What I don't get is "Why does she have to be a MUSLIM" to have a point? Do you dismiss people outside of the Muslim faith of not being able to comprehend the problems within that religion? Doesn't the fact that she is a former Muslim give her credibility within the community? DD
Excellent question. That's what I get from thacabbage's posts...a certain type of arrogance, sort of "you are no Muslim, so you don't even know what you are talking about". I don't need to be a Muslim or be able to understand the finest details of that religion's doctrine in order to see that the followers a religion in whose name so many extremists commit atrocities need to recognize a problem instead of being in denial. You, Sir, are still in denial.
How am I getting defensive? I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous this entire exercise is, ESPECIALLY when you guys try to make parallels with situations you have absolutely no understanding of. And I'm not belittling anyone here - I wouldn't expect anyone to, I've spent a great deal of time studying the topic. It becomes increasingly frustrating when you guys mix the issue of the plight of the current day Muslims with the life of Muhammad. What's even more ridiculous is when parallels are drawn to Jesus and Buddha, wondering why he didn't lay down his arms. 7th century Arabia was a jungle. The only reality in life is "survival." They didn't have laws to abide by in society. If someone was killed, you simply went and killed a member of their tribe in retaliation. Men married an unlimited number of wives. Polyandry (not a typo, women with mulitple husbands) was a reality. Infanticide was a normality. The tribes were interlocked in a perpetual state of war. Again, 7th century Arabia was a complete jungle. Muhammad was a political leader who spent the first 11 years of his life under persecution from the neighborhing tribes. His followers were killed and his family completely boycotted from trade of all goods, so much so that his own wife died. Still, they didn't retaliate, eventually immigrating to a neighboring city. He signed numerous peace treaties with the nonbelievers and eventually returned to conquer Mecca without a single death, swords remaining sheathed. Yes, Muhammad engaged in wars. That was the reality of life. He said himself, "I am the Prophet of peace and I am the Prophet of war." To say that he was violent or spread Islam through the sword is COMPLETELY factually incorrect. As far as the issue of present day. Never once have I advocated the use of force. There is ample precedence from Muhammad's life that force should be taken as a last resort, as evidenced by his numerous peace treaties. What I do argue however, is that there are reasons Muslims use force, because some of you subscribe to this ridiculous notion that Islam is inherently violent or that Muslims are attempting to take over the world. Although it's becoming a personal bromide, nothing occurs in a vacuum. When I give reasons as to why terrorism occurs, I'm not saying it doesn't occur or encouraging it. I'm saying that there are political causes for this. Another gripe of mine is the sheer hypocrisy evident in the views of some of you. I don't advocate violence but that doesn't mean I advocate weakness (this is for the guy who keeps bringing up Buddha - the world doesn't work that way). Some of you subscribe to this notion that the Arabs should just lay down their arms and accept their plight. That the Palestinians should have accepted that mockery of a deal offered at Oslo just for the sake of "peace." That the Lebanese and Palestinians in the West Bank shouldn't resist occupation. This is nonsense. Any respectable people would defend themselves from opression. Why are Muslims/Arabs held to this double standard while the West continues amassing weapons and starting offensive wars?
I've been out of town, but no Muslim or NOW opinion seems to have been voiced in regard to the rights of women in the Muslim world. Deckard's reply to Tigermission1 has been ignored as has been my original question. Before we get off on another historical rant that IMO had little to do with the thread ("Arab Woman Telling It Like It Is on Al-Jazeera"), I really would like to know why none of the politically correct people on the board will address the second class citizenship of Arab women in America and elsewhere. The worst opinion (other than Deckard) seems to be "oh, it's a bad thing. Now on to more important issues." What is NOW and the ACLU et al doing about this issue?
I'll show you how...just check the rest of your quote: So India wasn't...when Gandhi lived? Which leads to an endless cycle of violence. SO WHAT. Yeah ok, who cares. Why do you use that expression? Ok, good job, I guess, so what. The reality of life is that there is always a choice. You are quick to condemn Israel, but you go and say that Muhammad had to engage in wars because it was "the reality of life". I am not judging the historical situation or what has been told about Muhammad or why he might have been justified. I am just pointing out the contradiction. If he called himself the prophet of war, how does that make it factually incorrect? Anyway, I didn't bring up your Muhammad, let's look at what's going on today. Yeah, let's rather look at that. What is ridiculous about that notion. Isn't that what at least the extremist elements within the Muslim religion state? Death to all infidels. And it's not like they only talk about it. What "reason" can there be to hijack planes with innocent people and fly them into buildings with innocent people in them? There cannot be any justification or excuse for terrorism. Your "reasons" are not interesting. Any "reason" is an attempt at a rationalization of what shall not be rationalized. That's what revisionist historians try to do when they speak about the 3rd Reich. "Yeah, but Germany was suffering from the Versailles treaty, blah blah blah." I DON'T CARE. There cannot be a reason, justification or excuse for being a Nazi, and there cannot be a reason, justification, or excuse for being a (Muslim or whatever religion) terrorist. That's exactly the wrong approach. By saying there are political causes for terrorism, you are to a certain extent justifying terrorism. Get this, finally: Terrorism cannot be rationalized, justified, excused with whatever you try to come up with as "political causes". It should work that way. You talk like Malcolm X when you should be talking like Martin Luther King. If there was a Muslim Martin Luther King, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, the world is full of Muslim leaders who are worse than Malcolm X was. They should not resort to terrorism or sympathize with those who do. What do you mean, "the Arabs"? What about "the Arabs" in Dubai? Plight? What do you mean, "just" for the sake of peace? You are not willing to compromise, you try to relativize violence, what else are you going to come up with? Which means of "resisting occupation" do you mean? If you mean blowing up people in buses, launching rockets at innocent people, etc., then hell yes, they should STFU and should NOT "resist occupation"...if that is what you mean. Any respectable people would not blow up civilians in a bus. There is no double standard. Stop pitying yourselves and become respectable again by taking a clear stand against terrorists among your own, instead of whining about a supposed "double standard". You display exactly the attitude that makes it possible for those terrorists to operate. And yeah, go and whine about me saying that - it is the truth.
I don't like her voice and facial expressions, so I am not going to. However, I did not see that anything she said was untrue.
Definitely not. Not to the degree of tribal Arabia where you couldn't leave your own village alone without being slaughtered. I have to question your knowledge of history if you are seriously comparing the two situations. Is this not the point I'm trying to make? I'm describing the conditions of pre-Islamic Arabia... The hell do you mean "so what"???! I'm describing the conditions in Arabia before Muhammad and Islam. Islam changed all this. By the attitude of your responses, it's obvious you just don't care to be informed because you can't fathom shifting your paradigm. LOL! You really are a joke. Dakota made a claim that Muhammad was a violent man. I'm describing the persecution he went through under which he still didn't retaliate. Why am I even wasting my time with you? The "nonMuslims"....split hairs much? Again, you're such a complete joke! You have no substantive response to what I'm saying so this is what you waste my time with? They conquered Mecca without bloodshed = Muhammad was not violent. The hell are you talking about? He engaged in defensive wars and even then set strict guidlines. They didn't even cut down trees. You're seriously comparing this to Israel who just demolished an entire country with no regard for sanctity of human life? He called himself the Prophet of War because war is a vital part of any strong civilization. Are you seriously disputing that? War does not equate violence. In the minds of people like yourself, it's ok for America and Israel to amass the strongest militaries in the world, yet once the Arabs take arms, they're violent. You just said it yourself. They're "extremist" elements. Re-read what I said: "some of you subscribe to this ridiculous notion that Islam is inherently violent." How does the actions of extremists mean Islam is inherently violent? And do you seriously think they want to destroy the West? Why would they carry out attacks on symbolic places? Why not just run planes into Montana or Iowa to create mass hysteria? Why is this a recent phenomenon since U.S intervention in the Middle East has grown? LOL! There's no point in even trying to argue with you. You just said it yourself, you "don't care." Talk about an anti-intellectual approach. Why are we even doing this if you've already shut yourself off from the other perspective? Umm no. There are root causes to everything. Rationalization is not justification. If you want to address the problem, you address the root causes. This just keeps getting better! You really would be one to discredit the efforts of Malcolm X and prop up King, wouldn't you? It just so happens its a parallel situation. Malcolm X wanted the blacks to take action and seize their rights so the establishment discredits him because they fear his words and what would happen if people really followed him. They prop up King because they want blacks to be complacent and docile, and accept their situation. You just want Muslims to accept hegemonizing of the Middle East, the plundering of their resources, and the stealing of their lands as a reality. Huh? The term "Arabs" is used as an all-encompassing noun for the entire political body of the Arab world. Your example of Dubai is ridiculous. How about Lebanon? They were just as secular and progressive as Dubai and now look at what the West has done to them. You don't give a damn about that do you? Yes Jackie, the Palestinians should have accepted a deal where they weren't even in control of their own water or borders. What a joke. Your idea of peace is for them to take it up the ass collectively. You forget to mention that all those settlements are completely illegal. I wonder what your tune would be if you only had 2 hours of running water a week while settlers next door had swimming pools. Or if you had to drive 4 hours to get to a destination 10 minutes away because of an apartheid wall, or go through checkpoints on your own land, or be an adult and be under curfew during night hours for almost 200 days out of the year, or not even be allowed to visit holy sites for prayer. Any respectable people wouldn't annex 9% of the West Bank through an apartheid wall and cut down vital trees and destroy commercial areas crucial to West Bank economy. Even the Israelis themselves are sick of the occupation. It's only Zionist leadership and nutjobs like yourself that continue to defend it. Hezbollah did take actions on its own and you people still criticize them. Admit it. You just want them to accept America/Israeli hegemony/ Ok.
That sentence is about as logical as the whole rest of your post. Because it would kill less people and have less of a statement effect. If these people could run planes into every city, including those in Montana and Iowa, they would do it. But here you are, trying to rationalize it. You see...trying to rationalize actions which cannot be defended. You are blinded by your hatred. Rationalization works toward justification. You are like the people who said "Yeah, Hitler may have killed Jews, but....(it was to some extent their own fault, blah blah blah)". There is no rationalization of what the Nazis did. And there is no rationalization for the terrorist atrocities of Muslim fascists. You are completely wrong - that's the attitude that allows terrorism, I'll say it again. Because by saying that there are other "root causes" (which of course, according to you, lie in the evil West's actions), you imply that the terrorist actions are just a reaction to those "root causes". Thereby you give anyone that sympathizes with the terrorists a convenient excuse: "It's the West's fault. These nice guys are just reacting". Shame on you. There you go, discrediting Martin Luther King, the outstanding black leader who was a man of peace. You prefer Malcolm X who promoted violence. At least Malcolm X's political goals were largely justified. Those terrorists and those who sympathize with them are just lunatics. Blah blah blah. I don't see how Muslims' resources in Dubai get stolen, plundered or hegemonized. Instead, they decided to open up to the 21st century to some extent and to emphasize education. Looks like they are doing quite well with that. First of all, it's not what "the West has done to them". It's what the terrorists of Hezbollah have done to them. You are an ideologue who hates the West and Israel, and who justifies violence against the West. Dubai, in contrast to Lebanon, does not allow an organization like Hezbollah to exist that launches rockets and commits acts of terror against neighboring countries. I am saying they should not blow up people in buses. Apparently you cannot even agree on that, as your whiny reaction shows. Maybe if they could stop blowing up people in buses and restaurants, things could get better for them. To make it clear, I think Israel should give up those stupid settlements. There should be a give and take. But terrorism against innocent civilians cannot be rationalized, justified or excused, like you try to do. Sounds a lot like you admire Hezbollah's terrorism. Why don't you just go there and join them so that you can fight against your American/Israeli enemies. Because that's how your demagogic posts sound.
SJC, A great post. Cabbage, the choice that Hezzbollah etc is making is violence or struggle/jihad, which is a part of the Muslim religion - is that what you are essentially saying? Fine, clash with the oppressor, rage against the man, but terrorizing innocent civilians is not 'raging against the man' it is simply cowardly. And all the terrorists should be hunted down like the pigs they are.... DD
Really? I wonder why they are so involved in the 'ghost detainee' issue considering those aren't Americans being held and in most cases they are being held in foreign territories. And it would be suprising to see the ACLU take on an Islamic issue as they frequently do Christian issues - which is the point IIRC. Just a quick chiming in on the cabbage/sjc conversation: I think it is heavily ill-informed opinion to call MLK complacent and docile. Yes it was non-violent, as was Ghandi in India - and neither were close to the above opinion. Boycotts, marches, going to jail and ultimately being assassinated hardly justify that opinion.
Whom are they detained by? That's my point: the ACLU is concerned about American civil rights and ensuring that our government upholds the rule of law, whether its actions are targeted against people overseas or at home. My point was the ACLU operates primarily in the American arena, including issues concerning the U.S. government and its operations. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with my statement... What "Islamic issues" are we facing here at home? Are American Muslims insisting on pushing religion in public schools? Are American Muslims asking for the Koran to be placed in front of a state supreme court? What is it that American Muslims are pushing on the Christian/Secular majority? BTW, if I am not mistaken, haven't they taken up cases for Limbaugh and other conservatives in the past? May be I am wrong...
I just wanted to say that I think this is an excellent post, cabbage. I can't find anything to disagree about in it. We certainly support oppressive dictatorships in the region and have, over the decades, worked deligently to prop them up. The Saudi monarchy and Mubarak's Egypt being obvious examples. (The Jordanian monarchy is relatively progressive compared to the Saudi's.) We did just fight a "proxy war," via Israel's Lebanon disaster. That was made perfectly clear by our response to Israeli reaction to what was a border incident not that unlike several other incidents of the past, which didn't receive Israeli reaction comparable to this one. It was a shameful act by a shameful Presidency, and our obvious encouragement did Israel no favors, as events proved. Yet another failed foreign policy adventure by the Bush Administration. However, I've yet to see a response to the condition of oppression and second class status so many women face in far too many Muslim societies, far too often. Just to be clear, the oppression of women by many Muslim societies still exists in our own, as pointed out by a thread in this forum detailing the treatment of a woman Sunday school teacher of over 50 years standing (!), dismissed, in an incredible act of sexual discrimination, by the minister of her church, one who apparently wasn't the minister during all the decades of her service to her religion and her church. As thumbs and I were wondering, what is modern Islam doing to address sexual inequality? (hope I put that the right way! ) Keep D&D Civil.
There are many examples. Here's one to start: MANDATING THE KORAN REVIEW & OUTLOOK The ACLU finally finds a religion it can tolerate. Surprise--it's Islam. When a state university requires students to immerse themselves in the study of a particular religion, it can expect trouble. That's exactly what the University of North Carolina got for its summer reading requirement that all incoming freshmen read portions of the Koran and commentary by a religious scholar. The school now faces a lawsuit from a group of students and alumni, charging violations of the First Amendment. This university exercise in compulsory religious study is strange enough. But no less so than the acquiescent response of those civil liberties watchdogs usually ever alert to the danger that somebody, somewhere, might be sneaking a prayer into some school program or graduation ceremony. The American Civil Liberties Union, normally busy saving the nation's schools from the smallest whiff of religious influence, has leapt to university's defense. Finally, it seems, the ACLU has found a religion it can tolerate. The University of North Carolina program requires students to read Koran portions and also listen to a CD offering recitals in Arabic, including the chant calling the faithful to prayer. Students are then asked to write a paper on their responses. The point, explains university Chancellor James Moeser, is to seek understanding and bring home to students the reasons Islam has a billion followers across the globe. http://www.blessedcause.org/Antichrist ID/aclu and islam.htm
The University isn't instituting tenants of Islam, just academic study of the religion. I don't see a problem with that.
So you're saying that the UNC requiring its incoming freshmen students to read a book as a part of their academic initiation is an example of Muslims pushing their agenda on America?
That's a great website, btw, lot of great stuff on armageddon. Of course this is a four year old story, and the lawsuit by the right wing christian folks (who have far more in common with most radical islamists, but thats's another story) was summarily dismissed. Maybe you should find a better example?
Responses from the area's newspapers. Seems like they had no problem with this at all. Why should you, Hayes? Summer Reading (Editorial) Winston-Salem Journal Less fun than a beach trip but sure to generate publicity, protests of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's summer reading program have become a rite of the vacation season. The latest stir means that the folks at Carolina must be doing a good job of selecting books that will provoke thought and discussion.... Opening minds to new ideas...is what education should be about. . http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/S...43&oasDN=journalnow.com&oasPN=&image=wsj80x60 New summer book, new flap at UNC (Editorial) Greensboro News-Record Last summer, less than a year after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, UNC-Chapel Hill assigned incoming freshmen to read “Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations.” ...Yet, when it was duly read by most students, the walls of the university did not topple from exposure to Islam. Academic freedom, which includes exploring new ideas, prevailed. This summer the university has chosen another book for incoming freshmen and, once again, it has provoked a controversy. ...''Nickel and Dimed’’ is a national best seller and an illuminating portrait of the economic underside of society. Radical it is not. http://www.news-record.com/news/opinions/edit10.htm Nickel and diming it in America (Commentary) Greensboro News & Record Here we go again in Chapel Hill. Last summer the university assigned incoming freshmen a book to read about the Quran. The purpose was to expose their minds to a religion that baffled Americans after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The goal of a university is to educate, right? ...This summer there is yet another ruckus. UNC-Chapel Hill assigned (though did not require) incoming freshmen to read “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America.’’ ...I read the book when it was published in 2001 and I urge you to do the same. It is neither seditious nor radical. It merely lays out the truth, which sometimes stings. http://www.news-record.com/news/columnists/staff/roberts11.htm More than 12 campuses use book UNC chose with no fuss The Herald-Sun UNC Chapel Hill's summer reading selection is a popular one on college campuses these days, having been picked for similar reading programs across the nation, including one at another UNC-system institution. The book, "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting Ahead in America," by Barbara Ehrenreich, is being used at more than a dozen universities across the country this summer, including Appalachian State University in Boone. http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-370322.html UNC conservatives creating Web site The Herald-Sun A conservative student group displeased with UNC's summer reading book selection is creating a Web site to offer another side to the issue -- and hopes it can have a presence on the university's own Internet site. The Committee for a Better Carolina, a fledgling student group, is putting together a Web site that can be found at www.CarolinaBlueprint.com starting next week, said the group's founder, Michael McKnight. http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-370321.html More craziness at UNC Chapel Hill, Hayes: The Herald-Sun August 21, 2006 6:53 pm CHAPEL HILL -- CHAPEL HILL -- For some students returning to UNC over the weekend, party cheers turned to tears in beers as police scooped up underage lawbreakers. If there was a silver lining to the police action, it was the absence to any calls about students needing medical assistance because they drank too much. The bad news for some residents was that they didn't get much sleep because of loud parties that ran late into the early morning hours in their neighborhoods. To celebrate their return to campus (and their freedom from the folks), students held a number of loud parties that sent their neighbors to the phone to call 911 to quiet them down. "They're back," said Jane Cousins of the Chapel Hill Police Department. "We received noise complaints related to parties, and we did some alcohol compliance checks in the area and wrote some citations as a result of that," she said. Police responded to about five complaints of loud parties involving students and issued citations for underage possession of alcohol after checking identifications of people seen holding or drinking beer or other alcoholic drinks. On Friday after midnight, police checked a number of establishments for underage drinkers, and found some who had fake identifications. They cited 19- and 20-year-old students for fraudulent use of an identification and underage possession of malt beverages. The next night, police went out again and cited 19- and 20-year-old students for having underage possession of a malt beverage and an open container of alcohol on public property. Some of the citations were issued in the area of Big Frat Court on South Columbia Street, according to police reports. Police wrote about seven citations for underage possession and for possession of fake identifications, Cousins said. http://www.herald-sun.com/ A 3 year old story, Sam, but point taken! (hopefully) Keep D&D Civil.
Whether you have a problem with it or not is beside the point. No, this example is fine - thank you. Your opinion of the website or the lawsuit are wholly irrelevant, as is the age of the article. Is one year too old, a week, a day? The story illustrates my point. Maybe you should voice a responsive reply. Not sure what responses from area newspapers have to do with the issue at hand. I'm sorry you wasted your time google'ing them. No, I'm saying that if UNC required all incoming freshman to take a course in Christianity the ACLU would go ape ****. I'm not anti-ACLU on balance because I like a lot of the work they do, but to claim they have treated all religions alike is a little silly. This is a good illustration of that point.
