View Full Version : Humbling courage
Of course we are talking about Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, the naked Egyptian girl
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/images-4.jpg
Interview with my new heroin http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/19/world/meast/nude-blogger-aliaa-magda-elmahdy/index.html
Gutmensch knows for a fact that it's simply isn't true because they know for a fact that all cultures are equal;
"Women under Islam will always be objects to use at home. The (sexism) against women in Egypt is unreal, but I am not going anywhere and will battle it 'til the end. Many women wear the veil just to escape the harassment and be able to walk the streets. I hate how society labels gays and lesbians as abnormal people."
Egyptian gays want to protest as well, 'you will not take this from us' is what they say. Is this important, hellyes
Aliaa Magda Elmahdy and the Egyptian gays, good luck to ya mia muca's
No babes outside the babe thread. :wink2:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-21-2011, 11:28
While I applaud the sentiment, and fully support it, the use of nudity by feminists has an ugly history of backfiring. The most important thing, though, is her point that women in countries like Egypt conform for fear of harassment, not out of choice.
While I applaud the sentiment, and fully support it, the use of nudity by feminists has an ugly history of backfiring. The most important thing, though, is her point that women in countries like Egypt conform for fear of harassment, not out of choice.
I think it's really appropiate here, covering up vs full nudity. She couldn't have made a stronger statement.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-21-2011, 12:06
I think it's really appropiate here, covering up vs full nudity. She couldn't have made a stronger statement.
True, but I want to see the picture not because I want to appreciate her artistic and political point, but because I want to see a pretty girl in the nude.
Which is why I haven't looked it up.
True, but I want to see the picture not because I want to appreciate her artistic and political point, but because I want to see a pretty girl in the nude.
Which is why I haven't looked it up.
Sexuality is in the intention, she just looks very vulnerable. Probably won't affect you that way
Cute Wolf
11-21-2011, 12:45
oh boy... she's really revolutionary!
but... hell yeah... I just hope that girl won't get any mistreatments or tortures from society there
ADD:
allready seen the photos... at least it was pretty artistic. :grin:
I bet if she was expelled from Egypt, I'm sure a lot of "good guys" in Europe and America will want to give her "help" and "shelter"
oh boy... she's really revolutionary!
but... hell yeah... I just hope that girl won't get any mistreatments or tortures from society there
ADD:
allready seen the photos... at least it was pretty artistic. :grin:
I bet if she was expelled from Egypt, I'm sure a lot of "good guys" in Europe and America will want to give her "help" and "shelter"
heh she's welcome at maisson Frag, but I sure don't want to be the one explaining to her that progressive people have respect here, and that they will psycho-analyse her to find out why she got it all wrong
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-21-2011, 14:35
Sexuality is in the intention, she just looks very vulnerable. Probably won't affect you that way
It's not about how the image will affect me, it's about me wanting to see her naked in order to objectify her as a sex object. Not something I'm poud of, but the point stands. modesty is the flip side of the self-control we expect from others. I restrain myself from looking, and in return I ask not to be tempted.
The problem with that is it's exactly the argument the bigots use, it's a slippery slope between recognising that we aren't Higher Beings shorn of our bodies, and oppression. The key, I believe, is reciprocal equalitiy and moderation. In this case, woman shouldn't have to cover up more than men, and both should be relatively uncovered because the more you cover the more you invite speculation.
A covered woman is nothing to me, I don't see them as human beings, they are just things. To me in her nakedness she shows me who she really is, she's anything but an object. It's tragic but also beautiful
rory_20_uk
11-21-2011, 16:36
Women as a cohort are focused on things. Their genetic programming is to get someone who can provide for them and their offspring.
Men as a cohort are focused on women. Their genetic programming is to get fertile, healthy women to have many, healthy offspring.
So, men are keen to flash symbols of their status around and women are keen to show no wrinkles.
~:smoking:
Humbling courage?
Oh come on Frag, she’s dum as a door :wacko:
Hosa quoted Thomas Sowell yesterday, his words fit this situation perfectly:
The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
Fact of the matter is, they’re on the verge of holding elections and the secularist Egyptians are fighting desperately for a big chunk of the electorate. I.e. the segment that holds progressive (not as defined in the US) economic views yet who are socially conservative and upon whom the Salafis were already very efficiently impressing the image of decadence that they claim would come along with a victory of non-religious parties. And with mere weeks to the election, this idiot takes her clothes off, a move the Salafis must’ve labelled as God-sent.
Currently there are only seven days left until the election (November 28th) and the Liberals are banging their heads against the wall trying to do damage-control instead of focusing on their talking points.
To be so feeble-minded to trade putting your foot on the neck of some religious freak on the corridors of the Shura (the upper house of the Parliament, currently dissolved – together with the lower house – by the Army) ulterior to winning the election for the pleasure of punching the political party that supports your views in the gut prior to the vote is criminal.
Her action is sure to cause a loss of votes; nevermind that it would’ve been so much more poignant to undertake it after November 28th, either to signal the new era, in case of a Liberal victory, or the defiance of the secularists in case of their electoral defeat.
I’ve dealt with my share of self-righteous activists of this sort, the always ready to trade the long-term political game because “they cannot remain silent NOW!”, to not know for a fact that all they deserve is to (figuratively) eat *expletive* and die :shrug:
I do understand your position.
Yet, in my personal opinion, it is well-meant and misinformed, noble and perverse, all at once :tired:
While I cannot go in depth because I have to raise up early tomorrow, I will hastily clarify my premise.
The crux of the matter is that Egypt doesn’t have a system asking people for their trust at all at the moment. The battle for its future rages precisely at this point in time.
Lets anchor ourselves in facts before we go ahead though.
The Army has established Martial Law since February and the only legal framework is established by its edicts. However, the Army will cede its power after the elections of November 28th. Thus the direction the country will take in the next decades hangs in the balance.
Take a peek towards the Iranian revolution. It was not a Shiite affair exclusively. There were many secularists and even communists amongst the revolutionaries at the time and you can see their children today marching against the regime in Tehran. The end of the insurrection found the Ayatollahs in a very strong position however and, after the referendum put Khomeini in power, they dispensed with those children’s parents after the revolution succeeded to bring about what’s now thirty years of theocracy. Khomeini stated: “Do not use this term [democratic]. That is the Western style". There’s a very good book on the subject, Iran since the Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/since-Revolution-Professor-Sepehr-Zabih/dp/0801828880) – the most telling quote: “what began as an authentic and anti-dictatorial popular revolution based on a broad coalition of all anti-Shah forces was soon transformed into an Islamic fundamentalist power-grab”.
The Salafis find themselves between a rock and a hard place in Egypt in the event they wish to attempt to eliminate their opposition in the same way. They do not have enough popular support to drown out the message of the Liberals and they cannot force their way into power because of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which is basically the junta now leading Egypt under Mubarak’s ex-Defense Minister Tantawi. These military leaders sided with the population in February, dissolved the Parliament and dispensed with the Constitution – the first being populated by Mubarak’s straw-men and the Constitution upholding the old state of affairs of course – and they announced completely free and fair elections by the end of 2011. I won’t go into the details of why, suffice to say Mubarak’s dictatorship persecuted Muslims and Liberals in equal measure.
Thus the Salafis have to stake it all on this electoral process.
At this point in time, the Muslim Brotherhood backed Freedom and Justice Party sits at around ~30%, with the main Liberal party Wafd polling around ~25%. Other Salafis Parties like Nour hold around 10%, while there is a plethora of minor organizations, nostalgic of Nasser or led by the followers of Sadat (Mubarak’s predecessor) or etc. which would be inclined to side with Wafd and thus would equal the balance in a coalition government. 55% of the electorate declares itself undecided at this point and this is the segment they all attempt to cut themselves a large chunk out of.
The scandal this girl provoked in Egypt, blown out of proportion because of the attention and sympathy received from the western media, simply transformed her action into a major event of this election, outraging many of those 55% undecided voters. I’m all for her exercising her freedom and subsequently bask in the spotlight of interviews from CNN to the Ulan-Bator Herald, but to admire her action is wrong on so many counts; if the Salafis take power she may have contributed to the suffering of millions of her countrymen because she would not wait two weeks with updating her Twitter account.
While the Muslim Brotherhood has abstained from making the same declarations regarding their views on the future of Egypt as they were doing in the beginning, there is little doubt to an impartial observer that they will attempt to take control of the Army and establish Sharia Law – Egypt doesn’t have the Turkish Kemalist tradition, not to mention even that tradition succumbed earlier this year for good (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/08/the_end_of_the_kemalist_affair.html) in the face of an Islamic movement.
And the reality is that those girls abused by Muslim Egyptian soldiers, who are now kept in check by a secular military structure, are about to find out what real rape means should the Muslims come to power; and they may have to thank our Magda for that. I find it hard to agree with the idea that a person condemning her folly is taking freedom for granted when, in fact, it may just be that the person in question realizes what it means to lose it.
Plus, there are hundred of thousands of secularist Egyptians who decided not to leave their country under Mubarak, protested, were imprisoned, had relatives murdered, fought in Tahrir Square during the demonstrations (which this girl avoided to do) and basically dedicated their life to snatching their society back from the forces of oppression. All of these understood the importance of maintaining a morally neutral discourse until after the elections, despite the fact that they had been far more oppressed than a girl of twenty who was never abused herself and was sent to University by her parents. Freedom is an emotional issue for these Egyptians as well, it may very well turn into a matter of life and death after the 28th, yet this girl just spat upon their future graves and is overwhelmed by waves of admiration from a Western world which through this may be putting the last nail in the coffin of a democratic Egypt.
Who seriously believes in Egyptian democracy, power doesn't negotiate over there. Women's rights are much more important and she shook things up good, doesn't have to be convenient on the short term, the whole mentality towards women must change. I like blunt instruments and she is one, delicate as she may be.
Crazed Rabbit
11-22-2011, 04:42
Who seriously believes in Egyptian democracy, power doesn't negotiate over there. Women's rights are much more important and she shook things up good, doesn't have to be convenient on the short term, the whole mentality towards women must change. I like blunt instruments and she is one, delicate as she may be.
That's really easy for you to say Fragony, because you don't have to deal with the fallout.
I am inclined to agree with Nowake on this.
CR
That's really easy for you to say Fragony, because you don't have to deal with the fallout.
I am inclined to agree with Nowake on this.
CR
Hard to disagree with Nowake because everything he says is true, it isn't very constructive no. But a somewhat democratic Egypt will still be sexist Egypt, it's worth causing a little trouble over that. The 'revolution' is an excellent moment for some trolling.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-22-2011, 06:34
Definitely agree with Nowake...
Montmorency
11-22-2011, 07:05
Out of the blue, I was forced to read an Article (http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html) written in 1963 by the late great MLK jr. today. In reading it, I saw many things that are pertinent to this discussion. In fact, I'd call it fortuitous, since the only thing that can possibly refute Nowake's stone-cold rendering of the situation is an emotional appeal by the master of emotional appeals. For the record, I've always been an advocate of violent civil disobedience, as opposed to the other kind, but that's just because I have less Moral Fiber than Dr. King!
Here are a few quotes that I think everyone should consider for a moment:
Hrrm? Replace Negro with Muslim Woman and White Power Structure with Fundamentalist Egyptian Government and you've pretty much got the situation summed up.
The only way my opinion differs from MLK is that I believe violent revolution is not only acceptable, but necesarry in most cases. And granted, that's a massive difference of opinion, but he flawlessly explains the thinking behind rebellion.
Is this not true of Women in Egypt as well?
In fact, that whole Essay is full of fantastic stuff you could use to support a civil rights movement in egypt, founded on timely action as opposed to just trusting the system. I am in no way trying to present MLKs ideas as my own, here... Me and 'ol Dr. King have some seriously fundamental differences of opinion. But if we, as civilized western people, accept MLK as one of our Heroes, then how can we not apply his ideals to a parallel situation?
I feel I have been pressed into a bit of a corner, what with the encyclopaedic depth that always comes with one of Nowake's posts. And I hope that quoting Dr. King won't be seen as a cheap tactic, but rather as a genuine effort to try and get you to think about this emotionally. Even the founding fathers believed that "The Tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of Patriots." or something like that. Cold, logical stoicism is a fantastic way to live an individual life, but an awful way to lead a society.
Awful in what sense? First of all, which goals do you want to see accomplished? Gender equality? Racial equality?
Well, the issue Nowake has raised is mostly one of, as far as I see it, timing. "Wait[ing]", here, would involve a few weeks. But I won't attempt to unravel your analogy in depth, so I'll just substitute my own.
What Nowake's post should make you imagine is a scenario where some provocative incident gets George Wallace or, somehow, Strom Thurmond, elected President.
'But if we, as civilized western people, accept MLK as one of our Heroes, then how can we not apply his ideals to a parallel situation?'
Agreed although I'd pick Rosa Parks, that wasn't very constructive either, she was also a blunt tool. Blunt tools change things for the better or worse, elections, or any ritual dance won't change anything in Egypt. Whoever wins the election doesn't really matter, the real power is still the army, and as I said before power doesn't negotiate over there
'Well, the issue Nowake has raised is mostly one of, as far as I see it, timing. "Wait[ing]", here, would involve a few weeks.'
Why let the whole world watching go to waste? Perfect timing.
not curvy enough for my tastes...next.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2011, 12:58
not curvy enough for my tastes...next.
The idea that we might have tastes in common makes me slightly queasy.
In any case, your analysis has been over taken by events, I don't think the elections will go ahead, and you missed one vital point in any case. The fact is, if this girl poses before elections she undermines the liberals, if she waits until afterwards she undermines the new "liberal" parliament and creates the impressions it is ushering a new era of "depravity".
The only conclusion to be reached is that there is no time in Egypt when she can "safely" take her clothes off. In any case, if you have to "wait" to do something it isn't actual freedom coming over the hill it's just a vaneer and even if it is real freedom making her "wait" to take her clothes off would forever undermine the mythos of the revolution, which would undermine Egyptian democracy for the future.
Ironside
11-22-2011, 19:11
The idea that we might have tastes in common makes me slightly queasy.
In any case, your analysis has been over taken by events, I don't think the elections will go ahead, and you missed one vital point in any case. The fact is, if this girl poses before elections she undermines the liberals, if she waits until afterwards she undermines the new "liberal" parliament and creates the impressions it is ushering a new era of "depravity".
The only conclusion to be reached is that there is no time in Egypt when she can "safely" take her clothes off. In any case, if you have to "wait" to do something it isn't actual freedom coming over the hill it's just a vaneer and even if it is real freedom making her "wait" to take her clothes off would forever undermine the mythos of the revolution, which would undermine Egyptian democracy for the future.
There's the minor difference between "immidiate political backlash" and "potential to move the position forward until the next election".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2011, 22:47
There's the minor difference between "immidiate political backlash" and "potential to move the position forward until the next election".
It's the difference between genetic variation within the species and actual evolution, attitudes among the Egyptian majority need to change before the situation for women can genuinely improve.
There's the minor difference between "immidiate political backlash" and "potential to move the position forward until the next election".
If she does it now and gets killed it has an impact, if she does it after the elections and she gets killed she's an anonymous victim. Things aren't looking very good for the elections anyway at the moment.
Fisherking
11-24-2011, 17:53
She has a lot of guts, I will give her that.
I take it as an effort to focus on a secular type government.
Any follow-up on the backlash?
Cute Wolf
11-25-2011, 08:29
She has a lot of guts, I will give her that.
I take it as an effort to focus on a secular type government.
Any follow-up on the backlash?
http://bikyamasr.com/48732/legal-action-against-egypt-nude-activist/
threatened with lashes or prison time...
but I doubt they'll doing more than threatening only, I'm sure Egyptian clerics wouldn't want their country to be invaded by angry young man all over the world who see the nude picture (and demands more :clown:)
http://bikyamasr.com/48732/legal-action-against-egypt-nude-activist/
threatened with lashes or prison time...
but I doubt they'll doing more than threatening only, I'm sure Egyptian clerics wouldn't want their country to be invaded by angry young man all over the world who see the nude picture (and demands more :clown:)
You know what they say, you just got to respect that. Says gutmensch. NEVER get between progressive western people and religion, they will go for your eyes.
They don't actually do lashes in Egypt though, she will probably get killed though
Ironside
11-25-2011, 11:17
If she does it now and gets killed it has an impact, if she does it after the elections and she gets killed she's an anonymous victim. Things aren't looking very good for the elections anyway at the moment.
Point. I was more thinking less on lethal martyrhood and more on good times to create a big controversal though. For that, you want to have some time to move your position forward.
Ridiculous. Eighty lashes and possibly death just for showing herself nude? In no rational mind can that be considered okay.
But she has corrupted the minds of many men, so they can't properly think and work, now that they've seen her nude. I'm not sure if it's more insulting to the girl or the men, even if the girl gets the burden of it.
But she has corrupted the minds of many men, so they can't properly think and work, now that they've seen her nude. I'm not sure if it's more insulting to the girl or the men, even if the girl gets the burden of it.
Yes, it's her own fault that she gets a completely irrational punishment because it was her who took rationality away from these men after all.
Sometimes I think we need to change the name of the entire middle-east to Facepalmia.
Right now, I would incline to agree. But let's look at Tunisia, for example. In general, we should also wonderjust exactly what made the Middle-East look this way. Because it sure as hell not is "Islam".
As such, it's very important we distinguish between the Islamic religion and cultures present in the Islamic world as a whole as of right now. With the recent death of writer Rafiq Tagi it is somewhat inappropriate to draw a comparison with Azerbaijan, but I suppose that in general, if women would openly put nude pictures on a blog in Azerbaijan, there is no chance there would've a backlash of the same proportions.
Concerning the Judiciary of Egypt, it's preposterous to suggest that an Egyptian court would sentence her to death; the death penalty is reserved for (high) treason, abduction, rape and premeditated murder. I have no pretensions of being an expert on the Judiciary in Egypt, but the idea that any Egyptian court would sentence her to death is, simply put, silly.
Nobody blames Islam for anything
Then I've been misinterpreting Fragony for a couple of years now.
We do, however, blame really bad people who are using Islam as a reason to cause trouble
Yeah, as we should.
We do, however, blame really bad people who are using Islam as a reason to cause trouble
Thing is that I'm under the impression that Fragony is proclaiming the idea that the Egyptian state would allow or even support this.
Then I've been misinterpreting Fragony for a couple of years now.
Must be it, I thought we had consensus here, I don't dispise the whole of islam just the hardcore version. I do absolutely dispise the multicultural left who absolutely adore anything islam though, too stupid to take a dump. We are on the same team Hax you just don't realise it.
Not blaming islam when muslims call for islamic law, I don't know how that works out for those doing so but I have always been bad at leftist logic. Not a few bad people hijacking islam, it IS islam. The kind that is as welcome as the inquisition to most people including most muslims.
I'm no hater
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2011, 16:15
Right now, I would incline to agree. But let's look at Tunisia, for example. In general, we should also wonderjust exactly what made the Middle-East look this way. Because it sure as hell not is "Islam".
As such, it's very important we distinguish between the Islamic religion and cultures present in the Islamic world as a whole as of right now. With the recent death of writer Rafiq Tagi it is somewhat inappropriate to draw a comparison with Azerbaijan, but I suppose that in general, if women would openly put nude pictures on a blog in Azerbaijan, there is no chance there would've a backlash of the same proportions.
Concerning the Judiciary of Egypt, it's preposterous to suggest that an Egyptian court would sentence her to death; the death penalty is reserved for (high) treason, abduction, rape and premeditated murder. I have no pretensions of being an expert on the Judiciary in Egypt, but the idea that any Egyptian court would sentence her to death is, simply put, silly.
I think that "Islam" is a big part of the problem, not because it is "bad" but because it is completely innapropriate as a cultural and political context for the Modern Middle East. The fact is, the Middle East is a big mess, it's a mixture of petty Kingdoms and "countries" that are mostly wilderness punctuated by city-states and narrow tracts of productive arable land along major rivers, this is as trues for Saudi Arabia as it is for Libya and Afganistan. Against this reality is set the narrative of the "House of Islam", the Caliphate, which is ruled over my the Caliph, God's representative on Earth. Except there's no Caliph and no Caliphate, but Islam doesn't do subservience to other powers the way Christianity and Judaism can, so the religion acts out and instead of trying to rule the world generally Islamic politics is focused on ruling the "islamic" peoples and anyone withion the same national borders absolutely.
I don't think it's a coincidence that as the power of the Islamic word has waned of the last half milenium we have seen increasingly harsh applications of religious law,
Then, on top of this, we have decidedly un-Islamic practices which become institutionalised and theologically justified in areas where the Caliphs never tried to establish proper Islamic law, hence the Saudi princes with ten wives and forty children, which confused Saudi successions and retards the passing of the throne to the next generation.
'Against this reality is set the narrative of the "House of Islam", the Caliphate, which is ruled over my the Caliph, God's representative on Earth. Except there's no Caliph and no Caliphate, but Islam doesn't do subservience to other powers the way Christianity and Judaism can, so the religion acts out and instead of trying to rule the world generally Islamic politics is focused on ruling the "islamic" peoples and anyone withion the same national borders absolutely.'
It's called the political islam for a reason, what you say is true but also a very recent concept, but it's the way the brotherhood and other islamists see it. They are really dangerous
No, I think we're on the same team when it comes to the ideals of the Enlightenment and the essence of humanism. I just have a totally different approach to analysing the Islamic world, I think.
I think that "Islam" is a big part of the problem, not because it is "bad" but because it is completely innapropriate as a cultural and political context for the Modern Middle East.
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here.
I don't think it's a coincidence that as the power of the Islamic word has waned of the last half milenium we have seen increasingly harsh applications of religious law,
Not necessarily, and even though the idea of the waning power of the Islamic world for about 500 years has been pretty popular (even within academic circles), it doesn't necessarily correspond with historical events. For example, the Safavids (and subsequently the Qajarites and Pahlavis) were relatively powerful in their immediate areas. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, which has often been described as being continuously in decline, has also been overstated; there were several periods in the Late Ottoman Empire that were actually periodes of greater power.
What happened to the Islamic world is generally described as a continuous current; around 1250, with the fall of Baghdad, the once mighty and scientifically advanced world of Islam entered a period of decline which coincided with the decline of scientific inquiries throughout the Islamic world and a period that was dominated by religious orthodoxy and piety. As I said, this image is at best only half true. There were many later periods of greatness, especially under the Safavids.
but Islam doesn't do subservience to other powers the way Christianity and Judaism can
Surely, this is true as in that Islam (as a political concept) has a very strict set of rules that apply to all people living under Islamic rule, including non-Muslims (the oft-quoted "dhimmis"). However, the exact way of dealing with non-believers isn't a matter that has seen general consensus, even since the founding of Islam. The particularly notorious Kharijite sect outright forbade any form of dealing with non-believers. To what extent this is "Islamic" depends on Muslim scholars to decide, really.
However, there are terms in Islamic jurisprudence that deal explicitely with secular law, in particular "qanun", which is a corruption of Greek "kanon". This is particularly used for Ottoman law though (as they introduced the whole millet-system).
what you say is true but also a very recent concept
Fragony is absolutely correct. Fundamentalism as we know it is no older than the 1850's, generally. It was around the same time that several Islamist politicians and philosophers rediscovered the Crusaders; before that, it was regarded as simply another event in Muslim history, and not particularly an example of Muslims versus Christians (or East versus West). In particular, the image of the Crusades was used by Sultan Abdulhamid II.
In short, my view of the subject is that we should look at "Islamism" very critically. Even though anti-Islamic as well as Islamist activists will pretend that it is an ancient movement which finds its roots in the very first days of Islam, this is very much removed from the truth. It's about as Islamic in origin as the celebration of Muhammad's birthday (which, incidentally, is not).
'we should look at "Islamism" very critically'
We do? I don't really see why we let it exist at all
Furunculus
11-25-2011, 19:24
Hey, she's pretty cute. And she likes freedom. Sounds like a winner!
+1001
Aliaa FTW!
Noncommunist
11-25-2011, 19:55
Ridiculous. Eighty lashes and possibly death just for showing herself nude? In no rational mind can that be considered okay.
I'm sure in some places, eighty lashes and possibly death for only intercourse involving a young teenager and an older man would be considered irrational. While in our culture, that's not okay at all, there are places where that's a normal occurrence, and they'd wonder why people are so irrationally opposed to it.
You'll get no argument here. The Narrow-Minded Conversion-Centric approach of mainstream Islam (and Christianity in most of its forms, for that matter) will always mean that there are radical fringe elements. When the whole world finally acknowledges that religion is nothing more than a personal(and incredibly subjective, and thus inherantly unfit for scientific thought!) life-style choice, we will be infinitely better off.
Unfortunately, Big Religion seems to be making a comeback all over the world. :bomb:
Why would the whole world acknowledge that religion is nothing more than a personal lifestyle choice if it's obviously untrue and affects the world in a far greater way.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-26-2011, 01:46
You'll get no argument here. The Narrow-Minded Conversion-Centric approach of mainstream Islam (and Christianity in most of its forms, for that matter) will always mean that there are radical fringe elements. When the whole world finally acknowledges that religion is nothing more than a personal(and incredibly subjective, and thus inherantly unfit for scientific thought!) life-style choice, we will be infinitely better off.
Unfortunately, Big Religion seems to be making a comeback all over the world. :bomb:
No, no, no, no!
Think for a moment about the difference between missionary and non-missionary religions, and between societies where religion is public and where it is private.
A man who doesn't want you to convert to his religion wants his life to be better than yours, his religion is exclusive, and it is not interested in admitting new members accept to the advantage of the existing ones.
The reason Christianity took off was because the religions of the time were invariably, racist, sexist, or classict - and Christianity was one of these. Neither are (most) forms of Islam or Buddism, and many other major world religions today. That's why they have prospered, because they are inclusive, as opposed to the racist religions like the Athenian Cult of Demeter.
Religion is also much more than a "personnal" matter, because people bring their religion with them wherever they go, making them hide it or disregard it is either to force them to be dishonest in public or to exclude them from public and political life on grounds of concience.
Neither of which is condusive to a healthy society.
People should be encouraged to proclaim their religion publically, that way you have some idea what sort of people you are dealing with.
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here.
Not necessarily, and even though the idea of the waning power of the Islamic world for about 500 years has been pretty popular (even within academic circles), it doesn't necessarily correspond with historical events. For example, the Safavids (and subsequently the Qajarites and Pahlavis) were relatively powerful in their immediate areas. The fall of the Ottoman Empire, which has often been described as being continuously in decline, has also been overstated; there were several periods in the Late Ottoman Empire that were actually periodes of greater power.
What happened to the Islamic world is generally described as a continuous current; around 1250, with the fall of Baghdad, the once mighty and scientifically advanced world of Islam entered a period of decline which coincided with the decline of scientific inquiries throughout the Islamic world and a period that was dominated by religious orthodoxy and piety. As I said, this image is at best only half true. There were many later periods of greatness, especially under the Safavids.
History is the art of constructing a narrative, the popular narrative is one of gradual decline, the current experience is of a weak and highly fractured Islamic world, as opposed to the West where we have mostly got on for the last 70 odd years.
The historical facts, sadly, are much less important.
Surely, this is true as in that Islam (as a political concept) has a very strict set of rules that apply to all people living under Islamic rule, including non-Muslims (the oft-quoted "dhimmis"). However, the exact way of dealing with non-believers isn't a matter that has seen general consensus, even since the founding of Islam. The particularly notorious Kharijite sect outright forbade any form of dealing with non-believers. To what extent this is "Islamic" depends on Muslim scholars to decide, really.
However, there are terms in Islamic jurisprudence that deal explicitely with secular law, in particular "qanun", which is a corruption of Greek "kanon". This is particularly used for Ottoman law though (as they introduced the whole millet-system).
How does a Muslim live in a foriegn country though? Particularly one which he sees as hostile, at least as an environment, to his religion? A Christin just has to look to the Martyars, it's actually easier to be a Christian when oppressed, a Jew just looks to Isaiah and Babylon, as well as Job. Where does the Muslim look, how does he interpret being a minority, through what lense?
I would offer that most Muslims don't have an effective narrative for their experience of living in the West, or in countries significantly disadvantaged vs Western ones. For example, Saudi cavalry use American tanks, and while Arab Universties are undeniably the oldest in the world none of them feature in the top 200 list of the THE survey.
Fragony is absolutely correct. Fundamentalism as we know it is no older than the 1850's, generally. It was around the same time that several Islamist politicians and philosophers rediscovered the Crusaders; before that, it was regarded as simply another event in Muslim history, and not particularly an example of Muslims versus Christians (or East versus West). In particular, the image of the Crusades was used by Sultan Abdulhamid II.
Oh, no doubt true, but we are living in 2011, not 1120, the Templars are now bogeymen, not the Order preventing Christian mobs from lynching strays Jews and Muslims.
Just as a note, I might split the topic if it diverges too much, feel free to continue though.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-26-2011, 15:29
Religion has caused nothing but harship and trouble for the world. From aztecs sacrificing tens of thousands of people to their gods, to the crusades, to Darfur, to the twin towers. All the "good" doesn't even come close to making up for the countless millions dead throughout the ages, all thanks to some ridiculous notions. Fundamentalism in its most reactionary forms is nothing less than a plea for a return to times when it was easier to tell people what to do, and kill them for not doing it.
In no way is this true. Prior to modern welfare states religious orders were the only people who provided charitable support to the vulnerable, from food for the poor to care for the elderly and infirm. Going back further, Christian monks were the ONLY people to preserve Roman knowledge, after 600 AD you'll strugle to find literate laypeople even in Rome, without the Church we might still be in the Dark Ages and we certainly wouldn't be where we are today. Again, until about 150 years ago education, in the liberal sense, was only offered by the Church, all the great modern universities, including those in the US, were religious foundations of one denomination or another, the absolute earliest being Islamic foundations.
As to "religion causes wars" No it doesn't, nevber has, it's actually Atheism that causes so-called religious wars, but even so your examples have a lot more to do with politics than religion.
I'm not going to deny that there are huge differences between all religions, even ones that seem superficially similar (like the Abrahamic ones). I'm also not going to deny that there is nothing wrong with being spiritual. I believe in God. I also don't have anything wrong with someone trying to convert me, as long as they're tactful. Muslims are the best at this! I've never had a conversation with a devout muslim that didn't eventually get to "So, you coming to the Mosque this weekned?" And it's always really sneaky--like I never saw it coming. Much more tactful than the door-to-door Jehova's witnesses! Although to be fair, if ou say to one of them "I'll listen to you for an hour if you listen to me for an hour." usually they'll take you up on it, and listen politely.
Religion's place in the modern world has become mostly as a promoter of goodwill, and charity. And that's fine. I would never tell anyone how to think. In return, I expect not to be told how to think. The reactionary religious elements of the world, of which there are still PLENTY, seek to undermine everything that makes this world modern. You are a religious reactionary, in my opinion, if you believe that other people must believe what you believe. Broad stroke? You bet.
Very little of the world is "modern" and "religion's" place in it is a greatly vexed issue, certainly if modern bankers even pretended to Christianity, or Islam or Judaism for that matter, we would not be in the current economic mess.
A "religion" is a set of values which are systematised and formalised into a coherent whole which can be understood by even a Layman. As such, a genuine religious conviction is about how you see the structure of the world around you and your place in it, no small thing.
As to missionary work, think about it like this: If a man were walking towards a cliff, would you want to stop him?
Noncommunist
11-26-2011, 18:05
Hmm. So.. what your saying is that both of these things are bad ways to handle their respective infractions? I'll agree with that. Consentual sex between.. say.. a 16 year old and 20 year old is distasteful, but not hurting anyone. Here in Amerikuh we have handled that by letting the individual states determine where the age limit is drawn. Personally I'd find any woman under 21 to be too young for me, and even then.. :wall: And while I might find it distasteful that in some states a 20 year old and a 16 year old could lay together consentually (and even get married) I'm not about to say we should flog anyone for it!
Perhaps my example was too general. How would you feel about a man, perhaps 40 or 50 years of age having sexual relations with a 13 year old girl? Are you still okay with that?
As for the walking off a cliff comment, I agree. Which is why I don't have a problem when its done tactfully. If I see someone about to walk off a cliff, I'm going to try and stop him--but if he seems dead-set on walking off that cliff, who am I to say no?
Well, if he's your friend, respecting his decision may not be best for him. Especially if he's not quite alright in the head. Perhaps some chemical imbalance or Satan trying to lead him astray.
Major Robert Dump
11-26-2011, 21:43
At age 18 she lost her viginity to a 58 year old and enjoyed it.
I'm sure she was 18, and I am sure money was not involved :2thumbsup:
I'm all for old guys and barely legal girls, it gives me hope, but she may want to consider how her personal history and reflection of it bears down on her larger cause. Or maybe I am just being agist, maybe he was a smokin hot old man, like Bob Barker.....who 18 year old girl didn't want to do bob Barker?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.