http://www.wluml.org/node/5896
Link:”France: Reactions to proposed partial ban on burqa | Wome Living Under Muslim Laws
Sarkozy’s veil climbdown: Has Nicolas Sarkozy lost face in his battle against the burqa? One might think so considering his latest compromise on the issue. While the French president firmly believes that these allegedly Islamic veils are “a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement” which are “not…”

R does it or does it not have more to do with culture then religion, or do you see this guy wrong?

there are more than one article in that link.

“This is the point missed by liberal defenders of the niqab and the burka. I’m aghast when they say it’s about personal choice, as though that removes the subject from the political arena; one of feminism’s most influential slogans – “the …personal is political” – exposed that as nonsense four decades ago.

No one is saying that women cover their faces for a single reason: a fairly small number believe their religion requires it, some come under family pressure, others adopt it for the political reasons I’ve outlined above. Whatever the motive, the symbolic meanings – separation, rejection, an acceptance of shame – remain the same. I don’t want to ban the burka but I do reserve the right to say, as politely as possible, that wearing it in the 21st-century is preposterous.”

Well said A I am behind you all the way! Also why are these women not demanding of heir men to cover their faces too..why only the women what is wrong with their faces that they can not be shown in public? It has NOTHING to do with religion, it has to do with men afraid that another man might look at his woman and control.

m, that’s a quote from one of the articles of that link. but i agree, of course.

Supporting such backwards ideas is just simply not acceptable. Will this mean we are going to support honor killing, wife beating, poligamy etc?because its part of their religious customs? Where are the lines drawn?

from reading various articles today, i get the feeling that women who wear burqa get a sort of secondary benefit, mainly feeling more pious than other women and may hold a higher status than those that don’t – at least in their heads. ironically i suppose this makes you more desirable!!

I would much rather show them they have a false God, then ban any freedom. Maybe it’s the only way a Muslim woman can achieve orgasm is with one =)

at least some anyways

As I said Canada is looking into the status of boligami ..it is what permits such terrible inustice towards women too and sometimes it is only a law that changes such customs over time. We have to bring these people into the 21st century not us going back in time, no?

Given that I provided the link to WLUML I can say that whilst it publishes articles representing all sides of the issue, the organization itself is opposed to the hijab/niqab/burka as a symbol and instrument of oppression.

The real issue here is that conservative Muslims do not support humanism or the concept of human rights, yet they use the concept to protect their ‘right’ to practice a religion that is opposed to the notion of such rights. They demand reli…gious freedom, yet do not tolerate religious freedom. A woman who wears a niqab is telling you she probably adheres to one or other orthodox maddhab (school of sharia) and certainly would not allow her daughter the freedom to choose her religion or wear what she wishes.

I don’t see that anywhere in what you sent me, can you send me something that verrifies this is their position?

I think there is a misunderstanding here about what the religion of Islam is. For most Muslims it much more than the Koran. The be an orthodox Muslim is to abide by sharia law as determined by your sheikh or imam. There are four maddhab or …schools of Sunni sharia and one of Shia. Whilst there are minority sects, the orthodox maddhabi believes the unorthodox are apostates. So it doesn’t much matter what the Koran says, it matters what your sheikh/imam tells you. And it is an indisputable fact that orthodox sheikhs tell their women they must dress as good Muslim women.

R you had made the statement to me that the feminist Arab movement strongly endorses this, All I am asking for if for you to show me where this is the case, this is big R

I went through that site and no where was this on their radar

http://www.wluml.org/node/5598

MM I’ve been following this for years but sadly I haven’t kept notes. You’ll have to go back through the archives. But I will point to both Ayan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji (a Canadian) on this.

It looks like they endorse the burka by celebrating it Thread Starter

“It is precisely the invocation of “tradition” and “indigenous values” which blurs the fact that practices and legislations supposed to be “Islamic” are in fact carefully crafted to fit the agenda of conservative Muslim forces.”

So what you are saying, this is their Mormon underwear to them

As I said, I’m a progressive humanist. Why would I listen to a conservative religionist on this? Ayan is very clear that in her case she was pressured (as was Irshad) to wear conservative dress. This is not about the freedom to wear what yo…u wish, it is just about the freedom to wear the symbol of a nasty, conservative religion. If you read through the WLUML site you will find articles about French Muslim women who have spoken in favour of the ban or against the burka, being harassed and attacked by conservative Muslims. So much for freedom of speech.

In a sense, it is a religious symbol. You wear it to identify yourself as a conservative Muslim.

So what if someone is harassed by others for their choice in something. They still have the freedom not to do it. That is still not a valid reason to ban a piece of clothing. I don’t care what it represents.

http://www.wluml.org/section/resource/latest andhttp://www.wluml.org/node/6556 and http://www.wluml.org/node/5756 – keep looking MM..

As a nudist I am discriminated against. I don’t hear any Muslim women defending me. This is not a trivial point. You either support the general principle or you don’t. You can’t argue for exceptionalism, that somehow Islam is exempt, especially not when it abuses the same freedom it expects.

I don’t see Mormons supporting you either. Does not that mean that we should ban their underwear? No.

I don’t see Catholics supporting you either. Does that mean that we should deny their priests and nuns their conservative attire? No.

Midwestern housewives aren’t supporting nudism, either. Should they all be legally mandated to participate in Hustler’s “Beaver Hunt”?

Indeed. It is considered normal to oppose nudism. No one bats an eyelid. So it’s okay to discriminate against one group but not another? On what basis? What’s the principle here?

Well, as I’ve said, I am okay with nudism, so I am thoroughly internally consistent.

I don’t support Mormons or Catholics. The sooner these religions dissolve the better.

I actually would love to see decency laws on people completely repealed in the states. I dislike those laws immensly. Actually, Ray, in the states there is a movement that is against the decency laws which have the ability to put women breast feeding in public in jail.

Sarah, if there is to be freedom of choice there must be real freedom of choice. My position is simple and based on reciprocity. I will support the right of conservative Muslim to wear the hijab/niqab if they support my right (or the right of traditional people) to go naked.

Sounds like a complicated legal system, being based entirely on personal acts of reciprocity.

R. For the record. I don’t support the Burqa at all. I just don’t think that personal opinion should be made into legislation.

Is this STILL the case in the US? In Australia it is the reverse. It is illegal to discriminate against women breastfeeding, even in cafes and restaurants.

Yes, it is still the case. I remember about 2 years ago, a Mexican woman got arrested in my area for breast feeding in the grocery store.

I think the only instance in which a woman can go topless in public for any reason in the US is when they are in Portland, Oregon.

B. Reciprocity is the core of the Golden Rule. It’s pretty simple actually.

So are you going to start a petition to see who will let you go naked?

What we are talking about here is exceptionalism, that certain people, religions are exempt from the Golden Rule.

No. Two wrongs do not equal a right in this. We disallow the ban and then work on destroying bans on nudity and other ridiculous stuff.

Okay. So how are you going to figure out which certain people are against your going naked? Are you going to ask them or are you going to assume that Mormons are really all a part of one consciousness, like the Borg?

The particulars are not important. We are talking about the principle of freedom. Apparently we must protect the freedoms of certain chosen people and ignore the freedoms of others

So your proposition is to ignore the freedoms of some people until they say you can go to McDonald’s naked?

Sarah, I’m not expecting Muslims to start a naturist movement, ever.

Those three links you just sent only the last one had any reference of a slight support, it’s not in any of their statement of purpose literature. It sounds like it is not that big of an issue to them.

And R it should not have to be my responsiblity to back up what you say

If you accept that a woman can enter a McDonald’s wearing a burka, why wouldn’t you support the right of a pagan to walk in naked?

R, neither am I. They don’t have to, R. Just like I don’t expect any religious people to start a naturist movement. The fact of the matter is, is that these religious people are not making the laws so their opinions don’t matter as much in this, if at all.

I already do, so I suppose you can sign me into your petition.

Likewise. May you enjoy your Big Mac in your full naked glory.

do you want your big mac with extra magic underwear with that ?

Sarah, they are making laws covering dress in public. How many Western women have been told they have to dress modestly when visiting Muslim countries. You miss my point about reciprocity.

No, she doesn’t miss you point on reciprocity. She is just more fond of the freedom of thought, speech, and expression.

R let me ask you a question

MM you cannot have studied the site to any depth in such a short time. This is not a 30sec sound bite issue. Read Irshad and Ayan’s books. Sorry, but I will not be able to satisfy your immediate needs…

If I was a Muslim woman and the only way I could achieve orgasm was to be able to wear my burka. Would you deny me that right?

Right, so we deny people rights because people are forced to conform when visiting religious dictatorships. That makes us no better than those that we dislike.

B, except Islam does not allow freedom of thought, speech and expression. In fact the more conservatively a Muslim woman dresses the less likely she believes in these things (except when it comes to her freedom to dress conservatively).

MM in public? Like, when you go shopping in the mall?

I could not get that pure physical orgasm without feeling the spiritual flow through my garments. You know it’s my kinky thing

would you deny me that right?

No, Sarah, I support radical tolerance. This means I expect conservative Muslim women to support the right of their daughters to be naturists – in fact there is a large naturist vacation spot in France at Montalivet. What I do NOT support is the selective application of human rights.

I will support your right to have an orgasm in public by whatever means you choose, but only if you support my reciprocal right.

R, it doesn’t matter if they don’t support their children doing that. Their daughters can always break free and find support from outside their family in a Western society. That’s the only reason that I was able to break free myself. Because I was living in the US when I got older and things got a little more crazy in my household.

It’s all about the love R

It does matter Sarah. It’s about hypocrisy. About claiming a right you would then deny to others.

They’re not claiming it because they don’t make legislature.

And Sarah, as you well know some girls cannot break free, some have been killed to protect family honour. There have been several tragic cases in Britain (although that would depend on nationality).

Indeed. Honor killings in foreign countries is not that frequent though I was threatened with it before, it never actually happened.

Making legislature has nothing to do with it. There have been many cases in Western history where women had to fight to make legislature – to gain the right to vote, reform divorce and abortion laws, etc. It’s about what you say and do.

Making legislature has everything to do with it because my main point is that personal opinion shouldn’t be made into law. That’s the problem with most laws…

Of course not, except that these women are quite happy to have their opinion made into law.

Doesn’t mean that they will be made into law.

IOW. You do not have the right to impose your will on me but I have the right to impose my will on you (because Islam is the true religion and therefore exempt from infidel Western principles of freedom).

No. Their will not be made into law either. This is not a dicussion on Sharia law. This is a discussion about a ridiculous head garment.

But they would if they could… that’s the point.

Yeah, well, so would a lot of other people. That’s also my point. People who makes laws need to be impartial.

The laws need to be impartial, in spite of people.

Here’s an interesting article from WLUML…http://www.wluml.org/node/3609 The bottom line issue for me is that human rights and freedoms need to be actively asserted. History will point to a number of totalitarian enemies of such freedom: religion, fascism and communism (or various totalitarianisms). Our freedoms were hard won and easily lost. Unfortunately Islam is opposed to these freedoms and the evidence is clear that if a significant Muslim population resides in a Western nation, a minority within that population start to agitate to erode or modify or exempt themselves from those freedoms (and subsequent responsibilities). Australia has a small Muslim population, but even then we have had sections wishing to set up sharia courts and exempt themselves from Australian law. Of course other groups seek to do the same and there has been considerable focus on a Christian group called the Exclusive Brethren.

A closer look at the situation will reveal that freedom of religion is not an absolute and there are a number of laws that restrict particular religious practices. Aboriginal girls no longer undergo ritual defloration and few boys are ritua…lly circumcised, nor can Aborigines administer traditional punishments (like summary execution for homosexuality). Many pagan religions face a number of restrictions – no goat sacrifices on the full moon in the public park. So my question here is, should we allow religions (and cultures) to practice their beliefs unconstrained? Or are there natural limits?

Should we tolerate female circumcision? Or are we right to outlaw the practice?

We aren’t talking about following Sharia law, we are talking about the right of someone to choose what to wear when they get up in the morning.

B, it is not as simple as that. It is not actually a single issue. Many of the women who wear the niqab/burka (the hijab is not banned in France, only the face veil) do so in acceptance of sharia. The Koran is vague on the issue, but sharia is not. So the fact that they obey sharia tells you they believe in sharia.

Here is an example of the type of apologetics used to justify the jilbab (the original Arabic term). A woman who chooses to wear a particular version is obeying the opinion of Islamic scholars who use exactly this type of argument: http://www.muhajabah.com/jilbab.htm

Covering the entire face nor the hands are specifically stated as being necessary despite the jilbab verse. I will repeat this once more since it is also clearly stated in the Quran via a description of how women must dress, the Burqa (face and hand covering) are not required by an tenant of Islam thus it is not Sharia law.

Correction from Sarah: “Neither covering the entire face nor the hands are specifically stated as being necessary despite the jilbab verse.” Clarified to avoid confusion. Even under strict interpretation of Sharia law, the covering of the face isn’t required.

Then why do Muslim scholars say it is required? Saudi law is based on the rulings of the umma – the body of Islamic scholars. Are you suggesting you know more about Sharia than they? And what of the ruling of the Iranian clerics?

Sarah. Sharia law is constructed through four sources. The Koran, the Hadith, the opinion of scholars and local custom. Of course the Koran is the most important source, but where the meaning is not clear, reference is made to the other thr…ee sources. The sunnah consists of four orthodox schools of sharia named after the scholar who first authored them, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafiya. Iran follows sharia as determined by the majority Ithna Ashari sect (twelvers). In this sense sharia is more than the Koran and is not reliant on it.

It depends on whether or not you are a madhhabi, a follower of one or other of the schools of sharia, or a follower of ijtihad, or independent interpretation. The women who wear the veil are clearly indicating that they are madhhabi, the fo…llowers of a particular sectarian interpretation of sharia: usually Wahhabism, Deobandism or Ikwhan Muslamiya, and Shai Ithna Ashari – the fours pillars of Islamic salafism (puritanism). It would so much easier if there were agreement between the various scholars, but there isn’t. You cannot deny that these scholars advocate the veil using sharia as justification.

That should read ulema, not umma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Did you happen to scroll down on that Wikipedia page? Under the header “Dress codes”:
“However, under (strict interpretation of) Sharia Law, women are required to cover all of their bodies except hands and face.”

Sarah would be the best perso…n to answer those points. She has gone to bed, though.

Also, telling a woman who lived in Egypt what Sharia law is like is comparable to telling a bank teller what handling money feels like.

I’ll make sure I have popcorn in the morning, just in case she feels like answering.

I know many Christians who do not understand the intricacies of theology and basically only follow what the preacher tells them. If you read further into that link it says: “There are many different opinions, however, as to whether the veil… or headscarf is a real Qur’anic obligation. Some scholars such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi claim it is, while others, such as Mohammed Arkoun, Soheib Bencheikh, Abdoldjavad Falaturi, Jamal al Banna claim it isn’t. However, the first group appears dominant: “Jamal al Banna has been for a number of years one of the few mainstream Muslim scholars to argue that the Muslim headscarf, or hijab, is not an Islamic obligation.” Note that it says that the majority consider the “veil or headscarf” an obligation.

Do you know what a logical disjunction is?

B, can I assume you live in a predominantly Christian country and therefore by right of birth must know a great deal about Christian theology? Perhaps you are Jewish and therefore know the Talmud? The point is that followers of religions tend to follow and believe what the priests of that religion tell them.

“There are many different opinions, however, as to whether the veil *or* headscarf is a real Qur’anic obligation.” If the majority of Muslim scholars state that a headscarf is required, but a veil is not, then that condition is still satis…fied, as the statement is that either veils or headscarves, or both, are required, not that headscarves *and* veils are required. This isn’t semantics, either, as the following statement you provided said that Jamal al Banna argues that not even headscarves are necessary. Therefore, there is clearly a contrast being set between those who say that a headscarf *or* veil are required against those who say that neither a headscarf nor a veil are required.

In case I wasn’t clear enough and you didn’t already know what it is, the logical disjunction is the concept of “or”.

Indeed. And what’s your point? Clearly the evidence from Wahabbi, Deobandi, Ithna Ashari controlled areas, that the scholars of these traditions believe the veil is necessary. The ban in France applies to the veil and therefore to those women who adhere to these specific sects.

Yes, I got that ‘or’ was the disjunction. It was a red herring.

A red herring from what?

Egyptian society is not greatly influenced by these sects and some prominent Egyptian scholars (some from al-Azar) have spoken against it. Scholarly opinion varies. What is at issue here is that some powerful sects demand it.

From the fact that these women follow salafi or ultra-conservative sects.

In fact the style of veil will tell you what sect. If it is the black niqab they are Wahhabi, if it is the burka with the mesh, they are Deobandi.

Actually, Egyptian society is very strict and not as liberal as others believe. Female genital mutilation occurs more often than not as do arranged and forced marriages. Those sects are gaining more and more power in Egypt every day. I bought my Burqa in Egypt not Saudi Arabia or any other gulf country.

Yes, this is true. The Muslim Brotherhood are linked to other Salafi groups and the Wahhabi have rich patrons from the Gulf states (not just Saudi Arabia) who finance Wahhabi clerics in every Muslim community. We have Arab financed Wahhabi …activists here in Australia. There is a network of Salafi groups placing immense pressure on women in all sorts of areas. If a woman wears the niqab or burka it signals she belongs to a Salafi sect. And if she wears it intentionally and proudly she is telling you she actively supports the most extreme form of fundamentalist Islam. Most women will born into such a sect and will have no choice. But I simply have no respect for a woman who is proud to wear the niqab.

Neither do I (I bought and wore it out of curiosity), but I still would not tell them what to do unless what they are doing is endangering the safety of others.

Sarah, I understand your point but obviously disagree. There are some groups whose ideology is so oppressive and nasty that we need to keep a close watch. It is illegal to wear a Nazi uniform in some European countries for just this reason. By wearing the niqab she is indicating she belongs to a sect that believes in violent jihad and Islamic supremacism. I do not believe in tolerating intolerance.

I can accept the points that you brought up as they are reasonable in the context you have just given. You have by far made the most reasonable argument in favor of the ban that I have read thus far with that comment.

Finally got there =) It’s a complex issue.

Unfortunately this issue gets reduced to the ban being about Islamophobia and a general attack on Islam, whereas its about monitoring and controlling certain known Salafist groups. Again, only Salafist groups demand the full face veil.

Indeed, R. It is unfortunate that people who argue for the ban clog the discussion with their fears, insecurity and ignorance of the issue at hand.

Sarh, yes, on BOTH sides, including highly intelligent Slafists who deliberately play the race card because they know Westerners are sensitive to the issue – and who ignore their own sectarian supremacist attitudes which regard all non-Salafi as dogs.

Part of the problem is that the Western media does not explain the intricacies of Islam. But then, prejudice involves generalizing and demonizing. Of course, there’s plenty of that from the Muslim side as well. WE are all Crusader dogs under the sway of Zionist pigs. LOL.

And all our daughters are whores, prostitutes and drug addicts.

Who display themselves like pieces of meat, or so Sheikh Hillaly of the Lakemba mosque (Australia’s largest) was so tactfully said. And again, if a woman wears the veil for political reasons, she is agreeing that Western women are whores.

nay, they are saying all women not dressed like them are whores no matter the race or creed

If we look into some of the fudamentalist Christans they are no differnet. It is the fundamental mind stuck in a little box that thinks like that. If you are not from my clan/tribe/reigion you are my enemy.

I don’t support anyone, including women, who support fundamentalism of any description. I do not support women who are right-wing Catholics, nutjob Evangelicals, orthodox Jews, high caste Hindu women, etc, etc. Its about the beliefs they hold. And what they wear is often a symbol of what they believe – a decision to set themselves apart.

I do not support such people either, I just attack the situation differently.

the thing is, sarah, is that there is no indication if your method is better. when dealing with human beings it’s trial and error. the thing is to take a stand and that is what france is doing. burqua has been banned in belguim without much uproar even though their muslim community is so small. they have taken a stand and that is what countries do, they decide the direction of their country.

That is what Nationalism is yes

That raises another question, Is Nationalism always right?

yes, and there is no nation without nationalism.

maybe not, but that is currently the state of affairs

there are arguments that make sense for and against nationalism. the is a painting called ‘the oath of the horatii’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_the_Horatii

basically portrays nationalism as being more important than family at times.

A, my method worked for me as it did for several other people that are no longer in religion. I didn’t just sit there and come up with this just now. I lived it and experienced it.

One thing about Belgium. I am unsure why the banning wasn’t such a world-wide problem. Probably because of the fact of it being such a small country that it was merely a blip in time. But that is an interesting phenomena.

As for earlier… points on Sharia Law. Sharia law is based completely and wholly on the teachings of the prophet and what is written in the Quran. All decisions made in Sharia court are a direct result of interpreting the laws and guidelines and those sources so that they would fit within today’s world. In effect, it is to modernize it so that it may be applicable to the lives of modern day citizens. If you Imam or Sheiks tells you to do something and it is in direct contradiction with what is taught in the Quran and the Hadiths, then you do NOT have to follow it. I repeat, in the world of Islam, theoretically, the word of Sheik and Imam are not law. As for Iran and the several scholars, that is a direct result of the cryptic ancient Arabic of the Quran which is needed for interpretation and it is because of the several countries in which Islam has embedded itself. During the times before the Ottoman Empire came to unite all of Islam, Islam started to change and mutated and merge with the local indigenous culture. Even the Quran started to change. The Turks put an end to all that, but there still exists different schools of thought. As for Iran, that country is run completely by Shi’ts. That sect believe in a completely different Islam. They do not believe in Mohammad as the prophet therefore they do not follow his teachings. The only thing that they have in common with other Islamic sects is that they follow the Quran to some extent.

The following is a discussion that I was asked to partake in on Facebook.  This video was the opener for the discussion:

I agree fully with K’s status message: “Let me be one of the people living in the Islamic world who officially condemns the violent and idiotic actions of the Afghans who took part in such a disgusting crime. I hope more people in the middle east realize that their silence in the matter only serves to justify those whom would claim our lack of accountability as a sign of approval.”

What do you think of the idea of downloading the Koran then deleting it?

While certainly not as dramatic as publicaly burning a physical copy, I see nothing wrong with it.

Sends the same message without the ‘hate”, standing up to our right to free speech that we will not be intimidated by their tactics.

To be honest, I wouldn’t of had a problem with the pastor’s actions if his intentions weren’t laden with ignorance and hypocrisy. Listening to the man speak, he made Fox seem logical.

I agree the only value his actions brought was to identify that there is an octopus in the room, thats it. Pretty sad that it takes an ignorant idiot to bring this to a public discussion.

I think that this is the icing on the cake. This issue has been building momentum over the years with the entire drawing/depicting Mohammad fiasco ranging from the Swedish comic artist to a South Park episode to students drawing stick figures on campus to US soliders flushing Qurans down toilets in an Iraqi detention center.

I wonder what the reaction of the religious right would be if a Muslim person was to wander into a Christian church, wrestle the Crucifix off the wall and pee all over it. I just wonder what they would do? I remember that several years ago… the right broke loose because of an art exhibit that was deemed to be blasphemous. Let me also point out the obvious—while there have been at least one instance of Koran burning, and numerous instances of threats–there have been no contemporary Cross burnings, (at least my Muslims.) This sort of reaction should not surprise anyone.

Sorry, my bad–should be by Muslims, not my Muslims.

J, reminds me of the outrage over some artist depicting the Virgin Mary as a whore.

Maybe that should be done too J, download and delete some bibles too.

There is a difference between Christianity and Islam here though, it’s the octopus that no one wants to talk about, Christianity is more like the jellyfish

It’s not the act that matters, it’s the motivation. In this case, I believe the koran burnings were intended to cause a violent reaction so they could then condemn them for their response and feel superior in their own morality. It’s not mu…ch different than when my brother needles and pesters someone until they react, then criticizes them for their anger and says he’ll pray for them. Same mentality.

I did download the koran once, to read, then I found a better version I didn’t have to download, so I deleted it. It didn’t feel wrong.

It is a little sad it usually takes the actions of an idiot to bring something to our attention, but I’m getting used to it.

I don’t think that anyone (even the book burner) will ever know why he did it. But as I say–the reaction should not have surprised anyone who knows what time of day it is.

I wish i could hear a side of the argument that would try to defend it. Many people i know from the first time around this happened argued that “The western media was guilty for shinning a spotlight on the pastor in the first place” now pro…ven false. Since time there was no coverage leading up to the event. Leaving them no other cards to play but a deafening silence from our so called moderates. And I think the west should realize that this amount of cultural clash has always been inevitable. You should give up pretending like there is a politically correct way of easing the Islamic people into a state of mutual understanding. If they truly believe they are Holy warriors in a Holy war, then they should start to realize that childish passion plays no part in winning any war. Superpowers have had many proclaimed rivals in the past, but none of them cried like children because someone didn’t respect their feelings. Trust me we will get over it.

Just like how people got over the Mohammad stick figure “incident”. They are indeed like children and the fact is is that most religious people are that way when it comes to their beliefs. One example is a thread that Thread Starter made some time ago dealing with spiritual teachers. Eventhough this wasn’t a discussion on religion in particular, one man got extremely angry and insulted us because he felt that we were threatening his belief system. Sometimes I sit and ponder why do people feel so threatened and have such a dramatic reaction to such events? This is a phenomena that lies outside out culture (though the somewhat smarter Muslim uses the culture gap to their advantage and the Quran burning was really nothing more than cultural ignorance as you stated) and more within the realm of human behavior. I remember watching a video once about how people feel that religion is a close tie to how they see reality and that any attack on it threatens their reality and existence basically. I don’t quite buy that theory.

Why do people feel that it is appropriate to harm or insult another when they feel that their belief system is being questioned or criticized?

I would agree that any religion has its extremists who would misrepresent the faith by getting obsessively and even violently offended by blasphemous actions. But comparing Christianities outrages to that of Islamic ones is significantly ou…t of place. All other forms of religious zealots have their equally strong counter arguments. With Islamic culture though we have a tendancy to say nothing at all if the issues is too inflammatory. However i have seen entire debates on the current state of Israel from Jews defending and arguing against with the nearly solid 50-50 vote for both sides. This also takes into consideration how sensitive it is to argue against the state of Israel as a jew. The day i see that level of discord i will concede my earlier point.

So what does one do about the octopus?

I do not feel that it is out of place to compare the Christian zealots with the Islamic ones. Given Christianity’s past, I would say that it is on equal footing. While it may be true that you don’t see Christians killing UN officials over… a burnt Bible, you do hear of homosexual persecution and killings. You do hear of death threats and hate mail sent to those that oppose their world view. You do have demonstrations and riots. The fact that there is an opposing team in the Western world means little to nothing to these people and their ilk. I do agree that the Muslim world needs some strong opposition at home base though.

We kill it, Thread Starter.

That is the difference isn’t it Sarah? I mean really I know most atheist love to take pot shots at Christians but leave Islam alone for the most part

Or as K pointed out, I see many people here in the West who take up the Palestine “plight”, seeing it as a one way street of oppressive Jews / West over Islam

Then use that as a poster statement of how oppressive the West is towards Islamic ideologies

But for every sympathetic cowering asshole, I see one who does not cower. Most of the time it’s Atheists and free thinkers who were once Muslims themselves.

True enough, I do not know many ex muslims, but know plenty of ex christians

Are you familiar with this site and the man that runs it? http://friendlyatheist.com/ He is a good example of what I am talking about. Ben is another example although he is not an ex-muslim, he is an ex-jew.

Well for the most part i believe our biggest problem lies in that our free thinkers tend to leave. An enlightment doesnt happen when the majority of those willing to stand their ground up and leave for greener pastures. This is something i know am painting a broad brush stroke with but i think those like myself get tempted or either taunted out of leaving to live somewhere else. I know one thing, i didnt have someone to be that opposing voice when i was growing up, so if i and others leave we condemn others to have no path to follow.

Agreed. You would be doing your people a great injustice if you left. I know that few like you are left in Muslim countries and that life isn’t particularly easy for them there.

I like that link Sarah, I do not believe we should ever have to apologize for something we did not do directly. We should although point out the actions for what they are though, that goes far further then a blanket ‘I’m sorry” to which one can walk away and continue ignoring the octopus.

If the question was with regards what the west should do? Learn all you can about Islam law and doctrine. Being able to combat someone toe to toe by knowing the Islamic faith and tradition annoys them to no avail. They will constantly try to convince you that you as an outsider cannot fathom the true meaning of the teachings, and you know why that is? Because it is a firm belief that if you did truly understand it in its purest form you would be a believer.

haha, K that sounds like the same line I get from any religious or spiritual teaching 😛

While I agree with the straight-forward concept of non-overlap with regard to religion Vs. religion sacredness (even though I am secular), I think having the discussion without including the occupations in the Middle East and the political …realities of implied assimilation (to western norms) actually let strategic failures “off the hook” in these isolated events…a “pass” that western leaders must truly appreciate. I liked the treatment in Slate last week in this article “http://www.slate.com/id/2290597/.” Issues should be expected to some extent when we are trying to nation-build from a place we do not understand culturally or politically. The fact that the generals complained about Koran-burning risking lives (they grab at any reason to make that claim because it helps them justify our ongoing occupier-related deaths), and certain congresspeople responded with suggestions of further undermining liberties at home in response, shows what a lack of strategy and/or resolve we actually have. Net for me:::I prefer to frame this incident to include the larger picture of occupation, nation building, the nature of extended non-declared war, Vietnamesque dynamics, the fact that the “enemy” is a set of concepts and beliefs not well understood, and a needed yet non-existent “statement of expectations” as part of risk analysis that might offer strength during the fog of war. It’s messy.

Yes, they will give you vague examples and stories of scientists that made discoveries which coincide with some verse or other from the Quran, who then converted for that reason. That is supposed to demonstrate how we as simple humans can not possibly fathom all the “wisdom” and “truth” that is held within their religion.

Yes Thread Starter but our side adds that little pinch of fatalism to sell you the pie.

That’s a spicy pie

@ G, i do agree American foreign policy was never designed from a diplomatic approach or a militaristic function to address the issues of religious tensions. It is simply something modern military leaders seem to deal with on a case by …case basis, and this is reflected with foreign policy in the region in general. It tends to go into Auto-pilot if there is no crises to address. Therefore it only resolves short term clashes but non of the major ones. I would again state that it is within the Wests best interest to emulate a level of understanding about Islamic culture that rivaled that of the west during the crusades. And i mean only the level of knowledge and exchange of culture that existed between Christianity and Islam. Contrary to popular belief the crusades had much less animosity between both cultures than what exists today. We live in a region of the world that is still emulating the distrust of colonialism and a further belief that the west is too far disconnected and depraved to understand Islamic culture for its true message. Thus by displaying a full understanding and yet firmly standing tall goes a long way. So Hillary Clinton was right when she said you need a Muslim “Cosby” show.

We have one in Canada =P
http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/

So now America is falling behind on its tv to Canada? Whats left? Is everyone in Hollywood moving to Vancouver? Is Collin Mochery going to host the price is right?

Canada beats the US in many ways with TV. Forever Knight comes to mind and Avatar got aired uncensored there when Diseny took it over…

Hey I wasn’t trying to toot our horn here, it’s actually a crappy show … too politically correct for 4 seasons, they should tackle subjects like this.

I don’t believe there is a causal link between burning a book and someone’s belief system being murderously psychopathic. Burning books is a waste of resources, but if someone uses it as an excuse to kill then we need to look at the operator headspace, not the excuse.

What do we do about the octopus S?

I feel the spirit of this action ends up destructive in the end (however enlightening it might be in context) because it functions on a presumption that the ability to provoke violence proves the violence. It does, but it also co-creates it… in a dangerous way.

There are far more skillful ways we can bring attention to what’s oppressive, violent or otherwise harmful in a particular way of believing and practicing, than to provoke the very attitude you feel compelled to criticize, in this case, an irrationally protective violence.

I mean, it’s great we all know there’s a giant squid in the room, but what next? And remember, we only have our own focus, and commitment we can control. So what’s most skillful for us, right now? And what inspires others along as skillful lines. That’s what I think is important at times like these.

How would you approach the octopus KW?

Just as I am now. Through engaging people on whatever level they can engage and with as collaborative intent as possible.

If you want persuade someone you really have first understand them or at least appreciate their world, so to speak. So,… while there are certain fights I won’t go looking for, in real life practice as in my communications with others, I would encourage rationality. But would also, encourage the freedom to explore the structure of one’s experience in other than rational ways as well, like aesthetically.

I would try and foster trust, the kind that doesn’t need to know ABOUT what my opposing “other” believes, but that over time allows us to both develop a growing certainty, through experience, that we want the same things, or at least similar things, and that deep down, there is a way we can align our sympathies and efforts to help each other, or at least co-exist peacefully.

That’s where I would start I guess. But it’s a moment to moment thing. And when we forget this, and think we have to sort it all out in our heads, we start forgetting what we’re really after, and get lost being right again. And communication becomes a debate, and we use the other as a way of defending ourselves, which diminishes us both.

That’s been my experience, and what I observe in conflict in general. We get what we need, which is usually a way of provoking in others what we need to face in ourselves.

Here is my issue with that, we can be all warm and fuzzy about whatever commonness we have in humanity. But is does nothing in dealing with what we are ignoring or do not want to confront within ourselves (the octopus)

I mean really, if it were that easy might you be able to go to a bbq with Stephen Harper?

I wish there was a simple solution. L.E. Modesitt Jr’s sci-fi novel “The Parafaith War” was the tidiest solution I’ve ever seen, but it involved a highly technological society diffusing a religious one through the actions of a “messiah” so …i think it might be beyond the scope of our discussion. The ibrahimic traditions seem to be holding the entire planet hostage with their pathological memes.

I think a good place to start is education based around teaching humans the natural biases of our brains, the fundamentals of bayesian theory, heuristics, decision theory, logic, epistemology, neuroscience, evolution, and the scientific method. Unfortunately, all of these things are anathema to the status quo, and i strongly suspect that our education system works exactly how it was designed. I am aware that many control doctrines call for your target to defeat himself as an expedient to constant control by outside force (which is immensely expensive and counter productive.)

Most of the constructs and schema that have evolved in the feedback loop of oppression/revolution seem to be prepared for most contingencies. I don’t want to be a nihilist, but i think we might have to burn down the entire aquarium to get to the octopus.

As hypothetical an opportunity it would be fore me to even imagine having the audience of one who screens his audiences so carefully –and heck! Just a moment ago I called him an idiot in context here on facebook– but if I were to have a m…oment with him, I would hope I could find it in myself to appeal to his deepest fears and hopes in such a way that it would make him consider a little more openly, some what he is doing.

I admit, however, that I sometimes fantasize about humiliating him for the slimy things his government is doing with the arrogant assumption that Canadians don’t see or care. But the higher ground would to present an offer of humility and let fate serve it up as humiliation if required.

Muslims are not averse to desecrating the symbols of other religions. In fact they have quite a record of desecrating others sacred sites.

Thread Starter, There is no solution to the octopus other then killing it or waiting for it to gain enlightenment and become domesticated. Moderate Muslims seem to be to few and far between to offer any resistance to the psychotic behavior of wh…at ‘seems’ to be a majority. The moderates that there are have to be concerned with keeping their own lives safe than to offer any realy counter message. Because of this I feel domesticating the octopus is highly unlikely.
I know this may make some of you angry, but personally I would care less if thunderfoot actually did burn a half million copies of the Qu’ran. He should throw in a half million bibles and a half million Torahs, and a half million Books of Mormon. NO ONE is responsible for how we feel but ourselves.

The Change should come from within the Islamic world- I can assure you we are more problem with the Islamic World as it tries to finds it position in the modern world other religious entities and also among its various faction.

Yes, the change should come from within and what all this is really about is a civil war within Islam between traditionalists trying to resist change. They attack moderate and progressive Muslims with the same violence as they do infidels.

I think there are people who need the ceremony of religion to express their spirituality. There are others who see themselves mainly as defenders of the faith. To be a defender of the faith you must always have an enemy. The defenders of faith reside in all religions. The more oppressed and afraid they feel, the more violent their defense. We don’t have many western countries occupied by Islamic armies and Middle Eastern agendas so it is difficult to compare what the reaction would be here under similar circumstances.

RL, Islamic armies used to occupy large parts of Europe and India. WE only need to look to history…

That’s true, but we’ve come to believe we’ve somehow risen above that. We haven’t, but we’ve come to believe it.

Coming a bit late on this very interesting debate here, looking at the possible directions solutions could take, I feel like I need to go back to the basics.
In the US is a so called pastor of a sect of a sect with a very small congregation… of 70 or so who, in the full knowledge of the noise it will cause, actually counting on that as on propaganda for his cause/sectarian belief, burns the Koran (how many copies? don’t know).
In Afghanistan a mob forms, most likely guided by some kind of fundamentalist hoodlum, horribly kills a couple of “Christians” (and don’t even know if they were, but assme the mob thought so) as a ‘retaliation’ and message to Christians and ‘the world’.

This, and so many incidents in the past that have already been covered here, fuels a general Muslim-Infidel war that is going on. Other than the maker of the movie I think the ‘octopus in the room’ is this war and not the Muslim strategy in this war.
In every war the side that learns most from its opponent, given that there is an equality oif sorts in weapons, wins the war. We, the infidels, do generally not have the will to win this, we’re too busy with other, ‘more important’ stuff, and most of all we’re basically too ‘liberal’ to be even regarding this as a war. Basically we try to talk ourselves out of it, without much success, actually non.
We need to win this war if we want to keep our liberties in the long run. One of the ways we’re pursuing now is ‘divide and conquer’, siding with the Muslim moderates against the Muslim extremists; thereby actually weaking the moderates’ simply by declaring ourselves as infidels to be their allies.

And the war is also with fundamentalists on the Christian side that kill abortion-docs or whomever. But, the feeling would make that clear, that is a war on our homeground, and easier to fight. The Muslim-Infidel war isn’t. One side, the Muslim one, actually kills ‘innocent people’ en masse, whereas ‘our’ side only draws or writes blasphemies and burns books.
To win this war we must not be drawn onto the battle-ground that the other side has created, that would be simply stupid. It would be walking into a trap, which is what the ‘hawks’ on our side continually want us all to walk into. We ourselves must decide and consequently fight on a battle-field of our own choosing. And it seems that we may be getting there by learning that Islam is, for instance, not a religion of peace but one of war from it’s very beginning. Jihad IS (spiritual) war, and we better name it thus. If we can draw them onto the battleground which basically is on the territory, “Muslims are acting as violent teenagers that are easily insulted by anything they don’t (yet) understand.” We MUST insist that the way they fight is violently childish and that it is the basic Muslim obligation to ‘grow-up’.

The Muslim-Infidel war is, in the end, a war between grown-ups and insolent teenagers and must be fought accordingly.

Harris India is a different story- True Islamic armies invaded India but except for one or two cases they settled in India and got domesticated.India is a peculiar situation- It has the 2nd Largest Muslim Population but they enjoy a minorit…y status and coexist with Hindu,Christian, Zorothrustian( ancient Iranian), Jain, Buddhist etc. The Subcontinent trying to accomodate got split in India Pakistan Bangladesh, Afganistan. So many times in last 2 thousand years political Contour of the states within the subcontinent has changed frequently. 60 years since Independence 3 countries are experimenting with Identities -Bangladesh & Pakistan Muslim Identity, India tolerant secular-spiritual democratic Identity.Only Indian emocracy succeeded. see next 100 years there will be splits and mergers again

Muslims do not co-exist peacefully in those countries. Have we forgotten so easily the Hindu vs Muslim conflicts that occured some years ago in Nepal, India, Pakistan and the surrounding countries?

Sarah problems at core here are of different nature than in West Asia or Western world.True there were some Hindu Muslim conflict but a large number of them are due to vested political and business and personal interest and lesser religion…. Religious intolernace are fanned by these groups to make a riotous situation. True Muslims did torch a train containing Hindu supporters- Backlash the riot in Gujrat where 2000 people died in a few districts in the provine of Gujrat. But you check there was no backlash in all the other 21 provinces of India which if it did take place would be similar to 2nd World War if you see the geographical area and the population involved in India. The clerics wants to stick to power . Power over what ? Population segment- communalise them – ask them to think as you interprete not as in the scripture or even as your own experience about the world. To some extent this is true with all religion. Modern Democracy tends to protects individual . This is in conflict with clerics interests in general. This conflict is utilised by the Corrupt Politician, Businessmen, and administrators to divide and rule . In Mideast among Moslem Communities. In India among Religion.There was ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan over last 60 years. It is an experiment Moslem leadership tried. But it did not bring better governance in those countries. Now the Indian Moslems in gerneral are aware that they have more freedomin India so they will not go over to Pakistan. The Indian Experiment of Multi ethnic, Multi religious coexistence has succeeded. But still in experimental stage.