, on a discussion forum, and running around the city ripping hijabs off, yes?

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There are enough women who "choose" the hijab that doing anything but accepting them seems wrong to me. 

OK.  Well you worry about those few women and I'll worry about the rest who are forced into it.  To me, they are more important than a woman who chooses to promote a garment which has such a bloody and abusive history and present.

I view those women "choosing" it (especially in Western cultures) as slapping the faces of the women who are forced into it.  I feel it is disrespectful of them to "choose" this garment.  Disrespectful to all the women who endure regular beatings over it, to all the women who have died because of it, to all the women who live in misery because of it.

I think these issues and the rights of *those* women are more important than the right of a few women to have their fashion statement. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

  Yes.  In my spare time, I like to run around the city searching out women in hijabs to confront them, violently if necessary, until they take them off or else I rip them off their heads.

 

You state here, often, that you believe women who wear the  hijab are almost universally coerced to do so, either directly through family or indirectly through social pressure within the Muslim community.  You also have said you support the State limiting the wearing of the hijab.  You have been quite articulate about what you believe the hijab means, and how inappropriate it is in a Western country.  This doesn't mean you would go around and rip hijabs off women's heads.  I would never expect that of you and have never even come close to suggesting you would do such a thing.   So why did you twist around what I said?

Quote

You do realize the difference between discussing this topic with you and others here, on a discussion forum, and running around the city ripping hijabs off, yes?

Yes.  Do you?

[dialamah]

15 hours ago, Goddess said:

I view those women "choosing" it (especially in Western cultures) as slapping the faces of the women who are forced into it.  I

I think these issues and the rights of *those* women are more important than the right of a few women to have their fashion statement.  

Is this any less of a "slap in the face" to the women who freely exercise their right to wear the hijab as a symbol of their faith and the value they put on it.

Where I live, I see Muslim women in groups, bare headed and with hijabs, ocaasionally a woman in a niqab is with them. I can't tell from that grouping if they are family or friends, or if covered women are trying to persuade the uncovered woman to change or if the one uncovered is explaining to the others why covering is wrong.  Neither can you.  Belittling the covered ones as either "slapping" the face of those who don't have choice, or assuming they are oppressed based on nothing more than what you think should be universally true makes no sense to me.  Supporting laws that essentially remove choice for women, while claiming its to "save" them is one of the hallmarks of paternalism and patriarchy, whether the choice removed is to cover or to uncover.  Especially when neither option provides benefit to the women who really are oppressed.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Is this any less of a "slap in the face" to the women who freely exercise their right to wear the hijab as a symbol of their faith and the value they put on it.

Where I live, I see Muslim women in groups, bare headed and with hijabs, ocaasionally a woman in a niqab is with them. I can't tell from that grouping if they are family or friends, or if covered women are trying to persuade the uncovered woman to change or if the one uncovered is explaining to the others why covering is wrong.  Neither can you.  Belittling the covered ones as either "slapping" the face of those who don't have choice, or assuming they are oppressed based on nothing more than what you think should be universally true makes no sense to me.  Supporting laws that essentially remove choice for women, while claiming its to "save" them is one of the hallmarks of paternalism and patriarchy, whether the choice removed is to cover or to uncover.  Especially when neither option provides benefit to the women who really are oppressed.

 

The Quran orders believing women to draw a veil about them so as not to be abused by men...Allah's orders.

Allah's words begin below so you do not mistakenly attribute them to me.

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

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

Quran 24 31

[dialamah]

I don't know why you think I, or anyone reasonably sane, would be persuaded by what the Quran says Muslims should do any more than anyone sane is persuaded by what the Bible says Christians should do.  People interpret their holy books however they want, and Muslims are not bound by your interpretation, extremist as it is.  A Muslim woman who decides not to cover is a Muslim just as much as a woman who does. 

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I don't know why you think I, or anyone reasonably sane, would be persuaded by what the Quran says Muslims should do any more than anyone sane is persuaded by what the Bible says Christians should do.  People interpret their holy books however they want, and Muslims are not bound by your interpretation, extremist as it is.  A Muslim woman who decides not to cover is a Muslim just as much as a woman who does. 

 

The Quran says exactly what it says. It isn't my interpretation of what it says.

Nice try, though.