ChatterBank0 min ago
Them Muslims
71 Answers
What is it with the Muslims?
From this,
http://rt.com/Top_New...sts-hit-dagestan.html
To this,
http://rt.com/Top_New...s-against-terror.html
Which one is the true face of Islam?
Or is it really just a question of your own personal prejudices?
From this,
http://rt.com/Top_New...sts-hit-dagestan.html
To this,
http://rt.com/Top_New...s-against-terror.html
Which one is the true face of Islam?
Or is it really just a question of your own personal prejudices?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
123everton – I see you have made no further mention of your 'brain washing' comment and my response to it.
No matter, I shall continue.
You have recently asserted that women who wear the burqa are exercising their free-will and that they are not forced to wear this particular item of clothing:
“... the reality is that many many women choose to wear it, to deny them the right on the basis that a minority are being abused is, quite frankly absurd.”
It's interesting that you use the word 'choose' rather than the word which truly describes the condition of the wearer: coerced.
Do you honestly believe that of their own free will, women chose to cloth themselves from head to toe in an outfit through which they view the world through either a narrow slit or sometimes a 'grill'? If you honestly believe this to be the case I suggest that it you who is being absurd. It's not a 'choice' if you believe that abuse, violence and rape may ensue if you don't wear a particular outfit.
If you are told by your parents from the moment you're capable of understanding language that you cannot venture out into the world without covering your body from head to toe then you will believe it. If that message is reinforced by family and friends, then the belief reinforcement really kicks in. Supplement that with religious teachings that say women who wear revealing clothing will be raped; augment that belief with media confirmation of this world-view and you will create an individual who honestly believes that they wear the burqa because it's their right to do so (which it is) and because they've made a free-will choice to do so (which they haven't).
This is not free will - it is coercion writ large.
No matter, I shall continue.
You have recently asserted that women who wear the burqa are exercising their free-will and that they are not forced to wear this particular item of clothing:
“... the reality is that many many women choose to wear it, to deny them the right on the basis that a minority are being abused is, quite frankly absurd.”
It's interesting that you use the word 'choose' rather than the word which truly describes the condition of the wearer: coerced.
Do you honestly believe that of their own free will, women chose to cloth themselves from head to toe in an outfit through which they view the world through either a narrow slit or sometimes a 'grill'? If you honestly believe this to be the case I suggest that it you who is being absurd. It's not a 'choice' if you believe that abuse, violence and rape may ensue if you don't wear a particular outfit.
If you are told by your parents from the moment you're capable of understanding language that you cannot venture out into the world without covering your body from head to toe then you will believe it. If that message is reinforced by family and friends, then the belief reinforcement really kicks in. Supplement that with religious teachings that say women who wear revealing clothing will be raped; augment that belief with media confirmation of this world-view and you will create an individual who honestly believes that they wear the burqa because it's their right to do so (which it is) and because they've made a free-will choice to do so (which they haven't).
This is not free will - it is coercion writ large.
Continued...
It is because rational people recognise that the burqa is not a symbol of free-will or personal expression and is in fact a symbol of male oppression and specifically Islamic-male oppression that Belgium's lower house of Parliament have today approved, “... a measure banning women from wearing the full-face covering Islamic veil, or burqa, in public places.”
http://www.rttnews.co....aspx?Id=1287299&SM=1
Many will see this as an attack on Islam.
It's not any such thing.
It's a declaration that states that it is unacceptable in the 21st century to allow women – which in case anyone has forgotten, make up half of the entire human race – to be coerced into wearing a particular item of clothing using the threat of violence.
It is because rational people recognise that the burqa is not a symbol of free-will or personal expression and is in fact a symbol of male oppression and specifically Islamic-male oppression that Belgium's lower house of Parliament have today approved, “... a measure banning women from wearing the full-face covering Islamic veil, or burqa, in public places.”
http://www.rttnews.co....aspx?Id=1287299&SM=1
Many will see this as an attack on Islam.
It's not any such thing.
It's a declaration that states that it is unacceptable in the 21st century to allow women – which in case anyone has forgotten, make up half of the entire human race – to be coerced into wearing a particular item of clothing using the threat of violence.
In relation to Belgium (it is ultimately Belgium's business) 400 women wear the burkha in Belgium, and yet the state has sanctioned it's ban.
A bit ott.
We in the west often fail to grasp how western we are, the east isn't backward, it's different.
I don't agree with some of those differences, but, then again they don't agree with many of ours.
The veil, niqab, the hijab and the burkha etc are normal every day wear in their countries, it's just ordinary.
Not every woman in Iran wears the veil, or Syria etc etc, I would seriously advise both of you to watch "Syrian School" it may change your stereotypical view of Muslims, a little.
I still fail to see your remedy for Saudi Arabia, nonsensical as it is.
P.S.
Our disagreement on M.M.R is based not on choice etc, it's based on the claim that one possesses reason and logic whilst utilising proof and evidence to formulate conclusions, and, then promptly abandoning such principles when the evidence goes against them.
A bit ott.
We in the west often fail to grasp how western we are, the east isn't backward, it's different.
I don't agree with some of those differences, but, then again they don't agree with many of ours.
The veil, niqab, the hijab and the burkha etc are normal every day wear in their countries, it's just ordinary.
Not every woman in Iran wears the veil, or Syria etc etc, I would seriously advise both of you to watch "Syrian School" it may change your stereotypical view of Muslims, a little.
I still fail to see your remedy for Saudi Arabia, nonsensical as it is.
P.S.
Our disagreement on M.M.R is based not on choice etc, it's based on the claim that one possesses reason and logic whilst utilising proof and evidence to formulate conclusions, and, then promptly abandoning such principles when the evidence goes against them.
Everton, //The veil, niqab, the hijab and the burkha etc are normal every day wear in their countries, it's just ordinary.//
God! This is ridiculous! Why? Ask yourself why? Or better still, read what Birdie and I have said again, because you clearly haven't understood a word of it. I have travelled fairly extensively in the Middle East, I have spoken to countless Muslim women and girls, and therefore I don't need to watch one television documentary in order to formulate an opinion.
Our differences on MMR are based on choice. You are happy to accept the triple vaccine despite the fact that no one can offer conclusive and irrefutable proof of its safety. I, on the other hand, require that irrefutable proof because children's lives matter to me. I know several people - some of whom joined our discussions - who firmly believe their children have been damaged by MMR, and therefore I prefer to err on the side of caution. If only one child in 10,000 is negatively affected by it, from my point of view, it's one child too many and so it's logical to advocate separate vaccines. It's as simple as that.
That said, I'm not getting into that argument again. It's already been done to death.
God! This is ridiculous! Why? Ask yourself why? Or better still, read what Birdie and I have said again, because you clearly haven't understood a word of it. I have travelled fairly extensively in the Middle East, I have spoken to countless Muslim women and girls, and therefore I don't need to watch one television documentary in order to formulate an opinion.
Our differences on MMR are based on choice. You are happy to accept the triple vaccine despite the fact that no one can offer conclusive and irrefutable proof of its safety. I, on the other hand, require that irrefutable proof because children's lives matter to me. I know several people - some of whom joined our discussions - who firmly believe their children have been damaged by MMR, and therefore I prefer to err on the side of caution. If only one child in 10,000 is negatively affected by it, from my point of view, it's one child too many and so it's logical to advocate separate vaccines. It's as simple as that.
That said, I'm not getting into that argument again. It's already been done to death.
The reason why is because it's an expression of their faith in Islam.
As to how they came to form that view is another matter, your view on this matter is not an altruistic path but more one of seeking converts away from Islam and faith in general.
There's nothing overtly wrong in that, just be honest about it when you're discussing it.
As to how they came to form that view is another matter, your view on this matter is not an altruistic path but more one of seeking converts away from Islam and faith in general.
There's nothing overtly wrong in that, just be honest about it when you're discussing it.
Everton, No, that is not the reason. Islam does not demand it, and if this were indeed an expression of faith, then there would clearly be many more than the 400 you claim in Belgium wearing it, so that is complete and utter nonsense. How those who do wear it came to form that view is the real crux of the matter, and that is precisely what you consistently refuse to address.
It is quite ridiculous to imply that my view is other than that expressed, and it's even more ridiculous to suggest that my intention is to attract people away from Islam. Because I care about humanity and the future of our planet, I would like people of religion to shake off the restrictive shackles of the antiquated superstitions that bind them - I've made no secret of that - but if that were indeed my purpose in discussing this, do you really think I would be using page 4 of an old thread on Answerbank to achieve the aim? How many Muslim women do you imagine are reading this? If anyone is dishonest, it's you because in order to defend religion and the religious you willingly and continually surrender your own integrity. In short, you're lying to yourself. Wake up Everton!
It is quite ridiculous to imply that my view is other than that expressed, and it's even more ridiculous to suggest that my intention is to attract people away from Islam. Because I care about humanity and the future of our planet, I would like people of religion to shake off the restrictive shackles of the antiquated superstitions that bind them - I've made no secret of that - but if that were indeed my purpose in discussing this, do you really think I would be using page 4 of an old thread on Answerbank to achieve the aim? How many Muslim women do you imagine are reading this? If anyone is dishonest, it's you because in order to defend religion and the religious you willingly and continually surrender your own integrity. In short, you're lying to yourself. Wake up Everton!
Oh, 123everton, you do make me laugh sometimes.
The way you fail to engage with someone making a valid argument that undermines your simplistic world-view.
I thank you for your contribution to this thread. For your platitudes and for your shameless hand-wringing apologist twaddle. For not bothering to even acknowledge my most recent posts except in the most general, non-specific, whimsical way.
Thank you for proving that you really have nothing meaningful to say on religion aside from baseless assertions that you think that all the horrific, violent, misogynistic, homophobic pronouncements from scripture are not that important.
If that is the best you can argue in favour of religion then God help religion. Because, quite frankly, you're not up to the challenge.
However, you've made a valiant effort, so well done for that.
The way you fail to engage with someone making a valid argument that undermines your simplistic world-view.
I thank you for your contribution to this thread. For your platitudes and for your shameless hand-wringing apologist twaddle. For not bothering to even acknowledge my most recent posts except in the most general, non-specific, whimsical way.
Thank you for proving that you really have nothing meaningful to say on religion aside from baseless assertions that you think that all the horrific, violent, misogynistic, homophobic pronouncements from scripture are not that important.
If that is the best you can argue in favour of religion then God help religion. Because, quite frankly, you're not up to the challenge.
However, you've made a valiant effort, so well done for that.
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
News7 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
News16 mins ago
