Asking to be raped?

[Davaris]

I wish I had that article because then I could watch you guys tear it a part.

I'll have a look at the newspaper's website and see if they have an online archive, but its unlikely they'll have anything like that as its an Australian news paper. However I think the article was a reprint from the Washington Post, so the WP website might have something.

EDIT:
I looked in The Autralian archives and nothing came up (I don't know whats going on there) and I looked in the WP archive and there was nothing resembling the article I mentioned. Anyway if the Australian archive starts working again and I find the article I'll make another post on it.

 

[CrazyApe]

1. Islamism is not a governmental system.
2. Islamism doesn't believe in dictators as such. "Spiritual leaders", yes, but usually plural.
3. Islamism doesn't believe in regimenting all industry and commerce. Though this is a tough point. Many, including Qutb at some points, advocated anarchy under Sharia law. Another system advocated often is that of redisistributive economics by the Ancient Egypt model, which communist, not fascist.
4. Islamism is *definitely* not nationalists, since all nations are equal as long as they are good muslims (read: islamists).
5. No racism, only anti-religion, which is not based on race.

You are wrong in so many ways...
here you go, this is what fascism is:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

The Koran is a religious law for governing the state. can it be fascistic? Let's analyze:

1)Although flags are not used one can definately se the nationalism reflected in Islam by the simple fact that all others are infidels

2)A no-brainer... Stoning people to death and raping children with skimpy clothing could not hit closer to home. Nor could televized decapitations of prisoners of war.

3)Another no-brainer. Europe and USA are demonized and blamed for the economical troubles spawned from a restricted society

4)Since it is a religion, not a country the comparison is a little hard to make. However, jihad is at least an example of glorification of war.

5)No-brainer.

6)Al-Jazzira annyone?

7)Again the comparison to actual religion is a little hard to make. Comparison to for example Iran (Islamic country) shows obsession with security

8)No-brainer. Raligion is the law. The model upon which the government is sculpted and the lawbook of the land. Religion and government are one.

9)On this point I'm not shure. I tend to belive that the buisnesses are secondary to religion in Islamic countries.

10)Again not shure. But considering that the religion is taught from childhood and that religion is law. Labour unions would problbly not be very succesfull.

11)Well at least we know that women rarely can get higher educations, and that art is heavily censored. Freedom of speech is nonexistant.

12)No-brainer.

13)The Imams.

14)99.7% voter turnup and 99.7% support for the leading party is never a healthy sign...


Thus in every point there can be seen a strong correlation between fascism and islam.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

 

[Kahgan]

Quick question, duder, are you christian?

 

[KQX]

No-brain(er) indeed.

 

[CrazyApe]

Atheist. I'd make the same comparison to them christian fuckers, but they don't have enough power...

Quick question, are you the politically correct I keep hearing so much about? maybe you're that shady Kofi Anan guy?

Apparently analyzing the subject is only appropriate if you reach a certain conclusion...

 

[Brother None]

here you go, this is what fascism is:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Do not say "this is what fascism is", the term is under debate, and Lawrence Britt's is just one. I'd like you to take a look at how it's used (specifically, this is funny) before going off on a tangent about it.

I'll not go deep into a discussion of every point of his compared to Islamism because I will not accept it as a definition of fascism. Why not? Because it isn't, and because Dr. Laurence Britt is actually not a doctor:

As it turns out, Dr. Lawrence Britt is actually just ‘Lawrence Britt,’ a contributor to Free Inquiry, a magazine published by The Council for Secular Humanism. The article is freely available online. But as far as Mr. Britt being a political scientist, there is no reference to this in Free Inquiry. In fact, it says he is writing a novel to be released in 2004. While Lawrence Britt may have come up with these points, I’m hesitant to accept his analysis without the confirmation of actual political scientists. If his 14 points were published in a peer reviewed journal, I’d believe them. As they stand - propaganda!

I suggest you use an actual political scientific definition of fascism, rather than something some Secular Journalist wrote.

The Koran is a religious law for governing the state.

No it isn't. We're talking about Islamism here, which is mostly formed by philosophical theories of a string of thinkers including, but not limited to, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi and Sayed Qutb, people who were born significantly long after the Quran was written.

Besides which, the Quran is by far less involved in governing the state than Sharia is. I suggest you remove your ignorance on the subject before debating it.

Now, like I said, I'm not going point for point with you about Mr. Britt's 14 points, but I will adress a few points where your ignorance is too great to ignore.

1)Although flags are not used one can definately se the nationalism reflected in Islam by the simple fact that all others are infidels

"All others"? All non-muslims, yes, but "muslim" is not a nationality. One can only say that nationalism is present when one uses such splits as infidel/non-infidel based on nationality, that's the whole point of nationalism. If the split is based on religion, it is religious discrimination, not nationalism.

4)Since it is a religion, not a country the comparison is a little hard to make. However, jihad is at least an example of glorification of war.

You do not understand jihad, and "since it's a religion" completely invalidates the comparison.

6)Al-Jazzira annyone?

Al-Jazeera is not islamist nor controlled by any government. It's freedom from government control and influence from foreign governments is exactly what makes it unique and the opposite of state-controlled media.

You're probably ignorant enough to actually believe Al-Jazeera ever broadcasted a beheading of a western person by terrorists? Wrong, they never did.

Comparison to for example Iran (Islamic country) shows obsession with security

Iran is not an islamist country. Do you even understand the difference between islam and islamism or are you shouting to be heard? The discussion here was about comparing islamism to fascism, do you understand what either word means?

8)No-brainer. Raligion is the law. The model upon which the government is sculpted and the lawbook of the land. Religion and government are one.

It is also a mark of fascism that no serious political thinker would ever include in a definition of the word. Why? Because that was mostly a Mussolini thing, less evident in other countries and not inherent to fascism. This, and other points like #13, are obvious bullshit to anyone who has even superficial academic knowledge of politicology and fascism. Please find a definition from a reputeable source.

On this point I'm not shure. I tend to belive that the buisnesses are secondary to religion in Islamic countries.

If you're not sure, why did you not research it before blabbing off? Even more amusing, I actually summed up the Islamist attitude towards economics very succinctly in the very post you quoted. Did you fail to read it or something?

Again not shure. But considering that the religion is taught from childhood and that religion is law. Labour unions would problbly not be very succesfull.

What? How does your logic even remotely work? Religion is taught from childhood hence labour unions are succesfull? What?! In any case, no documented case of islamism fighting a labour union exists. Why not? Because there are no labour unions there. Duh gypsy.

Well at least we know that women rarely can get higher educations, and that art is heavily censored. Freedom of speech is nonexistant.

Excuse me, but where in point #11 were women mentioned? Or, for that matter, freedom of speech?

14)99.7% voter turnup and 99.7% support for the leading party is never a healthy sign...

Excuse me, but what islamist country are you talking about?

Quick question, are you the politically correct I keep hearing so much about? maybe you're that shady Kofi Anan guy?

...

What?!

Apparently analyzing the subject is only appropriate if you reach a certain conclusion...

Nice try, papadopoulaki, but I'm afraid you'll find analyzing the subject takes actual *knowledge* of the subject, not a lack of basic understanding so vast that you don't even know the difference between islam and islamism or politicological definitions written by people pretending to have a doctorate.

 

[CrazyApe]

Obviously Laurence Britt not being a political scientist makes my whole argument flawed. If the model upon which the comparison is made is flawed so will the results be.

However. Do try to understand what you are responding to.
I never made a statement that Islam and fascism are one and the same. I made a comparison between the two based on the definitions of fascism by Laurence Britt.

1)So the shaira is law you say. True the shaira is the law text of islam, but have you ever considered how the shaira came to be? Shaira is based on the koran and the sunnah. The sunna is used to interpret the koran. Shaira is manly based on the sunnah. Thus the koran is the ultimate source of the law.

4)This as I have clearly stated is a comparison between Islam and fascism (Comparison of religion and state of government... Am I getting through? Since it is stated to be a comparison of religion and fascism, how can Islam being a religion invalidate the argument?). Not a comparison between fascism and a nation. Thus islam is regarded as the nation and non islamic people are regarded as not belonging to the nation. You seem bright enough. You should have been able to figure this one out.

A fascistic tendency is glorification of violence, strength and war. Any movement that focuses on strength, war and violence can thus be said to have fascistic tendencies.

6)Al-Jazzira is the only politically independent news station of the middle east (or so they claim...) That means that all other news stations are under some form of governmental control. If the government is under Islamic rule the news stations are by definition under some degree of Islamic rule. Furthermore, This so called Independent news station is not at liberty to freely broadcast whatever it wants. The consequences of, for instance, publishing or showing the fabled Danish caricatures of Muhamed would be dire. Thus proving that it is under some form of restriction at least.

9)Well, maybe I don't consider the bullshit that people wright on an internet forum to be absolute fact. I would not have made this thread if I had agreed to the crapshit definition of fascism you provided. How, pray tell, should I have researched this point? Bought a plane ticket to Iran. Walked into the office of Sayyid Ali Khamenei and asked him: Excuse me mr. Khamenei, but do you have a strong affiliation to the leading industrialists in Iran?


9) Granted I could have tried to determine wether there existed any labour unions in Iran. Instead I made a speculation that the brainwashing of children by religious propaganda since birth would most likely result in the absence of a force (labour union) to challenge the ruling class. You stated there are no unions so I guess the speculation was correct.

11)Disdain for the arts. Freedom of speech is exercised in the production of art. Intellectuals such as Salman Rushdia are not free to express their opinions. Censorship is a form of disdain for the wrtists and writers.

14)Most dictatorships show massive voter turnout and massive support for the ruling party. High voter turnout is by no means a health indicator of a nation. However I was referring to pre war Iran. My bad...
If you wish to know about the specific system of candidate elimination that restricts democracy in Iran though, here is a nice link: http://secularcaniranik.blogs.com/scaniranic/2005/05/irans_election_.html

If you disqualify people who have do not have doctorates from making analysis of the subject you are shooting yourself in the foot. You have no doctorate in political sciences, so by your own definition all your views on fascism, it's definition and what it can and can't be compared to are false. So fuck of with your elitist bullshit and prove your own merrits in the subject. Simply stating that you have been debating it some where else gives you dippshit credibility.

 

[Brother None]

Obviously Laurence Britt not being a political scientist makes my whole argument flawed. If the model upon which the comparison is made is flawed so will the results be.

Agreed.

I never made a statement that Islam and fascism are one and the same. I made a comparison between the two based on the definitions of fascism by Laurence Britt.

That's silly, because this thread is clearly and marketdly about the extremist form of islam known as "islamism", not about islam. Again, be aware of the difference, we're not discussing comparing a religion to fascism, we're comparing a religious philosophy to fascism. Both comparisons are flawed, though, but the latter can be argued, the former is just ass-backwards.

So the shaira is law you say.

I never said that.

True the shaira is the law text of islam, but have you ever considered how the shaira came to be? Shaira is based on the koran and the sunnah. The sunna is used to interpret the koran. Shaira is manly based on the sunnah. Thus the koran is the ultimate source of the law.

Relevance?

(Comparison of religion and state of government... Am I getting through? Since it is stated to be a comparison of religion and fascism, how can Islam being a religion invalidate the argument?)

Because that specific point was very focused on national behaviour and nationbuilding, specifying narrower to military matters, which can be argued down to the level of Islamism, but not to the level of islam, the concept is impossible.

Not a comparison between fascism and a nation. Thus islam is regarded as the nation and non islamic people are regarded as not belonging to the nation. You seem bright enough. You should have been able to figure this one out.

Wrong. Nationalism is a word. Like most words, it has a meaning. That meaning is not open to the interpretation "religion is a country".

A fascistic tendency is glorification of violence, strength and war. Any movement that focuses on strength, war and violence can thus be said to have fascistic tendencies.

Which is a part of islamism at best, not of islam. And you're again misdefining fascism.

Al-Jazzira is the only politically independent news station of the middle east (or so they claim...) That means that all other news stations are under some form of governmental control. If the government is under Islamic rule the news stations are by definition under some degree of Islamic rule.

"Islamic rule" is not the same as Islamism. Pay. Attention.

Furthermore, This so called Independent news station is not at liberty to freely broadcast whatever it wants. The consequences of, for instance, publishing or showing the fabled Danish caricatures of Muhamed would be dire. Thus proving that it is under some form of restriction at least.

Yeah, a lot of American newspapers also didn't publish the Danish caricatures. So your point would be void?

Well, maybe I don't consider the bullshit that people wright on an internet forum to be absolute fact.

Considering your idea of "fact", I find that surprising.

I would not have made this thread if I had agreed to the crapshit definition of fascism you provided.

You have yet to refute my definition of fascism, which is a valid if overly simplified dictionary definition and thus one in official use, as opposed to yours. I made a defition which is accepteable in a broad sense (again, please refute it) and showed how Islamism did not agree with these factors. If you have no idea what Islamism is, then obviously it would be hard to understand.

How, pray tell, should I have researched this point?

Picking up a book and learning what Islamism, the subject of this thread, is would be a start, since you obviously have no idea.

Instead I made a speculation that the brainwashing of children by religious propaganda since birth would most likely result in the absence of a force (labour union) to challenge the ruling class. You stated there are no unions so I guess the speculation was correct.

Different reasons, though, but considering that the existence of labour unions has nothing whatsoever to do with fascism, I consider it a moot point.

Disdain for the arts. Freedom of speech is exercised in the production of art.

Yes, but freedom of speech is not ipso facto purely the production of art, which is your implication.

If you wish to know about the specific system of candidate elimination that restricts democracy in Iran though, here is a nice link:

Iran is not an Islamist country. Again, we are talking about Islamism. Did you even read this thread?

If you disqualify people who have do not have doctorates from making analysis of the subject you are shooting yourself in the foot.

I'm disqualifying people, i.e. you, who apparently don't know the difference between Islamism and islam from making any valid analysis. I do not see how that is shooting myself in the foot, I wouldn't trust a guy that confused the liver with the spleen to perform delicate surgery on me either.

As for dismissing Bratt, the context of his article makes it clear that he was writing his definition of fascism purely to make the comparison to the Republic party and George W. Bush. That invalidates anything he says on an academic level at the least, but it pretty much invalidates it wholesale anyway.

You have no doctorate in political sciences

Assumption. That said, no I don't, but I have studied (and do study) political science on an academic level. I have no reason to assume Bratt has, nor that you have, that makes me more qualified than him and you. Especially since while islamism is not my main subject, I have at least read thesi on islamism, as well as such standard works as Shepard's Islamic Activism and Amineh's Globalisation and Islam; Rethinking Political Islam.

so by your own definition all your views on fascism, it's definition and what it can and can't be compared to are false.

No, because my definition came from a dictionary. It was a quoted definition, not one I pulled out of my ass.

So fuck of with your elitist bullshit and prove your own merrits in the subject.

Wouldn't meritology actually be elitist bullshit? Bit of a contradiction you're stuck in there, chap.

Before you reply, please think again that the original post you quoted was about Islamism and fascism, not islam and fascism. If you wish to debate islam and fascism, please state so, but realise that this is not what this thread is about.

 

[CrazyApe]

I did state so. In both my posts I clearly stated that I made a comparison between Islam and fascism. If you failed to read this twice please be my guest to check it.
Ok, so I missed the point of the thread being about islamism and fascism(though I have my views on that matter too, see end of post.). That said any argument against anything I have said from this point of view is obviously flawed as it debates another subject. Making a great deal of your problems with my views useless.

This is what you wrote in your first reply:
"the Quran is by far less involved in governing the state than Sharia is"

My point being that the shaira is merely an interpretation of the koran. Shaira would not exist without the koran. the koran is a higher authority of the law than shaira

The difference being that the american papers would suffer no serious ramifications for publishing the caricatures. Al-Jazeera would with all likelihood be lynched. Thus the american papers had a choice without the threat of consequences.

I'm not implying that at all. I'm merely pointing to where art and education is censored to show disdain for them as a means of controlling the population.

Iran is run by religious leaders who have absolute power. These religious leaders say they follow shaira & the koran. Thus Iran can be considered an Islamistic country

regardless of what Bratt made the definition of fascism for the formula can be applied to another context. Brat drew out 14 similarities between fascistic nations. I applied those characteristics to Islam.

Simply studying something does not give you authority. How can I know if you are succeeding in your studies. For all I know you might have failed. Nor can I know at what level you have studied said sciences.

By elitist bullshit I'm refereing to your self proclaimed superiority, not to political scientists validity of analyzing politics.

By the way, I thought this thread was about a muslim priest who made some baffling comments about rape and meat.

It's ironic that the very thing you are complaining about me doing (discussing Islam and fascism, not islamism and fascism. I.e. not discussing what the original post was about) is the very thing you seem hell bent on doing in both my posts.

Your definition of fascism has no mention the strong tendencies towards glorification of strength and violence. Themes that where dominant art and poetry from mussolini Italy. Themes that were dominant in Nazii germany (Strong blond fighting men). Without this cornerstone of fascistic culture the definition is flawed.

It's late and I'm tired. I will most likely not reply again...

 

[Brother None]

I did state so. In both my posts I clearly stated that I made a comparison between Islam and fascism. If you failed to read this twice please be my guest to check it.

I did read it, but quite frankly, since your first reply was to a post about islamism and fascism and apparently meant to disprove that post, I was continuing on the same subject.

My point being that the shaira is merely an interpretation of the koran. Shaira would not exist without the koran. the koran is a higher authority of the law than shaira

That does not make them ipso facto the same, and the links in the chains that bind them make them mildly unrelated.

The difference being that the american papers would suffer no serious ramifications for publishing the caricatures.

Really now, then why didn't they post them?

Al-Jazeera would with all likelihood be lynched. Thus the american papers had a choice without the threat of consequences.

At best a matter of gradations. Besides which, public pressure is not the same as governmental control.

I'm not implying that at all.

Dude, please use the quote function, now you're getting confusing.

I'm merely pointing to where art and education is censored to show disdain for them as a means of controlling the population.

But you mentioned freedom of speech in your original post, for unclear reasons.

Iran is run by religious leaders who have absolute power. These religious leaders say they follow shaira & the koran. Thus Iran can be considered an Islamistic country

Hell no, following sharia and the koran does not make you an Islamist, following Islamist teachings does. And the Irani leaders do not follow Islamist teachings, even if they agree on some key points.

regardless of what Bratt made the definition of fascism for the formula can be applied to another context. Brat drew out 14 similarities between fascistic nations. I applied those characteristics to Islam.

I already pointed out why his definition is inherently flawed.

Simply studding something does not give you authority. How can I know if you are succeeding in your studies. For all I know you might have failed. Nor can I know at what level you have studied said sciences.

Studding?

In any case, these questions are an irrelevance. My arguments are not changed by my professionalism, I'm not writing a doctorate thesis here. The difference between me and Bratt would be that I'm not trying to define a difficult subject based on 10 non-scientific works I've read, the additional difference is that you can adress my arguments if you have a counter-argument.

By elitist bullshit I'm refereing to your self proclaimed superiority, not to political scientists validity of analyzing politics.

Where have I proclaimed my superiority unjustly?

By the way, I thought this thread was about a muslim priest who made some baffling comments about rape and meat.

Originally, but not the subject of the last half.

It's ironic that the very thing you are complaining about me doing (discussing Islam and fascism, not islamism and fascism. I.e. not discussing what the original post was about) is the very thing you seem hell bent on doing in both my posts.

No, what I'm complaining about you doing is replying to a post about Islamism and fascism and then using arguments comparing islam and fascism in an attempt to counter-argument the post that is not actually about islam. When the topic split it became a topic about the term "islamofascism", this was when the debate on the original topic was over. See the difference?

Your definition of fascism has no mention the strong tendencies towards glorification of strength and violence. Themes that where dominant art and poetry from mussolini Italy. Themes that were dominant in Nazii germany (Strong blond fighting men). Without this cornerstone of fascistic culture the definition is flawed.

Hmm, yes, one could argue that, except that neither Haji Mohammad Suharto nor Augusto Pinochet had such glorification of strength and violence, certainly not seperately from nationalism, though neither shunned away from using strength or violence. This means that while it is a part of Italian fascism and nazism, it is apparently not an inherent factor of fascism. It was even less prevalent with the Estado Novo and even arguably under Franco, if you wish the argue that Suharto and Pinochet were not fascists (an easily defensible point).

Hell, even if it was accepted to be a part of fascist culture, one could easily argue that as a sociological elements rather than an economic-political one, it can hardly be regared as a cornerstone and any similarity between islamism and fascism in this factor should not be regarded to outweigh the important difference in economic and political spheres.

You have yet to convince me that you know what islamism is, though, but if have no need to argue the point of which you said I was "wrong in so many ways", we can drop the subject, Averofaki.

 

[CrazyApe]

It should, of course have been studying ... not studding... I went back and corrected it.

As I said. I never realised I was replying to Islamism. I am not familiar with that term enough to debate it. I do, however, seriously doubt that a similar argument to the one I made here could not be used in such a debate.

Since Mussolini invented fascism the fascism of post WW1 italy must be considered to be the most authentic. Complete with glorification of violence. One major theme of both nazism and Mussolini fascism (much less so here though) was justified expansion of the nation due to the nations streangth to dominate other nations/races and superiority in warfare. Thus it can even be argued that violence was part of the economic system of the country. Hitler preformed an economical miracle when he whipped germany into shape by promoting wartime industries.

Perhaps one day we will be debating the same subject.

EDIT:
I did some digging around (mainly Wikipedia ). Apparently some muslims don't recognize the terms Islamism and Islamist on the grounds that Islam is a way of life. Also based on the facts that the koran defines how the state is to be run, a separation of the governmental following of Islam and Islam as a religious movement is by itself absurd. If the religion stipulates the government, following the religios law of running the state can not be considered as separated from the religion. Which would equate Islamism to Islam.

 

[Brother None]

As I said. I never realised I was replying to Islamism. I am not familiar with that term enough to debate it. I do, however, seriously doubt that a similar argument to the one I made here could not be used in such a debate.

The interesting thing is that most of your arguments would have been more valid had they been referring to Islamism rather than islam. I think Islamism can not be compared to fascism, but it can be compared to fascism way more than islam as a religion ever can.

Since Mussolini invented fascism the fascism of post WW1 italy must be considered to be the most authentic.

Not exactly a faultless statement, but I'll accept it nonetheless.

Complete with glorification of violence. One major theme of both nazism and Mussolini fascism (much less so here though) was justified expansion of the nation due to the nations streangth to dominate other nations/races and superiority in warfare. Thus it can even be argued that violence was part of the economic system of the country. Hitler preformed an economical miracle when he whipped germany into shape by promoting wartime industries.

The German "wartime economy" did not become the basis of the economy until 1943. Glorification of strength is "a" factor of Mussolini's fascism, not the defining factor, either.

Apparently some muslims don't recognize the terms Islamism and Islamist on the grounds that Islam is a way of life.

That is a moot point, "Islamism" has become an academic object.

Also based on the facts that the koran defines how the state is to be run, a separation of the governmental following of Islam and Islam as a religious movement is by itself absurd. If the religion stipulates the government, following the religios law of running the state can not be considered as separated from the religion. Which would equate Islamism to Islam.

Not strictly, but true. The issues with Islamism is that it is a philosophy that is not tied as directly to islam as you seem to think. It creatures a picture of government and even human life which is at certain points completely seperate from the traditional views of islam (which is why "Fundamental Islam" is as ass-tarded as "Islamofascism" to describe Islamism).

That said, the idea that islam should be involved in how the government is run is in the modern era both a traditional islam view and an Islamist view, but it is not a view all muslims hold to.

 

[CrazyApe]

The German "wartime economy" did not become the basis of the economy until 1943. Glorification of strength is "a" factor of Mussolini's fascism, not the defining factor, either.

Before war, there are the preparations of war. The german fighting machine was not created the day they took Austria. A lot of new technology was produced and the whole of Germany where united around the strong arian superiority ideas. War made the German ecconomy strong.

That is a moot point, "Islamism" has become an academic object.

Whether or not Islamism has become an academic object is irrelevant. Islamism as a ism is just a word for describing a state run by islam. if certain tendancies in islam can be said to be fascistic then very same tendencies in islamism are by default fascistic.

Not strictly, but true. The issues with Islamism is that it is a philosophy that is not tied as directly to islam as you seem to think. It creatures a picture of government and even human life which is at certain points completely seperate from the traditional views of islam (which is why "Fundamental Islam" is as ass-tarded as "Islamofascism" to describe Islamism).

can you give me an example of said differences?

That said, the idea that islam should be involved in how the government is run is in the modern era both a traditional islam view and an Islamist view, but it is not a view all muslims hold to.

Thats not a very good argument. You are referring to secularazation, it is the process by which religions lose power in modern society. There are christians who don't believe in the ten commandments. This does not change the original religion or teachings of the old testament that there should be ten commandments. Muslims not believing that the country should be run by Islam are simply choosing not to accept certain parts of the islamic faith, not changing the original faith.

hey, quoting was way easier

 

[Kahgan]

Quick question, are you the politically correct I keep hearing so much about? maybe you're that shady Kofi Anan guy?

Yes I am, my word is the only right. Period.

Hookay I'll leave this thread alone now

 

[Ashmo]

Re: Original post

The analogy is actually pretty flawed. You wouldn't blame the "uncovered meat" for being torn apart by the wild animals, but you'd blame the person who left that meat uncovered in the open.

Especially if you consider the popular view that the husband is responsible for the way his wife dresses etc (as nicely presented in the typical complaint that westerners "let their women walk around dressed like whores").

Blaming the meat for being eaten is only a proper analogy if you want to point out the absurdity in the claim that the woman is the one dishonouring anyone by being raped.

Considering that the women are considered mere "meat", i.e. incapable of independent thought, it is pretty obvious that the logical conclusion is that they CAN'T care for their selves and thus it is not only the duty of the husband to prevent his wife from running around "dressed like a whore", but also, in reverse, his fault if he can't stop his wife from being raped (which was the whole point of the dress code anyway).

You cannot hold both positions (that women are responsible if they get raped and that men need to take action so their women don't dress inappropriately). They are contradictory.

This isn't about morality, this is about logic. You can't say parents have to care for their children and then lock up the child if it gets hurt because its parents were careless.

The only way you can defend such contradictory sets of morals is religious dogma, and that's where the problem with all religion lies. Dogma can not be questioned, so bad dogma can not be fixed. If your dogma happens to be half-baked, you're fucked if you're a religious fundamentalist.

 

[monsharen]

(that women are responsible if they get raped and that men need to take action so their women don't dress inappropriately).

A lot of responsibility there but you don't want to be held responsible for your neighbors boner either.

so let's see what Bob has to say about it;

while (women.length() == 0){ 
cry = false; 
}

 

[Gwenfloor]

The Muslim Cleric's argument about a piece of meat and cats is invalid, because a piece of meat could not be blamed for its actions. The cats are eating it because they are hungry.
The reason that all these rapes are happening in these Muslim countries is that they are sexually repressed in almost every way, and they are taught that rape is not wrong is they do it and to blame the victim.
In some news articles, it has been said in a Danish newspaper with the Muslim rape crisis over there that some of them BRAG about raping women, like they did something good and morally right!