To Hijab or not to Hijab

[rvg]

It formed the culture of Arabia. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you didn't belong to it you witnessed and contributed to its progress.

Ethnically and culturally they are. When was the last time you got a good read of your buddy Bashar's Hizb manifesto?

You are overstating their influence. If you're looking for an example of people who have no ethnic links to Arabia, folks from around Mt. Lebanon come to mind. Egyptians as well. They might speak Arabic and all, but they still look like they came straight off the frescoes of the Karnak temple. As for Bashar, he can go screw himself. He was given a relatively stable, relatively prosperous multi-ethinc, multi-cultural, multi-religious country, and he pissed it away. Yes, he's better than the current alternative, but only because the alternatives are so horrible.

Lebanon is an absolute disgrace right now and that is why Lebanese are flocking to the Gulf. They have Islamists as a legit party are you okay with that?

It has seen better days, but oh well, that's what they get for accepting all those Palestinians. It's still the cultural capital of the Middle East though.

Oh that would be the civilized Levantines thank you guys. :)

Don't you find it alarming that the locals aren't striving to achieve something similar?

I have no idea what a nargila is. Do you guys actually call it that instead of shisha or are you a coconut Arab? No offense intended. Listen unlike you I got mad respect for yall but the burning jealousy is oh so apparent. We've survived for this long and sorry to say we aren't going anywhere even when the oil runs out.

For my part I also must say that this isn't anything personal. What bothers me is that the region has plenty of resources to advance, it just lacks the desire to do so.

You have been raped by the west and now you are carbon copies wearing penguin suits, shouting for reform and secularism and all that bs when it has constantly dragged you into the abyss. You have no desert survival instinct and are gradually becoming unfit for Arabia.

The Western way isn't just different. it's better. It's the way of the future.

Iran is not your friend, and the Israelis ironically hate you more than the "pious" Gulf. When we house your non-Muslim minorities you will know whose turn it truly is to champion the middle east with the help of our Egyptian friends, the heart of Arabia.

Israel is not a threat to me at all. They just want to be left alone, that's all. As for Iran, it's nobody's friend. Oh and speaking of "pious" Gulf, I still remember my time in Basra back in the late 70s: every Thursday night there was this long stream of cars pouring through from Kuwait. They were coming over to drink themselves under the table.

[AE Bravo]

You are overstating their influence. If you're looking for an example of people who have no ethnic links to Arabia, folks from around Mt. Lebanon come to mind. Egyptians as well. They might speak Arabic and all, but they still look like they came straight off the frescoes of the Karnak temple.

But these are fringes. This is the first I hear of it, and frankly I don't think it's a popular view unless you can prove me wrong. It seems that the way you view Muslim Arabs caused you to look for things that set the identity apart? Because saying that Christian Arabs, karnak temple Arabs, or even Berbers have no relation to Arab-Islamic civilization or shared ancestry is simply not true. From Saba' to Damascus to pharaoh Egypt, they are one and the same.

It has seen better days, but oh well, that's what they get for accepting all those Palestinians. It's still the cultural capital of the Middle East though.

Egypt is the cultural capital of the middle east. It's the motherland as far as I know.

Don't you find it alarming that the locals aren't striving to achieve something similar?

But the Idea that they're not striving for it is a myth. They are marginalized as a result of regime priorities yes but Omanis for example are blue-collar, they have a good workforce. Bahrain and Kuwait, despite their political shortcomings, have the most progressive/liberal thinkers in the Gulf. It's definitely alarming, however, statistically each generation has proven to be better than the last. It's alarming but it is bound to happen considering even Saudi Arabia has quite a few of its own elite workforce, which are constantly offered US citizenship and residency. I don't blame them for taking them up on that.

For my part I also must say that this isn't anything personal. What bothers me is that the region has plenty of resources to advance, it just lacks the desire to do so.

The Western way isn't just different. it's better. It's the way of the future.

Boils down to the political system. Sheikhs will make compromises with an educated population, these countries are only forty years old after all. When patronage systems are put aside the distribution of wealth will be questioned. Oman is practically secular relative to the Gulf, Kuwait and the UAE are clearly departing from traditional Islam.

Israel is not a threat to me at all. They just want to be left alone, that's all. As for Iran, it's nobody's friend. Oh and speaking of "pious" Gulf, I still remember my time in Basra back in the late 70s: every Thursday night there was this long stream of cars pouring through from Kuwait. They were coming over to drink themselves under the table.

So why did they invade an independent Arab state?

That's what I'm saying, there's nothing "pious" about the Gulf. I'll be the first to admit we are full of crap.

[rvg]

But these are fringes. This is the first I hear of it, and frankly I don't think it's a popular view unless you can prove me wrong.

Fringes or not, they exist and have stayed in their ancestral regions up until the arrival of ISIS.

It seems that the way you view Muslim Arabs caused you to look for things that set the identity apart? Because saying that Christian Arabs, karnak temple Arabs, or even Berbers have no relation to Arab-Islamic civilization or shared ancestry is simply not true. From Saba' to Damascus to pharaoh Egypt, they are one and the same.

I disagree completely. Arab civilization long predates islam as good old Philip the Arab would attest. Also, there is a cultural abyss between a Lebanese, a Yemeni, and a Moroccan. Not to mention that they would barely understand one another.

Egypt is the cultural capital of the middle east. It's the motherland as far as I know.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

But the Idea that they're not striving for it is a myth. They are marginalized as a result of regime priorities yes but Omanis for example are blue-collar, they have a good workforce. Bahrain and Kuwait, despite their political shortcomings, have the most progressive/liberal thinkers in the Gulf. It's definitely alarming, however, statistically each generation has proven to be better than the last. It's alarming but it is bound to happen considering even Saudi Arabia has quite a few of its own elite workforce, which are constantly offered US citizenship and residency. I don't blame them for taking them up on that.

Exactly, so the industrious ones leave. The ones who are sure to stay are the guys who take pride in being useless. The world needs a very limted number of calligraphers, koranic scholars, and experts in medieval arabic poetry. Most actually need to learn to do something useful instead.

Boils down to the political system. Sheikhs will make compromises with an educated population, these countries are only forty years old after all. When patronage systems are put aside the distribution of wealth will be questioned. Oman is practically secular relative to the Gulf, Kuwait and the UAE are clearly departing from traditional Islam.

Do you see things making a serious change? Because I do not. As for Oman, that Kaboos fellow is a brilliant man, but he's in his seventies now. What mechanism would prevent thing from going to business as usual once he dies? There is no such mechanism.

So why did they invade an independent Arab state?
That's what I'm saying, there's nothing "pious" about the Gulf. I'll be the first to admit we are full of crap.

Hell if I know. Saddam already had more money than a man can spend. Maybe he got bored.

[Brenus]

“Again, speaking about the hijab. I don’t care about no burkas or niqabs I agree they’re ridiculous.” It is not about ridiculous or not. It is, for me, the necessary neutrality in some workplaces i.e. Civil Servants are bound to be. A Jewish can argue that a Muslim Judge will be discriminatory (we had the case where the Defendant refused some juries because they were allegedly Jews).
The fact is there is confusion between fashion and religion I agree.
However, as it is impossible to decide what is what, the ban of all ostentatious religious symbols where neutrality (which is an active principle, not a default one) has to be enforced.

“and you don’t need Islam to tell you to commit such things.” I agree. But you can’t avoid the problem that if a Holly (or even a common law) book tells it is right to do so you have a problem with the text.

“A Muslim who does not admit that this book has contradictions is uneducated and in denial.” Agree. But in the texts I read, or debate I listen, a lot of them just ignore that the Koran (final? Version) took some editing and time. And these are the majority. I have the debate in French of one Muslim scholar who just say what you say, but he is in a minority.
I grant you that Media prefer to invite the others, it makes more audience.
If you speak French, a really good debate:
https://youtu.be/1r7LGzkulEg

[AE Bravo]

Fringes or not, they exist and have stayed in their ancestral regions up until the arrival of ISIS.

So real druze for example are not blood-related to non-druze, does that set them apart from the collective Arab civilization? I don’t see it. There is one Arab civ body and Islam happens to dominate most of that as a result of its forceful nature towards the region. This is unfortunate but to not acknowledge that is utter denial.

I disagree completely. Arab civilization long predates islam as good old Philip the Arab would attest. Also, there is a cultural abyss between a Lebanese, a Yemeni, and a Moroccan. Not to mention that they would barely understand one another.

Yes it does, so what makes you think your ancestors are different from mine? I wasn’t around then so please enlighten me. There are countless dialects in the Arab world, but that difference does not instantly cut off any blood ties they have. I don’t even know how many dialects there are in Saudi Arabia but there are quite a few of them. Also why would you bring up a white Roman into a discussion about what is Arab and what is not, this is for Arabs to decide...

Exactly, so the industrious ones leave. The ones who are sure to stay are the guys who take pride in being useless. The world needs a very limted number of calligraphers, koranic scholars, and experts in medieval arabic poetry. Most actually need to learn to do something useful instead.

I think you may have an outdated perception of what’s actually going on. There are little to no local calligraphers and experts in medieval arabic poetry. Koranic scholars are dying out in fact besides in the kingdom. These guys may be useless in many things but they occupy white-collar jobs and most of them are middle class business men who take advantage of the benefits the govt showers on them.

What’s ironic is that these useless jobs and fields of study are mostly occupied by Levantine Arabs, Muslim or not.

Do you see things making a serious change? Because I do not. As for Oman, that Kaboos fellow is a brilliant man, but he's in his seventies now. What mechanism would prevent thing from going to business as usual once he dies? There is no such mechanism.

There is little indication that business will not go as usual. Qaboos might be the world’s greatest administrator, iirc that country has zero debt. He has already established a culture of job diversity and the population is accustomed to it. Oman is unlike any other country, especially in the Gulf, and will probably be around for a long time. This is a country that established its own religious Islamic freedom and outright rejected the prophet and his following caliphs’ commands.

However, as it is impossible to decide what is what, the ban of all ostentatious religious symbols where neutrality (which is an active principle, not a default one) has to be enforced.

Well then that's that I guess. I suppose if they don't like it they should not work as civil servants, especially in France where it might oppose your history and culture of secularism.

[rvg]

So real druze for example are not blood-related to non-druze, does that set them apart from the collective Arab civilization? I don’t see it. There is one Arab civ body and Islam happens to dominate most of that as a result of its forceful nature towards the region. This is unfortunate but to not acknowledge that is utter denial.

Don't know much about the Druze to be honest. What I do know is that if you walk up to an Egyptian and refer to him as an Arab, he will not be happy to hear it and will likely correct you, stressing that he's an Egyptian.

Yes it does, so what makes you think your ancestors are different from mine? I wasn’t around then so please enlighten me. There are countless dialects in the Arab world, but that difference does not instantly cut off any blood ties they have. I don’t even know how many dialects there are in Saudi Arabia but there are quite a few of them. Also why would you bring up a white Roman into a discussion about what is Arab and what is not, this is for Arabs to decide...

I think you're confusing making the assumption that Arabs = Bedouins. That's an oversimplification. As far as why I know that my ancestors are different from yours, it's precisely that: you're a bedouin, and I'm not. Nor did I ever have any ancestors from Arabia.

I think you may have an outdated perception of what’s actually going on. There are little to no local calligraphers and experts in medieval arabic poetry. Koranic scholars are dying out in fact besides in the kingdom. These guys may be useless in many things but they occupy white-collar jobs and most of them are middle class business men who take advantage of the benefits the govt showers on them.

Of course, it's understandable that they would take what is offered to them. I'm just wondering what's going to happen when the gravy train stops. There will be lots of pissed off people who used to be rich, and those people will surely begin to rock the boat. More instability in the Gulf: that is the absolute last thing anybody needs.

What’s ironic is that these useless jobs and fields of study are mostly occupied by Levantine Arabs, Muslim or not.

Well, shame on them for wasting their lives.

There is little indication that business will not go as usual. Qaboos might be the world’s greatest administrator, iirc that country has zero debt. He has already established a culture of job diversity and the population is accustomed to it. Oman is unlike any other country, especially in the Gulf, and will probably be around for a long time. This is a country that established its own religious Islamic freedom and outright rejected the prophet and his following caliphs’ commands.

I hope you're right. I just know that his father was the exact opposite of him. Now, considering that afaik he has no children and no heir, you're looking at a possible full blown succession crisis. In a country where one man pretty much decides everything, the possibility of a wrong man getting on the throne is quite real.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don’t care about the burka, any veil that doesn’t cover the face can just be a fashion statement. What about “look at me I take pride in my Arabness,” don’t tell me you’re against that too …. And it being rude I don't think warrants banning it, I never knew this culture could be so overly-sensitive like many Muslims.

Well, I'm not allowed to take pride in my Englishness...

I don't see your point here, as I'm arguing primarily against the Niqab, although I have seen the stupidity of a Burkha first hand working down a mountain behind a woman who couldn't see her own feet.

Once more, there is no universal islamic culture. These are two countries, and any other country I bring up is somehow a variation or “liberal?”

Oh of course there is, just as there is a universal post-Roman European culture so there is a universal Arab-Islamic culture, one that has been imported to other non-Arab Islamic countries.

Islamic

Republic of Iran. You present a Saudi/Wahhabi view by describing it as an offshoot.

You were the one who said Iran doesn't present a "variation" of Islam, so I questioned whether you thought Iran was Islamic at all because they're Shia (and not Arabs) and you appear to be a Sunni Arab.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood but that was my reading of your comments.

Speaking technically the Shia are a heretical offshoot/minor heretical sect of Islam, the schism between Sunni and Shia is very much like the Catholic/Orthodox schism in that it's about the inheritance of power and divine rights.

[AE Bravo]

Don't know much about the Druze to be honest. What I do know is that if you walk up to an Egyptian and refer to him as an Arab, he will not be happy to hear it and will likely correct you, stressing that he's an Egyptian.

That is not true. We're talking Egyptians in Egypt right? Egyptians that know Arabic too? Egyptian Coptic Christians and Jews identify themselves as Arabs also.

I think you're confusing making the assumption that Arabs = Bedouins. That's an oversimplification. As far as why I know that my ancestors are different from yours, it's precisely that: you're a bedouin, and I'm not. Nor did I ever have any ancestors from Arabia.

See, this is an oversimplification. The Gulf isn’t some homogenous bedouin country. I know families that originated from Yemen, Persia, Oman, and even India. My ancestors were seafarers, not bedouins. I just said sand goons because you know damn well that’s what all Arabs were, even the Levantines who try to elevate from these origins thinking they’re shameful for some reason. I don't know how you don't realize this when you keep mentioning pre-Islamic middle east to prove your point. They all have a shared history, heritage, culture, language, they are all on the same boat.

So you are not an Arab? Ah, my bad.

Of course, it's understandable that they would take what is offered to them. I'm just wondering what's going to happen when the gravy train stops. There will be lots of pissed off people who used to be rich, and those people will surely begin to rock the boat. More instability in the Gulf: that is the absolute last thing anybody needs.

This is painfully obvious and many can see that. I don’t think it’s serious enough to the level of disintegration. You see even though middle eastern civilization is getting razed by ISIS the plastic buildings in Dubai will bring in the money for decades to come. Everyone has a stake in Dubai, even AQ wouldn't dare attack it.

[rvg]

That is not true. We're talking Egyptians in Egypt right? Egyptians that know Arabic too? Egyptian Coptic Christians and Jews identify themselves as Arabs also

Have you spoken to many? I have to quite a few on many occasions, and I don't remember a single one identifying as Arab. Don't get me wrong, the irony of the people of the Arab Republic of Egypt refusing to identify as such does not escape me, but that's what I have seen. This was back in the 90's, but I can't imagine things changing a whole lot since then.

See, this is an oversimplification. The Gulf isn’t some homogenous bedouin country. I know families that originated from Yemen, Persia, Oman, and even India. My ancestors were seafarers, not bedouins. I just said sand goons because you know damn well that’s what all Arabs were, even the Levantines who try to elevate from these origins thinking they’re shameful for some reason. I don't know how you don't realize this when you keep mentioning pre-Islamic middle east to prove your point. They all have a shared history, heritage, culture, language, they are all on the same boat.

So you are not an Arab? Ah, my bad.

I'm not. My roots go to pre-Arab Middle East.

This is painfully obvious and many can see that. I don’t think it’s serious enough to the level of disintegration. You see even though middle eastern civilization is getting razed by ISIS the plastic buildings in Dubai will bring in the money for decades to come. Everyone has a stake in Dubai, even AQ wouldn't dare attack it.

Like I said, I hope you're right. I'm just looking at how Russia's economy is crumbling from low oil prices and hope not to see the same thing happening in the Gulf.

[AE Bravo]

I'm not. My roots go to pre-Arab Middle East.

Than surely you understand how Islam has undoubtedly characterized the culture of the middle east for better or worse. There is a monopoly, the timeline’s been shaped by centuries of Islam. Headscarves and all that "assorted crap" of Arab-Islamic tradition are the enduring legacy of the entire middle east, the strongest social unifying force of all its inhabitants. There is the ancient, and then there is the beginning - the da’wa and the people who stood up to a system of aristocracy. The most drastic change in the history of the region.

Have you spoken to many? I have to quite a few on many occasions, and I don't remember a single one identifying as Arab. Don't get me wrong, the irony of the people of the Arab Republic of Egypt refusing to identify as such does not escape me, but that's what I have seen. This was back in the 90's, but I can't imagine things changing a whole lot since then.

Yes, way too many. I am baffled by this. Never seen or heard anything like that. I guess it could be a Persian and Irani sort of thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

See, this is an oversimplification. The Gulf isn’t some homogenous bedouin country. I know families that originated from Yemen, Persia, Oman, and even India. My ancestors were seafarers, not bedouins. I just said sand goons because you know damn well that’s what all Arabs were, even the Levantines who try to elevate from these origins thinking they’re shameful for some reason. I don't know how you don't realize this when you keep mentioning pre-Islamic middle east to prove your point. They all have a shared history, heritage, culture, language, they are all on the same boat.

Eh?

Arabs come from Arabia - Arabia was a backwater until the Caliph sent an army to conquer the Roman and Persian Empires. Long ago people went to Arabia but the Levantines are the descendants of the Hellanised Phoneticians, Semetics who didn't go. They were building military and trade Empires, and colonising the coast of Arabia, whilst the Bedoin were... well we don't know because irrc the Bedoin were pre-literate during this period - they learned writing from the descendent of the Phoneticians.

It's also worth noting that the whole area was a lot less sandy in the pre-Islamic age.

[rvg]

Than surely you understand how Islam has undoubtedly characterized the culture of the middle east for better or worse. There is a monopoly, the timeline’s been shaped by centuries of Islam. Headscarves and all that "assorted crap" of Arab-Islamic tradition are the enduring legacy of the entire middle east, the strongest social unifying force of all its inhabitants. There is the ancient, and then there is the beginning - the da’wa and the people who stood up to a system of aristocracy. The most drastic change in the history of the region.

Not sure about the monopoly. As for the headscarves, in the 1970s Baghdad there were plenty of mini-skirts, but hardly any headscarves.

Yes, way too many. I am baffled by this. Never seen or heard anything like that. I guess it could be a Persian and Irani sort of thing.

Decided to take a quick look at the web just to see if things have changed from what I remember. They did not.

[AE Bravo]

Eh?

Arabs come from Arabia - Arabia was a backwater until the Caliph sent an army to conquer the Roman and Persian Empires. Long ago people went to Arabia but the Levantines are the descendants of the Hellanised Phoneticians, Semetics who didn't go. They were building military and trade Empires, and colonising the coast of Arabia, whilst the Bedoin were... well we don't know because irrc the Bedoin were pre-literate during this period - they learned writing from the descendent of the Phoneticians.

It's also worth noting that the whole area was a lot less sandy in the pre-Islamic age.

I want to know how you know.

Bedu and desert dwellers predate all in the middle east. There were bedu in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Sinai, and Sudan.

Not sure about the monopoly. As for the headscarves, in the 1970s Baghdad there were plenty of mini-skirts, but hardly any headscarves.

Sorry I meant Islam as the most enduring legacy, not just specifically headscarves but the atmosphere overall. There's no denying Islam is engraved in the region even with non-Muslims who pass by and say "salaam alaikum," it's not religious any more it's just being Arab.

Decided to take a quick look at the web just to see if things have changed from what I remember. They did not.

Thats just weird to me. How can Coptics for example claim to be descendents of pharaonic Egyptians? It reeks of self-serving bs. Arabia itself is inhabited by Persians, Africans, khanates (baluchistan, pakistan, others), and yemenis (sabaeans). The truth is you cannot possibly know in a situation like the middle east, its not set in stone. Somehow tracing your ancestry that far back in the ME is farfetched, and fishy. But I hope they succeed in doing this, it's what Egypt should place more emphasis on. I hear Sisi is a strong supporter of it.

[rvg]

Thats just weird to me. How can Coptics for example claim to be descendents of pharaonic Egyptians? It reeks of self-serving bs. Arabia itself is inhabited by Persians, Africans, khanates (baluchistan, pakistan, others), and yemenis (sabaeans). The truth is you cannot possibly know in a situation like the middle east, its not set in stone. Somehow tracing your ancestry that far back in the ME is farfetched, and fishy. But I hope they succeed in doing this, it's what Egypt should place more emphasis on. I hear Sisi is a strong supporter of it.

The DNA doesn't lie.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I want to know how you know.

Bedu and desert dwellers predate all in the middle east. There were bedu in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Sinai, and Sudan.

Aside from looking at a map?

Genetic studies and archaeology can tell you a lot - for example they tell you that people came out of Africa and up the Levantine coast, they then spread East and North into Asia and Europe, the civilisation of Ancient Mesopotamia are the oldest on this side of the planet and their roots go back to Sumer, whose language is attested in writing as early as 2500 BC, and they were a non Semitic people. Now, there were Semitics living in the area too and they gradually subsumed the Sumer but these were not "sand goons" they were people who had lived in on the Alluvial Plain for millennia, spreading into the surrounding arid regions when the overall climate was more temperate.

We're talking more that 7,000-8000 years ago here - this is a settled arable culture that pre-dates the Bible.

So, what you're saying is Bedouin culture is older that Sumer? I find that hard to swallow, especially given that the general migratory root out of Africa would mean that humans would have settled on the Alluvial Plain and then groups would have gradually spread down into Arabia.

Thats just weird to me. How can Coptics for example claim to be descendents of pharaonic Egyptians? It reeks of self-serving bs. Arabia itself is inhabited by Persians, Africans, khanates (baluchistan, pakistan, others), and yemenis (sabaeans). The truth is you cannot possibly know in a situation like the middle east, its not set in stone. Somehow tracing your ancestry that far back in the ME is farfetched, and fishy. But I hope they succeed in doing this, it's what Egypt should place more emphasis on. I hear Sisi is a strong supporter of it.

Well, one notes that those who remain Copts are unlikely to have interbred with their Arab overlords a great deal and in any case such invasions tend not to contribute as much to genetics as they do to language. A genetic study of the English, for example, suggests we're basically the same people as the Neolithics, but we've gone through Celtic, Roman and Germanic "cultural invasions".

[Gilrandir]

a few years ago certain shops started selling hoodies that basically zipped up to cover the hole head with holes for the eyes. I can't recall if they were actually banned, or if public pressure simply forced the companies to stop selling them but you don't see the garment at all now.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with any ban - the fashion might have changed and wearing such outfit became out of trend.

2. Pretty sure you have to take a heavy coat OFF and put it through the X-Ray seperately. It's been a while since I flew but I distinctly recall having to take my cord jacket off.

Are you sure the customs officers weren't in for some fun of seeing striptease in the workplace?

How about there are people who blow up westerners -> Obviously there is something wrong with westerners...

If you read this thread you will have to admit the latter

“omg Islam is a religion of violence, UK is a nation of violence.” The Book itself contains the seeds of extremism and violence, as the life of the Prophet itself. I am not a professional in British laws, but I can tell you that English women beaters have not articles of law to present to a jury when in Court. Muslim men can because there is one.

The Bible has such seeds as well, and some episodes of the life of Jesus Christ were let us say not unimpeachable. So if one tried one can find in the Bibile justification for any illegal action of his and present it to the court.

Oh no, you misunderstand, they are ignorant - and they're thugs because they attack women - but the point I am making is that, intrinsically, Britons find a covered face provocative - choosing to cover your face in public as a way to show your religion is therefore making a deliberately provocative choice. These women either do it knowing they will offend, or they don't understand - in either case they're setting themselves apart from mainstream society.

In the last sentence replace "these women" with "Charlie Hebdo" and you will get the explanation of why the massacre happened.

The gays also know their parades will offend some people and most people still think they have a right to do them.

Burka-wearers at least don't parade through the city as if saying : "It is fun to wear a burka, join us".

When the native culture has primacy, this isn't an issue since some bits are adopted (curry after polo on the verranda with a nice G&T, or perhaps a nice BBQ listening to Reggae or Soca music) and others not (defecation in the streets, FGM, suttee).

Once again, the native culture may chose which bit(s) to adopt, but it has to learn how to deal with the ones it chooses to discard, since those who brought them in may wish to keep all of them.

[Brenus]

"The Bible has such seeds as well, and some episodes of the life of Jesus Christ were let us say not unimpeachable. So if one tried one can find in the Bibile justification for any illegal action of his and present it to the court. " Indeed.
Christianity was tamed by the Enlightenment, but as you mentioned, the seeds are still there. You just have to listen to some US preachers to know that their ideas are not far from ISIL or Saudis' ones. Christians have a problem they try to resolve in "hate the sin, love the sinners" stance, but their extremists rightly argue that the killing bits are in the Bible, and Jesus was indeed sometimes violent (use of the whip) therefore violence and killing are justified by the Holly Book(s).
However, at this moment on Earth history, there is no Christian Republic of "Insert Name of Country", so no country enforced a law where justice is applied by the Inquisition (not the Dragon Age one).

[Brenus]

"In the last sentence replace "these women" with "Charlie Hebdo" and you will get the explanation of why the massacre happened." Really? Charlie Hebdo put itself out side of the French Main Stream? France is about 59 % atheist. My step-daughter, heavily involved in Baptist Church, is telling me that France is not a Christian country, (best compliment EVER), and Charlie was out?
Your analyse of cause and effect is a little bit surprising...
Now, yes, the Muslim religious fanatic murderers who did attack Charlie and (do not forget this point) a kosher shop (in order to kill Jews) were offended by the cartoons, and wanted to imposed their religious laws on a secular country and kill atheists as written in the book. Does it make their action lawful or even right. No.

[Pannonian]

"In the last sentence replace "these women" with "Charlie Hebdo" and you will get the explanation of why the massacre happened." Really? Charlie Hebdo put itself out side of the French Main Stream? France is about 59 % atheist. My step-daughter, heavily involved in Baptist Church, is telling me that France is not a Christian country, (best compliment EVER), and Charlie was out?
Your analyse of cause and effect is a little bit surprising...

What I love most about the Church of England is its ineffectiveness. Just like the British monarchy. I like having them around in positions of authority. Because they do nothing, and their occupying these places means no one else will occupy them and do something.

[Gilrandir]

However, at this moment on Earth history, there is no Christian Republic of "Insert Name of Country", so no country enforced a law where justice is applied by the Inquisition (not the Dragon Age one).

That is true. But I spoke not of the implementation of any religious tenets, but of the applicability of holy books being used as a justification for violence. In this respect both of the mentioned are on par.

"In the last sentence replace "these women" with "Charlie Hebdo" and you will get the explanation of why the massacre happened." Really? Charlie Hebdo put itself out side of the French Main Stream?

I would venture to say "yes". Having no deep awareness of the spiritual values reigning in contemporary French society but seeing the general European trend I would name tolerance as a mainstrean French value. What CH did and does is anything but tolerance.

Yet I never said anything which advocated the violence directed at them.

[Fragony]

What CH did and does is anything but tolerance.

Yet I never said anything which advocated the violence directed at them.

Strongly disagree, Why am I defending a notoriously leftwing magazine in the first place, THAT is tolerance; you don't agree but agree to disagree, without running in with assault-rifles because your arguments are even smaller than your dick.

[Gilrandir]

Strongly disagree, Why am I defending a notoriously leftwing magazine in the first place, THAT is tolerance;

I will venture to remark that in other aspects your tolerance is, err, inconspicuous.

As for CH, instead of fostering unity within confessionally and ethnically diverse society (which is ultimately done through propagating tolerance) they chose to mock the feelings of a vulnerable and prone to knee-jerk reaction community.

without running in with assault-rifles because your arguments are even smaller than your dick.

If one knows it and still pushes on with his line of behavior he shouldn't wonder the rifle fires at some moment.

Like I said, it is prudence or politeness.

But I thought we are done with this argument. Or are we not?

[Montmorency]

Ukrainians should know better than to provoke Russia by seeking closer relations with the West.

[Fragony]

I will venture to remark that in other aspects your tolerance is, err, inconspicuous

Please do, I don't care, I am still the guy that shelters and feeds a Somali refugee anyway, are you doing the same

No you aren't are you, I do that though. But I don't have room for two or three more

I can, so I do. Not because anyone demands me to.

[Brenus]

"As for CH, instead of fostering unity within confessionally and ethnically diverse society (which is ultimately done through propagating tolerance) they chose to mock the feelings of a vulnerable and prone to knee-jerk reaction community." Tolerance is not to accept all values or way of life. Tolerance is to accept someone to have different opinion/religion/culture than you, if in the frame of the Constitution/law/Universal Human Rights.
CH was perfectly in its right to challenge/mock the Islamist superstition and story telling. As each main superstitions is in fact an blaspheme to each others (e.i. Islam doesn't recognised the Crucifixion of Christ which is a blaspheme to Christians).
I recognise and accept the right to the Religious population to believe in a Big Man (Woman/Spaghetti) In The Sky as they respect and accept my right not to, and to openly say it is really but really a stupid idea.
And I as well demand not to be obliged to follow/obey their religious demands/requests/habits/clothing under the flimsy pretext they are offended by it if I don't.
So, CH did mock all political & religious movements. Christian extremists did fire-bombed their office before, the only ones actually murdering members of the publication were the Muslims fanatics.

[Husar]

I think it's morally perfectly justifiable and right to take a stroll in the streets at four in the morning, but in some areas I still wouldn't do it because I'm not ready to buy a new cellphone for my right to take a stroll at four in the morning. Although I assume I put less value on that right than CH did on their right to mock anyone. Some people made decisions and we saw the outcome, you both have a point, now let's put on our hijabs and move on.

[Montmorency]

On the other hand, there are otherwise neither petty miscreants nor criminal organizations that would see you dead or subjugated regardless of what you think of walking at night, and who only now that you've gone on record are preparing to bust into your apartment at 4 AM and gun you down for the sake of the example

[AE Bravo]

The DNA doesn't lie.

No it doesn't go that far back.

So, what you're saying is Bedouin culture is older that Sumer? I find that hard to swallow, especially given that the general migratory root out of Africa would mean that humans would have settled on the Alluvial Plain and then groups would have gradually spread down into Arabia.

There are just so many examples here that suggest they are older. The earliest sign of modern humans outside Africa was found in Jebel Faya, Arabian peninsula I believe. Um al Nar culture was a bronze age civilization, 2700-2000 BC. Desert dwellers and nomads were first across the region. It’s common sense actually. What do you think they did when the land was less arable? Move north obviously. That cycle has repeated itself throughout middle eastern history so there is no chance of homogeneity especially ancient civilization remnants. It's intermixed.

Overcomplicating things. The majority of the Levant see themselves as Arabs. Different Arabs but Arabs. I don't where all this is coming from and it's a waste of time to entertain that thought when little to nobody in the region sees it the same way.

Aside from looking at a map?

I think this is where your idea came from in the first place. It makes little sense.

[Husar]

On the other hand, there are otherwise neither petty miscreants nor criminal organizations that would see you dead or subjugated regardless of what you think of walking at night, and who only now that you've gone on record are preparing to bust into your apartment at 4 AM and gun you down for the sake of the example

And isn't that a good thing? What about this is "on the other hand"? Yous suggest that what you say contradicts what I said, but it doesn't.
My point was that the realities of the world do not always correspond to what the law says. It's the job of thee police and government to make it so to a degree and the argument here is completely useless unless Gilrandir is actually saying that the terrorists had a right to kill the journalists, which would be ludicrous.
To me it looks like Gilrandir is saying that CH had to shut up or die and Brenus is saying that shouldn't be so and they're repeating it back and forth as though the two statements were contradictory, which they are not. It's the most boring "debate" that I haven't entirely read in a while.

[Montmorency]

No, that wasn't the point. The threat from muggers is limited, local, and opportunistic. The threat from Islamist terrorist/jihadis is basically unlimited in scope. Their attacks demand careful ideological analysis and planning on the part of the perpetrators.

To say that Charlie Hebdo invited attack by mocking radical Islam is not really any more meaningful than to say that the Jewish supermarket or museum invited attack.

No it doesn't go that far back.

What? No. The rest is basically wrong too.