Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 06:28 AM

Yes, any preconceived notion is a prejudice (and no later additional information can alter that status).

Dianavan,
I think you have a point when saying that the immigrant status plays a big role. I have said in a previous post that the not overly nice reaction of some Germans to immigrants makes them even more sticking to traditional values than they'd be in their home countries. Our treatment of them is partially responsible for the problem of Muslim fundamentalism getting a hold in a subset of immigrant families in Germany.

However, the particular problem of (mostly) Turkish immigrants is worse than it was with for instance Italian immigrants (the main immigrants to Germany in the 1950 and 60s) or Polish immigrants (coming in the 19th century). (1) The difference in values is larger than with immigrants from a majority Christian culture and (2) the lack of acceptance of our law system is greater. This last bit (lack of acceptance of the law) is in my eyes a specific fundamentalist Muslim problem. For them the sharia is not just one competing idea at par with other ideas how to regulate human behaviour, it is the only acceptable one. For people brought up in a predominantly Christian culture, the Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's teaching makes it much more easy to accept a government not following closely what would be their ideal law.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:18 AM

I don't have the impression that the behaviour of the Turkish police has anything to do with this theme.

Why should people be allowed to ignore the laws of the country they [have chosen] live in?

It depends. To tell you an example: In Germany, both members of the Jewish and the Muslim faith in large numbers ignore the German laws regarding treatment of animals when slaughtering them. A couple of years ago, our supreme court has accepted their right to slaughter animals in violation of the German law. The consequence is that if I would slaughter an animal their way because I might think it tasted better that way I would get punished but they wouldn't if they argued that they are following religious prescriptions.

The court has declared that the right to follow own's own religion is of higher value than a German law against animal abuse. One can have different opinions about that (I'm undecided) but we often allow people for religious reasons to be for instance louder than the law permits (bell ringing), but we would not allow for instance human sacrifices.

So in each case different values/rights have to be considered. And don't we all agree that abuse and killing of women should be treated differently from killing and abusing animals?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:31 AM

just curious, Ooh Aah -what part of Oz are you from? (Queensland?)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM

Sikhs in the UK exempted from the law that requires all motorcyclists to wear a crash helmet.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:24 AM

In the book, I say that there are two conditions under which the liberal reformation of Islam will take place. Condition number one is that Muslims stop taking the Quran so literally. Condition number two is that non-Muslims stop taking multiculturalism so literally. What do I mean by that? So many non-Muslims are afraid of being called racist if they ask hard questions about what is going on with human rights in Islam. But I say to them: You will be called racists. Get used to it. Make peace with it. But when you are called racist, remind your accusers that in the last 100 years, more Muslims have been tortured and murdered at the hands of other Muslims than at the hands of any foreign imperial power. So when you’re standing up for human rights in Islam, the people you’re defending first and foremost are Muslims themselves. What’s racist about that?

Canadian Muslim and writer (The trouble with Islam today Irshad Manji

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:59 AM

problems to which Islam is particularly prone!

This is pure bullshit that you have made up to serve your hate campaign against Muslims.

if you're a Muslim woman and report your husband beats you he may kill you

This happens quite often in the US, by white guys with European backgrounds who are not Muslim. In fact, the women at highest risk are the ones who have left their husbands and reported them. Many of them get killed. (By their White, husbands of European ancestry who are not Muslims) I bet it happens a lot in Australia too, by white guys with European backgrounds who are not Muslims.

To suggest that spousal abuse is a particularly Muslim problem is to avoid the truth of spousal abuse, which is that white guys with European ancestry, who are not Muslims, beat their wives too. Do all of them beat their wives? No, indeed. But a hell of a lot of them do. And many of the ones who beat their wives, also kill their wives. Shall we tar all men with European ancestry and who aren't Muslims with the same broad brush as the ones who beat (and often kill) their wives? Of course not. That would be bigotry, wouldn't it?

As Joe Offer has said on this thread

The basic premise of (this) thread is a thinly-veiled bigotry, the kind that seems to run rampant here at Mudcat...to my mind, it's bigotry whenever you accuse an entire group for the misconduct of individuals within that group.

When we blame groups for the actions of a few individuals, we divert attention from those who truly are to blame, and we also divert attention from serious attempts to solve the problem.

So, I think it's bigotry - veiled bigotry, perhaps; but still bigotry. And it happens here at Mudcat all the time.

What does CarolC think about the unnecessary violence used by the Turkish police against women who were demonstrating to mark World Womens Day?

It happens in the US, too. The most widely known, of course, was the violence used against the women who were protesting for the right to vote in the early part of the 20th century. And also to women who were involved in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Two women (students) were shot to death by the US National Guard in the 1970s during a Vietnam War protest. But it still happens in some contexts, even today. Only thing is, you don't tend to see it being covered in the news.

What does CarolC think about genital mutilation, stoning to death, the forced wearing of the veil, lack of sufferage, girls being prevented from going to school,'honour killings', burkas, women being refused even to leave the house for decades on end, the law that dictates that a woman complaining of rape must have four male Muslim witnesses or risk being accused of 'fornication', the fact that even women in the west who criticise these things must go into hiding to survive?

I think they are horrible. And all of them are being done to women who are not Muslims by men who are not Muslims as well (except for the "four male Muslim witnesses thing... with Hindus in India, for instance, if a Dalit woman is raped by a higher caste man, she has no legal recourse whatever). But Ooh-Aah2's hypocrisy and hatred of Muslims makes him unwilling to see anything bad except that done by Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 12:12 PM

The Pope is a Catholic.
In thus stating the obvious I am serving no good purpose, nor am I adding to the store of human knowledge. I am also not saying that being a Catholic is a good or a bad thing. It does however fit in well with several other posts in this thread which use stating the bleeding obvious as a means of debate.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

Here's a constructive point for those people who just don't seem to be able to grasp what I am trying to say...

If you want to reduce and/or eliminate a negative behavior, you focus on the behavior, and not on the person/people (or group the person/people belong to) who are exhibiting the behavior. Focusing on the behavior allows people the freedom to take corrective measures. Focusing on specific groups of people who exhibit the behaviors only results in the scapegoating of the entire group, even when, A. not all memebers of the group participate in the behavior, and B. members of other groups also participate in the same or equally destructive behaviors.

This is very simple stuff, and it shouldn't be too hard to understand in the absence of any secondary bigotry and/or hate-related agendas.

So if we want to correct the problem of human rights abuses against women, let's discuss human rights abuses that are being committed against all women, rather than just those being committed by some members of only one group of people. Anything else is hypocrisy. And bigotry.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:14 PM

I don't hate anybody, but the behaviour of certain people, and groups of people horrify me. In order to make this clearer it would be necessary for me to specify the persons or people involved, maybe even their sex too.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:21 PM

I can understand that, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. Where the bigotry/hypocrisy enters the picture is when you only focus on the destructive behaviors of some people, while completely ignoring the same or equally destructive behaviors of other people, including members of your own group, and at the same time, ignoring the vast majority of the people in the group you are afraid of who are not guilty of the things you are criticizing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

Your argument is specious, and is based on the belief that people cannot discuss the behaviour of members of a group of people, without prejudice. I assume when I state indisputable facts, and record actual events, that the person I am talking to, or discussing it with, is intelligent enough to know that this is posssible. I am not intersted in the excuse usually proferred of 'Yes I know that but what about other people?'
As you drive down the highway towards Mecca there is a big sign saying 'non-Moslems this way', and an arrow pointing to the route that by-passes the city, this is discriminatory, but it does not offend me!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 01:42 PM

But of course lots of other religions have these problems, or did have one or more of them a century or two ago, or have induvidual members who are nasty (Ooh-Aah2)

Ooh-Aah2's hypocrisy and hatred of Muslims makes him unwilling to see anything bad except that done by Muslims (Carol)

----------------

a constructive point for those people who just don't seem to be able to grasp (Carol)

I grasp your point, Carol, but I do not agree. A very very different thing. You seem to think that someone not agreeing with you cannot have grasped your point and vice versa, if one only had grasped your point one couldn't but agree. You err.

Even if not all members of one group exhibit a behaviour and members of other groups also exhibit this behaviour (I can't think of any real exception and noone in this thread argues that point), if it would be true (and that's the point of this thread) that one behaviour comes relatively more often from one group of people it would be better to be informed about that for protective and helping measures not to be wasted.

Take the honour killings in Germany for instance. By far not all Muslims come even close to consider these crimes and I'm sure that there must have been some non-Muslim German to have committed such a crime during the last decades. But the Berlin police would act unresponsible if they would ignore that these killings (and threats of killings) come nearly exclusively from one particular subgroup of the population. For other crimes, I'd expect them to single out or at least look more closely to non-Muslim men, homosexuals, Russian Germans, Neonazis, Nigerians or whoever if they know that a certain type of crime is relatively more often committed by a member of one group. Also for other measures (safe houses, leaflets telling about female rights, anonymous telephone) it makes sense to know who to address in particular.

The themes I'm exploring (in her book) with the utmost honesty include:

    * the inferior treatment of women in Islam;
    * the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in; and
    * the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes.

I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists.

But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam is literalism mainstream...

My question for non-Muslims is equally basic: Will you succumb to the intimidation of being called "racists," or will you finally challenge us Muslims to take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam? (Irshad Manji)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

But the Berlin police would act unresponsible if they would ignore that these killings (and threats of killings) come nearly exclusively from one particular subgroup of the population. For other crimes, I'd expect them to single out or at least look more closely to non-Muslim men, homosexuals, Russian Germans, Neonazis, Nigerians or whoever if they know that a certain type of crime is relatively more often committed by a member of one group.

Yes. But we are not the Berlin police. Also, if the Berlin police were to treat all Muslims in Germany as if they are criminals, that would in itself be criminal. Surely you know that.

I disagree with some of the premises in that book you are quoting from, Wolfgang, especially the idea that only in Islam is literalism mainstream. And also these...

* the inferior treatment of women in Islam;
* the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in; and
* the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes.

...are hardly problems that are unique to Islam.

However, I think that the fact that the book exists is yet one more example of what I am talking about... that Muslims are just as fundamentally human as the rest of us, and there are Muslims who seek to improve their way of being Muslims, just as there are people in all other cultures who seek to improve their way of being whatever they are.

My argument is not at all specious, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. Have a look at that thread I posted a link to. I never suggested in that thread that all Germans and Australians were responsible for the things I posted quotes about. All I did was to start a thread with a title very similar to this one with some quotes from some media sources that discussed a real problem in the world today. Just as you have done with this thread. But look how people interpreted my message. And rightly so, in my opinion. It does not serve the interests of human rights to only report human rights abuses that are committed by some members of certain groups of people. The only way to promote the cause of human rights is to shine a light on human rights abuses wherever and whenever they occur.

But of course lots of other religions have these problems, or did have one or more of them a century or two ago, or have induvidual members who are nasty.(Block your ears to the screams, people, and remember that to criticise Islam is bigotry!)

Wolfgang, I could be wrong about this, but I think this paragraph by Ooh-Aah2 was meant as a sarcastic criticism of what I have been saying in this thread, and was not meant to be taken literally.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM

Some people need to look up the meanings of "bigotry" and "specious".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 07:27 PM

Bigotry is an interesting one, Richard Bridge. I had been trying to get away from the use of that particular word in contexts like this one because in it's strictest sense it doesn't really mean what it seems to have come to mean in popular usage. But when I did that, I found communication to be more cumbersome than if I just went along with popular usage.

I was talking about something along these lines with someone I know recently. He asked me if the person I was talking about was a bigot. I had some difficulty expressing to him what I was talking about because he just wanted to know if the person I was talking about was a bigot. I explained how the dictionary definition seems to not be consistent with popular usage of that word, and was he asking me if the person I was talking about was the equivalent of a racist or an anti-Semite only in the context of people who are not of a different race or Jewish, which is what I took his use of the word to mean. He got a bit impatient and said, yes, just like most people mean when they use the word bigot. And I took that to be Joe Offer's meaning when he used it on the other thread.

We don't really have a word that is the equivalent of the words "racist" and "anti-Semite" when people are not being categorizec by race or Jewishness. We should. But it would appear that "bigot" is becoming that word in popular usage.

Specious means:

1 obsolete : SHOWY
2 : having deceptive attraction or allure
3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC

Websters Online

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:19 AM

"...if you're a Muslim woman and report your husband beats you he may kill you..." Hello! Are you pretending that this doesn't happen in other countries?

Are you kidding? In Canada and the U.S., they not only threaten to kill you and the kids but they quite often succeed. If they don't kill you, they quite often kidnap the kids.

What planet are you from?

This is not just a Muslim problem!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:41 AM

Dianavan you're falling into the same trap as carolC by comparing apples with oranges. We know and abhor the fact that these things happen in both cultures, but only one culture has a handbook saying it's OK to beat your wife.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:54 AM

This article by the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues
points out that the richest countries in Europe and the most privileged population groups experience Domestic Violence (DV we call it is Oz) just as severely. All that varies between countries are the remedies which are attempted, whether by legislative means or by material and psychological assistance for the victims.

Certain European countries, such as Iceland, which in other ways is rather advanced from the point of view of women's rights, the Netherlands and Greece have no specific legislation on domestic violence. In Greece marital rape does not expressly constitute an offence ; whereas in Italy it is considered a crime. Unfortunately, the Italian judges have not changed their attitude and rarely apply these laws. In France, rape is recognised by the law and therefore punished.

The question of the implementation of the law is significant. In Portugal, for example, there has been a law protecting women from conjugal violence since 1991. However, it was adopted under international pressure and not following a new awareness of the issue. It is therefore not applied, the means for implementing it being non-existent. The problem is serious as a woman's life is sometimes at stake : in Northern Ireland, 40% of the murders of women are committed by their husbands. In Sweden, the reception centres for battered women advise leaving after being hit for the first time, as the situation can only get worse.

..it is interesting to note also that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in Finland has remarked [1] that treatment programmes for violent men cost much less than the consequences of violence. In fact, it has been established that one act of violence in a family may easily cost society 185,000 Finnish marks (more than £20,000) [2]. In comparison, treatment of a violent man costs less than £700 (corresponding to individual evaluation sessions for three months and 15 group therapy sessions).

These figures provide food for thought, when it is known that in Finland 22( of women questioned in 1997 who were living with a man said that they had been victims of physical or sexual violence or of threats of violence by their partner at the time. In Greece, a study carried out in Athens showed that one man in four between the ages of 25 and 35 had beaten his partner at least once, and the National School of Public Health has estimated that one woman in four who arrives at the Accident and Emergency Services has been hit by her partner. In Austria, one woman in five is the victim at least once in her life of physical violence from a partner.

Legislation on conjugal violence is often very recent. Laws which punish rape between spouses are rare, or recent. In Switzerland, the legislation was modified in 1993 but only the victim may lodge a complaint, while in other rape cases a public prosecution may be brought. Conjugal violence is a phenomenon which is often taboo. States generally point to the fact that it occurs in the 'private sphere' as a justification for their inertia. Respect for private life in this instance means the protection of the interests of violent men, and not of those of battered women. Faced with this observation, the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has asserted in its General Recommendation 19 that States may be held responsible for 'private acts if they do not act with due diligence to prevent the violation of rights or to investigate acts of violence in order to punish them and to provide a remedy for them'.

More than a year ago, Spain acquired a spectacular, legislative arsenal to fight domestic violence, a plague of very worrying proportions in that country. Nearly 19,000 complaints of mistreatment were lodged in 1997. The plan, which has a total budget of 60 million dollars, envisages measures to distance by force a violent spouse from his victim, the systematic follow-up of cases of mistreatment, the creation of 'women's care units' in police stations and the launch of an awareness raising campaign. It is, alas, too early to evaluate the results of a purview of thes nature, but this initiative by the Spanish government deserves to be highlighted.

In some countries, specialists in the reception of battered women have been invited to develop and deliver training for police officers. This has been the case, for example, in Austria since the mid 1980s.

more of this interesting article can be found here...
domestic violence- a comparison between different countries in europe

the point that it makes, regarding the legislation and training of police officers in each country, is significant in this argument about "muslim intolerance".

Here is another article, on Domestic Violence and Sharia:A Comparative Study of Muslim Societies

this time comparing DV patterns in the Middle East, the sub-continent and Asia. The writer, a woman of Islamic background by her name, comments:

The role of the state is particularly important to any discussion of domestic violence because of its capacity and responsibility to regulate (i.e., prohibit, punish, etc.) violence. For the purpose of this study, which focuses on (and is limited to) relations and practices governed by shari?a, the categories of domestic violence considered here include, inter alia, beatings, battery and murder; marital rape; and forced marriage.

When violence occurs within the context of the family, it raises questions about the laws and legal administration of family relations. Are violent practices among family members legally permitted or prohibited? In practice, are they ignored, tolerated or penalized? Do perpetrators enjoy impunity (whether de jure or de facto) or do they stand to be punished? Are civil remedies available to victims (e.g., right to divorce, restraining orders)? Even failure or refusal on the part of the state to deal with intra-family violence is an act, not an omission or absence, of law.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:03 AM

She comments further:
The prospect of prohibiting and punishing domestic violence depends, foremost, on the state?s willingness and capacity to reform criminal and family laws. But the issue?and possibility?of state-sponsored reforms is strongly affected by social beliefs and ideologies about gender and family relations.

Law reform strategies work best?when the social value base is in concordance with the desired new norms. As long as the old regime of values is in effect, the tasks of making the new norms operative, or activating the educative function of law to change values, will be difficult and require action on many fronts.[13]



When the administration of family relations is based upon or derived from religious texts and traditions, as is the case in Muslim societies where sharia constitutes the framework for family law, the possibility for reform is contingent on a serious and respectful engagement with religious beliefs and practices. But the challenges to reform law in order to promote and protect the rights of women are daunting; in many contexts, shari?a is interpreted to allow or tolerate certain forms of violence against women by male family members. This raises questions?and stimulates debates?about what religion "says" (or is believed to say) about the rights of women. It also raises questions about the willingness or ability of the state to prevent violence within families, especially when prevailing views or powerful constituencies regard curbs on male authority as a contravention of sharia.

She discusses some very interesting information at length and concludes:

Ultimately, the state is responsible for the regulation, restriction and punishment of violence. If sharia functions legally and/or socially as a basis for maintaining women as wards of "their men" rather than full legal subjects of the state, and if violence against women within the context of families is not regarded as violence but as a legitimate means of "social control", the harms women suffer go not only unpunished but unrecognized as harms. Thus, even if states commit themselves to the principle of women's rights (e.g., non-discriminatory clauses in national civil legislation, accession to international conventions), if they do not commit their resources to protect women from violence at home, they fail as states to assume their responsibility.

The authoritarian nature of many states in the Middle East, Africa and Asia bolsters patriarchal family relations, and fosters social and religious conservatism.

When the state is incapable or unwilling to represent the interests of members of society, the importance of family and kinship relations for social survival is inflated. Consequently, any challenges to patriarchal authority in the domestic sphere including but not limited to challenges to the use of violence can be construed as threats to the family as an institution.

Although sharia is administered, interpreted and used in a multitude of ways across Muslim societies, it provides justification for failures and refusals on the part of states to act responsibly to provide women the rights and protections that they are due as humans, as citizens, as women and as Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:08 AM

According to a US State Department report on human rights practices in Pakistan released in February, anywhere from 70-90 percent of women are victims of domestic violence at the hands of their husbands, in-laws or other relatives.

The Hudood Ordinances, announced by the central martial law government in 1979, aimed to make the Penal Code more Islamic. They provide for harsh punishments for violations of Shari'a (Islamic law), including death by stoning for unlawful sexual relations. Women frequently are charged under the Hudood laws for sexual misconduct, such as adultery. According to the US State Department, in 1998 about one-third of the women in jails in Lahore, Peshawar, and Mardan were awaiting trial for adultery.

Furthermore the state department report says that discrimination against women is rife in rural areas of Pakistan, particularly Sindh and Baluchistan in the south, where it claims female literacy rates are two percent or less.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 09:27 AM

but only one culture has a handbook saying it's OK to beat your wife

This is such bullshit. The Bible has been used for eons as a justification for human rights abuses against women, including the practice of wife beating.

It's in the interpretation of the Bible and the Koran that the problems arise, not necessarily in either of those texts themselves. Both texts promote the subjugation of women by men, and that is what gives men and societies the "justification" for physical abuse.


This article discusses the role that the Hindu religion plays in the subjugation of women in India, and how it contributes to the problem of domestic violence against women in that country:

http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/1/94

"Domestic violence in not unique to India, nor is it a recent phenomenon. But in India what is unusual is the resistance to its elimination by society at large and society's lack of recognition of it as a serious issue. What is recent is the courage of women to face up to domestic violence - not just women in organized groups but also female victims who are well aware of the dverse consequences that "going public" will have on their lives. With the backdrop of the patriarchal social structure, the tradition of familial piety, and the asymmetrical gender expectaations in India, this defiant movement to expose domestic violence has created the space for a national debate on the issue.

This article will focus on the privileged position of men in the household and in society to implicate men as perpetrators in the debate on domestic violence. The focus is on men because it is men in India who define the household, the society, and the nation; women's status in India is purely relational (daughter, wife, and mother of father, husband, and son). This article will discuss how the status of Indian women is determined primarily by patriarchy, thus drawing women into a traditional gender hierarchy. Through a discussion of men's exalted position in Indian society, I want to delineate how the woman's very existence is created to cater to the patriarchy, which has "mastered the craft" of creating a social order that ensurees that service is provided not just with efficiency but also with devotion, silence, subjugation, and tolerance, even at the expense of glorifying such oppression through religion and mythology (e.g. Sita and Savitri, mythological Hindu figures whose chastity and devotion to their husbands make them role models for all Hindu women)."



Here's an instance of a Hindu sect that is committing human rights violations against children (mostly female) in the name of their religion:

"SAUDATTI, India (Reuter) - Frenzied worshippers gathered
near a south Indian temple Wednesday ready for the full moon
celebration of a Hindu goddess whose devotees include a cult
sentencing children to a life of prostitution.
Girls -- many under 10 years old -- chosen to become
Devadasis, meaning handmaidens of god, will be dedicated to the
goddess Yelamma in secret ceremonies before being brought to the
temple...

...Most of the girls brought into the Devadasi system will
return home, but once they reach puberty they will become human
cargo in the sex traffic in cities like Bombay, where sex can be
bought for less than the price of a bottle of beer.
Hunger, poverty and superstition are the root causes of a
practice which sees parents or relatives sell a daughter to a
pimp or brothel for $150 to $200."


When you focus on only one group of people who do these kinds of things, it becomes no longer about the victims, but about your own prejudice against that group.

Also, by dismissing what some of the women in this thread are saying about domestic violence in our own cultures as being different (irrelevant) because you think it's only bad to beat your wife if it's encoded in your "handbook", you are tacitly condoning that behavior in these cultures. Which makes you no better than the people you are criticizing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:01 AM

My other premise is that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever (Carol)

This article discusses the role that the Hindu religion plays in the subjugation of women in India, and how it contributes to the problem of domestic violence against women in that country (Carol)

Here's an instance of a Hindu sect that is committing human rights violations against children (mostly female) in the name of their religion: (Carol)

I've tried to argue exactly this point with you for too many posts, Carol, namely that it is possible to pin down some behaviours and crimes to the variable 'religion'. It was no use for you insisted that such an argument could not be made at all. Now I see you citing approvingly (so it seems to me) instances in which religion is considered as a possible reason for a particular pattern of crimes. Thank you.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 10:54 AM

You are mischaracterizing what I have said, Wolfgang (willfully perhaps?)

I said this:

it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever

My examplse do suggest that any religion or religions is/are more prone to anything. My examples only show the presence of the same phenomenon in more than one religion. Nice try, but no cigar. (And you should know better, too, being the language pedant you seem to think you are.)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 11:12 AM

Oops. Typo. My last post should read like this:

My examples do not suggest that any religion or religions is/are more prone to anything.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 11:26 AM

How can I mischaracterise what you have said when I quote you exactly?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 12:00 PM

Some Christians use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives.

Some Muslims use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives.

Some Hindus use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives.

Now, based on these three statements, which of these three religions is more prone to having members who use their religious texts as an excuse to beat their wives? And based on these three statements, how much more likely are the members of these religions to beat their wives than people of other religions or of no religion at all?

You mischaracterize what I'm saying by suggesting that the two things I have posted are inconsistant. Which they are not. Providing examples that show the presence of the same or similar phenomena in more than one religion is not at all the same thing as saying some religions are more prone to those phenomena than other religions. And I can also give examples of the same or similar behaviors in situations where religions is not a factor at all (many of the spousal abuse cases in the United States, for instance), as well as giving examples in which members of all of the religions in question do not exhibit these phenomena.

My examples only show that the Muslim religion is not the only religion to have the problem of people using its religious texts as a justification for human rights abuses against women (contrary to John 'Giok' MacKenzie's assertion that "only one culture has a handbook saying it's OK to beat your wife"). They do not show that any particular religion is any more prone to this problem than any other religion.

Notice that word "more". That's the important one to notice in that bit you quoted from me. The most important one, in fact.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM

No, you don't understand my point at all, Carol. But I might expect too much, for you have not understood it the first time.

A premise is something taken for granted anbd not open to change by empirical evidence or other kind of study. Any study or article looking for a religious background must be open to a finding that the religion studied is a variable worth considering as one reason for the incidence of particular crimes. If not it is worthless. Of course, the finding could be that religion does not play a role. I'm open to that. I would also be open to a finding (and consider it likely) that criminal activity in general is equally distributed across religions. My point only has been all the time that particular crimes may not be distributed evenly across religions.

The contradiction I see is that you link to a study trying to explain the incidence of a particular crime with one particular religion. This variable has no explanatory power at all if not the incidence of a crime (at least at one moment in time) did not vary with religion. Acknowledging that the teachings of one religion can be taken to explain at least partly one crime is in contradiction to the premise that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever.

BTW, speaking about contradictions, when we first had this discussion and I argued that religion can be a meaningful variable you told us that you think it is not possible to disentangle the variable religion from other varibales like social background. Have you changed your mind now when linking to this study or do I misrepresent your past opinion?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 01:59 PM

I did not provide a link to that study in order to promote the study itself as evidence of what you are suggesting, Wolfgang. I was using that study as an example of the kind of discussion that is happening among Hindu women in India on the subject of domestic violence (as evidence that it is a problem there), and also to show a specific example of Hindu religious tradition that is being used as an excuse for mistreatment of women. I did not read the whole study since it was not my intention to use the data in the study to support any of my points.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 02:07 PM

Acknowledging that the teachings of one religion can be taken to explain at least partly one crime is in contradiction to the premise that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever.

I disagree. People find all kinds of excuses to mistreat one another. The fact that some people use religious teachings as one such excuse doesn't in any way prove that there aren't an equal or greater number of non-religious excuses used by people for such behavior.

BTW, speaking about contradictions, when we first had this discussion and I argued that religion can be a meaningful variable you told us that you think it is not possible to disentangle the variable religion from other varibales like social background. Have you changed your mind now when linking to this study or do I misrepresent your past opinion?

No I have not changed my mind about that. Religion can be used to justify certain behaviors that are also found in other contexts besides religions. The fact that some people justify their mistreatment of others using religion doesn't mean that religion is the only or even the predominent justification that people use to mistreat one another.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

Blimey! This is fast becoming absurd and it's because CarolC doesn't seem to be able to understand a basic point no matter how slowly and clearly Wolfgang, Giok (and to a certain extent) Freda and myself put it.

We know problems are not limited to Islam. But Islam still has not grown out of using religion to justify the indefensible and it does this TO A FAR GREATER EXTENT THAN OTHER RELIGION. Hindus beat their wifes in the name of religion, Christians beat their wives in the name of religion, but the secular rules of their societies mean they are breaking the law of the land each time they do so. Not so with sharia law - NOT ONLY DOES IT FAIL TO PROTECT WOMEN IT ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES MEN TO RULE THEIR LIVES. In India or America the religious freak who shoots a woman for 'immorality' has broken the law. In Pakistan and Afghanistan he has conformed to it. In many Muslim countries where he may have broken the letter of a law made for the sake of the countries' international reputation, not much happens because the majority of the Muslim inhabitants' lives are still ruled by Islamic custom rather than by the expectations of the international community. The same in India you say? Not so because such murders are widely condemned by the mainstream media, widely attacked by politicians and decent Hindu priests and laypeople and women's groups (who are allowed to exist!)and are subject to the attentions of crusading film-makers and journalists (none of whom have ever been murdered for their efforts as far as I know). Anyone who regular reads the online editions of 'The Hindu' 'The Deccan Herald' and reads the magazine 'India Today' knows that disgust at these atavistic actions are widely condemned in India. Not so in extreme Muslim countries.

I'm from Tassie Freda, when I'm not in India and Britain.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 04:53 PM

Ooh-Aah2, you have just articulated one of the main points I have been making all along. It is not Islam that is the problem. It is fundamentalism that is the problem. Sharia law is not a form of moderate Islam. It is fundamentalist Islam. And it is in the more fundamentalist elements of other cultures (not always necessarily in a religious context) that we see these same kinds of human rights abuses against women. Your example of the laws in India is not a good one, since the laws in India protecting women from domestic abuse have recently been severely weakened by some of the more fundamentalist elements of Hindu culture in India. It is now legal for a man to beat his wife if he says he is doing it to protect himself, his "property", or anyone else or their "property". This means that in India, according to law, a man's "property" has more value than a woman's life.

Moderate Islam is more respectful of human rights than fundamentalist Hinduism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:00 PM

your hatred of Muslims and Arabs
campaign of promoting hatred of Muslims
stuff that helps people promote hatred of one group of people.
result of doing so is to spread hatred and intolerance
it doesn't serve any purpose other than to promote bigotry and hatred.
an agenda that is in reality an anti-human rights agenda - the promotion of hatred against Muslims.
hatemongers like yourself using that issue as an excuse to promote hatred against any groups of people.
When you promote hatred towards and discrimination against Muslims
the result of promoting hatred towards that one group
your campaign to spread hatred towards Muslims
find a way to help Muslim women that doesn't result in the promotion of hatred towards and discrimination against Muslims.
That does, indeed, promote hatred towards and discrimination against that one group.
threads like this one... serve to help promote the kind of hatred of Muslims
by virtue of the fact that it has considerable potential to promote hatred, discrimination, and hateful and innacurate stereotypes.
Ooh-Aah2's hypocrisy and hatred of Muslims
responsibility of all people of conscience to show these hatemongering stereotypes for what they are.
You hate all Muslims
kind of sound byte upon which hate campaigns are built.
bigoted Arab/Muslim-hater
racists, white supremacists, and hatemongers like yourself
promote a hate agenda, as you and Ooh-Aah2 are doing on this thread
hate campaign aimed only at one group of people
fostering a climate of hate against entire groups of people.
thread like this one promotes hateful and inacurate stereotypes about Muslims
promote hateful and innacurate stereotypes of a whole group of people
I fight against discrimination and hatemongering against Muslims
contributing to the promotion of hateful stereotypes and to discrimination against targed groups of people.
potential to promote hateful stereotypes
I am against waging hate campaigns against Muslims
bullshit that you have made up to serve your hate campaign against Muslims (Carol, each line a different quote from this thread)

With a bit less of stereotyping and with a bit more of trust that saying what you mean once or even twice is clear enough to make your point understood, Carol, this could could have been a more normal discussion. Even many differences in approach and opinion might have appeared between for instance Ooh-Aah2, Giok, and me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 05:08 PM

Shall we now see the list from Ooh-Aah2, Wolfgang, or are you going to be as selective about whose language choices you will criticize as you are about which groups of people you choose to criticize?

Ooh-Aah2 comes to this thread just for the fun of verbally slapping me around a bit every few days or so. Even when I haven't been on this thread for a while. Especially when I haven't been on this thread in a while.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 06:03 PM

Btw, Wolfgang, since you are now discussing me, instead of the subject of this thread, I guess I can assume that you have run out of anything of substance to say pertaining to the subject of the thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:39 AM

How about some clarity here.

Are we talking about Muslims in the middle east or Muslims who have immigrated to other countries?

Are we talking about Sunnis or Shiites or just radical Muslims?

Freda has made a very good point and none of us would want laws that do not protect women. Is this a secular matter or a matter of religious law?

I understand competely what Carol C. is saying. Its not fair to stereotype. Muslims come in all shapes and sizes, same as Christians and Jews. You can't group them all together and say that Muslims immigrants are more prone to violence. In fact, most of the Muslim immigrants I have met are highly educated and obey the laws of Canada. They have left the negative part of their religion behind.

Lets face it, there are back-woods type of Fundamentalists everywhere, including North America.

Remember spare the rod and spoil the child? Times do change.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 04:59 AM

Yep I'm glad they stopped that punishing kids thing, just look what lovely well behaved little rays of sunshine they've all become now!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 05:43 AM

In Pakistan, if a woman is raped, she must have four Muslim, adult male witnesses to secure justice, failing which she may herself be considered guilty of fornication.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 05:47 AM

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an MP for the Liberal Party in the Netherlands, with a brief on immigration. Originally from Somalia, she fled to Holland after her father attempted to arrange a marriage for her.

"I left Somalia when I six-years-old. I lived in Saudi Arabia for one year, in Ethiopia for one and a half years, in Kenya for 11 years, and I live in the Netherlands now. If I were to say the things that I say now in the Dutch Parliament in Somalia, I would be killed

I left Kenya because my father had chosen someone for me to marry. He wanted me to go to Canada, where this man lived. On my way to Canada I made a stop in Germany. I didn't agree with this marriage, so I didn't take the plane - I took the train to Holland. You can say I ran away.

When I had finished learning the Dutch language, I thought I would like to go and study. I came from a continent which is torn apart by civil war, and I wanted to understand that. I took political science in college, and that's how I got involved with learning about power, about governments, about institutions, about citizenship - what makes Europe Europe, and what makes developing countries what they are now.

I wanted to understand - I came from a country in civil war, and I really wanted to understand why we had civil war and why it was peaceful and prosperous here. I am now a member of parliament for the Liberal Party. My subjects - my portfolio - include the migration of non-Western migrants to the Netherlands, the emancipation of women, and development aid to developing countries.

Unfortunately I cannot do this line of work in my country of birth.
Somalia is made up of a population which is 100% Muslim. The radical leanings of a huge number of the population is unfortunately growing, and the position of the Somali woman has never been worse than it is now.

If I were to say the things that I say now in the Dutch Parliament in Somalia, I would be killed. I wish I could go back, and I would love to go back, even if it's just to see my parents and brother.
But I can't go back, because the situation is that I have said things about the Islamic religion, I have said things about my past, I have said things about the Prophet Mohammed and his message about women.

By saying these things, I think I would be seeking danger if I went back to Somalia. I'm not intimidated by the threats and the attempts to make me shut my mouth, because living in a rich western European country like this one, I have protection that I otherwise would not have in Somalia or in Africa or in any other Islamic country. So I am going to make use of this huge opportunity - that I am protected and I can say what I want, that it gets published and spread, and that I am a voice in parliament for these women.

That's something that people forget, because that means you change the rights of women here. They have these rights, but you make sure they are implemented. I would not change that. I think I wouldn't be able to do that in another country, and I'm not going to allow people to intimidate me.

I have memories - my parents lived there, and I have good memories of the weather, of food, of how as a child I played. In a way I identify my childhood with my place of birth. I think that's just about it.

from BBC interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3322399.stm

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM

In Canada, the Government of Ontario has been deciding whether to allow some Muslim leaders to set up sharia courts to settle family law matters, and Alberta is considering whether to follow Ontario's lead.

Most opposition to these proposals is coming not from Canadian-born feminists and liberals (Canada, after all, invented multiculturalism), but from Muslim women who have knowledge of sharia law, a code based on the Koran. Iranian-born activist Homa Arjomand said women are not treated equally under the laws, and that many Canadian Muslim women have been forced into marriage at 14 or into "polygamous arrangements".

Some Muslim leaders in Australia are negotiating to set up sharia courts here. actually, they are probably operating on the quiet, within communities, but at least women have the option of seeking protection of the courts .

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM

freda, are you, as Ooh-Aah2 seems to think, suggesting the Islam is the problem, or that fundamentalist Islam is the problem? And are you suggesting that only in Islamic countries are women treated as badly as they are in the examples you are giving? Because just providing anecdotes and examples about experiences of some Muslim women isn't helping me to understand what you are trying to say.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 10:46 AM

By the way, the reason the issue of Sharia law in Canada has come up there is because Fundamentalist Jews already have their own set of laws in Parts of Canada, and the government is having difficulty allowing the Fundamentalist Jews to have separate laws and not also allow Muslims to have separate laws. It's a very tricky situation, and one that I don't think is served by oversimplifying it and giving partial accounts of what is going on with this issue.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:21 PM

CarolC I agree with you that moderate Muslims are not a problem - though I think that the relative centre of gravity in Islam means that a 'moderate' Muslim looks pretty fundamentalist through western eyes compared with his/her equivalent in most other religions, (unless you wish to look at US Christians in isolation from their co-religionists, as you constantly do). In other words, define 'moderate', especially with regard to women's rights.
   But where can you find a majority Muslim country where the 'moderate' Muslims predominate over their unrefined brethren, as, for example, moderate Christians do in Australia, Britain Canada, Russia, South Africa, maybe even the U.S. etc, etc? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? In the Gulf States? In Algeria? In Egypt? In Morocco? In Tunisia? In Indonesia? Maybe in Turkey where the European influence is strong (would you really want to be a woman in Turkey - as far as your religion-defined status goes I mean?). Do you see what I'm saying? Muslims who are 'moderate' as Westerners define the word are pretty thin on the ground compared with almost every other religious group. They tend to exist in small, rather besieged elites in big cities and in the west, where, as Dianavan has pointed out, they have gone to seek the freedoms unobtainable at home.

I am not here to attack you, by the way. I am here to argue a legitimate point. The little list that Wolfgang has posted seems to indicate that I am the one being 'slapped'. (sniffle sob!)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:42 PM

I think that Canada made its first mistake by allowing the Jewish Court, it isn't possible to have more than one set of laws in any given country. For a start, how do they classify converts particularly recent ones?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM

Here's a very interesting discussion about Islamic law and Pakistan's legal system...

http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/social%20issues/rape_laws.htm

This discussion examines what the Qur'an (Koran) has to say about Islamic law, and compares that to existing laws in Pakistan. I think it's important as well as enlightening to see the extent to which (and the ways in which) Islamic laws have been bastardized in service to political and other kinds of power agendas in Pakistan. Here's an example:


"C. Drafting Problems in the Zina Ordinance

1. The same brush: why rape as a form of zina? As we have seen, the Qur'anic verses regarding zina do not address the concept of nonconsensual sex. This omission is a logical one. The zina verses establish a crime of public sexual indecency. Rape, on the other hand, is a very different crime. Rape is a reprehensible act which society has an interest in preventing, whether or not it is committed in public. Therefore, rape does not logically belong as a subset of the public indecency crime of zina. Unfortunately, however, the Zina Ordinance is written exactly counter to this Qur'anic omission and it includes zina-bil-jabr (zina by force) as a subcategory of the crime of zina.42

Where did the zina-bil-jabr section in the Ordinance come from then, if it is not part of the Qur'anic law of zina? We will see later that in Islamic jurisprudence addressing zina, there is significant discussion of whether there is liability for zina under duress.43 But the language of the zina-bil-jabr section in the Pakistani Ordinance does not appear to be drawn from these discussions. (That is, it is not presented as an exception to zina in the case of duress.) Rather, the zina-bil-jabr language is nearly identical to the old common law of rape in Pakistan, the borrowed British criminal law in force in Pakistan before the Hudood Ordinances. The old common law Pakistani rape statute read:

A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the following descriptions:–

First.-–Against her will.

Secondly.-–Without her consent.

Thirdly.--With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death, or of hurt.

Fourthly.-–With her consent when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly.–-With or without her consent, when she is under [fourteen] years of age.

Explanation.-–Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.

Exception.–-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under [thirteen] years of age is not rape (Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sec. 375).44

With the exception of the statutory rape section (under "Fifthly"), the language specifying what constitutes rape is almost identical to the zina-bil-jabr language under the Hudood Ordinance. Even the explanation that penetration is sufficient to constitute the necessary intercourse is the same. Did the Pakistani legislators, in writing the zina-bil-jabr law, simply relabel the old secular law of rape under the Muslim heading of zina (as zina by force–-jabr), and re-enact it as part of the Hudood Islamization of Pakistan's laws–right along with the four-witness evidentiary rule unique to zina? If so, this cut-and-paste job, albeit, a well-intentioned effort to retain rape as a crime in Pakistan's new Hudood criminal code, reveals a limited view of Islamic criminal law, which, as illustrated, ultimately harms women."


Interestingly, this site:

http://india_resource.tripod.com/grpakistan.html

...which criticizes Pakistan's Hadood laws (although it fails to understand the extent to which the Hadood laws are in violation of Qur'anic law), blames the problem, at least in part, on US interference:

"Women are thus paying an especially high price for the US's support of dictatorial regimes in Pakistan who have cynically allied with the most regressive of the Islamist forces to inflict highly discriminatory Islamic Hadood laws on Pakistan's hapless women."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM

Wolfgang has only listed (some of) the things I've said, Ooh-Aa2, so how can it possibly be an objective assessment of how either one of us has treated the other? Kind of reminds me of the quality of discussion from many of the contributors to this thread. Totally one-sided and completely lacking in objectivity.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 02:15 PM

But where can you find a majority Muslim country where the 'moderate' Muslims predominate over their unrefined brethren, as, for example, moderate Christians do in Australia, Britain Canada, Russia, South Africa, maybe even the U.S. etc, etc?

You mean one in which the government (dictatorial regime) is not being propped up by the US, or in which the government (dictatorial regime) didn't recieve it's original training and support from the US' CIA? I'll see what I can find.

Iran had a democracy once. For just a little while. The US (CIA) crushed it and installed the Shah (and his dictatorial regime... the backlash against which is main reason there is a fundamentalist regime in power in Iran today).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 03:00 PM

I will buy your Iran argument - that's ONE country. Same thing will probably happen in Iraq - that's TWO.
And as I've pointed out before, The US interferes with many countries, not just Muslim ones. It's not enough to explain away what I've just written.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM

I'm looking into it, Ooh-Aah2, although I don't think the fact that most of the majority Muslim areas in the world happen to sit on top of important oil deposits (or areas that are in other ways strategically important to the oil industry) is at all concidental to the amount of interference by the US in those countries, and the presence of fundamentalist Islam or other kinds of dictatorial regimes. In three ways, it serves US based oil interests for the US government to promote dictatorial regimes (either secular in nature, or Islamic in nature).

1. When the US props up secular regimes like that of the Shah of Iran, it has complete access to whatever oil resources it wants, as well as a stong hand to keep the little people in line so they don't try to become independent and strong by themselves.

2. When the US props up dictatorial fundamentalist Islamic regimes, it gets pretty much the same thing as with the secular regimes.

3. When the US interferes with countries in a way that promotes the spread of extremist fundamentalist Islamicists (Afghanistan and the Taliban, for instance), it then has a handy bad guy to point to as justification invading the country in question and occupying it, thus giving it not only access to the oil, but also giving it the freedom to put military bases wherever it wants and to also maintain a very large military presence in those countries.

I don't think the spread of fundamentalist Islam in areas where there are important oil deposits or areas that are in other ways strategically important to the oil industry is in any way a coincidence. And I think that for the most part, if you look at the areas where Islamic extremism is a problem, you will also see the presence of Oil and/or the presence of US interference.

In other parts of the world where oil is a factor, we see different approaches but essentially the same end result. In South America, for instance, the favored "bad guy" du jour is either Communism, or drugs. Either way, the US ends up getting what it wants, and the little guy/gal is fucked, regardless of what religion they embrace. So really, the fundamentalist entity that is causing most of the world's human rights abuses today is extremist fundamentalist predatory capitalism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Mar 05 - 04:04 PM

I'm still looking for examples, but a number of Iraqi Christians seem to think that Syria is a country with a Muslim majority and a moderate government...

Why Iraqi Christians are Moving to Syria

Of course, that may change once the US gets through with Syria.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:45 AM

500. Morning Terry.