terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Pictures of a godly woman on her spiritual journey... to kill...

http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/societe/portfolio/2015/01/09/les-selfies-de-coulibaly-et-de-sa-compagne-arbalete-a-la-main_4552904_3224.html

Dude, are they allowed to touch like that in public? Were they married?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

You've got my vote, even if nobody else here will give it.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh boy, I really don't have time for this. Arabic is one of the richest and most complex languages in the world. Every word in Arabic has different meanings, multiple meanings, and this is why every translation of the Quran will be somewhat different. Plus the Quran was written in a unique literary style and in Parables, so every person will interpret any verse the way they understand and this is why Some Muslims believe the Quran can only truly be understood only in Arabic. And this is probably why all Muslims techie their prayers in Arabic to capture the true sense behind the words.

The Quran itself states that: Allah says in Chapter 3 Surah Al Imran verse 7:

"It is Allah,  Who sent down this Quran to you.  (There are two kinds of verses in the Book.)   In it are verses Basic or Fundamental (of established meanings which can be easily understood),  and they are the essence or foundation of the Book.   And the other verses are Allegorical or Ambiguous.  Those in whose hearts is perversity will always go  for the Allegorical or Ambiguous verses,  seeking discord and trying to search for their hidden meanings.   None,  except Allah,  knows their real meanings(Ta’aweel)!  In contrast to them,  those who are firmly grounded in knowledge,  say: “We believe in them all, because all of them are from our Lord."

The verse you quoted with the interpretation of Yusuf Ali, his interpretation of the word was "molested". Every other translation I've seen used the word 'annoyed', 'abused", "not hurt" ect or some other variant . But that is besides the point. All scholars who support hijab are unanimous and I mean ALL that the main reason for a muslim woman to wear a hijab is because it is prescribed by God. Not because of your husband, your father, your mother, fear of being molested. If you wear the hijab, you should wear it because Allah said so, period. Just like we pray 5 times a day because Allah said so, no if and but about it.

Just curious. Are all these scholars men?

So I suppose the girls who take off the veil away from their parents have a long long way to go on their spiritual journey?

There are male and female scholars in Islam. I don't judge people by how they dress, a Hijabi can be way less spiritual , less religious and further from Allah than a non-hijabi. We are taught not to judge people because we know not, only Allah knows what's in their heart. Hijab is not a sign of piety. There are hijabi prostitutes after all. .....

[Anonymous]

Has anyone here had a chance to read Michel Houellebecq's new book, "Submission," that came out on the day of the massacre?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

Even the stodgiest person could see that was a male chauvinist joke meant to elicit a laugh. I consider whose telling the joke. I thought Jeff was an anti-feminist, woman hating person, I would be on your bandwagon. But you are really over reaching.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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."

No, really????
Did it occur to you that it's because Hezbollah is a Shi'a paramilitary group and that ISIS's number one goal as a Saudi backed movement is to rid the world of Shi'a's once and for all? So the Shi'a's are running s*** scared. Sounds like a desperation move to me.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgASBVMyVFI

Okay, so you would frame this as "Muslim leader speaks out against violence committed by rival Muslim group", right? Guess what? That still says that a Muslim leader has spoken out against violence committed by Muslims. Isn't that what everybody has been asking for? Do you also want him to hop on one leg while balancing a candle on his nose while he says it?

This is an example of why nobody ever seems to know about Muslims speaking about against violence committed by Muslims. They do it all the time but it gets ignored or written off as "desperation".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

Even the stodgiest person could see that was a male chauvinist joke meant to elicit a laugh. I consider whose telling the joke. I thought Jeff was an anti-feminist, woman hating person, I would be on your bandwagon. But you are really over reaching.

*If I thought Jeff was anti-feminist, etc*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

You've got my vote, even if nobody else here will give it.

You must hate Kathy Griffin and Joan Rivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

Even the stodgiest person could see that was a male chauvinist joke meant to elicit a laugh. I consider whose telling the joke. I thought Jeff was an anti-feminist, woman hating person, I would be on your bandwagon. But you are really over reaching.

You think what you want, and I'll use my judgment about it. I don't think Jeff is a woman-hater, but I do think he was being subtly, perhaps unintentionally sexist. I think that people of good will do that sometimes. (Just like I think people of good will are sometimes subtly and unintentionally racist.) And I do think there's no way he would have made an analogous racist "joke". This is certainly not super upsetting or the biggest injustice in the world (heck, it happened on a thread about innocent civilians being gunned down for making cartoons), but I don't think that means I shouldn't point it out.
But I find it interesting that I'm hearing some pretty common codes that women hear a lot whenever they point out sexism: "calm down, you're too sensitive, lighten up". That's pretty much out of the mansplaining handbook.
But I'm busy, so I'll leave this be for now. Just don't interpret silence as agreement! This overly sensitive, hysterical girl's still got a chip on her shoulder about this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

You've got my vote, even if nobody else here will give it.

You must hate Kathy Griffin and Joan Rivers.

Um, no. Pretty different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the person he's responding to and I wasn't actually pissed. But I don't find his "pretend sexism" funny either. He should keep his day job.

Making bad jokes is my day job.

Maybe. But I wonder why you're so comfortable making "pretend sexist" jokes (i.e., saying something really sexist and then saying "just kidding")? Would you feel comfortable making a really racist comment and then saying "just kidding"? I think I know the answer.

Lighten up. Muslima made a joke too and said just kidding but I'm sure Jeff really is.

If "lightening up" means "ignore it when people think it's cool to be sexist", then no, I don't think I will.

Even the stodgiest person could see that was a male chauvinist joke meant to elicit a laugh. I consider whose telling the joke. I thought Jeff was an anti-feminist, woman hating person, I would be on your bandwagon. But you are really over reaching.

You think what you want, and I'll use my judgment about it. I don't think Jeff is a woman-hater, but I do think he was being subtly, perhaps unintentionally sexist. I think that people of good will do that sometimes. (Just like I think people of good will are sometimes subtly and unintentionally racist.) And I do think there's no way he would have made an analogous racist "joke". This is certainly not super upsetting or the biggest injustice in the world (heck, it happened on a thread about innocent civilians being gunned down for making cartoons), but I don't think that means I shouldn't point it out.
But I find it interesting that I'm hearing some pretty common codes that women hear a lot whenever they point out sexism: "calm down, you're too sensitive, lighten up". That's pretty much out of the mansplaining handbook.
But I'm busy, so I'll leave this be for now. Just don't interpret silence as agreement! This overly sensitive, hysterical girl's still got a chip on her shoulder about this

That's cool. This girl doesn't have or needs a shoulder chip.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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."

No, really????
Did it occur to you that it's because Hezbollah is a Shi'a paramilitary group and that ISIS's number one goal as a Saudi backed movement is to rid the world of Shi'a's once and for all? So the Shi'a's are running s*** scared. Sounds like a desperation move to me.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgASBVMyVFI

Brilliant satirical take down of all of this: Full article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-how-exactly-would-we-like-muslims-to-condemn-these-attacks-9966176.html

"I suppose the one comfort we can take from this week’s events, is that some of us are lucky enough to live in a society based on Western values, because in countries like America you can’t imagine a lunatic ever going berserk with a gun in a public place.

One way in which we’re ensuring we protect those values, is by demanding all Muslims denounce the gunmen. It’s true that every Muslim leader in Britain has denounced them several times, but that’s hardly sufficient. They might denounce them at five past three, and then again at twenty past three, but what are they doing in between? For all we know they’re blowing themselves up at bus garages. So to truly distance themselves from the shooting, every Muslim should have to draw their own satirical cartoon involving Muhammad trampolining on a pig, so we know we can trust them.

Similarly, when the Norwegian Christian Anders Breivik committed his massacre, all decent people marched straight down to the church and yelled "oy vicar, why haven’t you issued a statement condemning the shooting"? And politicians insisted Special Branch must infiltrate every C of E jumble sale to prevent similar radical movements growing throughout Surrey.
...
The claim that Farage and many others appear to make is that Islam is inevitably violent, to which others reply that it’s a religion of peace, with each side quoting chunks of religious text to make their case. But this probably doesn’t help to settle the argument, as every religion’s holy book is a chaotic mixture."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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."

No, really????
Did it occur to you that it's because Hezbollah is a Shi'a paramilitary group and that ISIS's number one goal as a Saudi backed movement is to rid the world of Shi'a's once and for all? So the Shi'a's are running s*** scared. Sounds like a desperation move to me.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's National Brotherhood Week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgASBVMyVFI

Okay, so you would frame this as "Muslim leader speaks out against violence committed by rival Muslim group", right? Guess what? That still says that a Muslim leader has spoken out against violence committed by Muslims. Isn't that what everybody has been asking for? Do you also want him to hop on one leg while balancing a candle on his nose while he says it?

This is an example of why nobody ever seems to know about Muslims speaking about against violence committed by Muslims. They do it all the time but it gets ignored or written off as "desperation".

It's Hezbollah we're talking about. If you don't think they endorse violence by Muslims on a regular basis I have a bridge to sell you. There are plenty of Muslims who speak out against violence, like the Palestinian doctor who had been building ties with Israel his whole life and whose family was killed in an Israeli bombing raid in a very well publicized story a few years ago. But Hezbollah ain't it.
I'm the Franco-American poster with Muslim ancestry who's been arguing continuously with Muslima, and I dislike all religions equally. I've spent most of my life making apologies for Muslims, because they don't get equal representation around here (although I'm done--the "they asked for it" argument the last few days did it for me).
I'm simply pointing out that a brutal demagogue's statement is not proof of sincerity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That Christians, Jews, and Muslims are the unholy trinity and nothing will ever be resolved as long as 'my way or the highway' is the prevailing thought followed up with violence.

I want to commisison a cartoon where moses, jesus, and mohammed are engaged in a threesome.

I'm 100% certain that's already been done.

and then buy space in the 100 largest newspapers around the world to run it on the front page.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh boy, I really don't have time for this. Arabic is one of the richest and most complex languages in the world. Every word in Arabic has different meanings, multiple meanings, and this is why every translation of the Quran will be somewhat different. Plus the Quran was written in a unique literary style and in Parables, so every person will interpret any verse the way they understand and this is why Some Muslims believe the Quran can only truly be understood only in Arabic. And this is probably why all Muslims techie their prayers in Arabic to capture the true sense behind the words.

The Quran itself states that: Allah says in Chapter 3 Surah Al Imran verse 7:

"It is Allah,  Who sent down this Quran to you.  (There are two kinds of verses in the Book.)   In it are verses Basic or Fundamental (of established meanings which can be easily understood),  and they are the essence or foundation of the Book.   And the other verses are Allegorical or Ambiguous.  Those in whose hearts is perversity will always go  for the Allegorical or Ambiguous verses,  seeking discord and trying to search for their hidden meanings.   None,  except Allah,  knows their real meanings(Ta’aweel)!  In contrast to them,  those who are firmly grounded in knowledge,  say: “We believe in them all, because all of them are from our Lord."

The verse you quoted with the interpretation of Yusuf Ali, his interpretation of the word was "molested". Every other translation I've seen used the word 'annoyed', 'abused", "not hurt" ect or some other variant . But that is besides the point. All scholars who support hijab are unanimous and I mean ALL that the main reason for a muslim woman to wear a hijab is because it is prescribed by God. Not because of your husband, your father, your mother, fear of being molested. If you wear the hijab, you should wear it because Allah said so, period. Just like we pray 5 times a day because Allah said so, no if and but about it.

Just curious. Are all these scholars men?

So I suppose the girls who take off the veil away yfrom their parents have a long long way to go on their spiritual journey?

+1. I'd like to see the survey data these male scholars were relying on to support their claims that all niqab wearing is done voluntarily. Or, were they just going with their guts on this one?

Also. "Annoyed," "abused," "not hurt," all sound bad to me. "Not hurt" is arguably the same as or worse than "molested." None of these says "spiritual journey."

Finally. You called me a "liar" for criticizing your statement that all women wear the niqab as part of a spiritual journey. Now you're saying the same thing again, and you're even bringing "all, I mean ALL, scholars" to back up the point. Which is it?