Uuuuh yes...SOOOO telling...the evil ATW strikes again! Especially since it was in direct response to:
Oh my bad. I remembered this last instead of the previous response. Still, this is not the first time you make it seem as every Muslim on this board is a spokesperson for govt/groups that want to oppress women.
sadly they refuse to do that or are getting there too SLOWLY.. . I don't see it ever changing. No one has been able to change the middle east. True there are people there who just want to make a living, practice their faith, have a family and grow old and retire. Unfortunately there also too many radicals who will hold that region back forever.
Doing that is not my intention, as there are several Muslim posters for whom I have a lot of respect, and even those I argue with, I respect as well. But when I see posts like that from adeelsiddiqui in which he says Saudi-Arabia is not backwards, I have to assume that he agrees with the treatment of women in that country.
You assume stuff even though posters will go out of their way to make it clear what their true viewpoints are. You love twisitng peoples words.
Are you kidding me? The Middle East as a society has changed more drastically over the last 70 years than any other part of the world. Modernization and Globalization didnt get to the country till the oil boom. Of course it is a struggle for them to find a balance with their cultural roots, their uneducated society, and the rest of the population. You face these issues in every society that has for years been poor and then suddenly sees a sudden increase in wealth. You see crime increase, you see "terrorism", you see hatred, jealousy, and opression when one group has the majority of the wealth.
I quoted verbatim what you said and even asked you to clarify (which you didn't). How is that "assuming and twisting"? So, again, do you agree with the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia? Yes or no? Simple question.
All majority Muslim countries have religious governments though. People keep throwing up hypotheticals, rather than dealing with the world as it actually exists. There is no evidence that Islam and pluralism are compatible. Bloomberg is asking for acceptance (not tolerance) of a moral philosophy that would not tolerate his own.
Turkey would disagree. Indonesia probably would as well. As would Iraq when it was under Saddam, oddly enough.
Then let me phrase it differently: The majority muslim countries with religious governments have more problems than the few with secular governments.
The only problem we have here is that you're thoroughly convinced that extremism in countries where the public is predominantely Muslim is due to mostly Islam as a religion. That would be like me saying that Nazism was due to German genes. Two world wars (and only 2) started by one country for the most part. Do you see anyone here argue this (in a genuine manner, not just to try to tease you)? If you say that in one case you're saying a Islam is inherently violent and in the other you must agree that in the other case, German genetics is inherently violent. Let me ask you 2 questions, please answer honestly (i.e. don't be afraid to say 0:100): 1) What is the ratio (environment:ideology) when it comes to the cause of Islamic extremism? 2) What is the ratio (environment:genetics) when it comes to Nazism? I think 80:20 for #1 and 90:10 for #2.
