terrorist attack in Paris

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

jsteele wrote:I realize everyone's attention is on the events in Paris, but before I forget, here is what I consider a responsible way to present the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

Great article. Thanks for sharing!

"With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture."

As usual you two manage to take something that is about one topic - islamic terrorists - and make it about something else - jews.

Moderator, moderate thyself.

You need to increase your critical thinking. ...

[Anonymous]

France is looking more and more like Berlin in the 1920s and 30s--they want to wrap themselves in the cloak of secularism and "openness" but they think they can just wish away the hatred and violence that is bubbling up around them.

And as for anti-semitism: France is not a friendly place for jews either. The country that has the highest numbers of emigres to Israel for 2014 was France with 7,000 new emigres:
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/56246-141231-jewish-immigraton-to-israel-hits-ten-year-high-in-2014.Even higher number than the Ukraine. France has got big, big issues, people.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are not supposed to wear a hijab or niqab so they won't arouse men. That's ridiculous . Those who wear their hijab or niqab do it as part of their spiritual journey. Whether you believe that or not, whether you think it' s demeaning to them is irrelevant. Also your point about asking if that woman had a job and what type of job she has is a bit condescending. Many American women do not have a job, many are stay at home moms, by choice. Are they less than you because they don't have a job? Your judgemental notions and ideas are what's wrong with society today. We need more of the PP and less of you in the world!

you are purposely putting words in my mouth I never said,. there are plenty of SAHM in the US (as SAHD) and they are not less then me or you. I simply pointed out that while with a hijab you can have a normal life and do whatever you want, which can be stay at home with the kids or be a neurosurgeon or a metrobus driver, with a niqab you cannot. you conveniently chose to twist my words so you did not have to address what I was actually saying.

as for beign ridiculous that the nature of the iqab, the history of the garment, where and who have been using it for centuries, clearly supports what I am saying ( interestingly men in the Arabic peninsula never felt the need to do their spiritual journey while clad in an iqab). when the talibans captured Kabul and imposed the burka under penalty of death, do you think they were concerned by the spiritual journey of the local women? I know there are plenty of women in KSA and elsewhere who choose to wear it, it is part of their tradition, like women in India wear a sari. but the origin of the garment is to make a woman's body invisible to the outside world and it is not by chance that the iqab originated in a place where women traditionally do not leave the house without a man.

thanks for pointing out that the world would be a better place with less people like me. you are wrong. I have never ever imposed my opinions with violence on anybody, I am a foreigner in the US and I live here and I accept and respect the laws of this place where I am a guest. I strongly desagree with a lot of things here, some of them I find them wrong or offensive or funny, but I still show respect for what clearly is important for others. if there were more people like me, frankly I doubt the world would be worse off

I am not putting words in your mouth. You have repeated the same thing again, stating that American women who stay home choose to do so, well have you ever considered that some niqabi women also choose to stay home? And that some of them have a job? Thank God not everyone is narrow minded and I know of niqabis in the US who have an actual job, outside of their home, heck one even works at a public school in California. Is it more difficult for them to get a job? You bet, but it's their choice. And May I remind you, that many niqabis do not live in the West, they live in Muslim countries where their niqabs do NOT prevent them to get a job, as niqabs are part of the cultural norm. And yes, the world needs less of you send more of the PPs, I still stand by that!

This is gets to the heart of my problem with the hairs Jeff is trying to split, between on the one hand Muslims and Islam, which he argues are amorphous and therefore can't be criticized as a group, and the Catholic church, which he argues has a hierarchy and can therefore be criticized.

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

Stop lying. Where did I say that all Niqabis wear them freely? And where did I say that I spoke for every Muslim woman? If anything you are the one with the brush, always talking about the poor oppressed Muslim women And my point has always been and will continue to be that regardless of what you say, the are Many and More Muslim women who Choose to wear the hijab/niqab than are forced to! I haven't met in my life a single one that was forced to wear it, and I know many many Muslim women. Does it mean that they don't exist? Of course not, but that's NOT the norm! !!

Hmm. I wonder why you haven't met those women.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ultimately what's the lesson learned here?

Lesson I take from Paris massacre is not that we need more racist cartoons. We need less bigotry and to close widening gaps among people. - Ali Abunimah

So I read this--and your next few posts that also refer to bigotry--as you saying, the problem is the bigotry of your average white Frenchperson; since this bigotry and there will be no more terrorist attacks. I don't see you blaming the attackers' fanaticism and intolerance. Tell me I'm wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they never intended to hurt innocents and with the exception of the body guard, they succeeded.

Innocents?

Everyone they killed were “innocents.” These people are the scum of the earth and deserve nothing more but to rot in hell.

The cartoonists did not deserve to die, but they were not innocent.

What were they “guilty” of?

Insulting Islam and depicting the Prophet.

[jsteele]

There are frequent queries about why Muslims leaders don't condemn violence conducted in the name of Islam. Where here is an important and unexpected example of that happening:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_LEBANON_HEZBOLLAH_PARIS_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"The leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah group says Islamic extremists have insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad more than those who published satirical cartoons mocking the religion."

"Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah did not directly mention the Paris attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead, but he said Islamic extremists who behead and slaughter people - a reference to the IS group's rampages in Iraq and Syria - have done more harm to Islam than anyone else in history."

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ultimately what's the lesson learned here?

Lesson I take from Paris massacre is not that we need more racist cartoons. We need less bigotry and to close widening gaps among people. - Ali Abunimah

then you did not learn much. learning not to kill people who simply express opinions you find bigoted, racist and offensive would be a good start (and that there is not "they are wrong but" for the people who did it)

This exactly. Every time there's an Islamic terrorist act some people choose to characterize the attackers as victims of the system, whatever that means,. The lesson is: radical Islam needs to be extinguished. This whole what "we" could do to offend "them" less discussion is BS and that's why in a few more months we will be here again mourning innocent victims.

No, we will be here again mourning innocent victims because we have created a polarized world where the lives of some are worth more than the lives of others. How many other people died today in other parts of the world due to accepted wars and inequalities that we fund and support? Where are their stories? ....

[Anonymous]

A French person explains Charlie Hebdo for those unfamiliar with it.

"First, the point of Charlie is to publish outrageous cartoons. It comes from a long tradition of political satire, mocking political leaders and religious zealots. By and large, the main targets of Charlie have been the government and the Catholic Church. In fact, Charlie was created after a previous newspaper, Hara-Kiri, was shut down by the interior ministry in 1970.

That tradition goes back a long way. In the 18th century, satirical papers made fun of the King and the Queen. Louis XVI was often portrayed as a pig, and Marie-Antoinette as a snake or a hyena. The Golden Age of satirical papers was the 19th century. There were many in the U.S. and the U.K. as well. Some of the cartoons are still well-known today. In France, however, unlike in some other countries, there was a strong anti-clerical tradition and many cartoons made fun of the Catholic Church. A famous weekly paper, and probably the inspiration of Charlie Hebdo and countless others, was L'Assiette au beurre, published in the early 20th century. L’Assiette made fun of the police, the army, but also promoted anti-colonial ideas, all with provocative cartoons.

The important point to understand here is that the anti-clerical slant of Charlie Hebdo really comes from a tradition of making fun of the Catholic Church. It is only in the past 10 years that it has shifted its focus against Islamic fundamentalism.

Being anti-clerical is really not being racist. These guys made their most provocative cartoons against Le Pen precisely because they viewed the “Front National” as a racist party. Mustapha Ourad, from Kabylie, in the north of Alegeria, was among those killed at Charlie Hebdo. He was in charge of proof reading and correcting grammatical mistakes. Charb, the Editor of Charlie who was the main target of the killers on Wednesday, was on the same death list as Salman Rushdie. His partner, Jeannette Bougrab is of Algerian descent. She is also a center-right political figure and strongly secular, a little bit like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

This is what Charlie Hebdo was, and this is why we were shocked and deeply saddened by the cowardly murders that took place in Paris.

This is not to say, of course, that I was an unconditional fan of Charlie Hebdo. As David Brooks wrote “Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.” He is right. Charlie Hebdo, like many papers of that kind, was childish and, to me, a bit repetitive. So many people who grew up with the cartoons of Cabu, also outgrew them at some point. Or so we thought. I was not a big fan on the Muhammad cartoons either. I thought they were mostly not helpful and not funny, although I liked the cover “C’est dur d’être aimé par des cons”.

But the point here is precisely that it is pointless to expect papers like Charlie to be always helpful. They are not meant to be. They are not Le Monde. They are grotesque, random, puerile, and, sometimes, outrageously funny."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

I agree with you that Muslima cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims. Any statement that discusses "Islam", "Muslims", etc. must be heavily qualified to specify which type of Islam or group of Muslims you are discussing unless you are making an extremely general statement.

I disagree that the Quran represents "all Islam" in the sense that you are portraying it. The reality is that the Quran, like the Bible and even the US Constitution, is subject to interpretation and groups and individuals emphasize some parts over others (may not even know about some parts). Even the verse that you quote -- which is not in its original language -- can be interpreted a number of ways.

Again, the distinction I make between the Catholic Church and Islam is that you can point to a specific ruling or doctrine of the Catholic Church -- the official institution of Catholicism -- and criticize or disagree with that. Islam doesn't have a similar institution. Similarly, I would object to criticism of "Catholics", which like Muslims, come in many varieties (for instance, apparently in the US, the Catholic Church's birth control rules are almost universally ignored).

We'll have to disagree. Yes, the verse I quoted can be interpreted different ways, to mean that a woman should cover her chest, neck, hair, or all of the above. Similarly, you can interpret jihad as a struggle of the soul, and I wish the attackers had done so. But there are many parts of the Quran that have never been subject to wide-ranging interpretation. As just one tiny example, in the quote above, several translators agree that women should veil to avoid what they call "molestation" or "trouble."

And so I maintain that large parts of the Quran DO represent a non-negotiable dogma or orthodoxy (if you will). And that on this question Muslima is out of step with Islam.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

jsteele wrote:I realize everyone's attention is on the events in Paris, but before I forget, here is what I consider a responsible way to present the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

Great article. Thanks for sharing!

"With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture."

As usual you two manage to take something that is about one topic - islamic terrorists - and make it about something else - jews.

Moderator, moderate thyself.

Uh, no. That's not what happened. You need to actually read the article. Put your "anti-Semite card" back in your pocket and use it when it is needed.

Uh yes it is, and maybe you should learn a little bit more about Glenn Greenwald before you start posting his articles in a thread like this. Context is important. Go ahead and just disagree with me or call me names, but it won't make you right.

No, you are simply lying. Moreover, it is a very despicable lie. I linked to an article that contained cartoons mocking many groups, including Muslims. You are trying to paint me as an anti-Semite. You are literally making Glenn Greenwald's point. I guess we see exactly where free expression ends for you.

Whoa, Jeff, calm down. Being a little too sensitive there.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

I agree with you that Muslima cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims. Any statement that discusses "Islam", "Muslims", etc. must be heavily qualified to specify which type of Islam or group of Muslims you are discussing unless you are making an extremely general statement.

I disagree that the Quran represents "all Islam" in the sense that you are portraying it. The reality is that the Quran, like the Bible and even the US Constitution, is subject to interpretation and groups and individuals emphasize some parts over others (may not even know about some parts). Even the verse that you quote -- which is not in its original language -- can be interpreted a number of ways.

Again, the distinction I make between the Catholic Church and Islam is that you can point to a specific ruling or doctrine of the Catholic Church -- the official institution of Catholicism -- and criticize or disagree with that. Islam doesn't have a similar institution. Similarly, I would object to criticism of "Catholics", which like Muslims, come in many varieties (for instance, apparently in the US, the Catholic Church's birth control rules are almost universally ignored).

We'll have to disagree. Yes, the verse I quoted can be interpreted different ways, to mean that a woman should cover her chest, neck, hair, or all of the above. Similarly, you can interpret jihad as a struggle of the soul, and I wish the attackers had done so. But there are many parts of the Quran that have never been subject to wide-ranging interpretation. As just one tiny example, in the quote above, several translators agree that women should veil to avoid what they call "molestation" or "trouble."

And so I maintain that large parts of the Quran DO represent a non-negotiable dogma or orthodoxy (if you will). And that on this question Muslima is out of step with Islam.

That's a lie

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women are not supposed to wear a hijab or niqab so they won't arouse men. That's ridiculous . Those who wear their hijab or niqab do it as part of their spiritual journey. Whether you believe that or not, whether you think it' s demeaning to them is irrelevant. Also your point about asking if that woman had a job and what type of job she has is a bit condescending. Many American women do not have a job, many are stay at home moms, by choice. Are they less than you because they don't have a job? Your judgemental notions and ideas are what's wrong with society today. We need more of the PP and less of you in the world!

you are purposely putting words in my mouth I never said,. there are plenty of SAHM in the US (as SAHD) and they are not less then me or you. I simply pointed out that while with a hijab you can have a normal life and do whatever you want, which can be stay at home with the kids or be a neurosurgeon or a metrobus driver, with a niqab you cannot. you conveniently chose to twist my words so you did not have to address what I was actually saying.

as for beign ridiculous that the nature of the iqab, the history of the garment, where and who have been using it for centuries, clearly supports what I am saying ( interestingly men in the Arabic peninsula never felt the need to do their spiritual journey while clad in an iqab). when the talibans captured Kabul and imposed the burka under penalty of death, do you think they were concerned by the spiritual journey of the local women? I know there are plenty of women in KSA and elsewhere who choose to wear it, it is part of their tradition, like women in India wear a sari. but the origin of the garment is to make a woman's body invisible to the outside world and it is not by chance that the iqab originated in a place where women traditionally do not leave the house without a man.

thanks for pointing out that the world would be a better place with less people like me. you are wrong. I have never ever imposed my opinions with violence on anybody, I am a foreigner in the US and I live here and I accept and respect the laws of this place where I am a guest. I strongly desagree with a lot of things here, some of them I find them wrong or offensive or funny, but I still show respect for what clearly is important for others. if there were more people like me, frankly I doubt the world would be worse off

I am not putting words in your mouth. You have repeated the same thing again, stating that American women who stay home choose to do so, well have you ever considered that some niqabi women also choose to stay home? And that some of them have a job? Thank God not everyone is narrow minded and I know of niqabis in the US who have an actual job, outside of their home, heck one even works at a public school in California. Is it more difficult for them to get a job? You bet, but it's their choice. And May I remind you, that many niqabis do not live in the West, they live in Muslim countries where their niqabs do NOT prevent them to get a job, as niqabs are part of the cultural norm. And yes, the world needs less of you send more of the PPs, I still stand by that!

This is gets to the heart of my problem with the hairs Jeff is trying to split, between on the one hand Muslims and Islam, which he argues are amorphous and therefore can't be criticized as a group, and the Catholic church, which he argues has a hierarchy and can therefore be criticized.

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

Stop lying. Where did I say that all Niqabis wear them freely? And where did I say that I spoke for every Muslim woman? If anything you are the one with the brush, always talking about the poor oppressed Muslim women And my point has always been and will continue to be that regardless of what you say, the are Many and More Muslim women who Choose to wear the hijab/niqab than are forced to! I haven't met in my life a single one that was forced to wear it, and I know many many Muslim women. Does it mean that they don't exist? Of course not, but that's NOT the norm! !!

Did you not write the words in bold at the very top? Did you not write "women" instead of "some women," leaving your readers with the impression that you were talking about ALL women who wear the niqab? Did you not dismiss as "ridiculous" that women (not "some" women) would wear a niqab for any reason besides the spiritual? Who is lying here?

[Anonymous]

I'm confused about what you all are suggesting as a result of all this. Do some cultures need to stop being so sensitive or do some societies need to stop being so stigmatizing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused about what you all are suggesting as a result of all this. Do some cultures need to stop being so sensitive or do some societies need to stop being so stigmatizing?

Some cultures need to not be violent. Well, all cultures need to not be violent.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are two issues here. First, Muslima is speaking on behalf of all muslim women who ever donned a niqab, and saying that they all do it only for spiritual reasons. She even punctuates her claim by calling PP "ridiculous" for thinking that non-spiritual reasons might be involved. As PP points out, history and tradition make Muslima's claim about other Muslim women's motives not a little suspect. At the very least, since we shouldn't be saying that "all Muslims are terrorists," then Muslima shouldn't be speaking for all niqab-wearing women.

The second issue is that one could go further, and argue that Muslima is out of sync with Islam itself. Yes, it's true there's no central Islamic hierarchy. But there is a holy book that purports to be the literal words of God. It's a very rare Muslim who thinks the Quran isn't the literal word of God, as transmitted to the prophet by the angel. Therefore, I'd argue that the Quran itself can legitimately be taken as representing "all Islam." (Note I would never argue that you can do the same with sharia or the hadith, which do vary widely across the Muslim world, although Muslima has often claimed that a given hadith speaks for "Islam" when it suits her own purposes.) Here's what the Koran says about veiling: "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should case their outer garmets over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." (Yusufali) In other words, it's to announce that you're a modest Muslim woman and to avoid sexual harassment - the latter I think we can agree involves arousal. So Muslima is out of sync with the Quran itself.

Anway. That's what bugs me about Muslima. That's also why I don't buy the distinctions Jeff draws about why you can criticize the Catholic Church but not Muslims/Islam.

I agree with you that Muslima cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims. Any statement that discusses "Islam", "Muslims", etc. must be heavily qualified to specify which type of Islam or group of Muslims you are discussing unless you are making an extremely general statement.

I disagree that the Quran represents "all Islam" in the sense that you are portraying it. The reality is that the Quran, like the Bible and even the US Constitution, is subject to interpretation and groups and individuals emphasize some parts over others (may not even know about some parts). Even the verse that you quote -- which is not in its original language -- can be interpreted a number of ways.

Again, the distinction I make between the Catholic Church and Islam is that you can point to a specific ruling or doctrine of the Catholic Church -- the official institution of Catholicism -- and criticize or disagree with that. Islam doesn't have a similar institution. Similarly, I would object to criticism of "Catholics", which like Muslims, come in many varieties (for instance, apparently in the US, the Catholic Church's birth control rules are almost universally ignored).

We'll have to disagree. Yes, the verse I quoted can be interpreted different ways, to mean that a woman should cover her chest, neck, hair, or all of the above. Similarly, you can interpret jihad as a struggle of the soul, and I wish the attackers had done so. But there are many parts of the Quran that have never been subject to wide-ranging interpretation. As just one tiny example, in the quote above, several translators agree that women should veil to avoid what they call "molestation" or "trouble."

And so I maintain that large parts of the Quran DO represent a non-negotiable dogma or orthodoxy (if you will). And that on this question Muslima is out of step with Islam.

That's a lie

Really? If it's a lie, you must be saying that the translation above, which contradicts your "spiritual journey" rationale for wearing a full body veil (also not in the Quran) doesn't exist in the Quran? Are you saying that YusufAli's translation of the word "molest" is a lie? Pickthall is similar. What word would you use instead?

You can't possibly be saying the entire Quran is totally ambiguous and every word is subject to interpretation and reinterpretation. That would be very un-Muslim of you.