Islamic compounds in U.S.A Training for Jihad

fuck wrote:

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.

I don't really know aerial's tendencies on the boards; I haven't been paying attention. But the points he made about women and Sharia Law are true.

I guess I do have a radical position, if by "radical" you mean "decided". :? If you think being against Sharia law is radical, then I question your definition of the term. My position in no way suggests that I don't have respect for other aspect of Muslim culture or the Islamic religion (as far as I can, anyway... I actually have very little respect for all organized religions. But I disrespect all organized religions equally. We're talking about Sharia Law here, though. Not the religion of Islam, right?). I am speaking of Sharia law is particular, and yes, when it comes to Sharia law, I have a zero tolerance policy because it necessarily embraces those views on the relationship between men and women. Much of my experience comes from actual observation of what happens within Sharia communities/families in my larger community. News about the Taliban, etc, doesn't help obviously, but you act as thought that has nothing to do with the realities of Sharia law. It DOES. I am not ignoring anything; I am perfectly aware of all the points you make. You keep acting like I'm ignorant to those things. I am not at all. I am educated, I read a LOT, and I don't restrict my info to TV news. On the contrary. It's presumptuous of you to assume this just because I disagree with you. And if you think the same rules of Sharia law as they relate to women apply in Canada and around the world because "sexism exists everywhere", then I'm sorry, you absolutely have your head up your ass when it comes to issues of women's rights.

The thing is, I don't find your points relevant at all to what I'm saying here, and they don't have any impact on my views of Sharia law. I have zero tolerance for it. My views on Sharia law have nothing to do with my views on other aspects of Muslim culture (how Sharia law relates to Muslim history is a whole other matter, and one that is too huge for me to engage in, because I don't have the time). So clearly our opinions differ on this... You seem to think that Sharia law somehow demands respect just because it's rooted in history. I think it demands disrespect because it encourage the subjection of women to the extreme. I am very comfortable in my view.

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't really know aerial's tendencies on the boards; I haven't been paying attention. But the points he made about women and Sharia Law are true.

No, they aren't. Just as an example, forced marriage is absolutely prohibited in Islamic Law based off of a Prophetic report that the woman has the right to voice her disagreement on an arrangement and that she cannot be forced to marry at that point.

We're talking about Sharia Law here, though. Not the religion of Islam, right?

Look, first of all, just because it's annoying, Shari`ah can be translatable as Islamic Law. Either say Shari`ah, or say Islamic Law, but don't say Shari`ah Law because then it's as if you are saying Islamic Law Law. Second, the fact that you don't even know the difference between Shari`ah and the actual religion, that is, where the shari`ah fits within the religion, shows your lack of knowledge. I mean, no one can be a Muslim if they don't adhere to Shari`ah. (which is not to say one has to follow every aspect of it--disagreement with many parts of Islamic law exist--and are welcomed to the extent that the disagreements are still rooted in Qur'an and Hadith).

I am speaking of Sharia law is particular, and yes, when it comes to Sharia law, I have a zero tolerance policy because it necessarily embraces those views on the relationship between men and women. Much of my experience comes from actual observation of what happens within Sharia communities/families in my larger community. News about the Taliban, etc, doesn't help obviously, but you act as thought that has nothing to do with the realities of Sharia law. It DOES. I am not ignoring anything; I am perfectly aware of all the points you make. You keep acting like I'm ignorant to those things. I am not at all. I am educated, I read a LOT, and I don't restrict my info to TV news. On the contrary. It's presumptuous of you to assume this just because I disagree with you.

Yes, you very clearly read a lot, seeing as how you don't even know where shari`ah fits within the religion of Islam. It's unfortunate that you've had bad experiences with what you have witnessed, but that does not change the fact of what Shari`ah is. If you want to argue whether the Shari`ah discriminates against women or not, you do NOT cite examples of rogue communities. That's just absolutely incorrect in how you analyze. You engage the texts. You discuss the Qur'an, the prophetic reports, the scholarship done on the subject for centuries in Islamic civilization, and contemporary Muslim thinkers' takes on the subject.

And if you think the same rules of Sharia law as they relate to women apply in Canada and around the world because "sexism exists everywhere", then I'm sorry, you absolutely have your head up your ass when it comes to issues of women's rights.

This just goes to show that you are not listening to what I'm saying. What I said was, the principle of discrimination against females exists worldwide. That principle holds regardless of where you go, for the most part. Islamic law is not to blame for discrimination at the core, sexism exists regardless of it. Now, as I said before, when you weren't reading properly, the experiences vary from culture to culture, naturally. But that is precisely why when discussing Islamic law, you do not discuss the experiences of that particular society solely as the effect of Islamic law, you discuss it as the effect of certain actors applying law. Then, you analyze Islamic law and see to what extent these actors are applying it, and to what extent they are merely enforcing misogynistic practices that subjugate women. That's call devising a methodology. I'm sure you've read about it in all those books you're talkin about.

The thing is, I don't find your points relevant at all to what I'm saying here, and they don't have any impact on my views of Sharia law. I have zero tolerance for it. My views on Sharia law have nothing to do with my views on other aspects of Muslim culture (how Sharia law relates to Muslim history is a whole other matter, and one that is too huge for me to engage in, because I don't have the time). So clearly our opinions differ on this... You seem to think that Sharia law somehow demands respect just because it's rooted in history. I think it demands disrespect because it encourage the subjection of women to the extreme.

That's because what you are saying is not relevant to the discussion of Islamic law. This is what I have been arguing all along--you cannot simply discuss misplaced peoples applying it incorrectly and at their own whims as what Islamic law is. For instance, aerial cited the issue of zina, or sex outside of marriage, punishable by lashings. What she refused to write is that under Islamic law, the only way one would be punished is if 4 credible witnesses actively saw the act performed. A scholar once described some of these harsher punishments as almost never being applied because the requirements to prove them are far too much. Also, for the record, men are punishable for zina just as women are. I don't want to get caught up in specifics, because this is going to distract us from the conversation. My point is, however, that there is far more nuance here that you are letting on. You can sit here and say it subjugates women, but there are hundreds of millions of Muslim women who would tell you you speak from ignorance. I mean, you don't even know where Shari`ah fits within Muslim 'culture' (whatever that means, culture and religion to me are separate) and you refuse to engage in the history of Shari`ah in Islamic civilization. You only insist on bringing up your random examples from a community in Canada, and the Taliban. I never said the Shari`ah demands respect because it is rooted in history. I demand that intellectual honesty requires one to engage the subject fully before taking a radical position, that is, "zero tolerance" as you described it. If you don't have time to discuss the history of it, or to engage it fully, that's fine. But to go around making false claims without backing it up is arrogant.

I reiterate my previous suggestion--since you like to read so much--I highly encourage you to read Saba Mahmood's Politics of Piety.

I am very comfortable in my view.

I'm well aware of that.

PJ_Soul wrote:

fuck wrote:

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.

Isn't this all pure conjecture?? I wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything on that matter either way without more information.

The FBI has been doing this for years now (I've been following these on a case-by-case basis). 100% of the time, when there has been an FBI informant, said informant played a role in planning or providing support for said attack. I recommend you do more research.

fuck wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

You're still arguing for what Sharia perhaps should be, and not what it actually is.

No, I am arguing how it is and how it was applied for over 1000 years. You are arguing ONLY how it's been applied by SOME people in the last 20 years or so. That's the difference.

I edited my last post.

It does also make me wonder what's going on tax-wise if they have isolated their communities like this. I would be very surprised if there wasn't some form of tax fraud or evasion happening.