Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 10:09 PM

Do you see how excited Martin gets when you post, Ooh-Aah2? It's because he recognizes one of his own kind...

troll

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 12:53 PM

Well, if I'm a troll, it's more fun to get under your bridge than under your dress.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:15 PM

Thanks for the kind words, Ooh-Aah2, yes that's what I mean.

Carol, there are a lot of technical and methodological problems in data gathering and interpretation, therefore you would start more locally both in region and time. But the difficulty of a task is rarely a good reason not even to start.

I'm glad, however, you got rid of that 'premise' and 'fact' nonsense. All your argumentation now was based on inferences and thought. You did not say that there is no difference, period, you said it might be too difficult to get reliable data. That's an argumentation to my taste though I do not share your inferences.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM

I agree, Wolfgang, that I did not choose my words well when I used "fact" in that context. But we can't all be perfect all of the time like you. My use of premise on the other hand, I stand behind.

Carol, there are a lot of technical and methodological problems in data gathering and interpretation, therefore you would start more locally both in region and time. But the difficulty of a task is rarely a good reason not even to start.

Of course it's a good reason not to start, if the result of doing it shabbily is likely to cause prejudice and bigotry, and to harm people, as we have seen so many times in the coursse of history when people try to make formulaic assessments about whole groups of people based on race and/or religion (or the arrangement of the bumps in people's heads). That's not science, it's hocus pocus. There is no way to objectively conduct such research. If it can't be done objectively, it doesn't serve any purpose other than to promote bigotry and hatred.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:41 AM

Carol, if you start with the premise that there are no differences there is no need for arguing that it would be difficult to conduct good research on that field. But since you discuss that I chose to take your 'premise' statement not verbatim.

Any research on such questions would be quasiexperimental and/or correlational. Many variables would be confounded and the effect of one single variable would be difficult to detect. But it can be done and it has been done. The way it has been done is of course open to critique for that is the only way in science to separate the chaff from the wheat.

Take social background (or: class) for example, a very interesting variable which has often been used as a predictor. This variable too is confounded with gender, ethnic background, religion etc. Should we not do research on the influence of social background because it is difficult to isolate this variable? Should we not allow gender studies for that variable is confounded with so many others? A lot of very good and interesting findings would have been prevented to be found.

I disagree that such research would only promote hatred. It also can do a lot of good. I don't think it is pure chance that you mention explicitely only the variables race and religion. I see a deep rooted reluctance among USAmericans to consider these variables as input variables whereas they have no similar reluctance to consider social background, gender, even ethnic background as variables in a complex environment. The real reasons for that seem to me more ideological than methodological for the reasons actually given are reasons that are equally valid for each other variable considered.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 11:54 AM

I don't think it is pure chance that you mention explicitely only the variables race and religion

Those aren't the only variables I mentioned. I also mentioned socio-economic and also socio-political variables.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM

Wolfgang is correct. If CarolC is right, then she has nothing to fear from any detailed examination of this vexed issue. Looking back through the dirty annals of racism, one finds endless prejudiced, hypocritical, biased, misleading and ill-informed assumptions - very similar to those she asserts are now being made about the fundamentalist tendencies of Islam. These were not dispelled by ignoring them but by challenging them through data - for example that white and black brains are exactly the same size, that black crime can be explained by low socio-economic backgrounds caused by the legacy of racism and so on.

If we had asserted that black people are complete equals without backing it up, then racists would have remained both vocal and unconvinced. As it is, anyone publically making a racist statement now has zero chance of supporting it through any objective means.

On the other hand if objective study shows that Islam does have deep internal problems (as opposed to reacting to external threats) then pinpointing these can only be good, because it will offer support to those Muslims already confronting these problems - for example the brave young woman who is currently in hiding because of death threats. These people are their religion's equivalents of Voltaire, Bruno, Luther and Tyndale and we should not pretend that they are struggling against nothing. Simply stating that the way to deal with this problem is a blanket denial that any religion can have problems particular to itself gets us no further.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 05:29 PM

Almost forgot...

Carol, if you start with the premise that there are no differences there is no need for arguing that it would be difficult to conduct good research on that field. But since you discuss that I chose to take your 'premise' statement not verbatim.

I don't see how one logically follows the other. These are two different points. Neither one is in any way dependent on the other in order to be valid.

However, if you have a research model that you believe can stand the scrutiny of real science, go ahead and post it.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 05:41 PM

Almost forgot...

Carol, if you start with the premise that there are no differences there is no need for arguing that it would be difficult to conduct good research on that field. But since you discuss that I chose to take your 'premise' statement not verbatim.

I don't see how one logically follows the other. These are two different points. Neither one is in any way dependent on the other in order to be valid. I certainly am suggesting (one premise) that independent of other variables, the Muslim religion is not any more prone to fundamentalism/extremism/violence than any other religion. I am also suggesting (another premise) that it is not possible to objectively conduct research to determine whether or not my first premise is correct.

However, if you have a research model that you believe can stand the scrutiny of real science, go ahead and post it. In the absence of such objectively conducted and rigorously scrutinized research, I suggest that we can say that making assumptions and/or assertions about which religion(s), if any, are more prone to these tendencies than any others, is a form of bigotry.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 05:42 PM

Oops.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 06:30 AM

Carol,

let me clarify: My post was a response to your 03 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM post in which you had claimed that research on race and religion serves no other purpose than promoting hatred. You had not mentioned the other variables in that post.

How research can be done? Well, for instance by multiple regression. The last article I had read with race as a variable has used this approach. It did look among other things how much of the variance in sentences can be attributed to the variable 'race'. Race was one among many variables like state (of the USA), gender, severity of crime. As could be expected, severity of crime had a very large influence, state a lesser influence. Race had in comparison to other factors a minor influence, but it was in the direction that blacks did get harsher sentences than whites.

This is one type of research including the variable race that you accuse of promoting hatred. I'd say any country should like to know such a result for its internal politics. So if you would take the same approach and change the dependent measure into type of crime add on the side of the input variables social background etc. you can find out whether the variable race explains anything that is not explained yet for instance by 'social background'.

Any country should want to know if some type of crimes are not evenly distributed across subgroups in that country. I wouldn't consider it sexist or 'ageist' to state the data show that young males commit more crimes than any other group of caomparable size. You can find that out though even sex/gender is in a somewhat tricky way confounded with, for instance, social background.

But why do you ask me about how to do research including such variables if you start from the 'premise' that there is no difference? Period.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:12 PM

The problem with your examples, Wolfgang, is that they only address the issue of "crime". It is impossible to answer the question of whether or not the Muslim religion is more prone to fundamentalism, extremism, or even violence than other religions using crime as an indicator.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 12:41 PM

But why do you ask me about how to do research including such variables if you start from the 'premise' that there is no difference? Period.

Giving you a chance to put up or shut up.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:12 PM

How one's heart sinks when returning to this thread and noticing tht 7 out of the last 10 posts are from CarolC, with one double and one triple posting.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:24 PM

Nice troll, Ooh-Aah2.

Btw, I often don't have time to respond to all points in a single post, so I get to them when I can. Sometimes that means multiple posts. Also, my triple post was an accidental hitting of the submit key too early, and an "oops" (mea culpa) when I discovered my mistake. However, I can see how you might cling to that sort of petty snipe when you don't have anything of substance to say.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use impirical data to determine whether or not any particular religions are and have been more prone to certain tendencies than others (Carol)

'Certain tendencies' is very general. My point is that I try to show that this general statement is wrong. To do that I can chose any example I like fitting the description 'certain tendencies'. Your reading that I claim that crime could be used as an indicator for soemthing else misunderstands my point. I only wanted to demonstrate how it can be done and is done. What a good operational definiton for other concepts could be is open to debate with those who are open for debate and have not yet closed their minds.

Another point that you have never answered or even addressed as far as I see is my argument that with your thinking no valid research could be possible for instance on the influence of gender, social class and similar variables upon for instance proneness to violence, for these variables are as well confounded with others. You seem to agree (that's how I understand you) that 'impoverished background' may be a factor explaining that a disproportionate amount of blacks are in US prisons. To state that with some confidence one has to separate the influence of race and social/money etc background by use of a mathematical model. This is completely symmetric, for the same way of looking at the data allows you to factor out race alone.

If you are talking with confidence about the impoverished background being a sizeable factor then nothing mathematically different comes into the equation when you look at other causing factor like gender, religion or race. If your claim is that this tape of research should not be done for nothing of value can be found you shouldn't talk about the influence of an impoverished background. The math is the same and math is content blind. But then, I do not have the impression that you understand the math behind the modeling.

Just BTW, the modeling for which factors influence the earth's climate is much more difficult and has much more problems and it still is done (and, of course, criticised, as is the good rule in science). But a position that it should not be done because it could be difficult has no supporters.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:41 PM

Certain tendencies' is very general

Yes, you are right. You may consider that particular use of that particular term from me in that case to mean the characteristics that we had previously been discussing, ie: fundamentalism, extremism, and violence. That is what I intended the term to mean.

Another point that you have never answered or even addressed as far as I see is my argument that with your thinking no valid research could be possible for instance on the influence of gender, social class and similar variables upon for instance proneness to violence, for these variables are as well confounded with others. You seem to agree (that's how I understand you) that 'impoverished background' may be a factor explaining that a disproportionate amount of blacks are in US prisons. To state that with some confidence one has to separate the influence of race and social/money etc background by use of a mathematical model. This is completely symmetric, for the same way of looking at the data allows you to factor out race alone.

The problem arises because, in the case of this particular question, there are too many variables (not just two or three), and any decision to leave any of them out would be arbitrary, not objective, and not conducive to producing reliable results. There is no scientific way to define the parameters without making non-scientific judgements. Value judgements.

It would not be possible to determine how to define the terms without making arbitrary distinctions (for instance, how do we define "violence"? How do we define, "fundamentalism"? How do we define "extremism"?). And how do we determine whether or not we define an act as being religiously motivated, or as being motivated by political realities on the ground but being acted by someone from a particular religion?. All of these things require the people conducting the study to make value judgements. And value judgements are, in the final analysis, nothing more than opinions.

Also, you can't really select for a time frame and get a reliable answer because each time frame will produce different results, but the results over time are what will give you accurate information. However, it is not possible to collect the needed data for many of the time periods in the past. In fact, it's probably not possible to collect sufficient data from this time period either, since we are talking about all of the people in all of the countries of the world. Leaving out some populations but using others will also produce different results, in the same way that leaving out certain time periods would.

Just BTW, the modeling for which factors influence the earth's climate is much more difficult and has much more problems and it still is done (and, of course, criticised, as is the good rule in science). But a position that it should not be done because it could be difficult has no supporters.

Modeling for which factors influence the earth's climate, done badly, would not cause discrimination against whole groups of people. The kind of study you are trying to defend in this thread, if done badly, would cause discrimination against at least one whole group of people (or put an "official", "scientific" stamp on already existing prejudice and discrimination).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 05 - 10:51 PM

Double post alert.

If you want to, Wolfgang, for the purpose of this discussion, you have my permission to declare my example of the Black prison inmate numbers to be too simplistic, and if so, I withdraw that example. My point in using that example was only to point out the fact that, as you well know, variables can be mistakenly correlated to the wrong things.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 11 Feb 05 - 04:40 PM

Nice troll CarolC. I notice that the last time I 'had something of substance to say' YOU didn't say a thing. Just too good for ya? Or could it be that you were not interested because there was not enough to get on your high horse about, which is your reason to live? Surely not - I am sure you could summon moral outrage with ANYONE given enough time at the keyboard...

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 10:43 AM

Back to the theme of the thread:

A few das ago, a young Turkish German Muslim woman, Hatin Sürücü (23), has been murdered. Her three brothers have been arrested. Grown up in Germany, she had left her husband (she married a cousin in Istanbul when she was 16) when seh was pregnant and lived in Berlin alone with her child after breaking up with her family. She had finished school since then and has found work. She did not wear the headscarf any more. Her brothers had already threatened a few times they would kill her in order to restore the honour of the family.

Between 1996 and 2004, at least 45 Muslim men and (mostly) women have been killed in Germany for the honour of the family, a group of Berlin women working for the rights of young female migrants has reported. Sororicide is a crime nearly unknown in Germany and the small percentage of Muslims living in Germany is responsible for most of these crimes.

When the pupils in a nearby school discussed the crime, some young Turks defended the murder saying she deserved what she got for living like a German. A spokeswoman from Terre des Femmes: "Honour crimes are not a purely Muslim phenomenon, but reflect traditional patriarchal patterns." A spokesman for Muslims in Germany: the murder is "an abuse of religion". Nekla Kelek, turkish author (known for describing the life of Turkish women having no rights): "Traditional families don't want their children to become German."

It is the fifth murder of this type in Berlin in five months. The percentage of Muslim women coming to an advice center for domestic violence in Berlin is 50 to 60 %, much higher than the percentage of Muslims in Berlin.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 12:00 PM

Yesterday I was reading an article about similar occurances in Pakistan. Tribal councils were giving punishments to men that involved committing crimes against women. One of these was a case of a man who had committed sexual indscretions with a woman. The tribal council decided that the man's punishment would be that his sister would be gang-raped.    A Pakistani court has given a death sentence to the men who committed the gang-rape. I don't know if I would support the death penalty for such crimes, but maybe the government of your country needs to be a little bit more like that of Pakistan on these issues, Wolfgang. Here's the story:

http://story.news.yahoo.com

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 12:07 PM

Those same young Turks who condemned the victim for living like a German, and by implication not living like a Moslem, are quite likely to have sex with any female they can. In so doing it is most likely that their partner will be a non moslem, surely they must be breaking some religious law or other by consorting with a non Moslem. Or is it like so many other laws in that religion, mysogynistic? I've never heard of a Moslem man being killed for marrying a non Moslem.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:15 PM

I believe in Islam all that is required to establish that a child is born a Muslim is that the father be Muslim. Therefore a Muslim man may 'screw around' without incurring shame 'within the tribe.' A woman is property in this view.

This is one of the reasons the systematic rape of Bosnian women was doubly cruel. Those women who conceived were destined to bear children that could not be accepted into their community.

By contrast with Jewish tradition, the child of a Jewish woman is Jewish. This is one of the best rules ever devised by a religion which could provide for the protection of the helpless by considering them to be within the community whether a product of rape or adultery.

Christianity has made this not a matter of tribes or family, but baptism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:16 PM

Carol,

giving sentences is not the task of our government and we are glad about that.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:53 PM

Are your courts not a part of your government, Wolfgang?

Here is an interesting article on the subject of the kinds of challenges that Muslims face in developing an identity that is in keeping with their beliefs, but that does not become only a reflexive response to the perceived negative influences of the West. I find it refreshing in its honesty and balanced perspective, unlike the sort of knee-jerk stereotyping I see in this thread coming from people like John 'Giok' MacKenzie, Ooh-Aah2, and to some extent, also Wolfgang...

UNDERSTANDING THE TWO FACEs OF THE WEST Dr. Muqtedar Khan

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 02:52 PM

Are your courts not a part of your government, Wolfgang?

No, not at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 03:11 PM

From today's memorial demonstration:

An archaic traditionalist conception of honour has led to this execution...Human rights are no cultural pecularity they belong to everybody - even young Muslim women (Seyran Ates, German Turkish lawyer and feminist)

Neither religion nor tradition are a justification for this deed (Marieluise Beck, Green member of the German government)

Such murders are nothing new. (New is, however that) the media treat this theme now openly and without wrong tolerance. (Öczan Mutlu, German Turkish member of the Green faction in the Berlin parliament)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 03:46 PM

Ok, then I will rephrase...

I don't know if I would support the death penalty for such crimes, but maybe the courts in your country need to be a little bit more like those of Pakistan on these issues, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:03 PM

I've never read about comparable crimes in Germany yet, but I'm sure our courts would not accept any sentences from kangaroo courts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 07:26 PM

Most 'knee jerk' reactions are not backed up by facts. There is none so blind as those that will not see.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM

That's narrowing things down a bit more than necessary, Wolfgang. My point was that the way the courts in your country deal with crimes such as the one you described in your 22 Feb 05 - 10:43 AM post to this thread, can help determine whether or not the problem gets worse or better in your country. Pakistan, a Muslim country, appears to be taking a strict sentancing approach to the problem, if the contents of the link I provided are any indication. Perhaps the courts in your country also need to take such an approach.

Most 'knee jerk' reactions are not backed up by facts. There is none so blind as those that will not see.

My sentiments exactly, John 'Giok' MacKenzie.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 05:48 AM

Well I suppose that making a smart Alec remark is easier than looking for an argument to refute the irrefutable Carol. Personally; and I know you don't care so don't bother telling me so, I think you are an apologist for a cruel and mysogynistic religious sect that this world would be a safer place without. Especially its women!
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 12:28 PM

And I think you are a prejucided and possibly racist apologist for white supremacists, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. You broadly stereotype Muslims, ignoring the good and only focusing on the bad, while at the same time ignoring the bad in your own category of people. Shall we discuss the trafficing of women as sex slaves by members of your own country and ethnic category? Or shall we discuss the numbers of women killed, maimed, or otherwise brutalized by their non-Muslims spouses/partners in your country? Or how about hate-crimes committed against Muslims by non-Muslims in your country? Of course not. This thread is only for the purpose of Muslim-bashing.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 01:28 PM

Pakistan gang rape

This is the first time the government has taken a Panchayat to task for its decision to inflict gang rape on a young girl.

Human rights commission of Pakistan (lots of internal links to statistics and articles)

If the human rights situation in Germany would be similar to Pakistan or the protection by the courts would be as bad as in Pakistan, my country would be in a dismal state.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 01:55 PM

Violence against women in Pakistan (Human Rights Watch report)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:11 PM

Wolfgang, are you purposely ignoring the point of my last few posts to you?

The point is that the tribal/family system of "justice" that is being criticized (and rightly so) does not have the authority to make rulings that are illegal according to Pakistani law. When these local systems make illegal rulings that result in crimes being committed, the perpetrators of the crimes in question are subject to prosecution by the Pakistani courts. The article I provided a link to provides a recent example of this, in which the people who committed the gang rape are now facing the death sentence in Pakistan.

Alternatively, a few years ago in Germany, the perpetrator of an honor killing was given a reduced sentance (as compared to what would be considered normal in cases of murder), with the reason given being that the German courts were honoring the perpetrator's "tradition".

It's possible that the government of Pakistan has only recently been getting more strict on the subject of violation of women's human rights, but at least it's a step in the right direction. What is the government of your own country doing about it?

Interestingly, here in the US a just a few years ago, a man killed his wife when he caught her cheating on him. The judge sentenced him to six months in prison. The judge said he thought six months was enough because he (the judge), could understand the feelings of the man who killed his wife. These people were not Muslims.

If we're going to talk about human rights for women, let's talk about human rights for women. Don't be using the subject of women's human rights as a covert way of promoting an agenda that is in reality an anti-human rights agenda - the promotion of hatred against Muslims.

In fact, if we're going to talk about intolerance, let's talk about intolerance in all of its forms. This thread, under the guise of speaking out against intolerance, is really just a whole lot of very thinly disguised intolerance against Muslims.

Honestly, Wolfgang, I'm having some difficulty finding much difference between your attitude towards Muslims and and Neo-Nazi attitudes towards Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 03:06 PM

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. The difference being that the worm didn't spike itself on deliberately. Also a barb does not grow bigger and bigger, as the nastiness of (modern) Islam increases the more one reads. A particularly good book on the license Islamic societies give to men and they way they repress women is 'My Feudal Lord' by Tehmina Durrani, by the ex-wife of a prominent Pakistani politician. If this is the way that an educated, articulated women can be treated by a man in public life one shudders to think what goes on in less affluent, less high-profile families.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 03:14 PM

Ooh-Aa2, as a woman, I have quite a lot of experience with being on the recieving end of mysogyny. Certainly not as much as some other women in the world, but I know what it feels like to be on the recieving end of it. And as a woman who knows what that feels like, I resent the hell out of racists, white supremacists, and hatemongers like yourself using that issue as an excuse to promote hatred against any groups of people.

On a human rights website I encountered yesterday, the issue of underreporting of these kinds of crimes was discussed. One of the reasons that was given for such underreporting was the (justifiable) fear that to report the crimes would cause discrimintion against the entire group, rather than just the perpetrators of the crimes. You, John 'Giok' MacKenzie, and Wolfgang certainly provide excellent examples of this.

If you really cared about human rights for women (which you clearly do not), you would help find ways of promoting human rights for women that did not result in discrimination against whole groups of women, as you are doing with regard to Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 03:47 PM

Let me rephrase that last one just for the sake of clarity...

You don't help Muslim women by promoting hatred towards, and discrimination against the group to which they belong.

Quite the opposite, in fact. When you promote hatred towards and discrimination against Muslims, you make life HARDER for Muslim women than it already is.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 05:29 PM

What we have here is prejudice plain and simple, but it's not as CarolC says from myself and others against Moslems, it is instead prejudice from CarolC against all who disagree with her Moslemcentric ideals. I think Carol you should finish of that outfit you're wearing, [the blindfold] and put on a burkah to complete the ensemble.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM

Only a true misogynist would pick and choose which kinds of human rights abuses against women he is willing to recognise and acknowlege, John 'Giok' MacKenzie, and use them as a cynical tool to promote a hate agenda, as you and Ooh-Aah2 are doing on this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:35 AM

Do you think then that I'm in favour of female circumcision in the Sudan, when it's done by non-Moslems?
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:30 AM

interview with an English feminist who lived in Pakistan for 17 years

some excerpts from this very interesting article..

Q: How do you see the fact that controlling women is so central to the agenda of conservative religious groups, Muslim as well as others?

A: In conservative religious discourses women come to be seen as custodians of community identity and authenticity, as bearers of tradition. Possibly this is because of their role in bearing and rearing children. Hence, defining and controlling women comes to be seen as central to a revivalist religious agenda. Along with this comes a host of burdens that are sought to be placed on women as bearers of the normative communitarian ideal. Let me cite an instance to substantiate this argument. One sight in Lahore that never ceased to amaze me was men wearing baseball caps and T-shirts displaying the US flag, riding motorcycles with their wives or sisters, heavily draped in black burqas, sitting behind them. No one ever seemed to question the men's identity as Muslims, but I presume if the women sitting behind them refused to veil up they would be damned as bad Muslims or even worse.

.. We in the network do not agree with the standard Islamist perception of privileging religion as the only structure through which society should be organized.

This is a politically far-right position which we are opposed to. Our position is that there are multiple ways of being and that they should all be allowed to exist. Within each of our communities we need to allow for proper democratic dialogue and discussion of what is or is not beneficial, within a human rights framework, but this is something that many Islamists are vehemently opposed to. However, Islamism is not the only way of imagining Islam, and I see very promising possibilities of working with progressive Islamic theologians who do not share the same basic premises as the Islamists. One good example is Nasiruddin Nasaruddin 'Umar, the vice-rector of a leading Islamic University in Indonesia, who is a man but is also very feminist in his approach. We've even translated one of his books on women and Islam.

Q: Feminists are often accused by the Muslim religious right of 'conspiring' to divide the community, setting women against men and thus playing into the hands of what are routinely branded as the 'enemies of Islam'. How do you respond to this sort of accusation?

A: I could cite the names of several progressive male Muslim theologians who share the same social vision as us to counter this silly argument.

We also have a number of like-minded men on our decision-making bodies.

We aren't an exclusively women's group and nor do we champion women's exclusivity. We talk of gender justice, not simply justice for women. We are not seeking to replace one form of gender injustice-rule by men-by another form.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: freda underhill
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:36 AM

the silence of the feminists...

some excerpts

...in Pakistan, 1250 women were killed in the name of honour last year, according to the Prime Minister's adviser on women's development, and in many cases, "their murderers are roaming free". A bill imposing death or life imprisonment for honour killings was recently signed by President Musharraf, in response to pressure from Pakistani women's and human rights groups.

A Health Ministry survey of 1000 women who gave birth at a hospital in Djibouti found that 98 per cent of them had been circumcised. Health experts said this practice, which involves cutting away the inner labia and clitoris and then tying the remaining lips together, is a major contributor to deaths in childbirth and exposing women to HIV infection.

...The great silence by left-leaning Western feminists, and other large parts of the left, to human rights abuses carried out in the name of Islam is, to see it as its kindest, caused by an overdeveloped sense of tolerance or cultural relativism. But it is also part of the new anti-Americanism. Look at American Christian fundamentalism, they say.

Dislike of George Bush's foreign policy has led to an automatic support of those perceived to be his enemies. Paradoxically, this leaves the left defending people who hold beliefs that condone what the left has long fought against: misogyny, homophobia, capital punishment, suppression of freedom of speech. The recent reaffirmation by Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie has been met by virtual silence; as has the torture and murder in Iraq of a man who would be presumed to be one of the left's own - Hadi Salih, the international officer of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. The hard left these days is soft on fascism, or at least Islamofascism.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:51 AM

Carol,
I have addressed your point exactly as I have understood it, but I admit I had a lot of difficulties understanding the point of your 22 Feb 05 - 12:00 PM post, so maybe I still do not get it.

I have posted about a crime, sororicide, which in Germany, together with the motive 'honour', is a crime predominantly committed by Muslims. That was a contribution to my opinion that the variable 'religion' can play a role in incidence of, at least particular, crimes.

You then have posted about a crime, presumably also committed by Muslims in Pakistan, have added that the perpetrators have been sentneced to death and that the government in Germany needs to do a bit more about these issues. What was your point? In which way was that remark related to my post? Should German courts deal out harsher sentences against minorities (in this case, Muslims and Roma) in Germany committing crimes that in their culture are not considered real crimes? That's and old demand of the German Right and they'd surely applaud this.

I'm not ready to defend each single sentence in Germany, some are to harsh, some look incredibly mild to me, but on the whole I think our system of not saying murder is murder but to look at the circumstances is a good system. So the woman murdering her husband after decades of insults, battery and abuse gets a more lenient sentence than the woman doing it for the life insurance. The woman who has killed the murderer of her child in the court room did not get the same sentence the man would have gotten. In some court cases with minorities people have said that the judges have bent over backwards too much in trying to understand for instance the traditional Muslim background leading to an honour killing. Is that your argument?

Or is your point that Germany could learn a lot from Pakistan on human rights, in particular human rights for women? That looks like utter nonsense to me. Not that everything is alright in Germany or could not be better or that everything is bad in Pakistan, but comparing these two countries and finding that on the human rights angle Germany could learn a lot from Pakistan looks to me like an uninformed opinion. So that's why I linked to a few sites (there are many more but I choose the better ones) about the dismal state of human and women rights in Pakistan. This is relevant to your remarks about Germany and Pakistan. If you do not see this as addressing your point you must have had something in your mind I have not understood yet.

And, BTW, your response immediately after my links completely misses my point. The links were about Pakistan alone and not, how you misunderstand it in your response, about Muslims. When you read my links you will rarely find a mention of religion. These are sites/articles about a country and not a religion. Read the links and then try to tell that the state of human/women rights in Germany is worse or even equally bad. You have introduced the Pakistan/German comparison and when I link to sites about Pakistan don't make that an attack upon the predominant religion in Pakistan.

One more remark to your debating, Carol. It would help if you would not infer from the effect you think something may have to the motives of the people you are discussing with. You think that 'underreporting' of crimes of groups that are often discriminated is a good strategy against discrimination. I think (and have given examples far above) that this strategy backfires and on the long run adds to the discrimination by making the antidiscrimination argumentation and publications untrustworthy. That is the effect I think your strategy will have. But I am far from saying that this (making antidiscrimination arguments look weak) is your motive. That would be as stupid as saying to a poster identifying himself as a Jew: "You're in reality an antisemite because your arguments make the Jewish position look stupid". I'd appreciate if you could return this favour and not make the assumption that what you think the effect of a type of fact reporting could be is the intention of the poster.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 08:09 AM

Thanks for the links, Freda, I had not seen them before posting.
And the same belated thank to you Carol for the Muqtedar Khan link. I have read more from him yesterday and he is in comparison to a fundamentalist Muslim what for instance Joe Offer is in comparison to a right-wing fundamentalist Christian.

One more remark: I think it could be argued that the patriarchal element is even more than religion what decides how a country deals with women rights. When searching for 'honour killings' yesterday I saw an interesting site comparing worldwide different law system whether male or family honour is explicitely mentioned as a reason for a milder sentence. Most of the countries listed were Muslim countries and those listed were most of the Muslim countries, but, interestingly (and fitting in my prejudice about 'machismo'), nearly all other countries mentioned were Latin American. I remember only one country that was neither Muslim nor Latin-American: Israel.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 10:51 AM

Wolfgang, my problem with the kind of posts that the majority of people are putting on this thread, and even refreshing it over and over after it has gone dorment is that it is taking only one group of people and hammering them repeatedly for things that are not done by them exclusively, while at the same time ignoreing the same or similar behaviors of other groups, has the result of promoting hatred towards that one group.   John 'Giok' MacKenzie has suggested that he thinks the world would be better off without Muslims. That's a recipe for genocide if ever I saw one.

Again, I say... if you want to discuss violations of human rights against women, let's discuss that. But let's also include some of the other horrific things that are being done to women by other groups around the world. We need to do more of that. But let's not use this issue as a part of a hate campaign aimed only at one group of people.

My line of reasoning in bringing up Pakistan is this: the problem of honor killings and other kinds of crimes against women of that nature (including dowry bride burning by Hindus in India, female excision by various peoples, including Muslims, but also including many peoples who are not Muslim, and the sex slave trade which is as much of a problem in "Western" cultures as it is in non-Western ones, and is responsible for the forced captivity, rape, beatings, and even death of hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim women every year), these problems are not remedied by fostering a climate of hate against entire groups of people. They are remedied by stronger laws against these crimes. Pakistan has taken that very important step in protecting women.

Only a few decades ago, here in the US, men were allowed by law to beat their wives. As long as they were allowed to do it, women had no legal recourse to end the beatings. Even when it became illegal to beat your wife in the US, for a long time, the problem was not taken very seriously and women still didn't have much legal recourse to end the beatings. Now, it is taken much more seriously, and while domestic violence against women is still a very big problem in this country, and many women are killed each year by their (non-Muslim) spouses/partners, women now have many more resources at their disposal to end the abuse then they ever did before. In Pakistan, they have taken that first step. They have made laws to help protect women. If the courts enforce those laws effectively, the lives of women in Pakistan will be greatly improved.

If you want to help end these practices, lobby your government for stricter laws against these crimes, and lobby your government for more pro-active help for women who find themselves in these situations. Do you know what your country does with women who are held captive as sex slaves and who manage to escape from their captors? In most countries, they are held in prisons until they can be deported to their home countries. Instead of just ragging on and on about Muslims, if you really care about Womens' rights, find out what is being done to women in your country... all women, not just Muslim women, and do something to help.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 11:19 AM

Carol I don't want to get into a slanging match with you, as I agree with a lot of what you post, however I do find it strange that I am accused of misogyny with no grounds for that accusation, and of condoning violence against women of other countries and cultures, in a thread entitled More Moslem intolerance. Not only that but the post with which I started concerned the murder of a MAN by a Moslem extremist. as for the reviving of the thread, if you look back you will find that it has never been me who brought it out of retirement when it fell off the end. Face it Carol it's rampant thread creep, and if you want to bring in other issues I suggest you start your own thread about your concerns.
Giok

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 12:02 PM

Well, I prefer a less muddled and more focused discussion. If there was a thread about the Christian right in the USA and their violence against abortion clinics I wouldn't introduce violent acts by people with other religions. And a thread about attempts at cheating in voting in the USA in my eyes would be in no need of contributions about vote cheating in the GDR. The there-are-crimes-everywhere-of-all-kind-and-by-all-sorts-of-people approach is not helpful in my eyes. The bride burning by Hindus for instance can be discussed in the context of their culture, their tradition and, even, their faith. No need to discuss other crimes in the same thread.

lobby your government for stricter laws against these crimes
FYI, in Germany, the government doesn't make the laws (that was roughly sixty years ago).
But lobbying for these aims is an activity that I can wholeheartedly support.

fostering a climate of hate against entire groups of people
That is neither my intention nor I believe the effect of my posts though you do the worst you can to make it look as if it could. Even if an evil action would be found to be more often committed by one group of people than by another (like, for instance, rape by men) the mention of such a fact only could foster hate against the whole group in people whose judgement or thinking ability I would not trust. I would actively argue against such a wrong inference for it commits a serious error: If there was, to use the above example, a sororicide in Germany the probability is be quite high that this crime has been committed by a Muslim, but the probability that any Muslim would commit this crime is very low. Two extremely different things. But I'm not willing to stop thinking publicly about the differential incidence of this crime and reasons for it just because of the danger that some stupid idiot gets the wrong ideas.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:35 PM

Wolfgang, this whole thread is about only the bad things done by Muslims. If you don't think a thread like this one promotes hateful and inacurate stereotypes about Muslims, rather than just rational discourse, why don't you start a thread called "Obit: More Jewish Intolerance", in which you post dozens of links to news items about every violent and/or intolerant act committed by Jews? The reason is not because Jews never commit violent or intolerant acts. It's because it would promote hateful and innacurate stereotypes of a whole group of people. And we already know what has happened to Jews when people have done that to them in the past. It's no different for Muslims. Focusing only on the bad, ignoring the good, ignoring the prevalence of bad behavior of other groups and only focusing on the bad done by one group results in the kind of thing the people of your country saw during WWII. Already we see it happening to Muslims, and this thread is a perfect example.

I don't know what to say, John 'Giok' MacKenzie. You say that the world would be better off without any Muslims in it. When you say something like that, you are not just talking about men. You are also talking about many millions of women. The fact that you don't seem to realize that (maybe you think only men are Muslims?), the fact that you suggested that because I fight against discrimination and hatemongering against Muslims, that means I should wear a burka (btw, most Muslim women don't wear burkas), the fact that you are so publicly vocal about this particular example of abuse of women, but you don't want to talk about any other kinds of abuse of women.

You are using the issue of human rights for women as a part of your campaign to spread hatred towards Muslims, about half of whom are women. Anyone with any compassion for women at all would never, ever, even think of using this issue for the purpose of promoting hatred. And that is what makes you a misogynist. You must have a hell of a lot of contempt for women to do such a thing.