< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Burkini Beach?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2016 10:01
 
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:45 AM

I’ve only just seen your edit, where you added a question:

I should say, why is it OK to have an ideology that says kill anyone who doesn’t believe as you do if it is called religion, but an ideology that says kill anyone who is a Jew or isn’t white is not.

Er…it’s not okay! I don’t think I insinuated that it was!!

I posted a link to a site called true Islam, but there are several, even many, groups of Muslims, movements if you like, that do not interpret Islam as instructing them to kill us, or as a hate machine. So it is useless to pretend that, say, ISIS, is the one true voice of Islam: are you telling all the others they are doing Islam wrong? I know you seem unable to bear it but not all Muslims are trying to kill you.

I never made such a claim, only that both are fully supported by the holy books of religion. You, in fact, do imply that only the good views are the true Islam.

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2016 10:04
 
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:47 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 09:30 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:24 AM

I don’t think you can substantiate any of those claims. Can you?

What I stated about religion, yes, it’s 100%. Your double standard for religion, yes, it clear in your posting. The rest, only you would know in your heart wink

Nonsense.


Links, please.  Or surrender!

Go read the Bible and the Quran, reread your posts and search your heart. Done.

 
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
22 August 2016 10:29
 
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:04 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:47 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 09:30 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:24 AM

I don’t think you can substantiate any of those claims. Can you?

What I stated about religion, yes, it’s 100%. Your double standard for religion, yes, it clear in your posting. The rest, only you would know in your heart wink

Nonsense.


Links, please.  Or surrender!

Go read the Bible and the Quran, reread your posts and search your heart. Done.

Surrender accepted.

 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
22 August 2016 10:42
 
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:01 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:45 AM

I’ve only just seen your edit, where you added a question:

I should say, why is it OK to have an ideology that says kill anyone who doesn’t believe as you do if it is called religion, but an ideology that says kill anyone who is a Jew or isn’t white is not.

Er…it’s not okay! I don’t think I insinuated that it was!!

I posted a link to a site called true Islam, but there are several, even many, groups of Muslims, movements if you like, that do not interpret Islam as instructing them to kill us, or as a hate machine. So it is useless to pretend that, say, ISIS, is the one true voice of Islam: are you telling all the others they are doing Islam wrong? I know you seem unable to bear it but not all Muslims are trying to kill you.

I never made such a claim, only that both are fully supported by the holy books of religion. You, in fact, do imply that only the good views are the true Islam.

 

I don’t. Again we will need links or more surrendering. (You’re going to be exhausted after all this surrendering, you know).

Seriously, there are two lines of thought being fused into one here. So I’ll try to separate them more clearly for both of us.


Are all Muslims radical fundamentalists? No.
Are all radical-islam fundamentalists Muslims? Yes.

Now all we have to do is determine whether a Burkini is worn by group A or group B or both.

And then we can put a post-acts-of-terrorism ban into perspective. Hopefully.

   

 

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
22 August 2016 11:28
 
Ola - 22 August 2016 10:29 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:04 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:47 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 09:30 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:24 AM

I don’t think you can substantiate any of those claims. Can you?

What I stated about religion, yes, it’s 100%. Your double standard for religion, yes, it clear in your posting. The rest, only you would know in your heart wink

Nonsense.


Links, please.  Or surrender!

Go read the Bible and the Quran, reread your posts and search your heart. Done.

Surrender accepted.

LOL. So your argument is that religions holy books don’t say kill, kill, kill*? Links please. Surrender accepted. 

* and no, someones interpretation of kill. kill, kill that you like doesn’t count for shit.

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3164
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
22 August 2016 13:17
 
Ola - 22 August 2016 10:42 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:01 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:45 AM

I’ve only just seen your edit, where you added a question:

I should say, why is it OK to have an ideology that says kill anyone who doesn’t believe as you do if it is called religion, but an ideology that says kill anyone who is a Jew or isn’t white is not.

Er…it’s not okay! I don’t think I insinuated that it was!!

I posted a link to a site called true Islam, but there are several, even many, groups of Muslims, movements if you like, that do not interpret Islam as instructing them to kill us, or as a hate machine. So it is useless to pretend that, say, ISIS, is the one true voice of Islam: are you telling all the others they are doing Islam wrong? I know you seem unable to bear it but not all Muslims are trying to kill you.

I never made such a claim, only that both are fully supported by the holy books of religion. You, in fact, do imply that only the good views are the true Islam.

 

 


Are all Muslims radical fundamentalists? No.
   

 

Actually, you are wrong if you define fundamentalist as believing in one’s holy book to be LITERAL word of God, then yes, all Muslims are fundamentalists.  As President Erdogan of Turkey said, “There is no radical Islam. Islam is Islam”.  Likewise, Muslim is Muslim. Regardless of sect, they all believe Qur’an is the word of God. The term radical is asserted to avoid discussing the ugly nature of Islam.

 
Bardamu
 
Avatar
 
 
Bardamu
Total Posts:  19
Joined  12-05-2016
 
 
 
22 August 2016 21:28
 

It seems strange that we focus exclusively on ‘liberating’ Muslim women, and neglect almost entirely to mention the corollary of veiling Muslim women: that women who do not submit to the veil are seen as ‘sluts’ and potentially as fair game by those who believe in the veiling of women. To argue about the veil itself (in whatever form), even about the rights of those who wear it, seems to me to overlook the fact that the veil is as much about the rights of those who do not submit to it as it is about those who do. I fear in Europe we are reaching a clear critical mass of submission to the veil in some areas (notably the one in which I live) which is emboldening men who believe that women ought to submit to the veil to begin to pressure those who do not through lewd comments, mild sexual harrassment and intimidation, none of which makes the papers, but all of which I witness on an almost daily basis, including directed at the women in my life. It’s a form of ‘slut-shaming’, and it should be stamped out just as the sexism of my grandfathers was stamped out a generation or two ago. Ending the process of legitimation of the veil has to start now if it is not to become the norm, if all women are to be free of fear of being harrassed for their dress choices, and while a ban is not the ideal way to achieve that halt, I don’t really see how else to get the message across that this creeping, insidious set of practices, beliefs and behaviours will not be allowed to take hold.

The problem, as with all of this, is how to frame the argument in liberal terms, but I don’t think that focusing on the rights of Muslim women is winning the argument.

[ Edited: 22 August 2016 21:30 by Bardamu]
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
23 August 2016 06:09
 
Celal - 22 August 2016 01:17 PM
Ola - 22 August 2016 10:42 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:01 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:45 AM

I’ve only just seen your edit, where you added a question:

I should say, why is it OK to have an ideology that says kill anyone who doesn’t believe as you do if it is called religion, but an ideology that says kill anyone who is a Jew or isn’t white is not.

Er…it’s not okay! I don’t think I insinuated that it was!!

I posted a link to a site called true Islam, but there are several, even many, groups of Muslims, movements if you like, that do not interpret Islam as instructing them to kill us, or as a hate machine. So it is useless to pretend that, say, ISIS, is the one true voice of Islam: are you telling all the others they are doing Islam wrong? I know you seem unable to bear it but not all Muslims are trying to kill you.

I never made such a claim, only that both are fully supported by the holy books of religion. You, in fact, do imply that only the good views are the true Islam.

 

 


Are all Muslims radical fundamentalists? No.
   

 

Actually, you are wrong if you define fundamentalist as believing in one’s holy book to be LITERAL word of God, then yes, all Muslims are fundamentalists.  As President Erdogan of Turkey said, “There is no radical Islam. Islam is Islam”.  Likewise, Muslim is Muslim. Regardless of sect, they all believe Qur’an is the word of God. The term radical is asserted to avoid discussing the ugly nature of Islam.

Fair enough. I’m struggling to find the vocab to rebut GAD’s misrepresentation of my views. Unfortunately those misrepresentations are never (despite requests) supported by a link to what I’ve said (perhaps because I didn’t say it), so it is an impossible task.

What words should I use to explain that I don’t maintain (and never have implied) that only the good stuff in Islam counts as Islamic?

I was trying to say that Anjem Choudhary and Rabia Chaudry are oceans apart in the way they live their lives and practise their religion, but that of course they are reading from the same book, living inside the same religion, just applying Islam differently.

And the burkini might be acceptable to either of them, I don’t know, but it is definitely not the sole preserve of the batshit terrorist preacher.

[ Edited: 23 August 2016 06:11 by Ola]
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
23 August 2016 06:49
 
Bardamu - 22 August 2016 09:28 PM

It seems strange that we focus exclusively on ‘liberating’ Muslim women, and neglect almost entirely to mention the corollary of veiling Muslim women: that women who do not submit to the veil are seen as ‘sluts’ and potentially as fair game by those who believe in the veiling of women. To argue about the veil itself (in whatever form), even about the rights of those who wear it, seems to me to overlook the fact that the veil is as much about the rights of those who do not submit to it as it is about those who do. I fear in Europe we are reaching a clear critical mass of submission to the veil in some areas (notably the one in which I live) which is emboldening men who believe that women ought to submit to the veil to begin to pressure those who do not through lewd comments, mild sexual harrassment and intimidation, none of which makes the papers, but all of which I witness on an almost daily basis, including directed at the women in my life. It’s a form of ‘slut-shaming’, and it should be stamped out just as the sexism of my grandfathers was stamped out a generation or two ago. Ending the process of legitimation of the veil has to start now if it is not to become the norm, if all women are to be free of fear of being harrassed for their dress choices, and while a ban is not the ideal way to achieve that halt, I don’t really see how else to get the message across that this creeping, insidious set of practices, beliefs and behaviours will not be allowed to take hold.

The problem, as with all of this, is how to frame the argument in liberal terms, but I don’t think that focusing on the rights of Muslim women is winning the argument.

That’s a thoughtful and well-written post, and hard to argue with.

 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
23 August 2016 06:59
 
GAD - 22 August 2016 11:28 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 10:29 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:04 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:47 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 09:30 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:24 AM

I don’t think you can substantiate any of those claims. Can you?

What I stated about religion, yes, it’s 100%. Your double standard for religion, yes, it clear in your posting. The rest, only you would know in your heart wink

Nonsense.


Links, please.  Or surrender!

Go read the Bible and the Quran, reread your posts and search your heart. Done.

Surrender accepted.

LOL. So your argument is that religions holy books don’t say kill, kill, kill*? Links please. Surrender accepted. 

* and no, someones interpretation of kill. kill, kill that you like doesn’t count for shit.

No, that’s not my argument.

I can’t say I wasn’t warned, but you began this dialogue by imagining and inventing my argument and attitudes, and you’ve continued solidly on that fruitless tack.  At least you are consistent, I guess.

 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
23 August 2016 07:22
 
LauraG - 22 August 2016 07:31 AM

I do not think “wicked” is the right way to describe the burkini - the connotation is simplistic & off the mark in my view. Rather, the burkini (as all of the other coverings the of Islamic WOMEN are) is a physical symbol of the inferior status of women inherent in the religion of Islam.  I read several articles over the weekend about the various burqa bans in Europe, as well as the specific recent bans on the burkini in a few French towns (e.g. Cannes). The gist of the pro-ban folk is just that - the required/expected coverings (in particular the full burka/face coverings) of Islamic WOMEN is antithetical to western values.

I stated on a different thread recently that I like to read all of the articles/editorials/news stories linked on http://www.realclearpolitics.com every day.  One of the articles this morning deals with the pro-women’s rights/anti-male “guardianship” movement in Saudi Arabia. (Go Saudi women!) Note the section below regarding the justification for male guardianship there. I suspect this is also true in most (all?) Muslim majority countries.

“Saudi women’s obedience to their male guardians within their families is part of their obedience to the absolute guardian of the state who is the ruler or king, as per the Quranic verse An-Nisa:59: “O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.”

As a western feminist secular athiest (ha - that’s a mouthful!) - this kind of thing absolutely makes my blood boil. I am in 100% agreement with this statement by Sam Harris that Islam is “the motherlode of bad ideas.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/08/saudi-arabia-women-call-end-male-guardianship.html#ixzz4I4MGsSCp

I look at all that stuff in a state of bamboozlement usually. Speaking as a secular western feminist type of woman myself, it is just bizarre.

I know a family originally from Yemen who feel it has to be a person’s own choice to be religious, and a woman’s own choice whether to wear a headscarf or not, etc. The men of the family don’t see it as their role to interfere in that, although they do care about it. They are religious, the sister wears a headscarf, but for a few years she didn’t, and no one tried to persuade her to. They’ve made hajj, and the brother described it as the most wonderful experience of his life. He’s a university lecturer. Physics.

I mean, so what, that’s one guy, but then again he’s not the only one.       

 

 
LauraG
 
Avatar
 
 
LauraG
Total Posts:  245
Joined  17-05-2016
 
 
 
23 August 2016 08:18
 
Bardamu - 22 August 2016 09:28 PM

It seems strange that we focus exclusively on ‘liberating’ Muslim women, and neglect almost entirely to mention the corollary of veiling Muslim women: that women who do not submit to the veil are seen as ‘sluts’ and potentially as fair game by those who believe in the veiling of women. To argue about the veil itself (in whatever form), even about the rights of those who wear it, seems to me to overlook the fact that the veil is as much about the rights of those who do not submit to it as it is about those who do. I fear in Europe we are reaching a clear critical mass of submission to the veil in some areas (notably the one in which I live) which is emboldening men who believe that women ought to submit to the veil to begin to pressure those who do not through lewd comments, mild sexual harrassment and intimidation, none of which makes the papers, but all of which I witness on an almost daily basis, including directed at the women in my life. It’s a form of ‘slut-shaming’, and it should be stamped out just as the sexism of my grandfathers was stamped out a generation or two ago. Ending the process of legitimation of the veil has to start now if it is not to become the norm, if all women are to be free of fear of being harrassed for their dress choices, and while a ban is not the ideal way to achieve that halt, I don’t really see how else to get the message across that this creeping, insidious set of practices, beliefs and behaviours will not be allowed to take hold.

The problem, as with all of this, is how to frame the argument in liberal terms, but I don’t think that focusing on the rights of Muslim women is winning the argument.

Your post has many excellent points. To me, however, they reinforce the idea that this debate is indeed at its core about the rights of Muslim women.

I agree with your statement 100%:

“Ending the process of legitimation of the veil has to start now if it is not to become the norm, if all women are to be free of fear of being harrassed for their dress choices, and while a ban is not the ideal way to achieve that halt, I don’t really see how else to get the message across that this creeping, insidious set of practices, beliefs and behaviours will not be allowed to take hold.”

I don’t have hard facts to back this up, but is it true (as I believe I’ve read here and there), that the wearing of the veil & other coverings (burkinis included) by European Muslim women has increased in recent years? If so, is this trend based on a desire on the part of Muslims to strongly assert their identity….in the wake of increased fundamentalism partly driven by perceived anti-Muslim sentiment? That is, as an in-your-face “I’m proud to be a Muslim and I’m showing you how devout I am,” or probably more likely “I’m proud to be a Muslim and what I expect the women in my life/community is showing you how devout I am.” I suspect that Muslim men (and particularly Muslim clerics) are largely driving this trend by convincing (requiring in many instances?) their womenfolk to follow suit now that there is a critical mass of Islamic women doing so (as you said is true in some areas).

A side note/personal anecdote: I’m an American, but spent my senior year of college in Versailles, France in the early 1980s. I spent a great deal of time in Paris and travelled quite a bit in France and other European countries as well. Versailles at that time had a fair amount of north Africans - in fact, my friends and I frequented a few different restaurants in Versailles run by Morroccans & Tunisians. They seemed quite assimilated in French society. I don’t recall any north African women wearing hijab or any other coverings. If they were Muslims, one would not have known it. If I saw women wearing hijab and so on in Paris at that time, it was rare. Regarding beach wear on French beaches, I’m certain I never saw a burkini. I haven’t been to France in nearly 20 years, so I can’t say from first hand experience that Muslim women are now “covering” more than ever before. If indeed this is true, I think it important to ponder the reasons why - is this signaling a rise in fundamentalism and a desire of the European Muslim community to assert its anti-western “otherness?”  A doubling down if you will? And if so, all the more reason in my view that the various burka, burkini, and other covering bans are necessary and appropriate in western countries like France.

Edit! - ok - I admit after rereading what I wrote, I am seeing this differently and in the larger context. Although this IS certainly a women’s rights issue, it is not strictly so. Issues of creeping & expanding fundamentalism, lack of assimilation, and otherwise doubling down on “otherness” are also huge concerns. (I’m basically thinking out loud & debating about this with myself at this point - haha)

[ Edited: 23 August 2016 09:46 by LauraG]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2016 08:58
 
Ola - 23 August 2016 06:59 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 11:28 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 10:29 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:04 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:47 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 09:30 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:24 AM

I don’t think you can substantiate any of those claims. Can you?

What I stated about religion, yes, it’s 100%. Your double standard for religion, yes, it clear in your posting. The rest, only you would know in your heart wink

Nonsense.


Links, please.  Or surrender!

Go read the Bible and the Quran, reread your posts and search your heart. Done.

Surrender accepted.

LOL. So your argument is that religions holy books don’t say kill, kill, kill*? Links please. Surrender accepted. 

* and no, someones interpretation of kill. kill, kill that you like doesn’t count for shit.

No, that’s not my argument.

I can’t say I wasn’t warned, but you began this dialogue by imagining and inventing my argument and attitudes, and you’ve continued solidly on that fruitless tack.  At least you are consistent, I guess.

Oh please. Your views are clear, trying to get around them to get you to see your pandering and double standards is the only thing fruitless here. But yes saying it must be my problem because someone warned you is easier.

Surrender accepted.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 August 2016 09:03
 
Bardamu - 22 August 2016 09:28 PM

It seems strange that we focus exclusively on ‘liberating’ Muslim women, and neglect almost entirely to mention the corollary of veiling Muslim women: that women who do not submit to the veil are seen as ‘sluts’ and potentially as fair game by those who believe in the veiling of women. To argue about the veil itself (in whatever form), even about the rights of those who wear it, seems to me to overlook the fact that the veil is as much about the rights of those who do not submit to it as it is about those who do. I fear in Europe we are reaching a clear critical mass of submission to the veil in some areas (notably the one in which I live) which is emboldening men who believe that women ought to submit to the veil to begin to pressure those who do not through lewd comments, mild sexual harrassment and intimidation, none of which makes the papers, but all of which I witness on an almost daily basis, including directed at the women in my life. It’s a form of ‘slut-shaming’, and it should be stamped out just as the sexism of my grandfathers was stamped out a generation or two ago. Ending the process of legitimation of the veil has to start now if it is not to become the norm, if all women are to be free of fear of being harrassed for their dress choices, and while a ban is not the ideal way to achieve that halt, I don’t really see how else to get the message across that this creeping, insidious set of practices, beliefs and behaviours will not be allowed to take hold.

The problem, as with all of this, is how to frame the argument in liberal terms, but I don’t think that focusing on the rights of Muslim women is winning the argument.

Indeed and you can see how all the “good” people here pat themselves on the back for championing the rights of “good” Muslims and saving Muslim women.

 
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
23 August 2016 09:06
 
GAD - 23 August 2016 08:58 AM
Ola - 23 August 2016 06:59 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 11:28 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 10:29 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 10:04 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:47 AM
GAD - 22 August 2016 09:30 AM
Ola - 22 August 2016 09:24 AM

I don’t think you can substantiate any of those claims. Can you?

What I stated about religion, yes, it’s 100%. Your double standard for religion, yes, it clear in your posting. The rest, only you would know in your heart wink

Nonsense.


Links, please.  Or surrender!

Go read the Bible and the Quran, reread your posts and search your heart. Done.

Surrender accepted.

LOL. So your argument is that religions holy books don’t say kill, kill, kill*? Links please. Surrender accepted. 

* and no, someones interpretation of kill. kill, kill that you like doesn’t count for shit.

No, that’s not my argument.

I can’t say I wasn’t warned, but you began this dialogue by imagining and inventing my argument and attitudes, and you’ve continued solidly on that fruitless tack.  At least you are consistent, I guess.

Oh please. Your views are clear, trying to get around them to get you to see your pandering and double standards is the only thing fruitless here. But yes saying it must be my problem because someone warned you is easier.

Surrender accepted.


Perhaps if you could LINK to or quote my alleged pandering and display of double standards, you’d feel less thwarted.

 

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›