Message
Anonymous wrote:OMG. The ban in imagery goes back to the Satanic Verses. First Muhammed tried to get with the people of his town to worship the little stone figures that they as animists did, then when the tide didn't turn in his favor he claimed Satan had spoken him = ban on graven images. In Judaism and Christianity there is the same ban on idolatry. Muhammed went all hard-core and extended it to a ban on all images. He presented a radical new view and people followed him. The cynical would say it was him testing out theories (not Satan) and the cynical would be put on the beheaded list a la Salman Rushdie.
Vive la differance!
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?
The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....
It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.
Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!
There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?
The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....
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 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 wrote: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! !!
It's a moot point, actually. They are told by their environment and their families that that's what they should do. They see their mothers doing it. After a while, they come to terms with it, because the cognitive dissonance would be too overwhelming otherwise. But my mother who rebelled and refused to wear it but wasn't penalized by her family for it has plenty of stories of classmates who would wear it on the way to and from school and then take it off once they were inside the building. So your sample size doesn't indicate you have any clue as to what people's true feelings about it are.
Really? They told you that? The millions of Muslim women who wear the hijab do it because of their environments and societies? You are full of it! Let me go thank my non-hijab wearing mother, sisters, friends for their lectures and encouragements when I decided one early morning to put a scarf on my head! Oh the things you read......
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.
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 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 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 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! !!
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."
They are all dead. The brothers said this morning that they wanted to die as martyrs, I guess they got their "wish" .
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:This heinous act is intolerable, and I'm hoping those who did will be punished severely.Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Swedish-american here. I think it is crossing the line to display these images publicly. I am not muslim--but I find such disregard for their religion and culture highly offensive. The French people are completely tone deaf and arrogant wrt to their treatment of minorities in their countries. They are hiding behind the cloak of "free press" and it is outrageous. And yes, I'm aware that Scandinavian countries are as bad on this issue if not worse.
I completely agree. My brother is living in Paris right now and I am scared to death for him. He has a very obvious Muslim name and there is currently a lot of backlash because of the Charlie Hebdo thing. Yesterday, in France a pregnant Muslim woman was attacked by men who pulled her hijab off asking her to take that *** off and beat her up while she was screaming that she was pregnant, she lost the baby. Mosques were also vandalized along with Arab businesses and a car belonging to a middle eastern family was shot at. Unless we start having honest conversations about the underlying issues, this will never get resolved.
That said, I think it is the height of irresponsibility on your part to infer that this incident happened yesterday (it happened 6/18/13) as a result of Charlie Hebdo. Additionally, your referring to a massacre as "the Charlie Hebdo thing" is condescending and sounds more like an inconvenience than what it is which is an execution.
However, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it's about free speech even if one of your statements is partially untrue.
I read it yesterday, didn't know it happened in June. It was a link under another article about mosques being vandalized. The is another one that happened in August of 2014 and a 3rd one after that. The fact that they happened even before the CH attack shows the climate in France.
Yea, free speech after all, don't read too much about the CH "thing", really it is not that serious and I won't write a paragraph about the use of the word "thing", I am in no way minimizing or dismissing what happened!
True, have you read about all the anti-semetic attacks in France over the last couple years? It's pretty crazy.
Yes, really sad. We need less bigotry in the world
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