What is considered the absolute worst "shoving beliefs down your throat"?
Is it that when they hold a gun to your head and say convert or your dead, raped, beheaded,or your child is raped?
oh fuck, get real. they are the worst because they are like people who just quit smoking (I know because I was once one of those assholes) or lose a bunch of weight. all of a sudden they think everything they did is 100% right because it was a life change that made a vast improvement on their own life, so they project that outwardly on anyone who has a pair of working ears.
as a silly little example, anytime someone would mutter "oh my god", he'd say "not just yours" with a shit eating grin on his face.
and when we still lived under the same roof, his now-wife would see me come up from my room at noon on a Sunday all hungover and proceed to tell me, in my own fucking house, how I was going to hell for the lifestyle I was leading. fuck you. that's the problem. they take the words of jesus/the bible literally about it being their duty to convert anyone they know to christianity. that may have been relevant when they were trying to build the following, but now? fuck off. my brother thinks all homosexuals are deviants who are going to hell and can be "cured" through a relationship with god.
it's fucking bigotry.
Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
sad is right. what's really sad is that it wasn't a school for c.i.a hitmen, wall street swindlers, or religious conversion. they just wanted to be fucking farmers. fucking farmers.
That is sad....
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
What is considered the absolute worst "shoving beliefs down your throat"?
Is it that when they hold a gun to your head and say convert or your dead, raped, beheaded,or your child is raped?
oh fuck, get real. they are the worst because they are like people who just quit smoking (I know because I was once one of those assholes) or lose a bunch of weight. all of a sudden they think everything they did is 100% right because it was a life change that made a vast improvement on their own life, so they project that outwardly on anyone who has a pair of working ears.
as a silly little example, anytime someone would mutter "oh my god", he'd say "not just yours" with a shit eating grin on his face.
and when we still lived under the same roof, his now-wife would see me come up from my room at noon on a Sunday all hungover and proceed to tell me, in my own fucking house, how I was going to hell for the lifestyle I was leading. fuck you. that's the problem. they take the words of jesus/the bible literally about it being their duty to convert anyone they know to christianity. that may have been relevant when they were trying to build the following, but now? fuck off. my brother thinks all homosexuals are deviants who are going to hell and can be "cured" through a relationship with god.
There are certainly many quote from the Quran saying that women and men are equal as far as how they practice their faith goes, and it does say that killing infant daughters is a sin, and that men should be chaste like women... So there are some things about certain kinds of equality in that book. However, it also says things like:
So my biggest problem with your commentary on Islam is how much you fundamentally lack an understanding of the sciences used to study it: whether it's an understanding of how to approach the texts, an understanding of just basic history of Islamic civilization, a grasp on the language itself, etc. I'll try to briefly explain the first point here, as I think I stressed the second point enough earlier in this topic.
There is actually a developed science about how to approach the text. The problem with both radicals and misogynist scholars is that they approach the science of Quranic exegesis with the aim of dissecting it verse by verse. Earlier in this thread, someone (adjeckto or something or other) kept quoting random, single Quranic verses. I didn't want to have to get into this whole topic so I tried to explain them individually, but clearly that's not going to work.
There are a few points we have to take into consideration when we study the Quran: first, many verses which seem contradictory aren't--they are either particular exceptions to a general rule, or abrogated (in that, their ruling no longer stands). So for instance, adjedkcko kept asking why Islam preaches the notion of forced conversion (an absurd accusation). First of all, when approaching the text, it is very clear in many instances that the notion of freedom of belief is entrenched deeply within Islam in verses like "there is no compulsion in religion," "to you your religion (or belief) and to me mine," and the verse I quoted earlier about humans having been created in many nations and tribes for a reason, thus dispelling any notion that all humans must or are even meant to be Muslim. So how do you explain other verses sanctioning warfare in light of these more general verses?
There is a science in Islam about the "general principles" underlying Islam that has existed for centuries. Many of these general principles are found in the Quran, such as the freedom of belief, having to establish justice, equality, etc. In fact, the overwhelming number of verses in the Quran are about general ideas like this (as well as theological concepts like a singular God, the afterlife, etc). Only a couple hundred of the over 6000 verses that exist in the Quran are actual legal junctions. As such, those legal junctions cannot ever conflict with these general principles that the Quran tells Muslims they have to make sure underlie their actions.
Allow me to provide an analogy: say, you're an avid antiwar pacifist who never believes in violence--even if someone were to hit you, you'd turn the other cheek or walk away. If someone were to break into your home however, threatening you or your family, you'd use every disposal at hand to stop the person, even if it means violence or killing the person. This is because the more general rule of having to protect yourself or your family outweighed, in this particular instance, your other principle of nonviolence.
This is what I was trying to explain earlier with the particular verses on warfare. You can't divorce them from the historical context, or the fact that one of the verses even explicitly mentions waging war in the context of "those who drove you from your homes."
Likewise, we can't disassociate Islam's birth from that society's context. It was a society in which women were incredibly disenfranchised. It was revolutionary (in the context of that time) the way in which Islam viewed women. As for polygamy, you can't disassociate it from the society. Marrying a huge number of wives was common in tribal societies, to the point where even limiting the number of wives to four was considered a restriction at that time. However, even the verse you quoted about polygamy very clearly has a general principle underlying it, which is the notion that you treat each woman completely equal to the other. There has been a huge number of scholars that have come out saying that because it is impossible to treat each woman equally, it cannot actually be practiced (which is why some Muslim countries have outlawed it).
Even the verse you quoted on inheritance: it is an incredibly controversial one, for sure. But what you have to take into account is the fact that when it was introduced, it was introduced alongside an entire other system: it was incumbent upon men to provide for women, whereas women were free to do as they wished with their money. I'm sure there are cases where in practice that was not the case, but you are not trying to argue practice right now, you're trying to argue what the legal injunction actually is. But because women have made so many achievements in the modern period, reformers have sought to argue that the old system which kept that inheritance law in place should now be abrogated, as it no longer fits within the context of our time, since the underlying principle of justice and equality has finally given women (theoretically) opportunities equal to men, so they should have the same share.
You might not care about all these different explanations. For all I know, you just quoted these verses having made up your mind and hoping to convince others. My real point here is to just explain to you that you really have no clue as to how sciences of interpretation and understanding of both the Quranic text as well as the historical and contemporary contexts are used to reconcile one another. It is an extremely complex science. I've spent years studying it and still have much more to learn. On the other hand, you have claimed having had a relationship with a Muslim man, which would not give you an understanding of Islam any more than dating a black guy would give you an understanding of the cultural and social disenfranchisement of the African-American community. It is an extremely complex topic that people spend decades studying. Anecdotal evidence, google searches (which is obviously how you found these verses since you clearly did not read the Quran), and bullshit statistics (like you quoting 20-30% of Muslims are extremist based on readings "here and there") simply don't work in a real discussion about this.
Yes, it is easy to find direct quotes from the Quran that show how Islam does not consider women equal to men. As a woman, I find it offensive when people try to claim that women are equal to men in Islam because it denies that there is a big problem in this regard both in the religion and in the culture.
Excuse me? As a woman you find it offensive? Um... how about: as a Muslim, I find you trying to even commentate on Islam based on virtually no real knowledge of it offensive.
I truly like the fact that you finally got to saying that there is a huge problem also in "the culture." Yes, it's so easy to say things are "cultural" problems, right? We in the West looove saying that about people in other, poorer countries. "Oh, it's just a cultural problem, they don't know any better," or "they're not advanced as we are." This is the problem with modern day liberal societies that see themselves as so much more advanced than others. Do you not see how your rhetoric is constantly of one more superior than others? For instance, you do not ever consider how Muslim women must feel about the things you say of their identity. How sexist of you! Do the hundreds of millions of Muslim women just not know any better? Are they just so oppressed that they have bought into the bullshit? Is that it? You know better than they do?
You can't view these things through a cultural lens. Culture is an entirely subjective topic, and people love to try to claim theirs as superior to others. It's much more than culture at play here. You really need to study the history of the civilization, the language, the various cultures existing within the Muslim world, their various histories and customs, the history of colonialism and its effect on the different parts of this part of the world, etc etc etc. This is an extremely dense topic which takes years of study. I'm sorry, but that's the fact, which is why ultimately I will say you lack an understanding in any of these issues, but I don't fault you for it nor do I consider it a problem with your intelligence, just your knowledge. I know that when topics are talked about a lot in the media, it makes it easy for people to become instant experts at it. But I think many in western societies need to practice some intellectual humility when it comes to Islam and Muslims.
The biggest problem in your line of arguments, Pj_soul, is in my opinion this: your endgame here is not truly women's equality. I'm sure you want that, but what you want more than anything is for people to say "religion is bullshit" or "some parts of religion is bullshit." What you truly want is for Muslims to say "fine. we'll disregard this part of the religion and admit it's BS." That would satisfy your militant atheism (BTW, by militant, I don't mean the word you hear in the news all the time, I mean someone who is combative and aggressive, to the point of being extremely confrontational). But you will never change over a billion Muslims' minds. This is what I'm trying to convince you: I don't care if you compromise your beliefs, I just want you to understand that Muslims aren't going to compromise theirs. So if you truly wanted women's equality, what you would do is work with reformers who see a need to challenge the narrative that has been dominated by the traditional orthodoxy, or the radicals who are constantly given media attention. Stop allowing them a monopoly on the narrative of either Islamic history or doctrine.
I admit, many of my points are supported by the majority of Muslims, but some of them are innovative and modern scholars have only recently been trying to make a serious effort to push them. The problem is that colonialism and imperial wars have left extremely vast problems in the Islamic world that is making it extremely difficult to do anything--consider even the radical Saudi regime that is kept in power with the support of the Americans and Israelis.
If this is a topic you are truly passionate about, you need to change your attitude. Being hardlined about your beliefs to the point where you are trying to impose them on others simply won't work. You need to show respect to an extremely vast and complex history of an entire civilization. You also need to stop viewing Islam through the lens of "all religions are the same bullshit." That's not true. Religions are complex and even have differences existing within themselves. I understand if you think religion is not for you, that's fine, but to then reduce the narrative of "all religions had some dude show up who claimed some fairy tale bullshit and convinced a bunch of people to do this and that" is just foolish. I'm not suggesting that's what you are necessarily doing (some in this thread surely are), but it's dangerously close.
I know this is already very long (although you asked for it), but I need to address one more point: you mentioned earlier how it might be fine and dandy that there are all these explanations for the historical context in which these verses were given, but does the typical common Muslim man (or woman) know this? The fact is, yes, they typically do. As I mentioned earlier, only a couple hundred of the over 6000 verses are actually legal rulings. The majority of the Quran that Muslims read in their lives are absolutely not those legal rulings (which exist in very long and drawn out chapters) but shorter, sweeter chapters that just tell people to always give charity, respect one another, treat orphans and elderly well (the Quran is very big on that), act with justice, and then a bunch more verses on the afterlife, God, etc.
No one just reads a verse about warfare, picks up a gun and walks out the door. Even people who become radicals are always driven to it by other people (almost always by political motivations and religious justification, not the other way around).
But when most Muslims come across specific verses, they pretty much almost always consult scholars on the topic, who do have the knowledge of not just the historical context but also the language, because Arabic is a difficult language on its own, let alone the complexity of the Quran. This is why badbrains is telling you to consult an imam because it is typically what someone who wants to understand more would do. I admit, I have problems with many imams who subscribe to traditional orthodoxy, but the fact that you are so opposed to even visiting one shows you have no real desire for understanding or interfaith dialogue. It's all "bullshit" to you. Being this closed is extremely problematic in my opinion because it will never advance the discussion.
There's still a ton more to say, but I think I've gone on long enough, and I have work in a bit so I really need to get off, but not before I respond to adjecko or whatever the fuck his name was.
Kill, convert or subjugate Christians and Jews.
(Qur'an 9:29)
Share one's faith with gentleness and respect.
(1 Peter 3:15)
I know i know...out of context.
Sorry bro, but you really have no clue about what Islam teaches. Doesn't make you an asshole or anything. You just dnt really know as I have little knowledge of other religions.
I've seen reports that the murderers actually rented a shop in the mall. And that gave them access to service elevators which essentially allowed them to have a central base to re-arm.
He stood up on the toilet and looked out. He had a clear view of the rear terrace and the crowd of children and parents who’d been caught there. “A woman was saying, ‘Calm down, calm down! It’s O.K.!’” he said. Njoroge paused. “Then I saw these guys.”
Men with large rifles or machine guns fired into the crowd, he said. Some children fell, shot; others lay down. He described the gunmen firing into their backs. One of the attackers took up a stone and slammed a man, who was holding a child, in the head. Then he picked his gun back up and fired more.
The men stopped shooting. One yelled, in Swahili, “Kama wewe ni Muslamu amka uende!”—“If you’re Muslim, get up and go!” Some people got up and left. Then the gunmen opened fire again. Done, they ran into the mall.
Kenya's parliament is due to hold a hearing into last week's siege of a Nairobi shopping centre, as the International Red Cross says 39 people remain unaccounted for since the attack.
The announcement of the hearing came as a leaked intelligence report obtained by Al Jazeera showed that security agencies had been alerted to the possibility of the attack on the Westgate mall a year before the siege began on September 21.
Kill, convert or subjugate Christians and Jews.
(Qur'an 9:29)
Share one's faith with gentleness and respect.
(1 Peter 3:15)
I know i know...out of context.
No, it's not out of context, you've simply resorted to lying. That's not what the verse says. The verse comes from the same chapter (9) which you keep citing, which I've told you repeatedly is in reference to one specific context. But you will continue to cite it, and even post fake translations now that are actually the exact opposite of what the verse says, because google tells you to.
I'm finished responding to you. You lie, misrepresent, and have no knowledge about the topic. May you have safe travels in your google searches.
Kenya's parliament is due to hold a hearing into last week's siege of a Nairobi shopping centre, as the International Red Cross says 39 people remain unaccounted for since the attack.
The announcement of the hearing came as a leaked intelligence report obtained by Al Jazeera showed that security agencies had been alerted to the possibility of the attack on the Westgate mall a year before the siege began on September 21.
Always the way with these tragedies it seems. Intelligence breakdowns have become the norm.
Kill, convert or subjugate Christians and Jews.
(Qur'an 9:29)
Share one's faith with gentleness and respect.
(1 Peter 3:15)
I know i know...out of context.
No, it's not out of context, you've simply resorted to lying. That's not what the verse says. The verse comes from the same chapter (9) which you keep citing, which I've told you repeatedly is in reference to one specific context. But you will continue to cite it, and even post fake translations now that are actually the exact opposite of what the verse says, because google tells you to.
I'm finished responding to you. You lie, misrepresent, and have no knowledge about the topic. May you have safe travels in your google searches.
Dark Side of Islam - rc sproul and abdul saleeb
Good read and good comparisons.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Kill, convert or subjugate Christians and Jews.
(Qur'an 9:29)
Share one's faith with gentleness and respect.
(1 Peter 3:15)
I know i know...out of context.
No, it's not out of context, you've simply resorted to lying. That's not what the verse says. The verse comes from the same chapter (9) which you keep citing, which I've told you repeatedly is in reference to one specific context. But you will continue to cite it, and even post fake translations now that are actually the exact opposite of what the verse says, because google tells you to.
I'm finished responding to you. You lie, misrepresent, and have no knowledge about the topic. May you have safe travels in your google searches.
give us the exact facts then.
i just read a lengthy post & i have no idea what i read
Sheriff Reports to Congress on Growing Somalia Gang Threat in Hennepin County
The sheriff of Hennepin County, Minn., told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on Wednesday about the threat of Somali gangs in his jurisdiction.
“I have been asked to testify today about the specific emergence of Somali gang-related issues we are having in my county,” Rich Stanek said in his prepared testimony.
Stanek represented the National Sheriffs’ Association at the hearing on “America’s Evolving Gang Threat.” He also serves on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s inter-agency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group and is president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Association.
Stanek said Minnesota is a “designated U.S. Refugee Resettlement Area,” with a Somali population ranging from 80,000 to 125,000 in the state. As a result, Stanek said, while the African population in the U.S. as a whole is about four percent, 18 percent of the Minnesota population is African because of the large Somali presence.
Stanek said he wanted to “state for the record” that most Somalis are “law-abiding citizens” who contribute to the community, but those who have joined gangs are committing crimes across the state.
“Somali gangs are unique in that they are not necessarily based on the narcotics trade as are other traditional gangs,” Stanek said, adding that “turf” is also not a motivating factor in Somali gang criminal activities.
“Gang members will often congregate in certain areas, but commit their criminal acts elsewhere,” Stanek said. “Criminal acts are often done in a wide geographic area that stretches outside of the Twin Cities seven county metro area.
“Their mobility has made them difficult to track,” Stanek said.
Stanek listed five “typical crimes” committed by Somali gang members, including credit card fraud, cell phone and gun store burglaries, and witness intimidation. The fifth type of criminal activity is tied to international terrorism, Stanek said.
“In 2007, the local Somali community started to report that some of the youth in the area had essentially disappeared without warning,” Stanek said. “It was later learned that 20 young men had left Minneapolis to travel to Somalia to receive training and fight as members of al- Shabaab.
“One individual had moved to Minneapolis as a teenager in 1993,” Stanek said. Following a shoplifting arrest, he fell into the violent street gang called the ‘Somali Hot Boyz.’ After a short period of time, he emerged as a recruiter for al-Shabaab, which eventually led him to leave Minneapolis for the Horn of Africa in 2008.
“Later, it was learned this individual was killed in fighting between al-Shabaab and Somali government forces,” Stanek said.
“We are clearly faced with a challenge that requires an innovative approach including new investigative tools and focused resources,” Stanek said.
According to the Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Refugee and Resettlement, refugee programs and resettlement sites exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia and are operated through partnerships between the federal government and faith-based and other non-governmental refugee support organizations in those states and the District.
A spokesperson for the office told CNSNews.com that the United States admits on average about 70,000 refugees a year, with each required to be designated as individuals who face danger in their homeland. Every refugee has to be cleared by the Department of Homeland Security before being allowed to resettle in the United States, the spokesperson said.
A wide range of considerations about where to relocate individuals is considered, including family ties, language and available resources, the spokesperson said. But once they are living in the United States, refugees are free to live anywhere in the country.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the subcommittee, opened the hearing with statistics on the gang threat in the United States.
“According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment there are approximately 1.4 million gang members belonging to more than 33,000 gangs in the United States,” Sensenbrenner said. “It has been reported that the number of gang members in the U.S. has increased by 40 percent since 2009.”
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Sheriff Reports to Congress on Growing Somalia Gang Threat in Hennepin County
The sheriff of Hennepin County, Minn., told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on Wednesday about the threat of Somali gangs in his jurisdiction.
“I have been asked to testify today about the specific emergence of Somali gang-related issues we are having in my county,” Rich Stanek said in his prepared testimony.
Stanek represented the National Sheriffs’ Association at the hearing on “America’s Evolving Gang Threat.” He also serves on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s inter-agency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group and is president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Association.
Stanek said Minnesota is a “designated U.S. Refugee Resettlement Area,” with a Somali population ranging from 80,000 to 125,000 in the state. As a result, Stanek said, while the African population in the U.S. as a whole is about four percent, 18 percent of the Minnesota population is African because of the large Somali presence.
Stanek said he wanted to “state for the record” that most Somalis are “law-abiding citizens” who contribute to the community, but those who have joined gangs are committing crimes across the state.
“Somali gangs are unique in that they are not necessarily based on the narcotics trade as are other traditional gangs,” Stanek said, adding that “turf” is also not a motivating factor in Somali gang criminal activities.
“Gang members will often congregate in certain areas, but commit their criminal acts elsewhere,” Stanek said. “Criminal acts are often done in a wide geographic area that stretches outside of the Twin Cities seven county metro area.
“Their mobility has made them difficult to track,” Stanek said.
Stanek listed five “typical crimes” committed by Somali gang members, including credit card fraud, cell phone and gun store burglaries, and witness intimidation. The fifth type of criminal activity is tied to international terrorism, Stanek said.
“In 2007, the local Somali community started to report that some of the youth in the area had essentially disappeared without warning,” Stanek said. “It was later learned that 20 young men had left Minneapolis to travel to Somalia to receive training and fight as members of al- Shabaab.
“One individual had moved to Minneapolis as a teenager in 1993,” Stanek said. Following a shoplifting arrest, he fell into the violent street gang called the ‘Somali Hot Boyz.’ After a short period of time, he emerged as a recruiter for al-Shabaab, which eventually led him to leave Minneapolis for the Horn of Africa in 2008.
“Later, it was learned this individual was killed in fighting between al-Shabaab and Somali government forces,” Stanek said.
“We are clearly faced with a challenge that requires an innovative approach including new investigative tools and focused resources,” Stanek said.
According to the Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Refugee and Resettlement, refugee programs and resettlement sites exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia and are operated through partnerships between the federal government and faith-based and other non-governmental refugee support organizations in those states and the District.
A spokesperson for the office told CNSNews.com that the United States admits on average about 70,000 refugees a year, with each required to be designated as individuals who face danger in their homeland. Every refugee has to be cleared by the Department of Homeland Security before being allowed to resettle in the United States, the spokesperson said.
A wide range of considerations about where to relocate individuals is considered, including family ties, language and available resources, the spokesperson said. But once they are living in the United States, refugees are free to live anywhere in the country.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the subcommittee, opened the hearing with statistics on the gang threat in the United States.
“According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment there are approximately 1.4 million gang members belonging to more than 33,000 gangs in the United States,” Sensenbrenner said. “It has been reported that the number of gang members in the U.S. has increased by 40 percent since 2009.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sheriff Reports to Congress on Growing Somalia Gang Threat in Hennepin County
The sheriff of Hennepin County, Minn., told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on Wednesday about the threat of Somali gangs in his jurisdiction.
“I have been asked to testify today about the specific emergence of Somali gang-related issues we are having in my county,” Rich Stanek said in his prepared testimony.
Stanek represented the National Sheriffs’ Association at the hearing on “America’s Evolving Gang Threat.” He also serves on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s inter-agency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group and is president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Association.
Stanek said Minnesota is a “designated U.S. Refugee Resettlement Area,” with a Somali population ranging from 80,000 to 125,000 in the state. As a result, Stanek said, while the African population in the U.S. as a whole is about four percent, 18 percent of the Minnesota population is African because of the large Somali presence.
Stanek said he wanted to “state for the record” that most Somalis are “law-abiding citizens” who contribute to the community, but those who have joined gangs are committing crimes across the state.
“Somali gangs are unique in that they are not necessarily based on the narcotics trade as are other traditional gangs,” Stanek said, adding that “turf” is also not a motivating factor in Somali gang criminal activities.
“Gang members will often congregate in certain areas, but commit their criminal acts elsewhere,” Stanek said. “Criminal acts are often done in a wide geographic area that stretches outside of the Twin Cities seven county metro area.
“Their mobility has made them difficult to track,” Stanek said.
Stanek listed five “typical crimes” committed by Somali gang members, including credit card fraud, cell phone and gun store burglaries, and witness intimidation. The fifth type of criminal activity is tied to international terrorism, Stanek said.
“In 2007, the local Somali community started to report that some of the youth in the area had essentially disappeared without warning,” Stanek said. “It was later learned that 20 young men had left Minneapolis to travel to Somalia to receive training and fight as members of al- Shabaab.
“One individual had moved to Minneapolis as a teenager in 1993,” Stanek said. Following a shoplifting arrest, he fell into the violent street gang called the ‘Somali Hot Boyz.’ After a short period of time, he emerged as a recruiter for al-Shabaab, which eventually led him to leave Minneapolis for the Horn of Africa in 2008.
“Later, it was learned this individual was killed in fighting between al-Shabaab and Somali government forces,” Stanek said.
“We are clearly faced with a challenge that requires an innovative approach including new investigative tools and focused resources,” Stanek said.
According to the Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Refugee and Resettlement, refugee programs and resettlement sites exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia and are operated through partnerships between the federal government and faith-based and other non-governmental refugee support organizations in those states and the District.
A spokesperson for the office told CNSNews.com that the United States admits on average about 70,000 refugees a year, with each required to be designated as individuals who face danger in their homeland. Every refugee has to be cleared by the Department of Homeland Security before being allowed to resettle in the United States, the spokesperson said.
A wide range of considerations about where to relocate individuals is considered, including family ties, language and available resources, the spokesperson said. But once they are living in the United States, refugees are free to live anywhere in the country.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the subcommittee, opened the hearing with statistics on the gang threat in the United States.
“According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment there are approximately 1.4 million gang members belonging to more than 33,000 gangs in the United States,” Sensenbrenner said. “It has been reported that the number of gang members in the U.S. has increased by 40 percent since 2009.”
they seem to be fitting right in then.
I defy you to name one immigrant population that doesnt have or has had a criminal element.
What is your point. It's ok because everyone else is doing it?
So why import trouble?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Thanks fuck for explaining it WAYYYYYYYYYY BETTER then I could've ever. Fucken genious
I fund fuck to be really condescending and he tends to assume that everyone else (beside you, badbrains, the other Muslim in the thread) is an idiot.
Fuck, I appreciated the time you took to post that response to me, but it was fairly evasive of the specific point I was making, and also very presumptuous about what I do or don't understand. You seem to think I'm pretty stupid. Of course I have an understanding of what you presume I don't. It's not rocket science you know. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't change anything as far as reality goes. You can wax on forever about the history and sciences of Islam, and the varying degrees of adherence to the Quran, etc., but it doesn't actually change anything. The way you are approaching the whole issue of people having a problem with certain aspects of the religion is flawed. Yes, you can provide a better understanding of the faith itself, but you are doing nothing whatsoever to confront the real world problems that exist within the religion and the culture that revolves around it. You breeze over those issues like they are nothing (and also assume that just because I say something about "the culture" briefly under the assumption that we all understand the weighty meaning behind that, it means I have no understanding of what that really means!), and proceed to turn the conversation into an academic one. It's just not going anywhere. But I am an open minded person (I know you have presumed that I'm not), and of course I am taking in everything you're saying, and it's interesting. It just doesn't actually confront the issue that I'm confronting.
I actually find that, if your goal is to make people more understanding about the Muslim faith, your method is actually alienating, mostly because of your assumption that no one knows anything and can't understand what should be known anyway unless they spend 20 years studying it. Good thing you're not an Imam I guess?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Thanks fuck for explaining it WAYYYYYYYYYY BETTER then I could've ever. Fucken genious
I fund fuck to be really condescending and he tends to assume that everyone else (beside you, badbrains, the other Muslim in the thread) is an idiot.
What? No I don't. There are plenty of clearly smart people in this thread, and I even have disagreed with things badbrains has said here as well (such as his explanation of 'infidel'). To suggest that I'm showing some Muslim bias is low.
I'm not questioning your intelligence here, just your knowledge of the subject we're discussing. There's a big difference. I admit that I don't have knowledge about many things in this world, and if someone who says they studied a certain topic both in the academic setting and in different countries explained to me through reason and facts why I'm wrong, I would be forced to concede the point (ESPECIALLY when I admit that I never read the actual sources on the topic). Or at least I'd hope to have the humility to do that whenever the time arises (and it has before).
I'm not saying you don't have the capability to understand. I'm saying you are speaking and making generalizing comments based on a very clear demonstration of a poor understanding of the topic at hand.
Anyway, thanks for your response. It said nothing meaningful though, as it did not address any of the points I raised. Instead you accused me of evading the issue (even though I took care to respond to pretty much all your points), while doing it yourself.
I'm sorry you think I'm alienating, and I don't understand what turning a discussion on religion/politics/policy "into an academic one" even means, or why it's necessarily a bad thing? Oh well. Some people think that trying to explain facts can be alienating. I think telling a billion people their religion is discriminatory (while admittedly not studying it) is alienating. I think telling millions of practicing Muslim women that their belief system is oppressive to them (even though they don't seem to know it) is alienating.
I think trying to explain to you why your understanding of Islam is flawed and clearly made up through impressions you get from popular culture in the West is not alienating, due to the main difference that I at least am trying to use facts (historical, textual, etc.) to back up my arguments. You make grandiose claims about religion and culture, and then when I point out that it's dangerous to say things along the lines of 'their culture is the problem' and try to explain why (to give explanation rather than simply say "it's bullshit"), you say I'm being condescending.
This conversation has clearly reached its limit. Take care.
Why not? I have visited many religious leaders in their places of worship. I know a lot more about religion that you think I do..... Far more understanding of the topic at hand that you think in terms of the relationship between faith, practice, and day to day life. That's why I feel that you are treating me like an idiot. Because you keep saying I don't understand things, when you have no clue what I understand or know. The fact that much of my understanding of the Muslim faith comes from Muslims seems to have had no impact on you at all btw.
Yes, I'm speaking in generalities - so what? I don't have time to write the kinds of posts you write. If I didn't generalize I'd be qualifying things forever. I see nothing wrong with generalities here. I think we are all smart enough to understand that nothing applies to all things.
There is nothing wrong with confronting an issue academically if that is going to be helpful to the issue, but it's not in this case. I'm talking about how women aren't equal in Muslim society and how the Quran does in fact has some things in it that show this is something written into the religion, as a counter to someone saying that that isn't true. That's all. And I think you vaguely confirmed that that is true, but that certainly was buried pretty deeply under all of that other stuff that was totally irrelevant to what I was talking about.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
if I wanted to really dig deeper into a religion (and I have dug pretty deep already BTW... I am sure most assume Atheists are the least knowledgeable about it, but that is not true), I would not go to an Imam or a priest or an orthodox rabbi. Talk about getting biased and defensive answers. They are the ones who are in charge of religious brainwashing for crying out loud. Of course those true to the faith are going to try and make it sound as good and benign as possible. I don't want tainted info coming from someone who is trying to sell me a good line or defend something (like you guys are trying g to do).
Comments
oh fuck, get real. they are the worst because they are like people who just quit smoking (I know because I was once one of those assholes) or lose a bunch of weight. all of a sudden they think everything they did is 100% right because it was a life change that made a vast improvement on their own life, so they project that outwardly on anyone who has a pair of working ears.
as a silly little example, anytime someone would mutter "oh my god", he'd say "not just yours" with a shit eating grin on his face.
and when we still lived under the same roof, his now-wife would see me come up from my room at noon on a Sunday all hungover and proceed to tell me, in my own fucking house, how I was going to hell for the lifestyle I was leading. fuck you. that's the problem. they take the words of jesus/the bible literally about it being their duty to convert anyone they know to christianity. that may have been relevant when they were trying to build the following, but now? fuck off. my brother thinks all homosexuals are deviants who are going to hell and can be "cured" through a relationship with god.
it's fucking bigotry.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
That is sad....
Yup. Plain and simple.
So my biggest problem with your commentary on Islam is how much you fundamentally lack an understanding of the sciences used to study it: whether it's an understanding of how to approach the texts, an understanding of just basic history of Islamic civilization, a grasp on the language itself, etc. I'll try to briefly explain the first point here, as I think I stressed the second point enough earlier in this topic.
There is actually a developed science about how to approach the text. The problem with both radicals and misogynist scholars is that they approach the science of Quranic exegesis with the aim of dissecting it verse by verse. Earlier in this thread, someone (adjeckto or something or other) kept quoting random, single Quranic verses. I didn't want to have to get into this whole topic so I tried to explain them individually, but clearly that's not going to work.
There are a few points we have to take into consideration when we study the Quran: first, many verses which seem contradictory aren't--they are either particular exceptions to a general rule, or abrogated (in that, their ruling no longer stands). So for instance, adjedkcko kept asking why Islam preaches the notion of forced conversion (an absurd accusation). First of all, when approaching the text, it is very clear in many instances that the notion of freedom of belief is entrenched deeply within Islam in verses like "there is no compulsion in religion," "to you your religion (or belief) and to me mine," and the verse I quoted earlier about humans having been created in many nations and tribes for a reason, thus dispelling any notion that all humans must or are even meant to be Muslim. So how do you explain other verses sanctioning warfare in light of these more general verses?
There is a science in Islam about the "general principles" underlying Islam that has existed for centuries. Many of these general principles are found in the Quran, such as the freedom of belief, having to establish justice, equality, etc. In fact, the overwhelming number of verses in the Quran are about general ideas like this (as well as theological concepts like a singular God, the afterlife, etc). Only a couple hundred of the over 6000 verses that exist in the Quran are actual legal junctions. As such, those legal junctions cannot ever conflict with these general principles that the Quran tells Muslims they have to make sure underlie their actions.
Allow me to provide an analogy: say, you're an avid antiwar pacifist who never believes in violence--even if someone were to hit you, you'd turn the other cheek or walk away. If someone were to break into your home however, threatening you or your family, you'd use every disposal at hand to stop the person, even if it means violence or killing the person. This is because the more general rule of having to protect yourself or your family outweighed, in this particular instance, your other principle of nonviolence.
This is what I was trying to explain earlier with the particular verses on warfare. You can't divorce them from the historical context, or the fact that one of the verses even explicitly mentions waging war in the context of "those who drove you from your homes."
Likewise, we can't disassociate Islam's birth from that society's context. It was a society in which women were incredibly disenfranchised. It was revolutionary (in the context of that time) the way in which Islam viewed women. As for polygamy, you can't disassociate it from the society. Marrying a huge number of wives was common in tribal societies, to the point where even limiting the number of wives to four was considered a restriction at that time. However, even the verse you quoted about polygamy very clearly has a general principle underlying it, which is the notion that you treat each woman completely equal to the other. There has been a huge number of scholars that have come out saying that because it is impossible to treat each woman equally, it cannot actually be practiced (which is why some Muslim countries have outlawed it).
Even the verse you quoted on inheritance: it is an incredibly controversial one, for sure. But what you have to take into account is the fact that when it was introduced, it was introduced alongside an entire other system: it was incumbent upon men to provide for women, whereas women were free to do as they wished with their money. I'm sure there are cases where in practice that was not the case, but you are not trying to argue practice right now, you're trying to argue what the legal injunction actually is. But because women have made so many achievements in the modern period, reformers have sought to argue that the old system which kept that inheritance law in place should now be abrogated, as it no longer fits within the context of our time, since the underlying principle of justice and equality has finally given women (theoretically) opportunities equal to men, so they should have the same share.
You might not care about all these different explanations. For all I know, you just quoted these verses having made up your mind and hoping to convince others. My real point here is to just explain to you that you really have no clue as to how sciences of interpretation and understanding of both the Quranic text as well as the historical and contemporary contexts are used to reconcile one another. It is an extremely complex science. I've spent years studying it and still have much more to learn. On the other hand, you have claimed having had a relationship with a Muslim man, which would not give you an understanding of Islam any more than dating a black guy would give you an understanding of the cultural and social disenfranchisement of the African-American community. It is an extremely complex topic that people spend decades studying. Anecdotal evidence, google searches (which is obviously how you found these verses since you clearly did not read the Quran), and bullshit statistics (like you quoting 20-30% of Muslims are extremist based on readings "here and there") simply don't work in a real discussion about this.
Excuse me? As a woman you find it offensive? Um... how about: as a Muslim, I find you trying to even commentate on Islam based on virtually no real knowledge of it offensive.
I truly like the fact that you finally got to saying that there is a huge problem also in "the culture." Yes, it's so easy to say things are "cultural" problems, right? We in the West looove saying that about people in other, poorer countries. "Oh, it's just a cultural problem, they don't know any better," or "they're not advanced as we are." This is the problem with modern day liberal societies that see themselves as so much more advanced than others. Do you not see how your rhetoric is constantly of one more superior than others? For instance, you do not ever consider how Muslim women must feel about the things you say of their identity. How sexist of you! Do the hundreds of millions of Muslim women just not know any better? Are they just so oppressed that they have bought into the bullshit? Is that it? You know better than they do?
You can't view these things through a cultural lens. Culture is an entirely subjective topic, and people love to try to claim theirs as superior to others. It's much more than culture at play here. You really need to study the history of the civilization, the language, the various cultures existing within the Muslim world, their various histories and customs, the history of colonialism and its effect on the different parts of this part of the world, etc etc etc. This is an extremely dense topic which takes years of study. I'm sorry, but that's the fact, which is why ultimately I will say you lack an understanding in any of these issues, but I don't fault you for it nor do I consider it a problem with your intelligence, just your knowledge. I know that when topics are talked about a lot in the media, it makes it easy for people to become instant experts at it. But I think many in western societies need to practice some intellectual humility when it comes to Islam and Muslims.
The biggest problem in your line of arguments, Pj_soul, is in my opinion this: your endgame here is not truly women's equality. I'm sure you want that, but what you want more than anything is for people to say "religion is bullshit" or "some parts of religion is bullshit." What you truly want is for Muslims to say "fine. we'll disregard this part of the religion and admit it's BS." That would satisfy your militant atheism (BTW, by militant, I don't mean the word you hear in the news all the time, I mean someone who is combative and aggressive, to the point of being extremely confrontational). But you will never change over a billion Muslims' minds. This is what I'm trying to convince you: I don't care if you compromise your beliefs, I just want you to understand that Muslims aren't going to compromise theirs. So if you truly wanted women's equality, what you would do is work with reformers who see a need to challenge the narrative that has been dominated by the traditional orthodoxy, or the radicals who are constantly given media attention. Stop allowing them a monopoly on the narrative of either Islamic history or doctrine.
I admit, many of my points are supported by the majority of Muslims, but some of them are innovative and modern scholars have only recently been trying to make a serious effort to push them. The problem is that colonialism and imperial wars have left extremely vast problems in the Islamic world that is making it extremely difficult to do anything--consider even the radical Saudi regime that is kept in power with the support of the Americans and Israelis.
If this is a topic you are truly passionate about, you need to change your attitude. Being hardlined about your beliefs to the point where you are trying to impose them on others simply won't work. You need to show respect to an extremely vast and complex history of an entire civilization. You also need to stop viewing Islam through the lens of "all religions are the same bullshit." That's not true. Religions are complex and even have differences existing within themselves. I understand if you think religion is not for you, that's fine, but to then reduce the narrative of "all religions had some dude show up who claimed some fairy tale bullshit and convinced a bunch of people to do this and that" is just foolish. I'm not suggesting that's what you are necessarily doing (some in this thread surely are), but it's dangerously close.
I know this is already very long (although you asked for it), but I need to address one more point: you mentioned earlier how it might be fine and dandy that there are all these explanations for the historical context in which these verses were given, but does the typical common Muslim man (or woman) know this? The fact is, yes, they typically do. As I mentioned earlier, only a couple hundred of the over 6000 verses are actually legal rulings. The majority of the Quran that Muslims read in their lives are absolutely not those legal rulings (which exist in very long and drawn out chapters) but shorter, sweeter chapters that just tell people to always give charity, respect one another, treat orphans and elderly well (the Quran is very big on that), act with justice, and then a bunch more verses on the afterlife, God, etc.
No one just reads a verse about warfare, picks up a gun and walks out the door. Even people who become radicals are always driven to it by other people (almost always by political motivations and religious justification, not the other way around).
But when most Muslims come across specific verses, they pretty much almost always consult scholars on the topic, who do have the knowledge of not just the historical context but also the language, because Arabic is a difficult language on its own, let alone the complexity of the Quran. This is why badbrains is telling you to consult an imam because it is typically what someone who wants to understand more would do. I admit, I have problems with many imams who subscribe to traditional orthodoxy, but the fact that you are so opposed to even visiting one shows you have no real desire for understanding or interfaith dialogue. It's all "bullshit" to you. Being this closed is extremely problematic in my opinion because it will never advance the discussion.
There's still a ton more to say, but I think I've gone on long enough, and I have work in a bit so I really need to get off, but not before I respond to adjecko or whatever the fuck his name was.
Bukhari is not the Quran. Did Sheikh Google not tell you that?
(Qur'an 9:29)
Share one's faith with gentleness and respect.
(1 Peter 3:15)
I know i know...out of context.
Sorry bro, but you really have no clue about what Islam teaches. Doesn't make you an asshole or anything. You just dnt really know as I have little knowledge of other religions.
Shall we start pulling out many of the extremely violent bible verses for you?
No, lets not bother, that sort of behaviour would just be petty, childish trolling.
Based on the amount of years i have been reading this website...there are many topics that belittle the teachings of Jesus.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Half the bible belittles the teachings of Jesus, because it is a completely self contradictory load of nonsense.
Godfather.
:?
He stood up on the toilet and looked out. He had a clear view of the rear terrace and the crowd of children and parents who’d been caught there. “A woman was saying, ‘Calm down, calm down! It’s O.K.!’” he said. Njoroge paused. “Then I saw these guys.”
Men with large rifles or machine guns fired into the crowd, he said. Some children fell, shot; others lay down. He described the gunmen firing into their backs. One of the attackers took up a stone and slammed a man, who was holding a child, in the head. Then he picked his gun back up and fired more.
The men stopped shooting. One yelled, in Swahili, “Kama wewe ni Muslamu amka uende!”—“If you’re Muslim, get up and go!” Some people got up and left. Then the gunmen opened fire again. Done, they ran into the mall.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Kenya's parliament is due to hold a hearing into last week's siege of a Nairobi shopping centre, as the International Red Cross says 39 people remain unaccounted for since the attack.
The announcement of the hearing came as a leaked intelligence report obtained by Al Jazeera showed that security agencies had been alerted to the possibility of the attack on the Westgate mall a year before the siege began on September 21.
I'm finished responding to you. You lie, misrepresent, and have no knowledge about the topic. May you have safe travels in your google searches.
Always the way with these tragedies it seems. Intelligence breakdowns have become the norm.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Dark Side of Islam - rc sproul and abdul saleeb
Good read and good comparisons.
give us the exact facts then.
i just read a lengthy post & i have no idea what i read
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Sheriff Reports to Congress on Growing Somalia Gang Threat in Hennepin County
The sheriff of Hennepin County, Minn., told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on Wednesday about the threat of Somali gangs in his jurisdiction.
“I have been asked to testify today about the specific emergence of Somali gang-related issues we are having in my county,” Rich Stanek said in his prepared testimony.
Stanek represented the National Sheriffs’ Association at the hearing on “America’s Evolving Gang Threat.” He also serves on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s inter-agency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group and is president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Association.
Stanek said Minnesota is a “designated U.S. Refugee Resettlement Area,” with a Somali population ranging from 80,000 to 125,000 in the state. As a result, Stanek said, while the African population in the U.S. as a whole is about four percent, 18 percent of the Minnesota population is African because of the large Somali presence.
Stanek said he wanted to “state for the record” that most Somalis are “law-abiding citizens” who contribute to the community, but those who have joined gangs are committing crimes across the state.
“Somali gangs are unique in that they are not necessarily based on the narcotics trade as are other traditional gangs,” Stanek said, adding that “turf” is also not a motivating factor in Somali gang criminal activities.
“Gang members will often congregate in certain areas, but commit their criminal acts elsewhere,” Stanek said. “Criminal acts are often done in a wide geographic area that stretches outside of the Twin Cities seven county metro area.
“Their mobility has made them difficult to track,” Stanek said.
Stanek listed five “typical crimes” committed by Somali gang members, including credit card fraud, cell phone and gun store burglaries, and witness intimidation. The fifth type of criminal activity is tied to international terrorism, Stanek said.
“In 2007, the local Somali community started to report that some of the youth in the area had essentially disappeared without warning,” Stanek said. “It was later learned that 20 young men had left Minneapolis to travel to Somalia to receive training and fight as members of al- Shabaab.
“One individual had moved to Minneapolis as a teenager in 1993,” Stanek said. Following a shoplifting arrest, he fell into the violent street gang called the ‘Somali Hot Boyz.’ After a short period of time, he emerged as a recruiter for al-Shabaab, which eventually led him to leave Minneapolis for the Horn of Africa in 2008.
“Later, it was learned this individual was killed in fighting between al-Shabaab and Somali government forces,” Stanek said.
“We are clearly faced with a challenge that requires an innovative approach including new investigative tools and focused resources,” Stanek said.
According to the Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Refugee and Resettlement, refugee programs and resettlement sites exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia and are operated through partnerships between the federal government and faith-based and other non-governmental refugee support organizations in those states and the District.
A spokesperson for the office told CNSNews.com that the United States admits on average about 70,000 refugees a year, with each required to be designated as individuals who face danger in their homeland. Every refugee has to be cleared by the Department of Homeland Security before being allowed to resettle in the United States, the spokesperson said.
A wide range of considerations about where to relocate individuals is considered, including family ties, language and available resources, the spokesperson said. But once they are living in the United States, refugees are free to live anywhere in the country.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the subcommittee, opened the hearing with statistics on the gang threat in the United States.
“According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment there are approximately 1.4 million gang members belonging to more than 33,000 gangs in the United States,” Sensenbrenner said. “It has been reported that the number of gang members in the U.S. has increased by 40 percent since 2009.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/minneso ... iiDHg.dpuf
I defy you to name one immigrant population that doesnt have or has had a criminal element.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What is your point. It's ok because everyone else is doing it?
So why import trouble?
We had some problems with the South Africans in the late 80's, but Riggs and Murtaugh pretty much took care of that.
Fuck, I appreciated the time you took to post that response to me, but it was fairly evasive of the specific point I was making, and also very presumptuous about what I do or don't understand. You seem to think I'm pretty stupid. Of course I have an understanding of what you presume I don't. It's not rocket science you know. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't change anything as far as reality goes. You can wax on forever about the history and sciences of Islam, and the varying degrees of adherence to the Quran, etc., but it doesn't actually change anything. The way you are approaching the whole issue of people having a problem with certain aspects of the religion is flawed. Yes, you can provide a better understanding of the faith itself, but you are doing nothing whatsoever to confront the real world problems that exist within the religion and the culture that revolves around it. You breeze over those issues like they are nothing (and also assume that just because I say something about "the culture" briefly under the assumption that we all understand the weighty meaning behind that, it means I have no understanding of what that really means!), and proceed to turn the conversation into an academic one. It's just not going anywhere. But I am an open minded person (I know you have presumed that I'm not), and of course I am taking in everything you're saying, and it's interesting. It just doesn't actually confront the issue that I'm confronting.
I actually find that, if your goal is to make people more understanding about the Muslim faith, your method is actually alienating, mostly because of your assumption that no one knows anything and can't understand what should be known anyway unless they spend 20 years studying it. Good thing you're not an Imam I guess?
I'm not questioning your intelligence here, just your knowledge of the subject we're discussing. There's a big difference. I admit that I don't have knowledge about many things in this world, and if someone who says they studied a certain topic both in the academic setting and in different countries explained to me through reason and facts why I'm wrong, I would be forced to concede the point (ESPECIALLY when I admit that I never read the actual sources on the topic). Or at least I'd hope to have the humility to do that whenever the time arises (and it has before).
I'm not saying you don't have the capability to understand. I'm saying you are speaking and making generalizing comments based on a very clear demonstration of a poor understanding of the topic at hand.
Anyway, thanks for your response. It said nothing meaningful though, as it did not address any of the points I raised. Instead you accused me of evading the issue (even though I took care to respond to pretty much all your points), while doing it yourself.
I'm sorry you think I'm alienating, and I don't understand what turning a discussion on religion/politics/policy "into an academic one" even means, or why it's necessarily a bad thing? Oh well. Some people think that trying to explain facts can be alienating. I think telling a billion people their religion is discriminatory (while admittedly not studying it) is alienating. I think telling millions of practicing Muslim women that their belief system is oppressive to them (even though they don't seem to know it) is alienating.
I think trying to explain to you why your understanding of Islam is flawed and clearly made up through impressions you get from popular culture in the West is not alienating, due to the main difference that I at least am trying to use facts (historical, textual, etc.) to back up my arguments. You make grandiose claims about religion and culture, and then when I point out that it's dangerous to say things along the lines of 'their culture is the problem' and try to explain why (to give explanation rather than simply say "it's bullshit"), you say I'm being condescending.
This conversation has clearly reached its limit. Take care.
Why? Not like you'd come visit me if I was
Yes, I'm speaking in generalities - so what? I don't have time to write the kinds of posts you write. If I didn't generalize I'd be qualifying things forever. I see nothing wrong with generalities here. I think we are all smart enough to understand that nothing applies to all things.
There is nothing wrong with confronting an issue academically if that is going to be helpful to the issue, but it's not in this case. I'm talking about how women aren't equal in Muslim society and how the Quran does in fact has some things in it that show this is something written into the religion, as a counter to someone saying that that isn't true. That's all. And I think you vaguely confirmed that that is true, but that certainly was buried pretty deeply under all of that other stuff that was totally irrelevant to what I was talking about.
:think:
:corn: