Islamic compounds in U.S.A Training for Jihad

Halifax2TheMax

I think we need the terror alert status scrolling across the bottom of the television screen again. Would this be an orange or a yellow alert? Maybe red?

Peace.

gimmesometruth27

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

I think we need the terror alert status scrolling across the bottom of the television screen again. Would this be an orange or a yellow alert? Maybe red?

Peace.

i think it might be brown....

as in bull crap...

PJ_Soul

I don't want to get too into this because I don't know enough about the specifics of these communities, but a quick glance through this thread showed me the thought that perhaps there is nothing wrong with Sharia law being practiced in North America if that's what they want to do. And I would just to say



Or maybe you just don't understand what Sharia law really is about... It's the kind of shit that literally makes it okay to throw acid on little girls on their way to school or murder their daughters for having premarital sex, if that's what some men take it into mind to do. Anyone suggesting that Sharia law might not be something North American authorities need to watch for and intervene on has their head up their ass. Sorry.

keeponrockin

@PJ_Soul... I would accept it for use on matters much the same way that there are Christian and Jewish family courts. WOuld it supercede federal law, hell no, but if people want to take their financial disagreements or what have you up in accordance with their faith (like Christians and Jews already do) then what's the issue there?

PJ_Soul

keeponrockin wrote:

@PJ_Soul... I would accept it for use on matters much the same way that there are Christian and Jewish family courts. WOuld it supercede federal law, hell no, but if people want to take their financial disagreements or what have you up in accordance with their faith (like Christians and Jews already do) then what's the issue there?

The issue there is that's not what Sharia law is like ... you seem to be thinking of it as though it involves some form of fairness while not necessarily promoting and encouraging abuse and violence. That is not the case. If it were, then yeah, no problem.

fuck

PJ_Soul wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

@PJ_Soul... I would accept it for use on matters much the same way that there are Christian and Jewish family courts. WOuld it supercede federal law, hell no, but if people want to take their financial disagreements or what have you up in accordance with their faith (like Christians and Jews already do) then what's the issue there?

The issue there is that's not what Sharia law is like ... you seem to be thinking of it as though it involves some form of fairness while not necessarily promoting and encouraging abuse and violence. That is not the case. If it were, then yeah, no problem.

Unfortunately, it is people like you who help perpetuate the nonsensical idea that Shari`ah is somehow inherently evil and advocates inequality. The truth can't be farther from that. Furthermore, the shari`ah literally encompasses the foundation of the Islamic religion, so for anyone to suggest that it is inherently unequal and evil is akin to suggesting that Islam as a religion, and Muslim as followers of it, believe in this.
Anyone who has studied Islamic law knows that nothing in it suggests all this nonsense of honor killing and throwing acid in one's face, that's pure nonsense. Anyone who has studied it knows that at its root core is a pluralistic fiber that is so much more understanding and humanistic than people make it out to be.
Your fearmongering does not help quell any of the misinformation out there.

vant0037

I think white Christian Americans have this very same thing. It's called "Doomsday Preppers." It airs on Nat-Geo.

PJ_Soul

fuck wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

@PJ_Soul... I would accept it for use on matters much the same way that there are Christian and Jewish family courts. WOuld it supercede federal law, hell no, but if people want to take their financial disagreements or what have you up in accordance with their faith (like Christians and Jews already do) then what's the issue there?

The issue there is that's not what Sharia law is like ... you seem to be thinking of it as though it involves some form of fairness while not necessarily promoting and encouraging abuse and violence. That is not the case. If it were, then yeah, no problem.

Unfortunately, it is people like you who help perpetuate the nonsensical idea that Shari`ah is somehow inherently evil and advocates inequality. The truth can't be farther from that. Furthermore, the shari`ah literally encompasses the foundation of the Islamic religion, so for anyone to suggest that it is inherently unequal and evil is akin to suggesting that Islam as a religion, and Muslim as followers of it, believe in this.
Anyone who has studied Islamic law knows that nothing in it suggests all this nonsense of honor killing and throwing acid in one's face, that's pure nonsense. Anyone who has studied it knows that at its root core is a pluralistic fiber that is so much more understanding and humanistic than people make it out to be.
Your fearmongering does not help quell any of the misinformation out there.

I am not fear mongering (and I'm not scared - I don't view this as a big threat to north america). I find it fascinating that me just stating an opinion about something is automatically fearmonger now. :roll: I am simply stating a FACT about the nature of Sharia law in reality, as opposed to the idealistic academic view of it that you seem to be in support of. Yes, it IS inherently unequal (and btw, sorry to rain on your parade, but Islamic belief does not exactly lean towards the feminist viewpoint - to deny this is simply to close your eyes to the truth because you'd rather not offend anyone). I have no clue as to why some people find it necessary do defend every single Cultural practice under the sun, as though as long as people want to practice somethin it necessarily has to be rrespected.

Sharia law does NOT fit in with our laws, our respect of all people equally (that would be women I'm talking about, obviously), and Sharia law DOES defend the right of men to commit honour killings and to rule over women. Those actions are not even particulay punishable under Sharia law as it is practiced around the world. Sharia law is what the Taliban promote. So yeah, I have an issue with it! If you think these things aren't true of Sharia law, then you are uninformed, misinformed, or naive, or perhaps ignoring reality and instead focusing in on defensive statements from within Sharia communities as they try to improve their PR. Now, that being said, obviously Sharia law is not something desired by most Muslims (thank god). Most Muslims are fearful of groups such as the Taliban who want to spread it as law and take it to that violent level that many groups do indeed take it once it's off paper and put into practice (which is all that matters). But if there are communities who are trying to establish Sharia Law in the US, then they should be stopped from doing so IMO, because we have seen very clearly what people do with it once it's actually put into practice. There are groups in Canada who are trying to practice Sharia law as well - thankfully, our government quite openly condems such attempts because the position of women in those communities is incongruous with Canadian values. Trust me, even if Sharia law didn't sometimes lead to actual violence against women, the whole principle behind it is (or should be) completely offensive to anyone who cares about equal rights for women.

I think your totally incorrect options about my view and your reaction to my common sense and realistic quification of Sharia law is a knee-jerk one rooted in overbearing PCism. But I do think it's important to remind people to not paint Muslims with a sharia brush. Most of those who come here do not practice or want it.

Smellyman

There is white christian militia groups armed to the theeth all over the US.

BE AFRAID!!!

fuck

PJ_Soul wrote:

I am not fear mongering (and I'm not scared - I don't view this as a big threat to north america). I find it fascinating that me just stating an opinion about something is automatically fearmonger now. :roll: I am simply stating a FACT about the nature of Sharia law in reality, as opposed to the idealistic academic view of it that you seem to be in support of. Yes, it IS inherently unequal (and btw, sorry to rain on your parade, but Islamic belief does not exactly lean towards the feminist viewpoint - to deny this is simply to close your eyes to the truth because you'd rather not offend anyone). I have no clue as to why some people find it necessary do defend every single Cultural practice under the sun, as though as long as people want to practice somethin it necessarily has to be rrespected.

No one said that everything has to be respected, but there is a certain degree of truth we should expect others to report on, and unfortunately you are lying through your... keyboard. This so-called 'idealistic, academic view' of Shari`ah is actually the view that existed for over a millenia in the Islamic empire. For over a thousand years, Islamic law was the practice of some of the most famous scholars--scholars celebrated even in Western civilization such as Averroes, Avicenna, Ibn Khaldun, etc. Read a book on the topic before you sit here and make your claims. All I'm asking is for intellectual honesty.

Sharia law does NOT fit in with our laws, our respect of all people equally (that would be women I'm talking about, obviously), and Sharia law DOES defend the right of men to commit honour killings and to rule over women.

Oh, we in the Western civilization respect all people equally? I guess that's why there is so much rape and sexism in this country, sexism which was pretty much institutional until only a few decades ago. How quickly we forget. Not to mention the minorities who are continuously oppressed in different parts of the West. Or did you forget that the only superpower in the world bombing and raping and pillaging is also this country? Yeah, let's go teach those Muslims all about equality!
The second statement is simply a lie. There is nothing in Shari`ah about 'honor killing' and that's a fact. Do your research before you just say these things. And 'rule over women' ? It's like you're being ambiguous on purpose.

Those actions are not even particulay punishable under Sharia law as it is practiced around the world. Sharia law is what the Taliban promote.

And liberalism is what the American Empire is promoting, right? Give me a fucking break.

If you think these things aren't true of Sharia law, then you are uninformed, misinformed, or naive, or perhaps ignoring reality and instead focusing in on defensive statements from within Sharia communities as they try to improve their PR.

Other than the ad hominem, nothing here really makes sense, but I'll have you know that I study Islamic law, its history, its many interpretations, and so on, for a living. To call me uninformed or naive is one thing, but you're not even trying to provide any evidence to the claims you are making. I've already disputed them, yet all you did was reiterate it, albeit in a rant. The fact is this: the history of Islamic law is one that respects religious and intellectual pluralism. furthermore, the relationship between politics and law, as in any society, was extremely complicated. It was not until after Western colonialism in the 19th century that much reformation took place with regards to Islamic law's role in society. In fact, a British general who landed in India in the late 18th century actually commented on how rarely, if ever, the death penalty was applied. It was the British who introduced Draconian punishments into India!

I'm not trying to turn this into a 'blame the West' game. Obviously there are complications here. But that's the exact point. To disregard a civilization's rich, thousand year history, is intellectually disingenuous.

[quote[Now, that being said, obviously Sharia law is not something desired by most Muslims (thank god).[/quote]
what? now you speak for Muslims? and what do you even mean desired? You clearly know nothing about Shari`ah. Shari`ah is all-encompassing, and includes basic things like praying and keeping clean. Muslims don't desire this? Do you mean specifically with regards to civil/criminal law? Cause if so, then I still have some bad news for you, look at so many different countries in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, like Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Indonesia and Malaysia, and you'll see that most Muslims still do want that. Just because some crazies like the Taliban infuse misogynistic cultural practices with it and tag it Islamic law does not make that so. But, if you had done any actual research, you'd know that.

Most Muslims are fearful of groups such as the Taliban who want to spread it as law and take it to that violent level that many groups do indeed take it once it's off paper and put into practice (which is all that matters). But if there are communities who are trying to establish Sharia Law in the US, then they should be stopped from doing so IMO, because we have seen very clearly what people do with it once it's actually put into practice. There are groups in Canada who are trying to practice Sharia law as well - thankfully, our government quite openly condems such attempts because the position of women in those communities is incongruous with Canadian values. Trust me, even if Sharia law didn't sometimes lead to actual violence against women, the whole principle behind it is (or should be) completely offensive to anyone who cares about equal rights for women.

I see you're from Canada, and I assume you're a woman since you speak very personally about women's rights. I agree that the tradition of Islamic law is often tainted with misogyny. But the question is not whether this exists or not, in my opinion. It's whether it is inherent in Islam or not. And in my opinion the answer is no, and the case can easily be made. Islamic law in its essence is only that which can be attributed to divine text (the Qur'an) or divinely-inspired (prophetic sayings/deeds). Naturally, over hundreds of years, more literature comes up, traditions emerge that are considered 'Islamic', but eventually people need to go back and mark the distinction between what is truly Islamic law, and what emerged later. Then, it is necessary to apply the general principles of Islamic law, which include equality regardless of gender, to contemporary issues. These are debates existing in sophistication within the Muslim community, but people like you who go around preaching about the dangers of Islamic law (not necessarily to you, but in general) unfortunately spread misinformation and lies without taking any of this into account, and that is tragic. Just because the media reports stories of poor women being affected in areas controlled by extremists does not mean that that is the norm. If the media reported on all the women in the U.S. and Western countries who are attacked by disgusting men, do you think there would be time to read scores of the hockey games?

Finally, I think given your interest in Islam and feminism, you should check out the book "Politics of Piety" by Saba Mahmood. It will give you an interesting idea, the basic premise of the book being that there is not one, single, monolithic and universal 'feminism,' and just because women may be happy living under shari`ah does not make them naive or submissive or anything like that. People express power in different ways. Check it out.

aerial

Shariah law imposes second class status on women and is incompatible with the standards of liberal Western societies and the basic principles of human rights that include equality under the law and the protection of individual freedoms. The shariah code mandates the complete authority of men over women, including the control of their movement, education, marital options, clothing, bodies, place of residence and all other aspects of their existence. Further, it calls for the beating, punishment, and murder of women who don’t comply with shariah requirements.


Shariah: an all-encompassing and in-transmutable system of Islamic jurisprudence, found in the Koran and the Sunnah, that covers all aspect of life, including daily routines, hygiene, familial roles and responsibilities, social order and conduct, directives on relationships with Muslims and non-Muslims, religious obligations, financial dealings and many other facets of living.

Ird: the sexual purity of a woman that confers honor to her husband, family and community. Ird is based on the traditional standards of behavior set forth in the shariah code and includes subservience to male relatives, modest dress which could include veiling and the covering of the body, and restricted movement outside of the home. The loss of a woman’s ird confers shame upon her family and can result in ostracism by the community, economic damage, political consequences and the loss of self esteem.

Zina: the Koranic word for sexual relations outside of marriage. Under shariah law, Zina is punished by lashings, imprisonment or stoning to death.

FGM: female genital mutilation refers to the partial or complete removal of the female genitalia for religious and cultural reasons. It is practiced to preserve a female’s chastity and dampen her sexual desire. FGM is permitted in the Koran but required by the Shafi’i, one of the four schools of shariah law within Sunni Islam.

Honor Killing: a murder, usually of a female, committed to restore the social and political standing of a family or community when it is believed that the victim has violated traditional behavioral expectations. Such violations can include improper covering of the body, appearing in public without a male relative chaperone, talking to an unrelated male, or exhibiting independence in thought and action. An honor killing can also be based on hearsay or gossip that is perceived as damaging to a woman’s relatives.

Forced Marriage: a marriage that is conducted without the consent of one or both parties in which duress is a factor. Such duress can include violence or physical intimidation, psychological abuse, blackmailing, kidnapping, or threats of imprisonment or institutional confinement.


http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/


No room in America for this craziness....

aerial

Delet

aerial

CIA Hosts Training by Muslim Brotherhood Leader and Hamas Supporter


The ADAMS Center is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It was founded by some of the most senior Muslim Brothers in the United States, to include Ahmed Totanji, who still resides in Herndon, Virginia. Its website proclaims “[ADAMS] is a membership organization registered in the State of Virginia as a non-profit, tax exempt corporation and is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).”

Imam Magid is the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center. He is also the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S. which was found to be a financial support entity for Hamas in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008). Having Magid advise and teach U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials can only be aptly described as insane. According to officials at Langley who were willing to speak on the condition of anonymity, this is an outrage – but none of the leaders on the inside seem to understand the gravity of this threat. To say the fox is in the hen house would be an understatement.

But the insanity does not end there. Imam Mohammed Magid continues to be a guest in the White House, works with the National Security Council, advises the Secretary of State, is on the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Working Group, and has received an award from the FBI. Magid continues to be treated by American leaders as if he is a friend, yet he is the leader of the largest MB front in the U.S. which financially supports the terrorist organization Hamas.

http://glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/cia-hosts-training-by-muslim-brotherhood-leader-and-hamas-supporter/#more-3493

Byrnzie

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

1a) Don't be silly. I've defended many white people and I called Herman Cain "The King Of Uranus."

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

CIA Hosts Training by Muslim Brotherhood Leader and Hamas Supporter


The ADAMS Center is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It was founded by some of the most senior Muslim Brothers in the United States, to include Ahmed Totanji, who still resides in Herndon, Virginia. Its website proclaims “[ADAMS] is a membership organization registered in the State of Virginia as a non-profit, tax exempt corporation and is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).”

Imam Magid is the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center. He is also the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S. which was found to be a financial support entity for Hamas in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008). Having Magid advise and teach U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials can only be aptly described as insane. According to officials at Langley who were willing to speak on the condition of anonymity, this is an outrage – but none of the leaders on the inside seem to understand the gravity of this threat. To say the fox is in the hen house would be an understatement.

But the insanity does not end there. Imam Mohammed Magid continues to be a guest in the White House, works with the National Security Council, advises the Secretary of State, is on the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Working Group, and has received an award from the FBI. Magid continues to be treated by American leaders as if he is a friend, yet he is the leader of the largest MB front in the U.S. which financially supports the terrorist organization Hamas.

http://glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/cia-hosts-training-by-muslim-brotherhood-leader-and-hamas-supporter/#more-3493

The top leadership of America supports the terrorist state of Israel. Where's your outrage about that?

Bronx Bombers

LOS ANGELES — Four Southern California men have been charged with plotting to kill Americans and destroy U.S. targets overseas by joining al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, federal officials said Monday.

The defendants, including a man who served in the U.S. Air Force, were arrested for plotting to bomb military bases and government facilities, and for planning to engage in "violent jihad," FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said in a release.

A federal complaint unsealed Monday says 34-year-old Sohiel Omar Kabir of Pomona introduced two of the other men to the radical Islamist doctrine of Anwar al-Awlaki, a deceased al-Qaida leader. Kabir served in the Air Force from 2000 to 2001.

The other two — 23-year-old Ralph Deleon of Ontario and 21-year-old Miguel Alejandro Santana Vidriales of Upland — converted to Islam in 2010 and began engaging with Kabir and others online in discussions about jihad, including posting radical content to Facebook and expressing extremist views in comments.

They later recruited 21-year-old Arifeen David Gojali of Riverside.
Authorities allege that in Skype calls from Afghanistan, Kabir told the trio he would arrange their meetings with terrorists. Kabir added the would-be jihadists could sleep in mosques or the homes of fellow jihadists once they arrived in Afghanistan.

The trio made plans to depart in mid-November to carry out plots in Afghanistan, primarily, and Yemen, after they sold off belongings to scrape together enough cash to buy plane tickets and made passport arrangements.

In one online conversation, Santana told an FBI undercover agent that he wanted to commit jihad and expressed interest in a jihadist training camp in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

The complaint also alleges the men went to a shooting range several times, including a Sept. 10 trip in which Deleon told a confidential FBI source that he wanted to be on the front lines overseas and use C-4, an explosive, in an attack. Santana agreed.

"I wanna do C-4s if I could put one of these trucks right here with my, with that. Just drive into, like, the baddest military base," Santana said, according to the complaint.
Santana added he wanted to use a large quantity of the explosive. "If I'm gonna do that, I'm gonna take out a whole base. Might as well make it, like, big, ya know," he said.

According to the complaint, at the shooting range that day both Santana and Deleon told a confidential FBI source they were excited about the rewards from becoming a shaheed, which is Arabic for martyr.

Ten days later, during another trip to the shooting range to fire assault-style rifles, Santana told the source he had been around gangs and had no problem taking a life.

On Sept. 30, Gojali was recruited to the plot after he was asked if he had it in him to kill in jihad. Gojali answered, "Yeah, of course."

"I watch videos on the Internet, and I see what they are doing to our brothers and sisters. ... It makes me cry, and it gets like I'm, like, so angered with them," Gojali said, according to the complaint.

http://m.nypost.com/p/news/national/fbi ... pqWtTDHm4K

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... -plot.html

These guys only face a maximum 15 years, why would you ever let them out?

JC29856

even here in the us, its hard to lock people up for "thought crimes"

i notice that all these thwarted bomb plots involve fbi coersion, where the accused rarely has the means to carry out the attack. everything seems to be supplied by the informant, the plan, the money, the materials and etc.

either there arent terrorist waiting to bomb us or the feds have been really good at catching them before they strike for the last 11 years

PJ_Soul

@ fuck:

See aerial's posts.

You seem to be in defense of Sharia law. I don't accept that view. Yes, I do know that it involves all kinds of things that are considered the complete and total adherence to Islam. That includes the subjection of women, including the male dominance over them and the right to punish them for various "acts against Islam". It makes me sick, and not only is there no room for that shit within North America, but there is no room for that shit anywhere in the world as far as I'm concerned. Sharia followers can tells us about how clean they need to be and how they want to adhere to Islamic relationships and carry out finances in a certain way until the cows come home. And you can talk about some kind of lack of understanding all you want too (but I think it's ridiculous for you to suggest that women might be in a reasonable and understandable position within such a culture). Until Sharia law dictates that women are equal to men, I cannot and will not respect such beliefs, and I will not apologize for it.

This is not a complicated issue that demands a lot of discussion and research. It is quite cut and dry, in fact. I have no room for such attitudes and treatment towards women in my world view, nor do I have room for understanding for the men who subject women to such beliefs. I find it offensive when anyone defends Sharia law, frankly, assuming they have any understanding whatsoever of what it dictates about the role of men and women within that system. That you make the assumption that I have a lack of understanding of what Sharia law entails because I don't approve of it shows that you don't understand the weight and impact that their laws around male dominance and female subjugation have on a lot of people, particularly other women. I find it curious that your concerns lie with what is "truly Islamic" as opposed to what is actually practiced in real life. To me, it's what is practiced in real life that matters (although I also take issue with your claim that in "true Islam" women are considered equal to men - that is false). What may or may not be the academic pure definition of Islamic teachings is neither here nor there if that is not how it's been translated into actual practice. I don't see the point of this argument. It tends to make excuses for what is inexcusable.

fuck

PJ_Soul wrote:

@ fuck:

See aerial's posts.

You seem to be in defense of Sharia law. I don't accept that view. Yes, I do know that it involves all kinds of things that are considered the complete and total adherence to Islam. That includes the subjection of women, including the male dominance over them and the right to punish them for various "acts against Islam". It makes me sick, and not only is there no room for that shit within North America, but there is no room for that shit anywhere in the world as far as I'm concerned. Sharia followers can tells us about how clean they need to be and how they want to adhere to Islamic relationships and carry out finances in a certain way until the cows come home. And you can talk about some kind of lack of understanding all you want too (but I think it's ridiculous for you to suggest that women might be in a reasonable and understandable position within such a culture). Until Sharia law dictates that women are equal to men, I cannot and will not respect such beliefs, and I will not apologize for it.

This is not a complicated issue that demands a lot of discussion and research. It is quite cut and dry, in fact. I have no room for such attitudes and treatment towards women in my world view, nor do I have room for understanding for the men who subject women to such beliefs. I find it offensive when anyone defends Sharia law, frankly, assuming they have any understanding whatsoever of what it dictates about the role of men and women within that system. That you make the assumption that I have a lack of understanding of what Sharia law entails because I don't approve of it shows that you don't understand the weight and impact that their laws around male dominance and female subjugation have on a lot of people, particularly other women. I find it curious that your concerns lie with what is "truly Islamic" as opposed to what is actually practiced in real life. To me, it's what is practiced in real life that matters (although I also take issue with your claim that in "true Islam" women are considered equal to men - that is false). What may or may not be the academic pure definition of Islamic teachings is neither here nor there if that is not how it's been translated into actual practice. I don't see the point of this argument. It tends to make excuses for what is inexcusable.

aerial's posts re: this particular topic have a long history of being devoid of any intellect, and the source he or she cited is not acceptable in any normal debate setting. I think on any normal occasion you would agree that aerial's vapid posts lack any real substance, but you're so desperate in this circumstance to find anything to defend your radical position that you are forced to accept it. The mere fact that you see this entire debate as either "for" or "against" Shari`ah further demonstrates that you lack any ability to judge this from an academic viewpoint. You can sit here and say, "I'm only judging this based off of what is applied in real life" as if you are some self-proclaimed realist and have no time to trouble yourself with theories, but everyone knows that that is absolute nonsense--for instance, the United States went to Iraq to spread democracy and freedom. Does it then hold that democracy and freedom are responsible for the carnage that engulfed Iraq as a result of this liberal mission? The fact is, you absolutely cannot sit here and say 'I want to only judge the practice' because there are people putting this practice into effect, and their motives and intentions must be judged. Furthermore, the theory and practice must be separated to then see the role these actors play. The reason for this is that the discussion is whether Islam inherently views women as unequal to men. Citing examples of rogue states and tribes does not help your case, it just demonstrates your inability to see beyond soundbites in Western media.

The fact that you can even so easily claim that this is not a complicated issue that requires discussion and research shows your arrogance. As if it would be o.k. for anyone to say something similar about a Western ideal like liberalism. If the French were spreading liberalism in Algeria, the British in India, and the United States in Iraq, then why are we allowed to go around and tell these peoples that liberalism is some universalist ideal that is applicable any time and any place? Such arrogance. You did not even consider the arguments I gave in my previous post, you just posted some short two paragraph rant about why you're right despite everything, without providing any evidence--for that, you chose to rely on aerial's choice source. Well done.

You're going to have to learn two things, although they play off one another: first, not everyone thinks like you, and your principles may be ideal in a most general sense, but as you get more specific, people think differently from you and you're going to have to learn that. In other words, women in Muslim countries do not want to adopt your liberal feminist viewpoint. Look at the Gallup polls conducted, they want Shari`ah. The fact is, many women see Muslim as their identity, and are unwilling to let it go. Which brings me to my second point, many women do not see Shari`ah as limiting them. Instead, the same rules hold across different parts of the world, including Canada and the U.S., where women are often subjugated by men. The experiences are certainly different, but there's a reason to consider that the principle holds that sexism exists everywhere, because it is not due to Shari`ah. Furthermore, you have no actual history to support most of your claims. Most of your claims of Shari`ah literally entered the news in the past 20-30 years when radical Islamic movements began to emerge, such as the Taliban. However, you ignore over 1000 years of Islamic civilization, not surprisingly, since from what I can tell, the majority of your information comes from Western media reports over the last several years. I have a question: do you go around arrogantly advising people how best to diagnose a serious disease? Probably not, because you haven't studied it, and watching a season of House, M.D. is not enough. It only comes to politics and history that people think they can base their knowledge off of media and television alone. These subjects however are all sciences and DO require research and discussion, no matter how much you refuse to acknowledge it.

fuck

JC29856 wrote:

even here in the us, its hard to lock people up for "thought crimes"

i notice that all these thwarted bomb plots involve fbi coersion, where the accused rarely has the means to carry out the attack. everything seems to be supplied by the informant, the plan, the money, the materials and etc.

either there arent terrorist waiting to bomb us or the feds have been really good at catching them before they strike for the last 11 years

it's refreshing to see someone who knows what they're talking about. the FBI has for far too long been entrapping people in cases and no one has been saying a word.