This week in Islam

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The reason you do this - unintelligent responses to an article you didn't even bother to read - is so you don't have to address the issue:

The top 10 countries for abuse of women are all Islamic-ruled.

 

 

The argument clinic in real life.

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Côte d'lvoire is majority Christian.

It's controlled by Muslims. You are nitpicking.

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Argus

[Marocc]

You got me there. Wikipedia lied to me.

http://bpnews.net/44056/ivorian-worldview-meshes-culture-traditional-tribal-religions

Lewis said it is "extraordinarily difficult" to map religion across West Africa, but Ivory Coast is particularly challenging because of the massive migration it has experienced in recent decades, which has enhanced diversity.

Christians account for 33 percent of Ivory Coast's population,that most sources estimate Ivory Coast's Muslim population to be between 35 percent and 40 percent, but some sources put it at more than 60 percent. Sources reporting higher figures for Muslims argue that the large mostly Muslim immigrant population is systematically undercounted.

Martin W. Lewis, Stanford University lecturer and historical geographer, explained that in Ivory Coast, communities of faith are often mingled within one another; it is this mingling that contributes uncertainty when it comes to the demography of religion in the country.According to the most recent census in 2014, 42 percent is Muslim, 34 percent Christian,

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/africa/iv-religion.htm

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

It's controlled by Muslims.

It's secular.

[jacee]

On 1/13/2020 at 3:51 PM, Argus said:

1 None of the above. I'm quite sure you spend most of your time hanging around with morons, so you really need to adjust your mental processes (such as they are) to dealing with more rational and intelligent people elsewhere.

2 Let's just say it certainly appears there would be far less violent crime and shootings in my city if there were no Muslims here.

3 You continue to threaten people with a law which is wildly beyond your understanding. All that shows is how desperate you are for the ability to punish people for wrongthink, to silence them and ban anyone from daring to disagree with your extremist views.  This is the authoritarian nature of those on the far Left, their intolerance and rabid anger at anyone who dares to disagree with them. There is no one on this web site, nor has there ever been, who consistently demonstrates the level of hate you do for others.

1 Insults betray a lack of valid, intelligent response.

 

2 Show us the data for  "Let's just say it certainly appears there would be far less violent crime and shootings in my city if there were no Muslims here."

Sounds like just more of your white supremacist racist lies and smears to me. 

 

3 Insults again betray a lack of valid, intelligent response.

[dialamah]

On 1/13/2020 at 12:51 PM, Argus said:

There is no one on this web site, nor has there ever been, who consistently demonstrates the level of hate you do for others.

Says the guy who regularly posts hateful rants and insults against Muslims, brown immigrants, indigenous people, women who have power, progressives and Liberals.   

Edited January 16, 2020 by dialamah

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Stop making the discussions personal.  

[eyeball]

On 1/16/2020 at 5:58 AM, Charles Anthony said:

Folks, 

Stop making the discussions personal.  

You've got to be kidding. Given the state of politics in this day and age?  Are you hoping to turn things around or something?

[scribblet]

CA is right on this point, it always ends up being personal.

Meanwhile in Morocco, a

TV channel taught Muslim Women how to cover-up their black & blue marks after beatings by their husbands.  Remember this when anyone tries to insinuate sharia into your country and convince you 'sharia" is compatible with the West.

 

The channel did lose their licence over it

https://www.enca.com/africa/morocco-tv-channel-censured-over-makeup-tutorial-for-abused-women

 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, scribblet said:

CA is right on this point, it always ends up being personal.

This stupid thread started off being personal.

 

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2014 at 6:39 PM, kimmy said:

And I know that there are people who'll say "yeah, well, Christians did the same kind of stuff in the dark ages...

...blah blah blah

...I honestly find it infuriating.

-k

We're all infuriated...get over it.

Edited January 19, 2020 by eyeball

[jacee]

On 1/14/2020 at 10:36 AM, dialamah said:

Did you even look at the link?  Canada wide "wanted" is mostly "white" faces/names for sexual offenses and murder.  Ottawa, according to Argus, is mostly not.  (Alberta, for anyone who cares, has a lot of indigenuous on their list).  But for some reason that only Argus knows, Ottawa stats "prove" that a certain subset of society is more prone to criminal behavior.  

If you rely on certain media for your news, thats undoubtedly true.  If you dig deeper, you'll find stories of non-Pakistani gangs running child sex rings and child porn rings all around the world.  Even in Canada.  Never mind all the Western and European "sex tourists" who travel to countries where they can find children in brothels, or all the "white" guys featured on creep catcher's videos.  

Nope, not gonna do the work of finding stories featuring white guys for you.  Your pattern of rejecting any evidence that contradicts your racist and Islamophobic views is too well established.

Sexual exploitation of children is an horrific crime, regardless of who is doing it.  Trying to prove a group of people of whom you personally disaprove is "worse" than your own group is just run-of-the-mill racism.  

You've got that right.

But for white supremacists, facts never matter. Only smearing all people of colour matters, with Muslims now being the trendy target for the Alt-right fat white boys.

I wonder what the rate of sex crimes is of white supremacists?  

[Charles Anthony]

18 hours ago, eyeball said:

You've got to be kidding.

No.

If a reader must know a different member of the forum to begin to understand your post, then you are making the discussions too personal.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

No.

If a reader must know a different member of the forum to begin to understand your post, then you are making the discussions too personal.

If a new reader dives into a 225 page thread expecting to understand what's going on around here without taking a bit of time to read the thread then they should hold their own hand.

[Charles Anthony]

As long as you all understand what I mean, then all is good. 

[Argus]

21 hours ago, jacee said:

But for white supremacists, facts never matter. Only smearing all people of colour matters, with Muslims now being the trendy target for the Alt-right fat white boys.

I wonder what the rate of sex crimes is of white supremacists?  

Nowhere near what it likely is for Muslims. After all, no Muslim country even has a sex crime unit among its police forces. Because no woman would dare report such a thing for fear of being cast off or killed by their own family for dishonoring them.

Despite this the Marxist left in Canada is wholly committed to Islam, willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to encourage its spread.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, eyeball said:

This stupid thread started off being personal.

Only if you're a Muslim.

[DogOnPorch]

January 17th, 2020

Muslims give a pleasant talk about the future of the West in Jerusalem on the anniversary of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

You forgot the date...they didn't.

 https://www.memri.org/tv/jerusalem-hizb-ut-tahrir-alaqsa-mosque-conquest-of-rome

Oddly though, I'm not sure what date they're celebrating as Constantinople fell in May, 1453.

Edited January 20, 2020 by DogOnPorch

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

January 17th, 2020

Muslims give a pleasant talk about the future of the West in Jerusalem on the anniversary of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

You forgot the date...they didn't.

 https://www.memri.org/tv/jerusalem-hizb-ut-tahrir-alaqsa-mosque-conquest-of-rome

Oddly though, I'm not sure what date they're celebrating as Constantinople fell in May, 1453.

AL-AQSA MOSQUE ADDRESS: WE WILL SOON ESTABLISH THE CALIPHATE, LIBERATE JERUSALEM AND CONQUER ROME

This mosque is the third most holy site in Islam, said to be where Mohammed ascended to heaven.

And this guy:  Hizb ut-Tahrir - is an Islamist.

What will devoted Muslims all over the world think of this?  Well, I know what JW's used to think of pronouncements that came directly from the Governing Body in Brooklyn........the word of God himself.

[DogOnPorch]

7 hours ago, Goddess said:

AL-AQSA MOSQUE ADDRESS: WE WILL SOON ESTABLISH THE CALIPHATE, LIBERATE JERUSALEM AND CONQUER ROME

This mosque is the third most holy site in Islam, said to be where Mohammed ascended to heaven.

And this guy:  Hizb ut-Tahrir - is an Islamist.

What will devoted Muslims all over the world think of this?  Well, I know what JW's used to think of pronouncements that came directly from the Governing Body in Brooklyn........the word of God himself.

 

The Fall of Constantinople was a banner moment for Islam. After beating the crap out of this dying section of the East Roman Empire*, a massive army of invaders managed to capture the city. Next followed a three day orgy of rape and violence. Tens of thousands were slaughtered or sent into slavery. Apparently...according to legend...the Sultan arrived at the city on day four and was so moved by the gore and destruction that he declared an amnesty to anybody that managed to survive the pillaging. They were granted Dhimmi status.

That's what they're celebrating.

 

* Dying due to Islam...

[Rue]

Sexual violence is a phenomena in all countries. It is true in Sharia law nations, their lack of distinction between state and religion enables sexual violence to be institutionalized as law.

However we know there are as many if not more people in India and China where sexual violence also occurs.

For that matter what is our excuse in the Western world where we claim to know better and have laws illegalizing it?

If you want to have a salient discussion on violence against women, yes it is crucial to understand the role of religion in promulgating it and this how it arises this way in Sharia law states but to isolate it as only a Muslim phenomena for me makes a mockery of the issue. The issue arises because of we men and how we choose to behave and Muslim beliefs are not the only reason we are violent against women and for that matter not all Muslims interpret their Koran to condone rape or violence against women.

I criticize Islam exactly the way I do Orthodox Christianity or Judaism when it comes to treatment of women for the same reasons.

Wie beaters use all three religions to justify their behaviour. That is the point.

Next Islamists take the Muslim religion and use it to promulgate extremist, totalitarian, fasist, hateful, terrorist, anti-semitic, anti-woman, etc. views.

Islamists are a people who take Islam and mold it for those kinds of beliefs and so in a salient discussion I differentiate them from other Muslims who may not share their views.

As for discussions on the Koran I see very few if any on this thread. Instead it focuses on current Islamist extremists and how they behave not the actual words of the Koran itself and how they might be interpreted. The fact is few people have read the Koran.  The fact is most people do not understand the Koran is not in chronological order and that the later entries of what Muhammed supposedly said changed earlier entries but do not follow in a chronological order so many of the passages read were clarified or no longer apply but remain in the Koran.

The Koran like the Bible is second hand writing. Muhammed supposedly said things in his sleep and it was written down on leaves by his wife and then re-written. No one has a clue what Muhammed actually said. Given Muhammed smoked hash hish and usually was talking in his sleep stoned when his wife  wrote down his words, they probably were subject to distortion and then when re-written subject to more distortion. So the Koran like the Bible  is nothing but passages written by ghost writers who may or may not have taken original stories and then edited and re-wrote them.

Some people now read these second hand passages literally. Others see them as parables or illustrations of a lesson being taught and subject to many meanings not just one literal meaning. In Judaism the Talmud is a code of argument to be used to interpet the Bible because each passage of the Old Testament is not supposed to have one meaning and be constantly debated to come up with new meanings depending on the context in which these words and the rules they offer are applied. The context of how the rule is to be applied, not the rule itself, is what gives it, its meaning. Many Christians or Muslims do not engage in this fluid constant challenge as to the meaning of passages depending on how they are applied. They simply see a one size fits all meaning of the rule. Others do not and use processes similar to the Talmud to constantly debate new meanings.  Some Jews  also get caught up using the Talmud to advance rigid inflexible meanings.

The meaning of any word ultimately is something humans come up with on an individual level then pass on to others who can choose to agree and follow them or come up with their own.

Religious discussions ultimately come down to how people come up with and hold the interpretations they do and why. You can constantly seek new meanings or applications of a rule, or use them as a one rule fits all formula. I believe in the former not the latter. I do not think any meaning can fit all circumstances or applications and must  be constantly challenged and up-dated to have meaning and not become obsolete. I do not read any words of any human claiming they are an absolute one size fits all "truth" to be anything but their subjective human opinion. I do not believe I or you or anyone speaks for "God", "Jesus", "Muhammed". We might think we do, but we do not. No one appointed us divine prophets. We are just humans with subjective opinions, some based on objective tested and validated criteria, some simply based on feelings or impulses.

This thread ocus on current Islamist extremist behaviour and the evil it does. I get that but it does not discuss the possible meanings of the Koran or the many different approaches to the Koran that do exist.

I think the reason no one has a discussion about Koranic passages and their possible interpretations is obvious. Most people have never and will never read the Koran and do not think they have to, to understand it or believe how other Muslims use it...and thus the generalizations which often portray all Muslims as having one way of thinking and no different from the Islamists.

Ironically most Islamists are not even religious let alone understand the Koran they claim to be inspired by. Been there done that. Al Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihadist, PFLP, oh I have had the pleasure of hearing their words. They are rigid, programmed cult followers. They do not think on their own. They are fueled by basic messages of hate that appeal to their primal pack mentality behaviour and need to follow the alpha male into a pack battle against another pack of apes.

Chattering apes is all they are. Sometimes however we simply  form our own pack with out own alpha male to chatter back to them. Extremists tend to incite other extremists to fight with and against them.  The whole point of containing extremists is to prevent their behaviour from spreading and in allowing a lack of reason and logic to govern. To do that our containing agents need to be more than reverse extremist terrorists-they need to of course physically contain the extremists which may require deadly force, but our agents can not allow themselves to get suckered into becoming the very thing they seek to contain.

A millitary or para military agent must guard against extremist and brutal tendencies lest it become terrorist itself.

Therein lies the debate,. People who support extremism say the people who try contain their views are the same so it makes their extremism o.k. Some who are against extremism, believe as long as extremism is used to counter extremism its o.k., it has a reasonable purpose.

The fact is extremism is illogical. The fact is replying to extremism with extremism may simply add fuel to the fire not put it out.

This is why those of us debating extremism must challenge our concepts not to take on the very characteristics and traits of the extremism we detest.

That lead to the challenge of how to discuss the Koran with Muslims  so as to nurture beliefs and values compatible with humane values we all have.

I have had some circular and very difficult debates with some Imams on Koranic passages...partially because there is no centralized or universal application or interpretation of Koranic passages and Mullahs and Imams  have different interpretations...some very rigid and orthodox and hateful, others very enlightened and peaceful and inclusive.

Then again that happens when we Jews or when Christians discuss our religious teachings.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Rue

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

Sexual violence is a phenomena in all countries.

But the patriarchal attitude in Muslim countries, especially in the middle east, aided by violent attitudes towards women and their sexuality, makes it far more likely to arise there than in most places. That same attitude exists in India and to a lesser extent China, it is true.

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

I criticize Islam exactly the way I do Orthodox Christianity or Judaism when it comes to treatment of women for the same reasons.

I have never seen you criticize Islam on this site. I believe you are too terrified of being seen as islamophobic to do any such thing.

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

The Koran like the Bible is second hand writing

The Koran is considered the literal word of God by Muslims. You can be imprisoned or even executed in many Muslim countries for daring to deny that.

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

I think the reason no one has a discussion about Koranic passages and their possible interpretations is obvious. Most people have never and will never read the Koran and do not think they have to, to understand it or believe how other Muslims use it...and thus the generalizations which often portray all Muslims as having one way of thinking and no different from the Islamists.

Perhaps you being expert you could tell us which of the 57 Muslim majority countries gives the same rights to non-Muslims as to Muslims, to women as to men?

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

Therein lies the debate,. People who support extremism say the people who try contain their views are the same so it makes their extremism o.k. Some who are against extremism, believe as long as extremism is used to counter extremism its o.k., it has a reasonable purpose.

The problem I have with his argument is in the shifting perception of those who think they should guard against 'extremism' as to exactly how to define that term. For example, they will brush off surveys showing 70%-80%-90% of Muslim populations support execution for blaspheme as inconsequential, and then scream in horror when a non-Muslim makes any suggestion that this sort of value system should be guarded against. Instead of calling those Muslims who believe blaspheme should bring death extremists they call out those who criticize it.

According to PEW research 89% of Pakistanis believe adulterers should be stoned to death. 75% support death to blasphemers and to apostates. I chose Pakistan because it is one of our main source countries for immigrants.  Do you consider these people  extremists or just gentle folk with different cultural views we should welcome into Canada?

[dialamah]

 

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

I have never seen you criticize Islam on this site. I believe you are too terrified of being seen as islamophobic to do any such thing.

I did once take offense to Rue referring to immigrants from the ME as smelling bad.  I may have misunderstood his context in that particular instance.  But I would never accuse him of Islamophobia, because:

• He doesn't always harp on the evils of Muslims;
• He doesn't choose carefully curated anti-Muslim stories to prove the evil of Muslims;
• He doesn't reject facts or common sense in favor of hysteria about "whats happening in Europe" or "Sharia law is coming once Muslims reach 10% of the population", etc;
• He doesn't reject every "good news" story about Muslims as being too rare to mean anything or part of a combined media/government conspiracy to fool Canadians;
• He often talks about the humanity we all share, good and bad, whatever our creed, country or skin color.

Those four things are what I consider the main differences between "critics of Islam" and Islamaphobics.  Your posting history clearly demonstrates which label you've earned.

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

According to PEW research 89% of Pakistanis believe adulterers should be stoned to death. 75% support death to blasphemers and to apostates. I chose Pakistan because it is one of our main source countries for immigrants.  Do you consider these people  extremists or just gentle folk with different cultural views we should welcome into Canada?

Yes, many Pakistanis have beliefs with which I disagree and disaprove.  Claiming that we're importing these beliefs because X number of Pakistanis in Pakistan support them and we have immigrants from Pakistan is essentially fear-mongering.  Why? Glad you asked.

1. Personality traits of immigrants tend to show that they're more open to new experiences, new cultures and are more progressive than the conservatives, who tend to stay home;

2.  We choose immigrants from the more highly educated, who are least likely to subscribe to the more conservative beliefs of whatever religion they are;

3.  While there have been some high-profile cases, there hasn't been an epidemic of honor or blasphemy killings among Pakistani populations in Canada.  If we were truly importing people who believed strongly enough in those precepts to act on them, that would not be the case;

4.  Virtually every survey or study done of immigrant populations show that first generation immigrants are more law-abiding than born-here Canadians, and that most of them become integrated with Canadian culture by the third generation which means they believe in gender equality and freedom of religion, and do not think honor killings or wife beating is acceptable, even if their parents/grandparents were more conservative with those kinds of values.

You seem to have a cartoonish vision of an extremist Muslim, brandishing a sword and slaying people (or raping little girls) as the standard type who come to Canada.  You also seem to think that this same cartoon is repeated with each generation of Muslims born here.  There is nothing to back up this vision of yours ... except, I would say, your own fear and dislike of Muslims.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Sexual violence is a phenomena in all countries. It is true in Sharia law nations, their lack of distinction between state and religion enables sexual violence to be institutionalized as law.

I agree with this.  While I believe places like Tunisia are trying hard (or were, I haven't checked back in a while) to address these sorts of things, I am disappointed in places like Egypt and SA, where there seems to be only lip service to the concept of gender equality.  

2 hours ago, Rue said:

If you want to have a salient discussion on violence against women, yes it is crucial to understand the role of religion in promulgating it and this how it arises this way in Sharia law states but to isolate it as only a Muslim phenomena for me makes a mockery of the issue. The issue arises because of we men and how we choose to behave and Muslim beliefs are not the only reason we are violent against women and for that matter not all Muslims interpret their Koran to condone rape or violence against women.

Many immigrant communities do have a higher rate of violence against women than non-immigrant communities.  Interestingly,  studies show that Christian communities have a higher rate of violence against women than non-religious communities, because the Bible explicitly teaches that women must submit to their husbands and both Christian husbands and Christian leaders take that very seriously.  And, while Canada isn't a religious country per se, many of our social customs are from the Bible - and I think there is still an expectation among too many men that 'women should submit' - even men who've never been to a Church, and even if they can't clearly articulate why they become angry enough to hit/kill a woman.   Another factor is our culture's teaching that men must be "strong", which translates into men being allowed to show two emotional states - sexual arousal or anger.  Islamic culture does allow men more emotional freedom, I believe, but at the same time, it still has a much more pervasive belief in the subordination of women. It's a complex topic, and trying to distill it down to religion - and religion alone - is pointless, because so many religious people (Christian or Muslim or other) don't beat or rape women and condemn those who do.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

They are rigid, programmed cult followers. They do not think on their own. They are fueled by basic messages of hate that appeal to their primal pack mentality behaviour and need to follow the alpha male into a pack battle against another pack of apes.

And when you get two such 'cult followers' with opposing viewpoints, there's a 'religious war' in the  making.   Right now, we have the Islamists on the other side insisting that Westerners want to destroy Islam/Islamic countries and non-Muslims on the other side claiming that Muslims want to take over the Western world and destroy Western freedoms and democracy.  Most Muslims have no interest in destroying Western society, and most Westerners have no interest in destroying Islam - but the loud-mouthed, simple-minded extremist mindset aren't happy with this, and keep on with their propaganda.  Just as "moderate Muslims" need to speak out against Islamic extremists, I think 'moderate Westerners" need to speak out against our own, anti-Muslim extremists.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

I have had some circular and very difficult debates with some Imams on Koranic passages...partially because there is no centralized or universal application or interpretation of Koranic passages and Mullahs and Imams  have different interpretations...some very rigid and orthodox and hateful, others very enlightened and peaceful and inclusive.

I think rigidity and orthodoxy is what drives the worst of religion.  I have a very devout Catholic girlfriend - her faith enhances her humanity, and she's neither rigid nor orthodox, open to other ideas and beliefs.  For her Catholicism is the path, but not the only path.  I don't have any rigid/orthodox Christian friends - when I run across them, I am repelled by their hatefulness and how does one make friends with a person who repels one?   All the Muslims I personally know are neither rigid nor orthodox; the only ones of that sort I've run across are online.  Discussions with them tend not to go well, like some of the discussions I've had here with similar people.   

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Then again that happens when we Jews or when Christians discuss our religious teachings.

In high school, after I converted to JW, I spent lunch hours debating Biblical teachings with more mainstream Christians.  Nobody changed any minds, that I recall; mind-changing has to come from within I guess.  Still, when I got to the point of questioning my own Christian beliefs, those discussions did lend some insight into just how open to interpretation religious texts are, and that there was really no proof that any of us had the one and only 'correct' interpretation.  One thing I always did like about my Muslim brother-in-law is that he believes everybody, even non-Muslims, could go to heaven.  It is all up to Allah, and though Islam is clearly the best path - it isn't the only path, despite what extremists might claim.   He's a devout Muslim, but like my Catholic friend, his faith enhances his humanity rather than detracting from it.  Faith of any sort is a double-edged sword and perhaps that is God's test for us, whatever we call him - choosing the form of belief that enhances one's humanity, or detracts from it.

Edited January 21, 2020 by dialamah

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

4.  Virtually every survey or study done of immigrant populations show that first generation immigrants are more law-abiding than born-here Canadians, and that most of them become integrated with Canadian culture by the third generation which means they believe in gender equality and freedom of religion, and do not think honor killings or wife beating is acceptable, even if their parents/grandparents were more conservative with those kinds of values.

http://www.clsrn.econ.ubc.ca/workingpapers/CLSRN Working Paper no. 135 - Zhang.pdf

The studies you refer to specify when they talk about immigrants reducing crime in an area that it is Property crime they are talking about - break & enters, motor vehicle theft, non-motor vehicle theft, fraud and possession of stolen goods.

The deficiency with most studies is that it lumps all immigrants together.  Immigrants from one country (Korea, Phillipines, etc) can have very low crime rates while immigrants from another country can have very high crime rates.  Studies that toss all immigrants together are essentially useless, but I think we all know why stats on country of origin are not included or studied.

The study linked above shows on page 35 that young male immigrants increase the crime rate in Canada.  The same age group causing problem in countries all over Europe.

Fortunately for Canada, we have not opened our borders to illegals to the extent that European countries have, so we are not experiencing the same alarming increases of violent crimes like rapes, beatings of gays, domestic abuse and driving Jews from the country, that they are experiencing in Europe.  So far, we are generally selecting immigrants that are less likely to commit crimes in the first place.   Some of us would like to keep it that way.

Another thing that bothers me in the above study is this line:

Quote

An instrumental variable strategy based on the historical ethnic distribution is used to correct for the endogenous location choice of immigrants.

.....sort of sounds like:  Let's fudge things a bit to get a politically correct result.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Goddess

[Goddess]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

While I believe places like Tunisia are trying hard (or were, I haven't checked back in a while) to address these sorts of things, I am disappointed in places like Egypt and SA, where there seems to be only lip service to the concept of gender equality.  

I shake my head when you say things like this because you have frequently held Egypt up as a shining example of Islamic moderation and when others point out instances that indicate the "lip service" you refer to now, you call them racists, bigots and Islamophobes (among many other worse names.)