Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 07:44 AM

I worked with the Jewish community in Sydney for a couple of years - Jewish women in Sydney are not happy with the divorce deals they're getting (or not getting) through the council of rabbis or whatever.
my point again is that we do not have to accept any religious justification for limiting human rights. I believe that legislation which protects people has been hard won, and all people should have equal access to the protection of the state.

I have seen many Islamic women arguing that the Qoran itself protects women's rights - i believe they have succumbed to male arguments that say if you challeng my law, you must be against Islam. this is what human rights watch says about syria

last week I went to hear a young women from East Timor speak about a women's aid program in East Timor. She explained how they go into a new village and negotiate with the elders for permission to come in and provide education for the women, classes always given at night as the women have to work during the day. Some villages will not accept them, as the male elders do not want the program giving anti-domestic violence talks, they see it as threatening the family.

I can criticise any legal structure, religious authority or government authority I want. I myself have been under house arrest in a foreign country for three weeks, and understand first hand what it is like to be subject to oppression. I have granted refugee status to hundreds of refugees and empathise strongly with people who are escaping massacres in their country (like the Hazaras of Afghanistan, or the Kurds, Shias and Turkmen of Iraq.) some I have felt close bonds with, and will always remember.

In any argument I like to discuss ideas rather than speculate about the intent of the person who says something I disagree with. Just as with people from another culture - once a person is dismissed, categorised, they become the "other" which psychologically can allow us to rip into their motives. Okay, maybe I have put George Bush into a box as the "other" but the people here on mudcat i consider to be good people asking legitimate questions.

the personal is political, as they say. its easy to be humanitarian philosophically and in the abstract, but it doesnt help when youre really cheesed off with the person who has just stood on your foot in the bus. or someone on mudcat who says something that stinks, you think.

I am finding this thread invigorating to say the least. it has made me read a lot about women in different parts of the world, and their rights.

keep the arguments coming!

freda
(gets off soapbox and goes to get a drink of water)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 08:26 AM

meanwhile, back at the ranch ..

(the blicky is not working so here it is...) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4339927.stm

Friday, 11 March, 2005, 12:43 GMT; Rape ruling in Pakistan suspended
An Islamic court in Pakistan has suspended a High Court ruling that acquitted five men in a high-profile rape case. The Islamic - or Sharia - judges ordered the rape victim, Mukhtar Mai, and all the defendants in the case to attend a new hearing. A tribal council allegedly ordered the rape in February 2002 as punishment for a crime attributed to Ms Mai's brother.

Rights groups had expressed shock at last week's acquittals. On Friday, the Federal Sharia Court suspended the judgment of the Lahore High Court which exonerated five of the six men accused in the rape case and commuted the death sentence of the sixth to life imprisonment. The Sharia judges said they were acting according to the constitution which allows them to suspend any judgment of any criminal court pending their own ruling.

They ordered Ms Mai, the six defendants and seven men acquitted in an earlier decision to attend the new hearing. No date was given.
The BBC News website's Aamer Ahmed Khan says it is not common for the Federal Sharia Court to make such a high-profile intervention.
The court has spent most of its time since establishment in 1980 reviewing Pakistani laws to determine whether they conflict with Islamic injunctions.

But legislation does allow the Sharia court to hear any criminal case that falls under Islamic laws called the Hudood laws. These cases include rape and adultery. The Sharia court argues Ms Mai's case should have been tried under Hudood laws and not anti-terrorist legislation. There was widespread criticism of the High Court acquittals by human rights groups and political parties. The court ruled there was insufficient evidence and incorrect investigation procedures.

Ms Mai and the defendants must attend a new Sharia hearing
An Islamic court in Pakistan has suspended a High Court ruling that acquitted five men in a high-profile rape case. The Islamic - or Sharia - judges ordered the rape victim, Mukhtar Mai, and all the defendants in the case to attend a new hearing. A tribal council allegedly ordered the rape in February 2002 as punishment for a crime attributed to Ms Mai's brother.

Ms Mai built schools in her village with her compensation money. Ms Mai last week announced she would file an appeal to the Supreme Court and said the men should not be freed until it was heard. The Pakistani government also criticised the acquittals and said it would appeal. Hundreds of Ms Mai's supporters have attended protest rallies since the acquittals. A joint statement issued by several leading non-government organisations saluted Ms Mai's courage and bravery in taking on the system.

Hundreds of women are killed or injured in "honour" attacks in Pakistan every year. Village elders allegedly ordered Ms Mai's rape in February 2002 after allegations surfaced that her then 12-year-old brother had had sex with a woman from a more prominent clan. He denied the charges.

Amid international outcry at the rape, four of her alleged rapists and two village elders were sentenced to death the same year.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 01:49 PM

Although I'm still having some difficulty getting a sense of your intent, freda, it looks to me like you are suggesting that patriarchalism and fundamentalism are the problem rather than Islam itself. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

I think on the subject of the Qur'an, though, as with Bible and the Torah (and the Talmud), the problem comes with how people interpret them rather than the texts themselves.

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.

I think a moderate form of Islam with regard to women's rights would be along the lines of something I saw in a documentary about what life is like for Muslims in the US. A family of middle class American (US) Muslims was trying to figure out how to live their lives according to how they understood what it means to be a Muslim and also according to their consciences.

The father didn't want either his wife or teenage daughter to wear a hijab (headscarf). The wife had decided about a decade before to start wearing one (she had never been brought up to wear a hijab). The husband wasn't entirely happy with that, but he felt it should be her choice, so he resigned himself to it. When the daughter reached the age of about 16 or 17, she decided to wear a hijab as well. The father was pretty upset about this. He felt his daughter would be subjected to a lot of cruelty from people she encountered at school and in other aspects of her daily life, as well as the possibility of harrassment from the US government.

The family talked about it, and even argued about it a little bit. The father explained his reasoning. The daughter explained her reasoning. The mother acted more as a mediator than anything else. Finally, the father saw that his daughter was very serious and sincere in her intentions and her reasoning, and that she wasn't making the decision lightly. He still wasn't particularly happy about his daughter wearing a hijab, but he said she was his daughter and he loved her, and if that was what she felt she needed to do, she had his blessing.

(unless you wish to look at US Christians in isolation from their co-religionists, as you constantly do)

The US has more Cristians than any other country (several hundred million). It has almost twice as many as the next country down the list. The US probably has the greatest diversity of kinds of Christianity than any other country. This means it probably has some of the most rabidly fundamentalist as well as some of the most liberal Christians. The Episcopalian church in parts of Africa has been very upset (and has threatened a schism) about the US Episcopalian church deciding to allow homosexual priests. I would say that the African Episcopalian organization that has responded in this way is much more conservative than the faction of the US Episcopal organization that made this decision.

The US also has old order Amish, whose religion forbids them to have any modern conveniences, and in which the women are required to be completely covered up except for their faces, hands, and part of their necks. They wear long skirts and long sleeves and bonnets, even in summer. This Amish order forbids married couples to divorce. I used to know an Amish women (not even strictly old order Amish), who left her husband who had been physically abusing her. She was shunned by the entire Amish community in our area, which was pretty isolated from the rest of the world. Even her own family had to shun her. The only people who were allowed to talk to her, or even look at her were her young children. She lived alone with her children in a mobile home on her father's farm. But she was dead to her father and everyone else in the world that she had always been a part of. She eventually moved to another state and joined a much more liberal Amish order, and I believe she did re-marry. But when I knew her, she was extremely depressed, and I was afraid she might try to commit suicide.

You can't boil everything down into simple, one sentance pronouncements as you frequently try to do. Things are so much more complex than you seem to think. Nothing is served by trying to oversimplify real problems, or by stereotyping people according to your prejudices.

I don't have time right now to keep researching moderate Islam in the world (I have immigration issues of my own to deal with right now), but I'll keep at it, and I'll post something when I have the time to do it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 01:55 PM

Read your link, freda. Yes, Syria has some serious human rights issues, but ironically, they are for exact opposite reasons than Islamic fundamentalism. The Syrian government is so rabidly anti-Islamic fundamentalism, it has killed tens of thousands of Islamist fundamentalists. It does not want to become a fundamentalist Islamist state. So in terms of moderate Islam as opposed to fundamentalist Islam, Syria, being an entirely secular state, belongs one hundred percent in the moderate Islam category as far as its government is concerned.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:41 PM

the syrian ba'ath party that leads the government is a Pan-Arab nationalist party, a fascist party and cannot be called moderate by any means.

Syria is a secular state in the sense that Iraq was - citizen's rights to pursue their religion were limited by the state, as this article from the washington post tells: religious revival in Syria

for those who can't get into the washington posts site, here are some excerpts:
"Syria's ruling Baath Party, an Arab nationalist movement, has been at odds with Islamists for more than 35 years. A military coup in 1970 brought to power a clique of officers, led by Hafez Assad, who were members of the Alawite sect, a secretive branch of Shiite Islam that comprises about 10 percent of Syria's 18 million people. Many Sunni Muslims, who account for more than 70 percent of the population, do not consider Alawites true Muslims, and Assad's legitimacy was always suspect among Syria's Islamists. In the late 1970s and early '80s, Assad's government staged a crackdown on a militant Islamic movement that killed tens of thousands of civilians.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind the 1982 uprising in the city of Hama that was brutally put down by government troops, appealed last year for its imprisoned members to be granted amnesty. The government declined the request but agreed to review individual cases. Hundreds of prisoners were released, almost all of them jailed for their alleged connection to Islamic movements, Western diplomats said. In addition, Kuftaro and others say that clerics have more leeway to discuss politics in the mosques, although the unwritten rule is that criticism must be restricted to the United States and Israel."

Carol you have put a couple of quotes in your last posts, which were directed at me I think. just to clarify, i did not make those comments.

the Syrian Baath Party has close links with the Iraqi Baath party, and their secret police assist each other. One of the issues that Lebanese people are concerned about currently, is that if the Syrians do withdraw their 30 year occupation of lebanon - WILL THEY ALSO REMOVE THEIR SECRET POLICE?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 04:59 PM

"You can't boil everything down into simple, one sentance pronouncements as you frequently try to do. Things are so much more complex than you seem to think. Nothing is served by trying to oversimplify real problems, or by stereotyping people according to your prejudices."

I think the straw man has come to visit.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:05 PM

No, freda, they were not directed at you. They were directed at, and directly quoted from Ooh-Aah2.

The discussion has been about Islamic fundamentalism vs. Islamic moderates. What the ruling party in Syria is doing is not moderate in any political sense of the word, but it is in no way a "fundamentalist Islamic" government. With the exception of Islamic fundamentalists (who are vigorously discouraged in that country), everyone else is free to practice whatever religion they belong to. So it is totally wrong to try to suggest that the government of Syria is an example of fundamentalist Islam, which it is not. My discusion of Syria is in response to Ooh-Aa2's direct request for me to show examples of governments in countries with majority Muslim populations in which the governments are not fundamentalist Muslim governments. Syria is one such example. To try to suggest otherwise is totally wrong.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM

I have not at any point said the government of Syria practises Islamic fundamentalism, Carol.

As well as Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic journalists, the Syrian government has also stripped citizenship from 200,000 Kurds, and will not restore it, effectively making them stateless.

They are denied the right to vote, own property, have marriages legally recognized, or be treated in public hospitals. They carry special red identity cards and are not allowed passports to travel outside of Syria.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM

What's your point with the straw man link, freda? Is it your turn to take potshots at me? That paragraph you quoted from me is directed at Ooh-Aa2. If you want to gang up on me with Ooh-Aa2, go right ahead. I'm not afraid of taking both of you on at the same time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:15 PM

I have not at any point said the government of Syria practises Islamic fundamentalism, Carol.

If that's the case, why are you interjecting comments about Syria into a conversation that is about Muslim fundamentalist governments that Ooh-Aa2 and I were engaging in? And if you are not interjecting, why did you bring up Syria at all?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:22 PM

sigh..

why do you spend so much time attacking people's motives, methods of argument, and language. If your comment was addressed to Ooh aah 2, how could anyone conclude that from a post that started off saying "Although I'm still having some difficulty getting a sense of your intent, freda, ,..." and then argued on for some time without mentioning Oah aah's name?

you raised Syria as an example of a good middle eastern state - it was you who injected syria into this discussion, and i responded.

but i will respond no more today.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:38 PM

why do you spend so much time attacking people's motives, methods of argument, and language

Based on this quote from you:

you raised Syria as an example of a good middle eastern state

I would ask you the same question.

I did not at any time raise Syria as an example of a "good middle eastern state". If you had actually read my posts, you would know that. I raised the subject of Syria as an example of a government of a majority Muslim country that is not a fundamentalist Muslim government, in response to Ooh-Aa2's request for me to provide such examples. In fact, if you had actually read my posts, you would have noticed that I agreed with you that Syria has some serious human rights issues. Everything else is your own projection onto me of what you figured you wanted me to say.

If your comment was addressed to Ooh aah 2, how could anyone conclude that from a post that started off saying "Although I'm still having some difficulty getting a sense of your intent, freda, ,..." and then argued on for some time without mentioning Oah aah's name?

Since you don't seem to understand how people use italics in posts to indicate whom they are quoting, I will explain it to you. If I use your name, for instance if I say, "freda, yada yada yada", that means I am addressing you

If I quote, using italics, something someone else has said, whatever I say in response to that quote is directed at whoever posted the part that I have quoted. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe you needed to have it explained to you.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 05 - 05:50 PM

And at least, I had the courtesy to ask you what your meaning was when I was unclear about it, instead of telling you what your meaning and intent was, and then attacking you for it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:10 AM

You've certainly posted with your usual incredible prodigality CarolC (man 0 man - 13 of the last 20 posts, and often very long ones - don't you think that if your arguments were stronger they would need less scaffolding?) but none of this has answered my points of 10 March 1:21 with any conviction. The closest you have come is to point out that the US props up bad regimes in Islamic countries because of oil - but this does not really explain the frightful position of women in Islamic countries - indeed when I travel the world I usually notice that strong US influence is almost universally associated with increased sexual freedom for women, partly accounting for why so many men in these cultures consider western women 'easy', to the discomfiture of female travellers. My sister left a trail of fractured fingers all through India!

Your description of a 'moderate' Muslim family in the US was encouraging and well worth reading - but it only confirms my point that 'moderate' Muslims often come to the west to enjoy freedoms which they don't have at home.

The US may be the biggest Christian country in the world but there are many others - which was my point.

I don't like the way you are getting stuck in to Freda. She is quite clearly not on my 'side' but has her own position. It confirms my opinion that you tend to fly off the handle at anyone who dares to disagree with you. Next you will be calling her a bigot, as you so often have called me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:17 AM

Violence must be addressed by secular law.

Most religions are patriarchal and do not address women's rights. The Bible is no better at protecting women and children than the Koran.

Women's rights must be legislated and enforced. Separate courts for specific groups of people deny women equal justice under the law.

How can Jews be given separate family courts without affording the same privilege to Muslims? There should be one court system for all, regardless of religion.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:54 AM

I agree completely Dianavan. The position of non-Muslim minorities who face having sharia law imposed on them is particularly distressing.

It's the same with education as with justice. Muslims in Britain have correctly pointed out that to have Christian schools and not allow Muslim schools is blatant discrimination. But in my opinion the solution is not to have Muslim-only schools but that all schools should be entirely secular (at least if they expect government funding). Religion should be a private matter taught at home. Since most Muslims in Britain are from non-white backgrounds one can expect that widespread Muslim-only schools will lead to more ghettoisation, ignorance, fear and intolerance on both sides. It is vital that children from all backgrounds mix to get rid of racist myths.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 01:13 AM

Exactly, Ooh-Aah2 - There should be no govt. funding for private schools. Kids need to grow up together and learn to understand similarities and tolerate differences. The best place to do this is in public schools that are adequately funded.

Separate schools and separate courts are ridiculous and only lead to further divisions in society.

It may be the Muslims that force Western civilizations to deal with these inequities and we may end up thanking them after all.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 01:19 AM

That post from you, Ooh-Aa2, is quite typical of your usual "to hell with substance, just go for the jugular" type of post that I have come to expect from you. I thought we had gotten beyond that sort of behavior and were recently having a civilized discussion on the actual subject at hand. I see I was completely wrong about that.

You make your own points, and you take up as much space as you please in the process. You make whatever points (largely unsubstantiated) you want to make, but if I respond, you attack me for posting too much. That's a hell of a debating tactic. "I get to say whatever I want, but you are not allowed to say anything in response." You've got a point there. I can't see how you could ever lose a debate if you don't allow anyone other than yourself to say anything. Seems like a pretty cowardly approach to me though. If you were confident in your arguments, you wouldn't always be trying to shut up those who disagree with you.

If my posting to this thread is so offensive to you, I suggest you not ask me to post any more information for you. I do have other things with which to occupy my time, and I would most definitely find them more stimulating as well as satisfying than playing caged bear for your stick poking activities.

Clearly, arguing a legitimate point is not your primary agenda on this thread. If it were, you wouldn't be so eager to fling poo at me whenever I respond to your questions. I see we're back to the slapping me around just for fun part of the thread.

On the subject of freda, I have no problem with her disagreeing with me. But I do not take very kindly, people putting words into my mouth and trying to make me defend arguments I have not made. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt with me until they abuse it. You did that long before this thread was ever started, so you never had the benefit of the doubt, as far as I'm concerned, on this thread at all. freda did have the benefit of the doubt with me until today. I have been extremely civil towards freda in all of my communications with her in threads, even when I have disagreed with her, prior to today. But for some reason, she has decided that she needs to take me on. So be it. She no longer has the benefit of the doubt with me.

to the discomfiture of female travellers. My sister left a trail of fractured fingers all through India!

I don't think your sister's experience is necessarily any different than what the women of India have to put up with all of the time from men of such a patriarchal and misogynistic culture.

If you want to have a civil discussion with me, all you have to do is conduct yourself in a civil fashion. But it's not possible to have a civil discussion with you if all you want to do is fling poo and try to bully me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:20 AM

"If you want to have a civil discussion with me, all you have to do is conduct yourself in a civil fashion. But it's not possible to have a civil discussion with you if all you want to do is fling poo and try to bully me. "

I have not decided i weant to "bully" you, Carol, nor do i wish to, it is not my way.

"You can't boil everything down into simple, one sentance pronouncements as you frequently try to do. Things are so much more complex than you seem to think. Nothing is served by trying to oversimplify real problems, or by stereotyping people according to your prejudices."

yes, i thought these comments were directed at me, not Ooh aah, hence the straw man link. but I dont think its civil for you to say those things to anyone here, me or ooh-Aah, whatever we think.
freda

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 08:10 AM

meanwhile, once more back at the ranch - yes, muslims are the new reds under the beds - and have been vilified since Sep 11.

and yes - a religious excuse for limiting human rights in any way is unacceptable.

i hope on these two points we agree carol. good night and best wishes

freda

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

When I see you taking Ooh-Aa2 to task for similar and worse things that he has said to me in this thread, I'll take what you have to say on the subject seriously, freda. Until then, I'll just file what you have to say in the same folder as what Ooh-Aa2 and Wolfgang have to say. The one-sided, and without any objectivity folder.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 11:41 AM

Your description of a 'moderate' Muslim family in the US was encouraging and well worth reading - but it only confirms my point that 'moderate' Muslims often come to the west to enjoy freedoms which they don't have at home.

It confirms no such thing. You have no idea why that family came to the US. People come here for all kinds of reasons. For all you know, they could be from families who were fleeing what is now Israel during the Nakba.

The US may be the biggest Christian country in the world but there are many others - which was my point.

No it wasn't. This was your point:

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).

You have no idea how I look at US Christians, and whether or not I look at them in isolation from their co-religionists. All you know is that on this thread, I have discussed some of the Christians in the US and their agendas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 11:42 AM

CarolC - If you want people to hear what you have to say, you have to state your opinion without anger. When you are angry, all I can hear is your anger. This thread has pushed you over the edge of reason and, although I entirely agree that Muslims are being stereotyped and villified, I do not agree with your personal attacks.

I have learned alot from this discussion but I find it really boring when a thread degenerates in this way. Nobody wants to wade through this kind of shit to get at the truth.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 11:50 AM

Dianavan, I invite you to take a look throughout this thread, objectively, and see whether or not I have been the target more often than the one doing the targeting. Until then, what you have to say on the subject doesn't interest me very much either. And considering some of the knockdown-dragout fights I've seen you get into, I don't think you are in a position to point fingers.

I am interested in discussing the issues. You, freda, Ooh-Aa2, and Wolfgang seem to be mostly interested in discussing me. I guess that means I have prevailed in the discussion of the subject of this thread, or you all would be discussing it instead of me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:03 PM

Well the thing is CarolC you do seem to be verging on paranoia sometimes. Every time someone comes up with a new angle you dismiss it with the same arguments, or you say they're against you, surely you have more than two weapons in your argumentary armoury? This whole thread has been conducted in a very civilised manner, and demeaning the validity or otherwise of your argument by descending into personal attacks doesn't do your crusade any good.
The constant introduction of side issues does not alter the fact that Islam is by western standards a cruel and vindictive religion, we all know that doesn't apply equally to all Moslems, and I never said it did.
I say vindictive in respect of the punishments prescribed in the Koran for sinning, such as cutting off the hand of thieves, and beheading for adultery, both of which most people find a touch extreme.
Anyway don't expect this will meet with anything but an accusation of stereotyping from you, I don't really know why I bother to try.
Giok

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

Yes, I expected the next one to come from you, GUEST,Giok, and you didn't disappoint me at all. In fact, you exceeded my expectations. I thought I would have to wait a few hours before you joined in on the little feeding frenzy, but instead I only had to wait a few minutes. Congratulations.

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

I say vindictive in respect of the punishments prescribed in the Koran for sinning, such as cutting off the hand of thieves, and beheading for adultery, both of which most people find a touch extreme.

And this is where I find myself talking about one-sided discussions. You keep pointing the finger at the Koran for language that is no better or worse than what can be found in the Bible. If you were interested in objectively discussing this topic, you wouldn't be so selective in how you measure the relative "vindictiveness" of each religion.

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

If ever I needed a good defence lawyer, who would I choose? Carolc everytime.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 12:58 PM

If only she used her powers for good! ;-)&

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 01:48 PM

I don't see many women 'caught in adultery' being stoned to death outside any of my local christian churches carol.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 03:24 PM

Carol C. - Yes, you "have prevailed". Do you feel better now?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

While I seem to be the one who has rattled CarolC's cage the most I call on everyone to check through my posts and see where I have insulted her (as opposed to attacking her arguments). On the other hand Wolfgang has posted a long - - list of insults which she has applied to others, most of which (from memory) were aimed at me personally.

I really think that continuing this thread has an air of 'putting the boot in' to CarolC which is not good. On the other hand when I suggested calling it a day once before she said I was going off 'with my tail between my legs in defeat.' Tricky!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 06:11 PM

Nobody was ever going to win this one anyway, so what the heck!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Mar 05 - 06:14 PM

"When I see you taking Ooh-Aa2 to task for similar and worse things that he has said to me in this thread, I'll take what you have to say on the subject seriously, freda. Until then, I'll just file what you have to say in the same folder as what Ooh-Aa2 and Wolfgang have to say. The one-sided, and without any objectivity folder."

Carol, this was a thread about intolerance, and if you are trying to prove you are the only tolerant one here, you have failed dismally. if you recall, my comments to you that upset you so much were made defending myself from comments you had made to oo-aah, but had worded in such a way that I got the impression you were talking to me. i have apologised for that, i'm still waiting for an apology from you to me and others on this thread, and by lumping varuious people in generically into a group you have decided to hate, you are doing the very thing you are accusing everyone else of.

Re: telling me you expect me to get stuck into oo-aa etc, I'm not into harassing people Carol, and if I have to do that for you to consider me objective, I'm outta here.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM

John 'Giok' MacKenzie, the religious texts of all of the major religions promote some pretty nasty stuff. Not all that long ago, women were being burned at the stake for being "Witches" (with the "thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live" quote from the bible as the excuse).   I've never heard of any women being stoned to death outside any mosques here in the US, either. I have, however, heard of cases here in the US in which children have been spanked continuously for long periods of time and have died because all of their blood went to the site of the spanking and not enough blood was going to the heart. In one such case, the medical authorities said the child's buttocks were like hamburger meat. This was done by fundamentalist Christians who believed that Satan was causing their three year old child to misbehave, and that for the sake of the child's soul, they had to beat him until Satan was vanquished. This happened in the 1980s.

As I have been repeatedly saying (and as you seem to be purposfully ignoring) is that it's not the texts themelves that are the problem. It is how people interpret the texts that is the problem.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

I have not seen any apologies from you, freda. Had I seen one, I would have acknowleged it, and moved on.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 12:34 PM

On the other hand when I suggested calling it a day once before she said I was going off 'with my tail between my legs in defeat.' Tricky!

Tricky indeed. On more than one occasion, I have let you have the last word after you have lobbed an insult at me, letting it slide off of me like water off a duck's back and letting this thread fall off the page, only to have you refresh it and accuse me of ignoring you.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 01:00 PM

Carol C. - Yes, you "have prevailed". Do you feel better now?

Not really, dianavan. I would much prefer it if the people on this thread were discussing something other than me. On the other hand, I would be even more pleased if this thread were to disappear over the horizon forever, never to be seen again.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 01:53 PM

you're right, i can't find it here either, so repeat: I apologise for any hurt I have caused you, that was not my intent!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 02:18 PM

Thank you, freda, I appreciate that. And if, on my part, I have caused you any hurt, I apologise for that.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 11:26 PM

CarolC you are now venturing into the realms of downright untruth about me. Search the posts folks!

There has not been many laughs on this thread, but CarolC's pathetic attempt to equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women is certainly risible! (unless you happen to care about women's rights of course). How sick can one be to dismiss medieval barbarism against innocent women to save one's ego in an argument? What planet is this woman on? CarolC, your heart is in the right place but your brain is in your head, which is up your arse. And yes, that is an insult.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 05 - 11:29 PM

Oh shut up, Ooh-Aa2, and go find another form of recreation. I don't have time for your infantile trolling any more.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 12:19 AM

"The real problem is the three monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Any lip service to peace and brotherhood they bullshit on about has been more than wiped out by the massive numbers of people killed over the years because of them - I hate the lot of them - utterly worthless wastes of time - before they were spawned religious intolerance was pretty well unknown in Europe. Christianity can take zero credit for being (just barely) more civilised than the Muslims, this is entirely due to the rise of secular humanism, and exists only because (in civilised parts of the world, ie not America) it has more or less had its teeth drawn. It's true we now have Hindu Nationalism (the BJP) but we can thank the others for this mutation of an otherwise undogmatic religion. Be a Pagan like me!"

"It's strange that 'pillocks using religion as an excuse' always seem to be from these three faiths - coincidence? I don't think so."

"Time you learned to read Carol C"

"Carol, Carol, Carol. I'm starting to think you must be a bit thick"

"Carol, I'm sick to death of your absurd hysteria"

"I don't know if there's an internet equivalent of verbal diahorrea, but if there is Carol C has got it bad!"

"Just come back to this thread - can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up (fat chance I know)."

"My God, how you love to write, or transcribe, or whatever! All a waste of time..."

"With regard to your very lame response..."

"My last post was of course, addressed to the ubiquitous CarolC."

"I find the words of thoughtful people who have been, seen for themselves and researched their travels infinitely more convincing than your pathetic Google-reliant flailings."

"Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about."

"Your last post on this subject is quite remarkably incoherent"

"Watching CarolC try to argue that Islam is no worse than any other religion is like trying to watch a worm wriggle off a hook with an especially large barb."

"You are not by any chance a stuck record player are you CarolC?"

"You've certainly posted with your usual incredible prodigality CarolC (man 0 man - 13 of the last 20 posts, and often very long ones - don't you think that if your arguments were stronger they would need less scaffolding?)"

"There has not been many laughs on this thread, but CarolC's pathetic attempt to equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women is certainly risible! (unless you happen to care about women's rights of course). How sick can one be to dismiss medieval barbarism against innocent women to save one's ego in an argument? What planet is this woman on? CarolC, your heart is in the right place but your brain is in your head, which is up your arse. And yes, that is an insult."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 12:36 AM

This very evening the US Show "60 Minutes" did a piece on Theo Van Gogh's violent death, including an interview with the Islamic woman of Somali nationality who originated the film piece about Muslim Women called "Submission". Theo Van Gogh was a well known 'gadfly' figure who had been an equal opportunity arouser of the vindictive. The assassin plugged him a few times, then walked up to him and plugged him (shot him) again, then stabbed him and left a note indicating that the woman would be served much the same. She was in protective custody till she ended it early this year.

Hirsi Ali

60 Minutes also interviewed a Muslim cleric living in Holland. I think it would be fair to categorize his stance that he didn't support the violent killing but he found it understandable. The street killing triggered violence against Muslim institutions in Holland.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 12:50 AM

I just read Ooh-Aa2's post again, and realized he thinks it's ok to spank a three year old child until it dies and its buttocks look like hamburger meat. Hmmmm...

CarolC's pathetic attempt to equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women is certainly risible

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 04:31 AM

No separate school and, in particular, no separate courts, I couldn't agree more. If the recent demands from German Muslims for separate schools lead to a rethinking about privileges of the Christian churches, I'll be very happy.

The recent (in historical terms) mass immigrattion of Muslims to Europe leads to a cultural clash, because it is more more easy to move by a large physical distance than to move from one culturally based frame of mind to another. However, that's what we have to expect unless we want to give up our present state of human rights. On the other hand, we should not forget how hard the fight was for general human rights and how recent some changes.

For instance, only during my life time women in Germany were allowed to spend large amounts of money (that is more than buying food and small items of clothes) without asking the husband first. Even if the woman was the only one to earn the money she couldn't buy a car on her own without her husband's signature. A hoover would have been barely acceptable. So, the Muslim community in Germany might need some time to adapt. What worries me is that recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims.


equate severe spankings by some loony Christian with crowds of people stoning to death Muslim women (Ooh-Aah2)

Yes, that's the central point stated very clearly. I'm completely sure that within each religion you'll find abusive and murderous people, some of them even ready to excuse what they do with their personl view of religion. But the difference that warrants a look not only at the individual but at the religion is when the violation of human rights seems to be condoned by a quite large, perhaps even majority, percentage of followers of one religion. That is the central point that makes the teachings and practise of one religion, and not only of individuals the target of scrutiny.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 11:55 AM

Here's a thoughtful article on the subject of the Van Gogh murder by a Dutch journalist who currently lives in Lebanon...

Van Gogh's murder brings out Holland's contradictions, By Peter Speetjens

From what this journalist says, it looks like even this event has complex ramifications as well as causes, and cannot be boiled down to a simplistic charge of "Muslim extremism". It looks to me like both sides of the issue are inflaming the other side. The populist anti-immigration people making life very difficult for the immigrant community just as much as the immigrant community bringing into the country questionable practices. Van Gogh's murderer was born in The Netherlands to a middle class family, and did not embrace any sort of extremist ideology until fairly recently...

"The average Dutchman feels confirmed in his stereotypes of Muslims, and this is good for politicians like the late Fortuyn or Hirsi Ali, as they use this to attract the public's vote. Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate.

Take van Gogh's killer Mohamed B. He is not a fundamentalist immigrant who recently came to Holland. He was born there to a middle class family, speaks fluent Dutch and finished high school. According to his teachers he was the kind of guy whom people liked, someone who would probably make it. He did not. Over a year ago, following his parents' divorce, he dropped out of university and came under the influence of a radical mosque in Amsterdam. "Why would I study?" he asked a friend; 'An American who doesn't speak a word of Dutch has more chance of finding a job than me.'"

Ironically, Hirsi Ali, having benefited herself from having the opportunity to emmigrate to The Netherlands, is now making it much more difficult for other women in her situation to do the same.

One other thing to try to keep in mind... when stereotypes are promoted about any group, it really is the most vulnerable members of that group who suffer the most. In some of my reading, I have come across websites for organizations that exist for the purpose of helping women escape from domestic violence. Some of these sites have said that one of the reasons more women from southeast Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.) don't come forward and report the domestic abuse, or try to leave the abusive situation, is fear of stereotyping. So Wolfgang, I agree that scrutiny is good. But scrutiny of the practices. Not one-sided scrutiny of the group in question. This does not help the most vulnerable members of the group.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:00 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

Yes, I noticed that, Wolfgang. In my opinion, that is the sort of discussion that will help to bring the various sides together in cooperation to try to find solutions to the problems, rather the current trend of promoting conflict between groups that we see in many countries lately.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerance?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM

Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. (Peter Speetjens)

What he writes fits well into my thoughts already posted in this thread:

one reason that... the Muslim preachers find open ears among young Muslims in Germany is that for far too many years we have treated them as second class citizens who will go away sooner or later. Treat someone as a second class person with no real chance to make his way in our society and he may start to listen to extreme propaganda.

recently there seems to be a kind of backlash in second or third generation German Muslims

Wolfgang