News involving Muslims

[Antifa94]

Chechen Rebel Says He’s Behind Moscow Bombings

Zaur Halikov/Reuters
The site of two explosions in the southern Russian town of Kizlyar on Wednesday.
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and ELLEN BARRY
Published: March 31, 2010
SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
TWITTER
E-MAIL
SEND TO PHONE
PRINT
REPRINTS
SHARE

MOSCOW — A Chechen rebel leader took responsibility on Wednesday for the double bombing that killed 39 people on the Moscow subway system two days ago, and he warned Russians that he was plotting more attacks in revenge for what he called the repressions against Chechens ordered by Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin.
Related

The Lede Blog: Bombing Caught on Camera in Dagestan (March 31, 2010)
Room for Debate: Will the Moscow Attacks Help Putin? (March 29, 2010)
The statement by the rebel leader, Doku K. Umarov, was posted via Internet video hours after another double bombing that killed at least 12 people in Dagestan, which like Chechnya is part of southern Russia’s restive Caucasus region. That attack appeared to be aimed at the police, according to the Russian prosecutor’s office.

Mr. Umarov said the Moscow attacks were meant to avenge a February anti-terror raid that killed both civilians and militants in a wooded area near the border between Chechnya and Ingushetia.

“You Russians hear about the war on television and the radio, and this is why you are quiet, this is why you don’t react to the atrocities committed by the bandit group that is led by Putin,” Mr. Umarov said on the video, which was dated March 29, the day of the Moscow bombings. “I promise you the war will come to your streets, and you will feel it in your own lives and on your own skin.”

In the video, Mr. Umarov said the subway attacks “were carried out on my orders, and they are not the last ones, with God’s will.”

He said the subway bombings did not affect the poorest Russians — in contrast to the February anti-terror raid — and that “if any person will condemn me for these operations and will accuse me of terrorism, I can only grin, because I haven’t heard Putin accused of terrorism.”

For years Russia has been trying — unsuccessfully — to stamp out a lingering Muslim insurgency in the North Caucasus, including in Chechnya, where federal forces fought two bloody wars against Muslim separatists. Russian forces have killed several top militant leaders in recent months, and there has been speculation that a spate of recent attacks, including those in Moscow, were acts of revenge.

Mr. Putin did not immediately comment on the video claim by Mr. Umarov, but he has publicly called the perpetrators of the Moscow attacks sewage scum who must be destroyed and said they might be connected to the Dagestan bombings. President Dmitri A. Medvedev both called the Dagestan and Moscow attacks “links of the same chain.”

“All this is the manifestation of the same terrorist activity which has recently started to resurface in the Caucasus,” Mr. Medvedev said.

Law enforcement agencies throughout Russia have been on high alert since Monday, when two women set off explosions in the Moscow subway during the morning rush, killing 39 people in attacks that that shattered a sense that Muscovites were isolated from the continued terrorist violence in Russia’s south.

Russian officials had said the two suicide bombers on Monday likely came from Chechnya or a neighboring region in the North Caucasus.

In Dagestan on Wednesday, the first of the bombs exploded in a parked car, killing two police officers who had pulled up beside it in their vehicle, according to a statement on the Web site of the prosecutor’s investigative wing.

As rescue workers and police officials gathered at the scene, a man wearing a police uniform walked up and set off his explosives, killing several more people, including the police chief of Kizlyar, the town where the attacks occurred. At least two dozen people were injured.

Channel 1 television showed what appeared to be cell phone video of police and firefighters wandering amid the wreckage of the first explosion when the second blast occurred, sending up a fireball and plume of smoke.

Such attacks, which are common in the region, are typically aimed at police and government officials, though civilians are often injured and killed. At least three of those killed in Wednesday’s attack were bystanders.

In the Moscow bombings, however, civilians appeared to be the prime targets. The bombers set off their explosives at two subway stations during the Monday-morning rush hour, the first such attacks in the capital in years.

Rashid G. Nurgaliyev, Russia’s interior minister, on Wednesday renewed a call for police to increase security in public places like theaters, schools and universities.

“These attacks show that terrorists can target anywhere,” he said.

Investigators have identified Daud Dzhabrailov, a local resident, as the bomber in the police uniform, the Interfax news agency reported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Also of great importance,
Belgium moves towards public ban on burqa and niqab
Home affairs committee of Brussels federal parliament votes unanimously to ban partial or total covering of faces in public places
(54)
Tweet this (35)
Ian Traynor Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 31 March 2010 17.33 BST
Article history

Belgium has moved towards a ban on the buraq and niqab in public places. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

Belgium today moved to the forefront of a widening campaign to restrict the wearing of the Muslim veil by women when a key vote left it on track to become the first European country to ban the burqa and niqab in public.

The home affairs committee of the Brussels federal parliament voted unanimously to ban the partial or total covering of faces in public places.

"I am proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter," the centre-right MP Denis Ducarme said.

Daniel Bacquelaine, the liberal MP who proposed the bill, said: "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen.

"It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and enclose an individual. Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society."

The Belgian move came as neighbouring France and the Netherlands continued to grapple with the idea of imposing similar restrictions.

The Canadian province of Quebec last week introduced parliamentary measures to proscribe facial covering in public service employment – a move that enjoyed overwhelming public support in Canada.

Support for the ban in Belgium transcended party lines, ranging from the Greens to the far right, and also resulted in a rare show of unity between the linguistically divided halves of the country.

The full support of the home affairs committee means parliament is likely to vote for the curbs in mid-April, with a ban in force by the summer.

Under the proposals, a fine of up to €25 (£22) or punishment of up to seven days in prison would be imposed for wearing the full-body burqa or face-masking niqab.

The bill, to be debated next month, states that anyone in a public place "with face covered or disguised in whole or in part to the extent that she cannot be identified" is liable to incur the penalties.

A Green MP noted that the proposed curbs could play havoc with Santa Claus lookalikes in December shopping malls.

While today's vote paved the way for the first nationwide ban on the veil in Europe, local authorities in Belgium already have the power to ban the burqa and niqab in public places.

Of the 500,000 Muslims living in Belgium – with big populations in Brussels and Antwerp – very few women wear the full veil, and there has been little public debate about the need to ban it.

While Bacquelaine admitted there was little problem with full facial covering among Muslims in Belgium, he argued for a preemptive move, saying: "We have to act as of today to avoid [its] development."

Rather than being about the burqa and the niqab, the bigger debate in Belgium – as elsewhere in Europe – is about the less severe headscarf, with Muslim parents pressing for schools to allow their daughters to cover their heads and often opting to send them to private schools tolerant of the practice.

The Belgian move is similar to other campaigns in Europe.

Following a heavy regional elections trouncing last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy, of France, called for a burqa ban.

"The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women," he said. "The answer is to ban it. The government will introduce a bill to ban it that conforms to the principles of our laws." The headscarf is banned in schools in France.

But yesterday, France's advisory state council cast doubt on Sarkozy's plans when it said a burqa ban could be unconstitutional.

In the Netherlands, rightwinger Geert Wilders – riding high in the opinion polls prior to elections in June – is also campaigning for Muslim veil bans and has issued warnings about the "Islamification" of Dutch society.

Isabelle Praile, the vice-president of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, warned that a Belgian ban could be the thin end of the wedge.

"Today it's the full-face veil. Tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans, and then perhaps it will be miniskirts," ," she told the AFP news agency.

It remains to be seen whether any bans will be challenged at the European court of human rights.

[Antifa94]

The banning of burqas disturbs me greatly, not to mention the appeals for such in other nations, as well as the massive support that the population is giving towards this. I fear that we are moving closer and closer to an anti-Islamic pogrom, and a possible subsequent Muslim genocide( under prospective governments by Geert Wilders).

[chegitz guevara]

The only problem I have with banning the veil is that women will then cover themselves up as an act of defiance.

[red cat]

Wherever Muslims are minority, the banning of the burqa is an intrusion into their cultural rights and we should oppose it. However, where the governments are pro Islam and Muslims constitute the majority of the population, any demand of banning the burqa generally rises from within the conscious masses. That is progressive and we should support it. For example, if such a law is passed in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia or Iran, we should support it.

[Antifa94]

Indeed.

[chegitz guevara]

women's rights > cultural rights

[Durruti's Ghost]

The banning of burqas disturbs me greatly, not to mention the appeals for such in other nations, as well as the massive support that the population is giving towards this. I fear that we are moving closer and closer to an anti-Islamic pogrom, and a possible subsequent Muslim genocide( under prospective governments by Geert Wilders).

Indeed, people of traditionally Islamic nationalities seem to have become the scapegoat-of-choice for the various First World nations. If fascism sees a resurgence in the 21st century, the Muslim people will likely be among its main targets.

EDIT: We seen this in the Tea Party movement in the United States, the BNP/EDL, and the various other far-right, proto-fascist (in the Tea Party's case, the "proto-" might be unnecessary) movements and/or parties.

[Robocommie]

Wherever Muslims are minority, the banning of the burqa is an intrusion into their cultural rights and we should oppose it. However, where the governments are pro Islam and Muslims constitute the majority of the population, any demand of banning the burqa generally rises from within the conscious masses. That is progressive and we should support it. For example, if such a law is passed in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia or Iran, we should support it.

I agree, so long as they never go all the way to banning the hijab completely. When folks like Ataturk do stuff like that, I'd argue it represents a step towards western cultural hegemony. But banned or not, women should never be required to wear anything unless they themselves choose to.

[Robocommie]

Indeed, people of traditionally Islamic nationalities seem to have become the scapegoat-of-choice for the various First World nations. If fascism sees a resurgence in the 21st century, the Muslim people will likely be among its main targets.

One summer I took a comparative religions class at a local college to take care of a few credit hours. While learning about and discussing Islam, some particularly alarmist things were said about Muslim immigrants. In particular, one guy said he felt that Muslim immigrants were often trying to force their host nations into adopting Islamic law, as if their very reason for emigrating from their homeland in the first place was to colonize and force their culture and religion on the rest of the world. Nobody, not even the college professor, seemed to take issue with this.

The whole thing struck me as utterly insane, like some Islamic version of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and later that evening I felt a profound sense of horror as I realized if this undercurrent in people's mentality was not stopped as soon as possible we would one day see another Holocaust, aimed at Muslims, somewhere in the western world.

[Robocommie]

women's rights > cultural rights

Frankly the two do not need to be seen as exclusive. Muslim women aren't children who need the government to save them from their scarves, and if they choose to wear something they should have that right.

[chegitz guevara]

I agree, so long as they never go all the way to banning the hijab completely. When folks like Ataturk do stuff like that, I'd argue it represents a step towards western cultural hegemony. But banned or not, women should never be required to wear anything unless they themselves choose to.

The problem is, this decision doesn't take place in a neutral context. Rather, it takes place in a context where women are enslaved, where the first response of a father to hearing his daughter has been raped is to murder her. If women aren't free to say no, they aren't free to say yes either.

[not directed at you]
And honestly, I'm more concerned about the rights of women than I am with the rights of some men to oppress "their" women.

And the cultural argument is crap. My culture says racism is okay.

[bailey_187]

Muslim immigrants were often trying to force their host nations into adopting Islamic law, as if their very reason for emigrating from their homeland in the first place was to colonize and force their culture and religion on the rest of the world. Nobody, not even the college professor, seemed to take issue with this.
.

Some Muslims want to be able to use Sharia courts to sort out domestic issues in the UK.

[Das war einmal]

Wherever Muslims are minority, the banning of the burqa is an intrusion into their cultural rights and we should oppose it. However, where the governments are pro Islam and Muslims constitute the majority of the population, any demand of banning the burqa generally rises from within the conscious masses. That is progressive and we should support it. For example, if such a law is passed in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia or Iran, we should support it.

I disagree, for the same flawed reason you could oppose the banning of female genital cutting. Just because its is an 'intursion into their cultural rights'. That does not suffice.
Some Iran classmates (ok so there are two) support the banning of burqa's. I think we should not allow burqa's either. I dissagree with the banning of veils though.

[red cat]

I disagree, for the same flawed reason you could oppose the banning of female genital cutting. Just because its is an 'intursion into their cultural rights'. That does not suffice.
Some Iran classmates (ok so there are two) support the banning of burqa's. I think we should not allow burqa's either. I dissagree with the banning of veils though.

Female genital cutting is an irreversible physical damage and it is often done at an age when the child cannot effectively disagree. So, that should always be opposed.

[red cat]

Some Muslims want to be able to use Sharia courts to sort out domestic issues in the UK.

What if both the opposing parties agree to accept the Sharia courts' decision ?

[Robocommie]

The problem is, this decision doesn't take place in a neutral context. Rather, it takes place in a context where women are enslaved, where the first response of a father to hearing his daughter has been raped is to murder her. If women aren't free to say no, they aren't free to say yes either.


I think that's a rather extreme argument. For one, saying that implies that all Muslim women are enslaved, and I think that's a pretty baseless and absurd thing to say, not to mention that kind of extreme violence is not a daily occurence in the Middle East; not all Muslims engage in honor killings and it's an extremely offensive stereotype to suggest they do.

But more pressingly, the context of patriarchy does not remove ALL agency from women, that's completely absurd, and it's own way, just as patriarchal. If you argue that the hijab should be utterly banned because Muslim women don't have the option of not wearing it, you're not actually preserving the agency of Muslim women, you're merely exercising it for them.

It's rather like the theory in second wave feminism that because American women reside in a patriarchal society where they are brainwashed into accepting patriarchal relationships with men, no woman can actually consent to sexual intercourse.

Out of a misguided intention to recognize the contradictions that women face in patriarchy, it completely obliterates the possibility of their own agency and determination.


Some Muslims want to be able to use Sharia courts to sort out domestic issues in the UK.

I'm sure; I imagine some Muslims would very much like to settle their disputes in a way that is culturally traditional to them. Frankly, if both parties agreed to it, I think that'd be a highly acceptable way to settle civil disputes. But that doesn't change the fact that seeing immigrants as a force of cultural invasion is an inherently reactionary and xenophobic one. It's the kind of shit that ComradeMan used to post.

In other words, "Eurabia" is bullshit.

[red cat]

And the cultural argument is crap. My culture says racism is okay.

That is interfering with the rights of other cultures. A muslim woman wearing a burqa does not harm you or interfere with your rights in any way.

[Antifa94]

Sharia law should indeed be used to sort out petty relations amongst muslims, just as the Talmud is consulted by Jews. However, we still do not want a microcosmic theocracy- therefore, laws that involving killing or physical discipline shouldn't be allowed to be carried through, i.e. stoning adulterous women, lashings for consumption of hashish.

[Das war einmal]

Female genital cutting is an irreversible physical damage and it is often done at an age when the child cannot effectively disagree. So, that should always be opposed.


And who guarantees that a woman wearing a burqa or niqab can effectively disagree? These women are mostly flown in from outside western countries like an import-bride. They are totally dependable on their husband. I don't think we should allow this. Besides, I'm opposed the multiculturalism in general. Not that I think 'our' culture is superior, but having two opposing cultures next to each other fuels ethnic tensions . I am a supporter of cultural relativism: you are allowed to have your own cultural integrity as long as it does not oppose certain key values to the dominant culture, for instance accepting homosexuals as a person with full rights.

Its not the best solution of course. That would be a culture created by the working class, but until then I believe this is the best solution.

[red cat]

Sharia law should indeed be used to sort out petty relations amongst muslims, just as the Talmud is consulted by Jews.


Only with the consent of both the parties.


However, we still do not want a microcosmic theocracy- therefore, laws that involving killing or physical discipline shouldn't be allowed to be carried through, i.e. stoning adulterous women, lashings for consumption of hashish.

Of course. :lol:

[Antifa94]

If you noticed, Redklok, muslims wearing Burqas in Europe are a minority. They chose to do such to satisfy religious obligations...
Are you kidding me? Your argument is extraordinarily reactionary. You are supporting a monolithic society without intervention from other cultures. Why don't you join the Nazi party?

[Robocommie]

Besides, I'm opposed the multiculturalism in general. Not that I think 'our' culture is superior, but having two opposing cultures next to each other fuels ethnic tensions .

Fuck that. You don't fight intolerance by forcing everyone to be the same, and promoting the idea that people of different racial or religious backgrounds cannot co-exist is not only ahistorical, it's also reactionary as shit.

Socialism which is hostile to multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism is the fucking Third Position.

[Antifa94]

Someone's about to see their ratings go down the drain.

[red cat]

And who guarantees that a woman wearing a burqa or niqab can effectively disagree? These women are mostly flown in from outside western countries like an import-bride. They are totally dependable on their husband. I don't think we should allow this.

In that case, banning the naqab won't help them much either. Moreover, you are completely ignorant of how the woman might view this ban as an attack on her culture.



Besides, I'm opposed the multiculturalism in general. Not that I think 'our' culture is superior, but having two opposing cultures next to each other fuels ethnic tensions . I am a supporter of cultural relativism: you are allowed to have your own cultural integrity as long as it does not oppose certain key values to the dominant culture, for instance accepting homosexuals as a person with full rights.

So the dominant culture gets to decide what is right, in order to avoid "ethnic tensions" ?

[bailey_187]

Fuck that. You don't fight intolerance and racism by forcing segregation and cultural assimilation.

Socialism which is hostile to multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism is more like the Third Position.

"multi-culturalism" is basicaly segregation. The idea that each group of people have their own distinct culture and customs that must be kept is basically segregation.

I guess "inter-culturalism" would be a better word? Who knows.

I agree with Chegitz though, womens rights>>>>cultural rights. Things like female mutilation, honour killings etc should be banned straight up. Wearing a head scarve isnt really a big deal though.

[Das war einmal]

If you noticed, Redklok, muslims wearing Burqas in Europe are a minority. They chose to do such to satisfy religious obligations...
Are you kidding me? Your argument is extraordinarily reactionary. You are supporting a monolithic society without intervention from other cultures. Why don't you join the Nazi party?

Please show me where I am being a reactionary. So if I am saying that I think women should be treated equally, this makes me nazi? Wow I am astonished by your political insights!

[bailey_187]

So the dominant culture gets to decide what is right, in order to avoid "ethnic tensions" ?

Reactionary aspects of any culture should be struggled against. The reactionary parts of Western culture (e.g. rape jokes, calling women *****es etc) should be combatted, as should the reactionary parts of "Islamic" culture. Although we must be careful not to fall into chauvanism.

[Das war einmal]

Fuck that. You don't fight intolerance by forcing everyone to be the same, and promoting the idea that people of different racial or religious backgrounds cannot co-exist is not only ahistorical, it's also reactionary as shit.

Socialism which is hostile to multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism is the fucking Third Position.

Multicultarism is Third Positioning. It were the social-democrats actually who came up with this idea. In the USSR they banned religious-cultural expressions that opposed equality.

[Antifa94]

"And who guarantees that a woman wearing a burqa or niqab can effectively disagree? These women are mostly flown in from outside western countries like an import-bride. They are totally dependable on their husband. I don't think we should allow this. Besides, I'm opposed the multiculturalism in general. Not that I think 'our' culture is superior, but having two opposing cultures next to each other fuels ethnic tensions . I am a supporter of cultural relativism: you are allowed to have your own cultural integrity as long as it does not oppose certain key values to the dominant culture, for instance accepting homosexuals as a person with full rights.

Its not the best solution of course. That would be a culture created by the working class, but until then I believe this is the best solution"

You are A- against cultural interaction due to fear of "ethnic tensions", which is another way of saying the subjugation of the race or culture that is being "infiltrated". B- You are opposed to homosexual rights because it offends the traditional cultural millieu? This is the most reactionary statement of all. This is completely antithetical to human progress. Desegregation was antithetical to Southern whites, does that mean that it should be opposed? Communism is antithetical to bourgeois values, does that mean THAT should be opposed?

[Robocommie]

"multi-culturalism" is basicaly segregation. The idea that each group of people have their own distinct culture and customs that must be kept is basically segregation.

No it is not, that's absurd. Multiculturalism is the acceptance or promotion of diversity, and the denouncement of promoting any one ethnicity or culture at the expense of others.

If you don't like that word, try cosmopolitanism. It's a word that does pretty well to convey the kind of society where people will be allowed to eat Lebanese food for lunch, go to see a performance of Peking Opera with some friends, and then later on enjoy a lasagna for dinner while talking about African-American literature.



I agree with Chegitz though, womens rights>>>>cultural rights. Things like female mutilation, honour killings etc should be banned straight up. Wearing a head scarve isnt really a big deal though.

Well, FGM and honor killings really aren't Muslim practices, they are practices that pre-date Islam which have in some areas failed to die out, and are in no way, shape or form a universal in the many traditional cultures that can be considered Islamic.

[Antifa94]

If you don't like that word, try cosmopolitanism. It's a word that does pretty well to convey the kind of society where people will be allowed to eat Lebanese food for lunch, go to see a performance of Peking Opera with some friends, and then later on enjoy a lasagna for dinner while talking about African-American literature.


Something about that image seems so soothing :)

[Robocommie]

Multicultarism is Third Positioning. It were the social-democrats actually who came up with this idea. In the USSR they banned religious-cultural expressions that opposed equality.

...I'm not even going to bother arguing against the idea that desegregation is somehow Third Positionist.

[red cat]

Reactionary aspects of any culture should be struggled against. The reactionary parts of Western culture (e.g. rape jokes, calling women *****es etc) should be combatted, as should the reactionary parts of "Islamic" culture. Although we must be careful not to fall into chauvanism.

True. But the position of a cultural aspect varies with respect to the broader surroundings. For example, in India or Nepal, ridiculing hindu gods is very progressive. But what if this is done in UK ?

I think that most of us will agree that other than very few things in it, religion itself is reactionary.

[Robocommie]

Something about that image seems so soothing :)

Yeah, sounds like a good time, right?

[Das war einmal]

In that case, banning the naqab won't help them much either. Moreover, you are completely ignorant of how the woman might view this ban as an attack on her culture.


So the dominant culture gets to decide what is right, in order to avoid "ethnic tensions" ?

If certain points of that dominant culture are the same as the revolutionary moral we should support that. For instance, equality and personal freedoms are more important then wearing a niqab or allowing honor killing.

[Das war einmal]

"And who guarantees that a woman wearing a burqa or niqab can effectively disagree? These women are mostly flown in from outside western countries like an import-bride. They are totally dependable on their husband. I don't think we should allow this. Besides, I'm opposed the multiculturalism in general. Not that I think 'our' culture is superior, but having two opposing cultures next to each other fuels ethnic tensions . I am a supporter of cultural relativism: you are allowed to have your own cultural integrity as long as it does not oppose certain key values to the dominant culture, for instance accepting homosexuals as a person with full rights.

Its not the best solution of course. That would be a culture created by the working class, but until then I believe this is the best solution"

You are A- against cultural interaction due to fear of "ethnic tensions", which is another way of saying the subjugation of the race or culture that is being "infiltrated". B- You are opposed to homosexual rights because it offends the traditional cultural millieu? This is the most reactionary statement of all. This is completely antithetical to human progress. Desegregation was antithetical to Southern whites, does that mean that it should be opposed? Communism is antithetical to bourgeois values, does that mean THAT should be opposed?

You clearly don't seem to understand a word which I am saying, so I be happy to make it more clear for you.

I oppose multiculturalism because it is in the way of cultural interaction rather then being a contribution. Supporting multiculturalism means accepting EVERY aspect of that culture. I am not making this up, this is what the word means. No I dont accept every aspect of one's culture if it goes against my principals as a communist. I don't accept slavery for instance while this could be an aspect of someone's culture.

I hope you understand that I find the rest of your post completely bullshit.

To point out again: we as communists should defend several aspects of a dominant culture or a foreign culture for that matter if it coincides with our values. No more no less.

[red cat]

If certain points of that dominant culture are the same as the revolutionary moral we should support that. For instance, equality and personal freedoms are more important then wearing a niqab or allowing honor killing.

What when the most of the population belonging to the minor culture is risking the danger of or actually being treated as second class citizens?

P.S. :I have already outlined why things such as honour killing should not be compared to wearing the naqab.

[Antifa94]

. Supporting multiculturalism means accepting EVERY aspect of that culture. I am not making this up, this is what the word means.



FAIL. It means the recognition of ethnic and cultural diversity. Accepting every aspect of that culture would be mean assimilation into that culture( the culture that is being introduced to the homogenous nation).

[Antifa94]

How is anti-homosexual rights even remotely pro-communist?
You obviously don't understand my argument, because I am rebutting your statement that if a cultural value is in combat with the traditional millieu, it shouldn't be supported. This implies that the ideas that I gave as examples shouldn't have been implemented because they are in direct combat to the Traditional Sociopolitical environment.

[Das war einmal]

FAIL. It means the recognition of ethnic and cultural diversity. Accepting every aspect of that culture would be mean assimilation into that culture( the culture that is being introduced to the homogenous nation).

No its not the same as assimilation because you have accepted both your own culture in all its aspects as well as the alien culture. Without acknowledging the fact that this severely hampers the communication between different cultures and thus leading to ethnic tensions. Recognition of cultural diversity = cultural relativism. Seeing your own national culture as superior and others inferior is ethnocentrism. I support cultural relativism

[Das war einmal]

How is anti-homosexual rights even remotely pro-communist?
You obviously don't understand my argument, because I am rebutting your statement that if a cultural value is in combat with the traditional millieu, it shouldn't be supported. This implies that the ideas that I gave as examples shouldn't have been implemented because they are in direct combat to the Traditional Sociopolitical environment.

Where did I say I was anti-homosexual? I was just saying that as a communist we should oppose cultural aspects which deem homosexuality as a sin. Please read a message twice before reacting like a mad fool.

[Antifa94]

Sorry. The accepting of all values and ideologies of an ethnic group etc. is assimilation.

[bailey_187]

Well, FGM and honor killings really aren't Muslim practices, they are practices that pre-date Islam which have in some areas failed to die out, and are in no way, shape or form a universal in the many traditional cultures that can be considered Islamic.

The same is true of forcing/"encouraging" women to cover their hair or face. What is your point?

[Antifa94]

I am a supporter of cultural relativism: you are allowed to have your own cultural integrity as long as it does not oppose certain key values to the dominant culture, for instance accepting homosexuals as a person with full rights.

This means that you don't support homosexual rights because it infringes upon traditional cultural values.

[red cat]

The same is true of forcing/"encouraging" women to cover their hair or face. What is your point?

True. Whether the practices are really Islamic or not is irrelevant to the debate.

But just a point that I remember; some hadith definitely mentions Muhammed traveling to hell on a buraq. In hell he sees Allah hanging women by their hair over fire. When Muhammed asks Allah the reason for doing this, he replies saying that it is the punishment for women who displayed their hair in front of any man other than their husband.

[Das war einmal]

I am a supporter of cultural relativism: you are allowed to have your own cultural integrity as long as it does not oppose certain key values to the dominant culture, for instance accepting homosexuals as a person with full rights.



Which means that I do not accept cultural aspects that see homosexuals as for example 'lesser human beings'. In 'our' dominant culture homosexuals are seen as persons with full rights. Thank you

[Robocommie]

The same is true of forcing/"encouraging" women to cover their hair or face. What is your point?

In that particular case, I'm trying to dissuade this notion that Muslims are hateful people who always commit honor killings or mutilate female genitals.

Actually no, the hijab is a Muslim cultural practice. Really man, the point is that FGM and honor killing have fuck all to do with whether a woman wears the hijab. Many women DO choose to wear it, and banning it outright is removing the agency and self-determination of Muslim women. Wearing a hijab is oftentimes part of identifying as Muslim, much like Indian women oftentimes wear saris because it's a tradition from THEIR culture.

[Robocommie]

Which means that I do not accept cultural aspects that see homosexuals as for example 'lesser human beings'. In 'our' dominant culture homosexuals are seen as persons with full rights. Thank you

Well go sign up with Geert Wilders then, he'll help save your dominant culture from the immigrants.

[bailey_187]

Actually no, the hijab is a Muslim cultural practice. Really man, the point is that FGM and honor killing have fuck all to do with whether a woman wears the hijab. Many women DO choose to wear it, and banning it outright is removing the agency and self-determination of Muslim women. Wearing a hijab is oftentimes part of identifying as Muslim, much like Indian women oftentimes wear saris because it's a tradition from THEIR culture.

I'm not advocating outright banning it, for the reason Chegitz gave, but i dont know why leftists make apologies for it on the basis of "cultural values" or other nonsense. I think the correct policy of Communists would be to promote atheism in education so people realise that the superstitious basis behind wearing it is wrong. Some may still wear it for cultural reasons, thats them.
Many women may choose to wear it, but at the same time many women are forced to wear it. You can try to deny this fact all you want, the fact that Afghan girls have acid thrown in their face for not wearing a Burka or Bangladeshi girls in Mile End are stigmatised by their family if they dont wear it wont go away.

[Das war einmal]

Actually no, the hijab is a Muslim cultural practice. Really man, the point is that FGM and honor killing have fuck all to do with whether a woman wears the hijab. Many women DO choose to wear it, and banning it outright is removing the agency and self-determination of Muslim women. Wearing a hijab is oftentimes part of identifying as Muslim, much like Indian women oftentimes wear saris because it's a tradition from THEIR culture.

The problem is that this results in difficulties with finding a job. Getting in contact with the rest of society. Getting looked upon. It really hampers the progress of being independent in todays society. We want people that see themselves as equals amongst others.

[Robocommie]

The problem is that this results in difficulties with finding a job. Getting in contact with the rest of society. Getting looked upon. It really hampers the progress of being independent in todays society. We want people that see themselves as equals amongst others.

Blaming the fucking victim. If Muslim women who wear the hijab find a hard time getting a job and connecting with the rest of society, is that the scarf's fault, or is it the fault of racist Dutch?

I wonder where you would have been in Selma in the 1960s, "Racism wouldn't be so bad if you folks just didn't act so black."

[Das war einmal]

Well go sign up with Geert Wilders then, he'll help save your dominant culture from the immigrants.


Yeah be that way. Put words in my mouth. If we play your little game I just could easily say its people like you who drive the working class straight into the arms of Geert Wilders. You now actually say that Geert Wilders is the only politician who defends the rights of women and homosexuals, he'll be happy to hear that.

[Das war einmal]

Blaming the fucking victim. If Muslim women who wear the hijab find a hard time getting a job and connecting with the rest of society, is that the scarf's fault, or is it the fault of racist Dutch?

I wonder where you would have been in Selma in the 1960s, "Racism wouldn't be so bad if you folks just didn't act so black."


Yes everybody who disapproves of burqa's is a racist. Good going.

[Robocommie]

I'm not advocating outright banning it, for the reason Chegitz gave, but i dont know why leftists make apologies for it on the basis of "cultural values" or other nonsense. I think the correct policy of Communists would be to promote atheism in education so people realise that the superstitious basis behind wearing it is wrong. Some may still wear it for cultural reasons, thats them.

Leftists make "apologies" for it because there's nothing wrong with wearing a scarf if it's part of the culture you come from. There is nothing Socialist or progressive about forcing people to dress and act a certain way because you don't see the need for it, nor is there anything progressive about putting "culture" in dick quotes.

The clothes that people wear is determined by the culture they come from, the culture they identify with, and what they're comfortable with. Trying to police that, and trying to enforce cultural homogeny because you don't like something that people from other cultures do is extremely paternalistic and reactionary.

And I'll say the same thing about promoting atheism in schools. Religion is a private matter, and the government should have no say in it either for or against. People have a right to believe what they will without being told by the state. I'm a Buddhist, and some of my dearest friends are liberation theologists. You don't really have the moral right to restrict or try and "stamp out" our beliefs.



Many women may choose to wear it, but at the same time many women are forced to wear it. You can try to deny this fact all you want, the fact that Afghan girls have acid thrown in their face for not wearing a Burka or Bangladeshi girls in Mile End are stigmatised by their family if they dont wear it wont go away.

And nobody here is in support of that, which is why Red Cat made the point he did about banning the burqa in Bangladesh or Afghanistan. Your problem is you want to go all out, go too far, and turn it into culture warfare.

[Das war einmal]

This thread is making me tired. You cant even have a serious discussion about culture without words being thrown around like 'you should join the nazi's/ geert wilders' 'racist' 'third positionist' . Way to go. This is actually the same way Geert Wilders and his supporters debate: name calling without making sensible arguments.

[Robocommie]

Yes everybody who disapproves of burqa's is a racist. Good going.

You're putting words in my mouth because your position is indefensible. Nobody here is in favor of the burqa.

[Robocommie]

This thread is making me tired. You cant even have a serious discussion about culture without words being thrown around like 'you should join the nazi's/ geert wilders' 'racist' 'third positionist' . Way to go. This is actually the same way Geert Wilders and his supporters debate: name calling without making sensible arguments.

How the fuck are you going to whine about not being taken seriously when you were the one who said that when two "opposing" cultures exist side by side, the only result is ethnic tensions? Fuck off.

[Das war einmal]

You're putting words in my mouth because your position is indefensible. Nobody here is in favor of the burqa.


Then stop defending it only because its a cultural aspect and thus we should automatically accept and defend it. I think we should not let the judge decide because frankly the society should talk people out of these things but I sure as hell am not going to oppose a proposed ban.

We communist defend most of the cultural aspects of the Islam if that does not impede with our own values. At the same time we say that religion is a personal matter and should not be forced upon others. Luckily people wearing a burqa are a small minority so its not a big concern.

[Das war einmal]

"multi-culturalism" is basicaly segregation. The idea that each group of people have their own distinct culture and customs that must be kept is basically segregation.




You're right. Multiculturalism does promote segregation. Former apartheid South Africa was a perfect example of Multiculturalism in its final form. When workers were imported from Morocco and Turkey, the (soc.-dems backed) government did not do anything to promote intergration. Instead they put all immigrants together in miserable neighbourhoods. They were allowed to keep all of their rituals (more to keep them at ease then a humanitarian thing) including some that directly opposed liberties fought for by feminist and pro-gay groups.

The results of this (disastrous) policy are still noticeable today. Because of this segregation, large groups of Moroccans are experiencing poverty and because of this it results into petty crime for example This in turn leads to more ethnic troubles etc. If they made serious business of integration these problems would not have grown so much.

[Robocommie]

You're right. Multiculturalism does promote segregation. Former apartheid South Africa was a perfect example of Multiculturalism in its final form. When workers were imported from Morocco and Turkey, the (soc.-dems backed) government did not do anything to promote intergration. Instead they put all immigrants together in miserable neighbourhoods. They were allowed to keep all of their rituals (more to keep them at ease then a humanitarian thing) including some that directly opposed liberties fought for by feminist and pro-gay groups.

The results of this (disastrous) policy are still noticeable today. Because of this segregation, large groups of Moroccans are experiencing poverty and because of this it results into petty crime for example This in turn leads to more ethnic troubles etc. If they made serious business of integration these problems would not have grown so much.

That's insane. What you're describing is the result of cultural supremacy - racism - not multiculturalism. The entire point of multiculturalism is that people of different backgrounds and from different cultures can participate in society on an equal footing without having to assimilate, without any one particular culture being seen as normative or supreme.

If you think that the racial problems in South Africa stemmed from the whites allowing the blacks to keep their culture then your understanding of colonialism and ethnicity are completely fucked, and you could really, really do with a crash course in Fanon, in particular, Black Skin, White Masks.

[pranabjyoti]

In that particular case, I'm trying to dissuade this notion that Muslims are hateful people who always commit honor killings or mutilate female genitals.

Actually no, the hijab is a Muslim cultural practice. Really man, the point is that FGM and honor killing have fuck all to do with whether a woman wears the hijab. Many women DO choose to wear it, and banning it outright is removing the agency and self-determination of Muslim women. Wearing a hijab is oftentimes part of identifying as Muslim, much like Indian women oftentimes wear saris because it's a tradition from THEIR culture.
There are some LITTLE difference there. Sari is a traditional INDIAN dress for women despite her religion but hijab is limited only in Muslim community. Dress designers can and are experimenting with Sari but so far I don't know about experimenting with hijab. Sari had gone through evolution, both in print and the style of wearing it but so far I myself don't know about such factors about hijab. Hijab may be useful in hot, dry climate of middle east, but it's unbearable in the hot, humid climate. Actually, I myself like to condemn that kind of mentality, which equates me with my religious belief.

[Tablo]

I think no one should be allowed to wear clothes because my culture says that is oppressive to a persons sexual freedom..

[chegitz guevara]

I don't believe in cultural relativism, which states that all cultures are equal, and that people outside that culture have no right to criticize it (either because we don't understand it or from an anti-imperialist stance). There's a lot of things about culture that are absolutely fucked up, and everyone should be criticizing them. The repression of women in Islamic culture is one of those aspects that should be criticized by everyone, even if reactionaries in our own culture will use it to make hay. Keep in mind that it was reactionaries in our own culture that reinforced many of these reactionary practices during colonialism. No free pass for them either.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually we have differentiate between backward ideology and culture and heritage. What can be considered as culture or heritage, that should have some kind of skill attached to it. As for example, wearing a proper sari with matching color and other factors means dress sense and this is actually a skill. But, hijab is all black and all are almost same. There is no skill necessary in wearing it.
I also want add something. Honor killing isn't something unique for Islam religion. In India, in the north western states, specially Hariyana and Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh, honor killings are common factors. Actually, it is the lack of ability to differentiate between culture and backward feudal mentality that leads to this kind of debate.

[Comrade Akai]

The banning of burqas disturbs me greatly, not to mention the appeals for such in other nations, as well as the massive support that the population is giving towards this. I fear that we are moving closer and closer to an anti-Islamic pogrom, and a possible subsequent Muslim genocide( under prospective governments by Geert Wilders).

I agree. It is wrong to ban an article of clothing that is worn out of free will and personal choice. The government never has the right to make such an imposition.

[Comrade Akai]

Actually we have differentiate between backward ideology and culture and heritage. What can be considered as culture or heritage, that should have some kind of skill attached to it. As for example, wearing a proper sari with matching color and other factors means dress sense and this is actually a skill. But, hijab is all black and all are almost same. There is no skill necessary in wearing it.
I also want add something. Honor killing isn't something unique for Islam religion. In India, in the north western states, specially Hariyana and Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh, honor killings are common factors. Actually, it is the lack of ability to differentiate between culture and backward feudal mentality that leads to this kind of debate.

Honor killing is actually not a part of Islam and is a part of Arab culture.

Just because the right wing uses unfounded, bigoted claims to make points doesn't mean we should stoop to their level.


Additionally, the hijab a Muslim woman wears is her choice. She can choose what color she wants to wear (there are many); black is just the most common color. With all-due respect, comrade, please inform yourself before making claims.

[red cat]

Honor killing is actually not a part of Islam and is a part of Arab culture.

Just because the right wing uses unfounded, bigoted claims to make points doesn't mean we should stoop to their level.


Additionally, the hijab a Muslim woman wears is her choice. She can choose what color she wants to wear (there are many); black is just the most common color. With all-due respect, comrade, please inform yourself before making claims.

What comrade pranabjyoti meant to say probably was that we should not relate Islam alone with honour killings, Indeed, honour killings are to be found in many cultures, the major religions only serving as a higher level for justifying such barbaric actions for implementing patriarchal dominance.

[Comrade Akai]

What comrade pranabjyoti meant to say probably was that we should not relate Islam alone with honour killings, Indeed, honour killings are to be found in many cultures, the major religions only serving as a higher level for justifying such barbaric actions for implementing patriarchal dominance.

Thank you for clearing that up, comrade. I had misinterpreted pranabjyoti and I offer my apologies to him.

Religion should remain a personal matter. Religious organizations such as the Taliban and the Catholic Church do not seek to use their religion to help people (as they were originally intended) but to exert control over others.

[pranabjyoti]

Honor killing is actually not a part of Islam and is a part of Arab culture.
It can not be a part of any "culture". It's just related to feudal mentality, in which a man/women has no will and can be used as some kind of ornament for FAMILY PRIDE and it's not unique to Arabs.

Just because the right wing uses unfounded, bigoted claims to make points doesn't mean we should stoop to their level.
Muslims were very much a preferred by rights, when they were staunch fighters against "communist atheism". Mr. Laden is a product of US imperialism and Asiatic feudal mentality combined together. But, (sighhhhhhhhh) it's now a great headache to its own father.

Additionally, the hijab a Muslim woman wears is her choice. She can choose what color she wants to wear (there are many); black is just the most common color. With all-due respect, comrade, please inform yourself before making claims.
Really, a Muslim has right to choose the color of her hijab? How can you know that. So far, i have seen thousands of women in hijab, but no color other than black. Kindly tell me, how wearing a hijab can contribute to anyone's dress sense? Can you explain, why so far almost nil dress designers are experimenting with hijab? Why it is limited in Muslim community. Don't you think there is something wrong in it.

[Comrade Akai]

Really, a Muslim has right to choose the color of her hijab? How can you know that. So far, i have seen thousands of women in hijab, but no color other than black.

I'm Muslim.


Kindly tell me, how wearing a hijab can contribute to anyone's dress sense? Can you explain, why so far almost nil dress designers are experimenting with hijab?

That's actually not true at all, it's often used as a fashion accessory though not usually worn in the Islamic manner.


Why it is limited in Muslim community. Don't you think there is something wrong in it.

Why is what limited in the Muslim community? No, I don't think there's anything wrong with wearing the hijab when it's the woman's choice. There's only something wrong when it is not her choice. When a person chooses to wear an article of clothing out of their own free will, you do not have the right to impose your will in making them not wear it, nor does anybody else.

Authoritarianism is not welcome in communism.

[red cat]

It can not be a part of any "culture". It's just related to feudal mentality, in which a man/women has no will and can be used as some kind of ornament for FAMILY PRIDE and it's not unique to Arabs.

Muslims were very much a preferred by rights, when they were staunch fighters against "communist atheism". Mr. Laden is a product of US imperialism and Asiatic feudal mentality combined together. But, (sighhhhhhhhh) it's now a great headache to its own father.


Actually fundamentalists belonging to every religion; Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. have been preferred by rightists at some point in history.


Really, a Muslim has right to choose the color of her hijab? How can you know that. So far, i have seen thousands of women in hijab, but no color other than black. Kindly tell me, how wearing a hijab can contribute to anyone's dress sense? Can you explain, why so far almost nil dress designers are experimenting with hijab? Why it is limited in Muslim community. Don't you think there is something wrong in it.http://www.hijabstoreonline.com/images/mona_hijab_how_to_wear_2.jpg

http://shia-online.com/women/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/003768-egyptian-hijab-salmon-brown1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iHau1FZf9jI/ScpVYe2w1-I/AAAAAAAAAKY/GzNjNxX-YzA/s400/hijabwrap9.jpg

[pranabjyoti]

I'm Muslim.
It's human kinds basic nature to add something to his/her personality by dress. Hijab doesn't fit in that category anyway. If yes, then it wouldn't limited only in the Muslim community. If someone wear something which in effect goes against basic human nature, then there must be something wrong in it.



That's actually not true at all, it's often used as a fashion accessory though not usually worn in the Islamic manner.
So far, I haven't seen this to be used as fashion accessory. I am living in the state of West Bengal in the eastern part of India, where 23/% of the population is Muslim. I have seen a lot of Muslim woman in hijab so far.



Why is what limited in the Muslim community? No, I don't think there's anything wrong with wearing the hijab when it's the woman's choice. There's only something wrong when it is not her choice. When a person chooses to wear an article of clothing out of their own free will, you do not have the right to impose your will in making them not wear it, nor does anybody else.

Authoritarianism is not welcome in communism.
Well, I am not in favor of banning it, because by that way it will become a symbol of martyrdom and will get a longer life. Instead, I would like campaign against it and other kind of religious symbols, which has be mistaken often as one's identity. Hijab is the ugliest women wear and I want campaigns against it from women born in Muslim families. It by any means, can not be a normal and natural choice of a woman. What you are repeatedly describing as free will in my opinion is actually "family pressure" or other kind of "circumstantial pressure", maybe idiotic remarks from non-muslims too which at the end lead to grabing this kind of "identity".

[pranabjyoti]

Actually fundamentalists belonging to every religion; Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. have been preferred by rightists at some point in history.
http://www.hijabstoreonline.com/images/mona_hijab_how_to_wear_2.jpg

http://shia-online.com/women/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/003768-egyptian-hijab-salmon-brown1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iHau1FZf9jI/ScpVYe2w1-I/AAAAAAAAAKY/GzNjNxX-YzA/s400/hijabwrap9.jpg
Man covering your head isn't hijab. Then scarfs too can be considered as hijab. By hijab, I meant to say the dress that covers even the face. None of the pictures above fall in this category. This dresses are very much attractive which in fact goes against the ideology behind hijab. Hijab is actually meant for covering women and their beauty so that non family men can not even have the faintest idea about the beauty of a woman. This dresses are meant for just the opposite. It can better be called as some kind of Arabian fashion.

[Robocommie]

Man covering your head isn't hijab. Then scarfs too can be considered as hijab. By hijab, I meant to say the dress that covers even the face. None of the pictures above fall in this category

"Hijab" is used to refer to the head covering worn by Muslim women as well as a broader term to refer to modest Islamic dress. The veil that covers the face is the niqab. If it's an outer covering that covers a woman's dress and entire body as well, that's the burqa.

[red cat]

Man covering your head isn't hijab. Then scarfs too can be considered as hijab. By hijab, I meant to say the dress that covers even the face. None of the pictures above fall in this category. This dresses are very much attractive which in fact goes against the ideology behind hijab. Hijab is actually meant for covering women and their beauty so that non family men can not even have the faintest idea about the beauty of a woman. This dresses are meant for just the opposite. It can better be called as some kind of Arabian fashion.

Hijab is what covers the hair.

[pranabjyoti]

"Hijab" is used to refer to the head covering worn by Muslim women as well as a broader term to refer to modest Islamic dress. The veil that covers the face is the niqab. If it covers the entire body, leaving only a little screen for the face, that's the burqa.
There is nothing in my opinion can be called as ISLAMIC DRESS. Better call it Arabian styled dress. Kindly don't relate dress to religion.

[Robocommie]

There is nothing in my opinion can be called as ISLAMIC DRESS. Better call it Arabian styled dress. Kindly don't relate dress to religion.

That'd be all well and good, except the hijab is worn by non-Arabs as well.

And it may be your opinion, but the hijab is an Islamic concept. When I say "modest Islamic dress" I mean it's a broad category for clothing that is modest and in line with Islamic tradition.

[danyboy27]

i hate suicide bombers.

[Comrade Akai]

Man covering your head isn't hijab. Then scarfs too can be considered as hijab. By hijab, I meant to say the dress that covers even the face. None of the pictures above fall in this category. This dresses are very much attractive which in fact goes against the ideology behind hijab. Hijab is actually meant for covering women and their beauty so that non family men can not even have the faintest idea about the beauty of a woman. This dresses are meant for just the opposite. It can better be called as some kind of Arabian fashion.

Wrong. The headscarf along with covering the shape of the body is hijab. Covering the face is called niqab.

With all-due respect comrade, I don't really think you know what you're talking about.

[Comrade Akai]

There is nothing in my opinion can be called as ISLAMIC DRESS. Better call it Arabian styled dress. Kindly don't relate dress to religion.

The hijab is Islamic dress, not just Arabian dress. If it were just Arabian dress it wouldn't have been banned from France or Turkey.

I also think that separation of church and state is all well and good, however attempting to influence people, to impose secularism on peoples' personal lives is authoritarian bullshit. That doesn't belong in this movement, and I say the same for all other types of imposition on others, ideological or otherwise.

[chegitz guevara]

i hate suicide bombers.
Damn kamikaze.

[pranabjyoti]

The hijab is Islamic dress, not just Arabian dress. If it were just Arabian dress it wouldn't have been banned from France or Turkey.

I also think that separation of church and state is all well and good, however attempting to influence people, to impose secularism on peoples' personal lives is authoritarian bullshit. That doesn't belong in this movement, and I say the same for all other types of imposition on others, ideological or otherwise.
Well, by banning some dress by some idiots can not make them ISLAMIC. In my opinion, thee is nothing in a dress that can be related to a religion. Sari is an INDIAN dress, NOT HINDU. Nearly every province of India had their own style of wearing sari and the color, texture, print is vastly different from state to state. Even non Hindus, like the Persi's, even Muslims wore saris. Therefore, why do we connect a dress to a religion instead of some countries with specific geographic and environmental feature?
Hijab is very much uncommon among Muslims in India.

[chegitz guevara]

Additionally, the hijab a Muslim woman wears is her choice. She can choose what color she wants to wear (there are many); black is just the most common color. With all-due respect, comrade, please inform yourself before making claims.

If I'm forced to live in a prison cell, and the guards let me chose the color of paint I want, that doesn't really mean I'm free.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually we have differentiate between backward ideology and culture and heritage.

I don't think you can differentiate that so easily. Culture, customs, ideology, heritage don't separate so easily, but are all bound up together.

[Comrade Akai]

If I'm forced to live in a prison cell, and the guards let me chose the color of paint I want, that doesn't really mean I'm free.

It's also forbidden in Islam to force others to do things, particularly relating to religion. Forcing a woman to wear the hijab falls into this category rather explicitly.

[Comrade Akai]

Well, by banning some dress by some idiots can not make them ISLAMIC. In my opinion, thee is nothing in a dress that can be related to a religion. Sari is an INDIAN dress, NOT HINDU. Nearly every province of India had their own style of wearing sari and the color, texture, print is vastly different from state to state. Even non Hindus, like the Persi's, even Muslims wore saris. Therefore, why do we connect a dress to a religion instead of some countries with specific geographic and environmental feature?
Hijab is very much uncommon among Muslims in India.

-facepalm-

My point is that the hijab is very much a part of Islam.

You nor anyone else has the right to ban people from wearing certain articles of clothing.

[red cat]

Sometimes we should associate Islam with the common practices of the followers rather than what is mentioned in the Quran.

[danyboy27]

Damn kamikaze.

at least kamikaze had the balls to attack military personnals.

[chegitz guevara]

It's also forbidden in Islam to force others to do things, particularly relating to religion. Forcing a woman to wear the hijab falls into this category rather explicitly.

Yeah, well it's forbidden to kill in Christianity. That worked out well, didn't it?

[Comrade Akai]

Sometimes we should associate Islam with the common practices of the followers rather than what is mentioned in the Quran.

Depends what you mean by "common practices of its followers". The average Muslim is just a normal person who is generally apathetic to politics and harmless to society. You can't judge a group by its most extreme and often unrepresentative members. Or shall we then all consider communism to be Stalinism?

[Comrade Akai]

Yeah, well it's forbidden to kill in Christianity. That worked out well, didn't it?

The religion isn't the problem, it's religious organizations. These organizations, such as the Taliban and the Catholic Church, seek not to help people but to manipulate others and exert their control over them.

[chegitz guevara]

Religion doesn't exist separately from people. It's not some ideal thing that exists out there for people to conform with or not. It is what people believe and what people do. Religion is the problem.

[Comrade Akai]

Religion doesn't exist separately from people. It's not some ideal thing that exists out there for people to conform with or not. It is what people believe and what people do. Religion is the problem.

People can choose what they do or do not believe, so yes, it does exist separately from people unless they choose otherwise.

No one has the right to dictate what others believe.

[chegitz guevara]

There is no religion without people. Religion is simply whatever the people who claim to follow it believe and do.

And no one's talking about dictating what others believe, but, in fact, society has the right to determine what people may or may not believe, as all rights are socially determined. Society may chose to grant the right of freedom of thought to its members, but it is under no obligation to do so.

Personally, I don't think it's acceptable to think that women should be subjugated. I don't think it's acceptable to believe that there was no Holocaust. I don't think it's acceptable to believe that Black people are inferior. Those are all evil thoughts which, if acted upon, lead to human suffering. I would argue that a socialist society would be justified in suppressing, at the very least, expressions of such thinking, and try to do its best to wipe such thoughts out.

[Comrade Akai]

And no one's talking about dictating what others believe, but

I would argue that a socialist society would be justified in suppressing, at the very least, expressions of such thinking, and try to do its best to wipe such thoughts out.

I lol'd.

[chegitz guevara]

No one was talking about it until you brought it up. :rolleyes: You should read into what I wrote: "But since you brought it up ..."