Boko Haram abducts 234 schoolgirls, still missing after two weeks

[ola.]

Two weeks have passed since the militant group Boko Haram abducted 234 schoolgirls from their boarding school in northern Nigeria.

The teenage girls, who range in age from 16 to 18, were taken from their dormitories at the Government Girls Secondary School in the town of Chibok on April 14 and taken away by trucks in the middle of the night. There are now reports that indicate the school girls, who were thought to be held hostage in the Sambisa Forest, have been sold as brides to Islamic militants for 2,000 naira, or $12.

Nigerian officials have confirmed the teenage girls were kidnapped by Boko Haram, but have not yet confirmed if they have been sold as brides.

“We have heard from members of the forest community where they took the girls,” said Samson Dawah, whose niece Saratu was among the 234 girls abducted by militants. “They said there had been mass marriages and the girls are being shared out as wives among the Boko Haram militants.”

“My wife keeps asking me, why isn’t the government deploying every means to find our children,” Dawah said.

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration has been under enormous pressure from the parents of the students and the international community. Jonathan has said his security forces are doing all they can to locate and safely bring the girls back home.

A day after the abduction, the Nigerian military reported they had “freed 107 kidnapped female students,” but retracted their statement as the few girls who were able to escape did so on their own without military assistance.

“The operation is going on and we will continue to deploy more troops,” Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Chris Olukolade told the Associated Press last week.

Boko Haram, whose name means “Western education is forbidden,” has been called one of the most murderous extremist organizations in the world for killing nearly 4,000 people in the last five years, according to Amnesty International. That number includes about 1,500 people who were killed in the first three months of 2014 alone.

The Christian-Muslim conflict has continued to escalate in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation. The ongoing religious and ethnic conflict has intensified between the northeastern region of the country, which remains an opposition stronghold, and the southern region where Christian ethnic groups have been persecuted by Muslim extremists from the north.

The militant group advocates enforcing Sharia law and opposes education. Sixteen-year-old activist Malala Yousafzai, who was shot by the Taliban in Pakistan for speaking out in favor of education for girls, commented on the Nigerian kidnappings and underscored how the militants have misinterpreted the Quran.

“I know there are some militants who are misusing the name of Islam and they’re saying that education is not allowed, but I would just tell them the Prophet, peace be upon him, he said that education is the duty of every Muslim, whether he’s a girl or he’s a boy,” Yousafzai told the BBC. “So if Prophet says it, how can you deny it? And if God is allowing girls and boys to get education, how can you deny this right?”

“Islam allows us to go and get knowledge and to go and get education so how can some militants deny this fact,” she said.

Some school girls were able to jump out of of the trucks and escape. According to one, the militants who raided the school dressed in military uniforms and promised the girls they would be safe.

“They said, ‘Don’t worry. Nothing will happen to you,’” Deborah Sanya told The New Yorker.

“When the men started shooting their guns into the air and shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ … she realized that the men were not who they said they were,” the author wrote.

“I thought it was the end of my life,” Sanya said by phone on Monday from Chibok. “There were many, many of them.”

A village elder in Chibok, Pogo Bitrus, told the news agency Agence France-Presse that “various sources” have been tracking the movements of the girls.

“From the information we received yesterday from Cameroonian border towns our abducted girls were taken … into Chad and Cameroon,” Bitrus said.

Activists have used the hashtag “BringBackOurGirls” on Twitter to put pressure on the Nigerian government, and hundreds of people marched through the capital of Abuja in the Million Woman March on Wednesday.

“For how long are we going to wait for the government to help us? We can’t bear it anymore … We just want the government to help us, we want the world to hear this and help us,” a participant told United Press International.

Source (http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fury-grows-over-nigerian-kidnapping)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Boko Haram is cartoonishly fucked up, dude. The spokesman basically said that he was going to sell the girls as slaves, because Allah said that it was cool.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not sure if it's correct but apparently he also says the earth is flat because the Qur'an says it is flat.

EDIT:


In a 2009 BBC interview, Yusuf stated his belief that the concept of a spherical Earth is contrary to Islamic teaching and should be rejected, along with Darwinian evolution, and the concept of rain originating from water evaporated by the sun.[5]
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8172270.stm


"Like rain. We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.
"Like saying the world is a sphere. If it runs contrary to the teachings of Allah, we reject it. We also reject the theory of Darwinism."

[tachosomoza]

I love how mainstream westerners didn't give a fuck until they saw it on twitter. Kony, part II.

[Rosa Partizan]

I can't believe that almost exclusively feminist pages are reporting about that. And I can't believe either that Mohammed cartoons stir bigger uproar among the Islamic world than this. World's more than fucked up.

[Nakidana]

And I can't believe either that Mohammed cartoons stir bigger uproar among the Islamic world than this.

Uh, why are you singling out the "Islamic world" and why are you suddenly talking about the racist Muhammad cartoons? You sound like the Islamophobes who complain about how Muslims don't condemn terrorism.

[Rosa Partizan]

Uh, why are you singling out the "Islamic world" and why are you suddenly talking about the racist Muhammad cartoons? You sound like the Islamophobes who complain about how Muslims don't condemn terrorism.

because obviously this is happening out of some religious motivation. And no, I'm not saying that Islam wants people to do that, I just find it irritating that people take it to the streets rather because of cartoons than because of child abduction.

[adipocere]

because obviously this is happening out of some religious motivation. And no, I'm not saying that Islam wants people to do that, I just find it irritating that people take it to the streets rather because of cartoons than because of child abduction.

Have you ever stopped to ponder who might be controlling the lens?

[adipocere]

Boko Haram is cartoonishly fucked up, dude. The spokesman basically said that he was going to sell the girls as slaves, because Allah said that it was cool.
It is cartoonish. Usefully so. A Pretext for "humanitarian intervention", Africom expansion and the militarized quest for resources, among them one of the worlds largest oil supplies.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is cartoonish. Usefully so. A Pretext for "humanitarian intervention", Africom expansion and the militarized quest for resources, among them one of the worlds largest oil supplies.

:rolleyes:

Sure, sure it is.

Except the Boko Haram is located at the opposite ends of Nigeria, away from oil, and the niger delta has had rebels for far longer than the Boko Haram has been active without foreign intervention. Also, the oil is already in British-Dutch and American and French and Italian hands. What the hell is an intervention needed for?

Not everything is a conspiracy you know.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Uh, why are you singling out the "Islamic world" and why are you suddenly talking about the racist Muhammad cartoons? You sound like the Islamophobes who complain about how Muslims don't condemn terrorism.

Oh, here we go. It's somehow reactionary to criticize Islam I guess. Even though anywhere Muslims have political power or guns, they end up treating women, gays, and non Muslims like complete shit. Quit defending systematic violence.

In before you accuse me of being "Islamaphobic." I guess you can call me "Christianophobic" too though since I also condemn Christians when they do their insane reactionary bullshit such as in Uganda and the evangelist hate groups in the US.

It's funny because I am usually defending Muslims from racist comments in real life. Only when I get on the internet do I find myself calling out people who are trying to make excuses for Muslim violence. Why can we not condemn people who support violence without being accused of Islamaphobia? You have been brainwashed if you think that Islam should be immune to criticism.

[Haldane]

Uh, why are you singling out the "Islamic world" and why are you suddenly talking about the racist Muhammad cartoons? You sound like the Islamophobes who complain about how Muslims don't condemn terrorism.
I am openly Islamophobic. Many great intelligent and humanitarian people like Malcolm X, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and Ibn al-Haytham have been Muslims, but if Islam can drive people to commit horrific atrocities like this and 9/11, then it scares the living shit out of me and I have no qualms about saying the world would be better off today without it. I could say that about most religions, but in today's world Islam is by far the most devastating, next to Christianity and Hinduism, the latter of which everyone likes to let slide because Gandhi was Hindu and forget about the arranged child marriages.

[bricolage]

I can't believe that almost exclusively feminist pages are reporting about that.
They're not. African press and places with actual relationships to groups/people in Nigeria and the surrounding region were reporting this from as soon as it happened. It is certainly true that large Western press organisations didn't pick up on it much straight away (and of course would have been producing ten page spreads had just one white girl been abducted in the US or UK) but from what I can see they are now emphasising the myth that 'NOONE IS REPORTING ON IT!!!' to make their own reporting seem groundbreaking in comparison and to perpetuate this idea that Africans are incapable of reporting on things that happen in Africa.

[Nakidana]

because obviously this is happening out of some religious motivation. And no, I'm not saying that Islam wants people to do that, I just find it irritating that people take it to the streets rather because of cartoons than because of child abduction.

If you don't say that Islam wants people to do that, why do you single out the Islamic world? Why don't you complain about people in general not protesting? And why do you complain that people protested about racist cartoons?

Muslims don't need to show people in the West how much they condemn flying planes into buildings or kidnapping school children and selling them into slavery. If you think they support those things then the problem lies with you, not with them.


Oh, here we go. It's somehow reactionary to criticize Islam I guess.

Oh here we go again, pointing out Islamophobic BS apparently equals saying don't ever criticize Islam. :rolleyes:


Even though anywhere Muslims have political power or guns, they end up treating women, gays, and non Muslims like complete shit. Quit defending systematic violence.

You Islamophobic motherfucker.


In before you accuse me of being "Islamaphobic."

I don't accuse you, I know you are you dipshit.


I guess you can call me "Christianophobic" too though since I also condemn Christians when they do their insane reactionary bullshit such as in Uganda and the evangelist hate groups in the US.

When you start saying that "anywhere Christians have political power or guns, they end up treating women, gays, and non Christians like complete shit." I might. Seriously though, there isn't a problem with Christianphobia in the world (well tbh Christians are persecuted in some places), there is with Islamophobia. If the past decade (http://www.thenation.com/article/168379/islamophobia-and-its-discontents) hasn't made this clear to your bigoted ass then you can't be convinced.

Nobody has a problem with criticism of religion, but when you start talking about Muslims not doing this, or Muslims doing that, or Muslims being worse than other people, then it suddenly turns into racism.


It's funny because I am usually defending Muslims from racist comments in real life.

Sure you are, and you have a Muslim friend too, so that means you can't be Islamophobic, right?


Only when I get on the internet do I find myself calling out people who are trying to make excuses for Muslim violence.

Who the fuck is excusing "Muslim violence"?


Why can we not condemn people who support violence without being accused of Islamaphobia?

Because you single out Muslims as if they're a special case, a worse kind of people.


You have been brainwashed if you think that Islam should be immune to criticism.

"Boohoo nobody can criticize Islam anymore, it's political correctness gone mad I tell ya, just look at the media today! The love and praise of Islam and Muslims is sickening! If only I had a place, any place, where I could spread the word about how bad Islam is. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris...somebody..anybody help me!" :laugh:

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

If you don't say that Islam wants people to do that, why do you single out the Islamic world? Why don't you complain about people in general not protesting? And why do you complain that people protested about racist cartoons?

Muslims don't need to show people in the West how much they condemn flying planes into buildings or kidnapping school children and selling them into slavery. If you think they support those things then the problem lies with you, not with them.



Oh here we go again, pointing out Islamophobic BS apparently equals saying don't ever criticize Islam. :rolleyes:



You Islamophobic motherfucker.



I don't accuse you, I know you are you dipshit.



When you start saying that "anywhere Christians have political power or guns, they end up treating women, gays, and non Christians like complete shit." I might. Seriously though, there isn't a problem with Christianphobia in the world (well tbh Christians are persecuted in some places), there is with Islamophobia. If the past decade (http://www.thenation.com/article/168379/islamophobia-and-its-discontents) hasn't made this clear to your bigoted ass then you can't be convinced.

Nobody has a problem with criticism of religion, but when you start talking about Muslims not doing this, or Muslims doing that, or Muslims being worse than other people, then it suddenly turns into racism.



Sure you are, and you have a Muslim friend too, so that means you can't be Islamophobic, right?



Who the fuck is excusing "Muslim violence"?



Because you single out Muslims as if they're a special case, a worse kind of people.



"Boohoo nobody can criticize Islam anymore, it's political correctness gone mad I tell ya, just look at the media today! The love and praise of Islam and Muslims is sickening! If only I had a place, any place, where I could spread the word about how bad Islam is. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris...somebody..anybody help me!" :laugh:

I love how you've basically made me into a caricature of the stereotypical racist conservatives on television and shit.

Also, you cannot be racist against a fucking world religion. Am I the dipshit? Because last I checked, the MAJORITY of Muslims are not Arab. In fact, Muslims comprise all sorts of ethnicities. I guess you didn't know that, I suggest educating yourself though before making a fool of yourself on an internet forum accusing me of being racist towards a world religion.

I didn't "single out" Muslims. If this militant group of reactionary savages was a Christian group, I would be railing on against Christian violence. But guess what? People on this site know about Christian hate groups. But you can't criticize those innocent Muslims who treat women, gays, and non Muslims terribly.

Also, I never even mentioned Muslims in the West. Again, Muslims in the West are the ones who generally need to be defended from racists because there IS racism against Arabs. Even if an Arab is not Muslim, there is racism because they are Arab and it's associated with bad things. You understand?

But nah, just keep calling me racist towards a world religion and continue making excuses for violent acts committed towards women and other minority groups by Muslim radicals :rolleyes:

[Dagoth Ur]

The leader of BH is hilarious.

[tachosomoza]

The leader of BH is hilarious.

Yeah, so were Idi Amin and Mobutu Sese Soko. They play the buffoon on the world stage so people will just laugh while they're chopping people's hands off.

[Dagoth Ur]

BH is more about rape than chopping off hands. ;)

[tachosomoza]

I'm not amused and neither are the women of Nigeria.

[Dagoth Ur]

Like you care about Nigeria. The women of Nigeria need to organize or else this will keep happening. No matter if it is Boko Haram (with their leader of lols) or Christian militias, or "the government" of Nigeria.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

The leader of BH is hilarious.


BH is more about rape than chopping off hands. ;)


Like you care about Nigeria. The women of Nigeria need to organize or else this will keep happening. No matter if it is Boko Haram (with their leader of lols) or Christian militias, or "the government" of Nigeria.

Are you fucked in the head or something? What kind of fucking humor is this supposed to be? This is just bizarre.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Have you ever stopped to ponder who might be controlling the lens?

Clearly some western atheist pro-femen "islamophobic" imperialist conspiracy, amiright?
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

O|O

[Rosa Partizan]

"I abducted your girls," a man claiming to be Abubakar Shekau, the group's leader, said in a video seen by the Guardian. "I will sell them in the market, by Allah. I will sell them off and marry them off. There is a market for selling humans.

"Women are slaves. I want to reassure my Muslim brothers that Allah says slaves are permitted in Islam," he added, in an apparent reference to an ancient tradition of enslaving women captured during jihad, or holy war.
- Boko Haram's leader

How come we don't see any muslims protesting or actively condemning their actions like how they did when the cartoons depicting Muhammad were released? And how dare some people claim that our page "has no concern for the girls and we want to spread hatred and bigotry"? Why do you try to silence us when we call out on the terror fanatics and their underlying motivation behind it (I.e. Islam)? Oh and if you're going to say they are not 'true muslims' or this isn't 'true Islam' or 'Islam is perfect Muslims are not' kind of pathetic excuses, I kindly invite you to Google this term: No True Scottsman Fallacy.

Everytime, EVERY DAMN TIME a terrorist attack happens, Muslims will rush to defend the honour of Islam but RARELY, VERY RARELY do they actually call out on their bullshit! I just don't understand why the criticism of Islam causes more outrage (even among many moderate Muslims) instead of the violence and bloodbath and war and slavery caused by the terrorist groups?

This page believes that not all Muslims are responsible for the terror attacks carried out by Islamists so stop framing us okay? Instead, you should call out and condemn their Islamists instead od US. Everytime you try to silence or censor criticism of Islam and Islamism, and keep silent about the horror attacks, you are ONLY enabling these terrorists and fundies to continue their crimes against huamnity. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

nuff said.

https://www.facebook.com/WomenForFemen

[Dagoth Ur]

Are you fucked in the head or something? What kind of fucking humor is this supposed to be? This is just bizarre.
I don't see what is humorous about rape. Boko Haram's leader is a evil, blah, blah, murderer warlord etc, but he is hilarious in his videos. His insanity, and that he is follow is pretty funny in a relativist sort of way. Or maybe I just like to find humor in tragedy, sue me.

Also I'm serious about the women of Nigeria. They need to band together and start killing men if anyone is going to take them seriously enough to not kidnap them and sell them off as slaves. All the major parties in Nigeria are a threat to the women there, they should kill them all.

[tachosomoza]

I don't see what is humorous about rape. Boko Haram's leader is a evil, blah, blah, murderer warlord etc, but he is hilarious in his videos. His insanity, and that he is follow is pretty funny in a relativist sort of way. Or maybe I just like to find humor in tragedy, sue me.

Also I'm serious about the women of Nigeria. They need to band together and start killing men if anyone is going to take them seriously enough to not kidnap them and sell them off as slaves. All the major parties in Nigeria are a threat to the women there, they should kill them all.

Kill all the men? For what?

[Red Banana]

It's funny because I am usually defending Muslims from racist comments in real life.


Also, you cannot be racist against a fucking world religion. Am I the dipshit? Because last I checked, the MAJORITY of Muslims are not Arab. In fact, Muslims comprise all sorts of ethnicities. I guess you didn't know that, I suggest educating yourself though before making a fool of yourself on an internet forum accusing me of being racist towards a world religion.

Just had to point this out.

[Rosa Partizan]

the followers of a religion are a different thing than the religion itself. I find "Islam sucks" not as nearly as offensive as "Muslims suck".

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Just had to point this out.

Well, the comments coming from reactionaries in the West about Muslims are generally racist because they are talking about Arab people or any brown-skinned person who is wearing any type of traditional Muslim dress.

But the person I was debating with is saying I am being racist towards Muslims as an entire world religion when all I was doing was pointing out that when Muslims or any religious theocrats gain power, they use it to subjugate people. That is not racist, especially because there are white people who convert to Islam and participate in violent activities as well.

But I can see your point, I should have phrased it better. Certainly weakens my argument.

[Dagoth Ur]

To be fair the vast majority of muslims are brown. For many this is the real reason they oppose Islam. Not to accuse Ace Steel of such, just pointing out a simple fact.

@tachosomoza: For selling them as fucking slaves maybe? Or standing by while they were taken? The Christians aren't any better, they just target muslim girls instead. The Nigerian government is populated by people who live off of slave trade. None of these people deserve sympathy but instead bayonets.

EDIT:
oops AS beat me too it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Also I'm serious about the women of Nigeria. They need to band together and start killing men if anyone is going to take them seriously enough to not kidnap them and sell them off as slaves. All the major parties in Nigeria are a threat to the women there, they should kill them all.

How on earth do you expect a bunch of schoolgirls to organize some kind of militia on a whim?


the followers of a religion are a different thing than the religion itself. I find "Islam sucks" not as nearly as offensive as "Muslims suck".

The issue isn't with religion per se though - and this is true for Christian fanatics too. One can be a leftist or even just a moderate and be a Muslim or a Christian (though perhaps not a strict Marxist materialist) and not just take all the passages that are used to justify reactionary violence as literal endorsements of the kinds of behavior seen by Boko Haram and the Taliban. Most of the victims of this kind of violence are fellow Muslims, and they clearly don't endorse this kind of thing.

[adipocere]

:rolleyes:

Sure, sure it is.

Except the Boko Haram is located at the opposite ends of Nigeria, away from oil, and the niger delta has had rebels for far longer than the Boko Haram has been active without foreign intervention. Also, the oil is already in British-Dutch and American and French and Italian hands. What the hell is an intervention needed for?

Not everything is a conspiracy you know.

Intervention is needed to install a US military base in Nigeria and further privatize the oil fields, which are state owned, and are not being fully exploited, and to control the oil "theft" or piracy by beefing up naval presence. That is to say nothing of the rest of the vast natural resources in Nigeria. Ridiculous Boko Haram, with its Libyan-smuggled weapons (where have we seen that? Oh yeah, Syria) is a pretext to lean on the Nigerian government. What better way to ooze your way into a country that has kept you at arms length than to focus on one atrocity (take your pick) that has the added benefit of striking deep racist cords in the west (black Muslim men with guns raping little girls) to whip up international hysteria and galvanize or at least disarm the lightly read R2P left and use the media and celebs to take to twitter and demand that Team America World Police do something to #BringBackOurGirls. (shades of Kony 2012)
Which inevitably means sending US troops (and/or French) and the "mission creep" will just go on and on and the troops never leave and you wont think about it again until you hear about some drones striking the niger delta rebels. The US will have its military base, ECOWAS can be renamed FREEDOMWAS and Shell's stock will go up three cents.

This is not about whether or not it actually happened or how many white fingerprints are on it so I'm not sure why you use the word conspiracy - this sort of humanitarian pretext for American presence in country X has been happening in some form or another all over Africa for decades. Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan and new colony S. Sudan - official language English - Libya, Sierra Leone etc. Sometimes we use force, sometimes we use opportunity. There is no better friend to US interests in Nigeria than Boko Haram is right this minute.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-militarization-of-the-african-continent-africom-expands-operations-in-cooperation-with-europe/5378627
http://vibeghana.com/2014/05/06/nigeria-provides-legitimate-cause-for-the-us-and-its-africom/
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33964.pdf
http://newsone.com/2087857/africom-military-us-africa/
http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2013/09/201398104245877469.htm

[Dagoth Ur]

@Sinister Cultural Marxist: I'm sorry, I assumed Nigeria had other women besides schoolgirls. Oh and militias are organized on a "whim" all the time, the whim just needs to be a drastic threat to the safety of those forming a militia.

[tachosomoza]

@tachosomoza: For selling them as fucking slaves maybe? Or standing by while they were taken? The Christians aren't any better, they just target muslim girls instead. The Nigerian government is populated by people who live off of slave trade. None of these people deserve sympathy but instead bayonets.

EDIT:
oops AS beat me too it.

Yeah, and what do you think the result will be if women decide to just start wantonly killing men? Are you insane?

[Rafiq]

All those who identify with revolutionary politics must hold Muslims to the same standards that we do to those in our own respective countries. When an American conservative utters sexist garbage about the family, we attack him, not because we despise our own 'culture' or because we don't understand the complexities behind such sexism - it would be deeply obscene to speak of such an occurrence in terms of culture, wouldn't it?

The point is that when we attack Islamists and are intolerant of reactionary Muslims, we are not doing it because we feel a sense of superiority. On the contrary, we are universalizing truth in that the peoples of the Muslim world are no longer the barbarian other, but an example of loving thy neighbor. The true racist is the tolerant liberal technocrat who passively accepts the notion that Muslims are a barbarian other as unquestionable, and proceeds to fit them within the proximity of global harmony and prosperity - in a way that is most beneficial to everyone (the logical conclusion is to tolerant Islam and Muslims and their backward, reactionary ways). As though they are animals a part of an ecological question whose nature we do not question and simply accept by default. As radicals, we must refuse to accept this, there is an inexpressible injustice occurring today in the Muslim world, the literal sexual slavery of women, child abuse, domination and oppression of marginal groups, horrible worker's rights and so on. It is not I, or those in the west who emphasize this, but forces in the Muslim world itself, who I can only expect would be absolutely and utterly disgusted by the way in which such crimes are excused.

Shame on the liberal multicultural Leftist who degrades and patronizes the peoples of the East. Our holy struggle extends all corners of the Earth, to reject our universality is to declare yourself an enemy of the struggle itself.

[ola.]

Update: US and UK will send military, intelligence and law enforcement to aid the Nigerian government pursue Boko Haram militants (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/nigeria-kidnap-schoolgirls-us-uk-help)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

To be fair the vast majority of muslims are brown. For many this is the real reason they oppose Islam. Not to accuse Ace Steel of such, just pointing out a simple fact.

@tachosomoza: For selling them as fucking slaves maybe? Or standing by while they were taken? The Christians aren't any better, they just target muslim girls instead. The Nigerian government is populated by people who live off of slave trade. None of these people deserve sympathy but instead bayonets.

EDIT:
oops AS beat me too it.

I'm pretty damn sure that the majority of brown people aren't muslims though.
But it's a mute point if that was a way to project racism against brown folks there would be a hell of a lot more blatant anti-catholic sentiment along the southern border in the USA.
Also, I'm Mexican-American, another group of brown people that experience racism and xenophobia in the United States as well. Mexican culture is very intertwined with catholicism and overall Mexicans make up one of the most devoutly catholic nationalities in the world. Do I use that as an excuse to cling to catholicism? No, I've got too much brains for that even after all of the braincells I've lost. I'm not 6 years old an I don't have imaginary friends and if someone is watching over me all the time, they probably work for a government agency and do not have divinity or super powers other than wiretapping.

I have respect for very, very few people who believe in God in my heart and with those extremely few people it is because I managed to put aside their belief in God and like them on a personal level. For me, that is about as easy as being friends with a fascist.

A fascist would most likely want to kill me for being chicana. A religious person something except being one of them immodest, outspoken womyn or even more so, because of my blatant undeniable bisexuality.

This is nothing against arabs, nor africans, or about race in any way. There are arab atheists. This is about no gods, no masters, no bourgeois superstitions nor lies. Nor delusions of imaginary friends.

[Nakidana]

I love how you've basically made me into a caricature of the stereotypical racist conservatives on television and shit.

Well you do exhibit all the familiar symptoms, probably you've just been reading Hitchens & Harris a bit too much lately.


Also, you cannot be racist against a fucking world religion. Am I the dipshit? Because last I checked, the MAJORITY of Muslims are not Arab. In fact, Muslims comprise all sorts of ethnicities. I guess you didn't know that, I suggest educating yourself though before making a fool of yourself on an internet forum accusing me of being racist towards a world religion.

Ah yes, the good 'ol "Islam is not a race!" cop out. Too bad it's bullshit (http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/debunking-the-islam-is-not-a-race-argument/).


I didn't "single out" Muslims. If this militant group of reactionary savages was a Christian group, I would be railing on against Christian violence. But guess what? People on this site know about Christian hate groups. But you can't criticize those innocent Muslims who treat women, gays, and non Muslims terribly.

Yes you did, by saying that if Muslims get hold of weapons they automatically start oppressing people. As if there is something inherently wrong with Muslims compared with other people. And then you go on complaining about how you can't criticize Muslims, which is obvious bullocks. You can criticize Muslims all over the place, have you tried opening a fucking newspaper in the last decade? Muslims and Islam have been criticized and demonized to hell and back again.


Also, I never even mentioned Muslims in the West. Again, Muslims in the West are the ones who generally need to be defended from racists because there IS racism against Arabs. Even if an Arab is not Muslim, there is racism because they are Arab and it's associated with bad things. You understand?

Yeah, because Islam and Muslims has been associated with certain things, e.g. brown skin color, turbans, shalwar kameez. This is not isolated to Arabs though, e.g. post 9/11 Sikhs, who are not Arabs and have nothing to do with Islam, were attacked in the street because people associated them with Islam.

Also, Islamophobia extends further than the West. There is a slew of misconceptions about Muslims in other parts of the world, e.g. the filthy one you spewed earlier.


But nah, just keep calling me racist towards a world religion

Okay, racist.


and continue making excuses for violent acts committed towards women and other minority groups by Muslim radicals :rolleyes:

What's wrong with you? Why do you make shit up? Not even once have I made any such excuse.

[DOOM]

Why the fuck would someone defend reactionary muslims? As Rafiq said, we (you, actually) need to use the same standards on them (us). You can't single out your criticism of sexism and fanaticism, just because they're muslims.

[DOOM]

because obviously this is happening out of some religious motivation. And no, I'm not saying that Islam wants people to do that, I just find it irritating that people take it to the streets rather because of cartoons than because of child abduction.

We muslims do tend to be apologists, when it comes to islamist crimes. Kind of a defence-reaction. But that's the wrong way, we need to deal with this problem. Letting it slide is not the right way.

[Igor]

BH is more about rape than chopping off hands. ;);)

fuck you

[Nakidana]

Why the fuck would someone defend reactionary muslims? As Rafiq said, we (you, actually) need to use the same standards on them (us). You can't single out your criticism of sexism and fanaticism, just because they're muslims.

Who are you talking to?

[Rugged Collectivist]

I love how mainstream westerners didn't give a fuck until they saw it on twitter. Kony, part II.


I can't believe that almost exclusively feminist pages are reporting about that. And I can't believe either that Mohammed cartoons stir bigger uproar among the Islamic world than this. World's more than fucked up.

To be fair I'm pretty sure I heard about this on the radio weeks ago.

[bricolage]

I love how mainstream westerners didn't give a fuck until they saw it on twitter. Kony, part II.

To be fair I'm pretty sure I heard about this on the radio weeks ago.
I also think twitter's where a lot of people hear the news first, I know that I saw this break on twitter very soon after it happened and long before, for example, newspapers had had the time to print it. Perhaps there are a lot of people who saw a bring back our girls hash tag from someone semi-famous and re-tweeted it without knowing what it was really about, but I don't think devalues twitters as a means for learning about events in the world.

[Rosa Partizan]

Who are you talking to?

---------

[Os Cangaceiros]

Intervention is needed to install a US military base in Nigeria and further privatize the oil fields, which are state owned, and are not being fully exploited, and to control the oil "theft" or piracy by beefing up naval presence.

His point about MEND is basically a sound one. MEND has been actively involved in targeting oil infrastructure over the years, as well as abducting petro businessmen and extorting oil companies. Or would that be a too obvious pretext for intervention?

[adipocere]

His point about MEND is basically a sound one. MEND has been actively involved in targeting oil infrastructure over the years, as well as abducting petro businessmen and extorting oil companies. Or would that be a too obvious pretext for intervention?
I don't think #BringBackOurOilWorkers has the same ring to it. But by intervention, I don't mean "shock and awe" - I just mean pretext to beef up colonial presence in the region and not necessarily only for oil that is more or less pumping. That would be laughably myopic for a country that operates 800 or more military bases worldwide.
Honestly, I don't think the western public really needs pretext. Most people couldn't find Nigeria on a map. Rarely, however, does the US get to intervene in situations where they get a hero's welcome. Besides it does make for better press than photos of a pregnant woman raped and strangled with a phone cord by fascists in a burned out trade union building in Ukraine.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

^i get the anti-imperialist thing but there's no point in trying to deny that abducting school girls is NOT a legitimate political tactic, ever.

didn't you know that imperialism actually helps to create a lot of these idiotic groups? the point is that these people are enemies to the working class - whether female, male, muslim or otherwise - and that the only solution to the variety of problems is a united working class.

in this sense, all sides are condemnable and a criticism of islam becomes a part of that. however, islam has to be understood in the context its utilized within, in this case it is a political context.

nigeria is an african country and the whole continent has been torn apart by colonialism - supporting either the west or the muslims in this regard amounts to supporting colonial forces and the only people that any communist can legitimately support are the working class.

[Dagoth Ur]

This may be a crazy concept to you but workers aren't always a "side" available to support. Where are the organized workers of Nigeria you speak of?


;)

fuck you
Cry me a river. ;)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

^i get the anti-imperialist thing but there's no point in trying to deny that abducting school girls is NOT a legitimate political tactic, ever.

didn't you know that imperialism actually helps to create a lot of these idiotic groups? the point is that these people are enemies to the working class - whether female, male, muslim or otherwise - and that the only solution to the variety of problems is a united working class.

in this sense, all sides are condemnable and a criticism of islam becomes a part of that. however, islam has to be understood in the context its utilized within, in this case it is a political context.

nigeria is an african country and the whole continent has been torn apart by colonialism - supporting either the west or the muslims in this regard amounts to supporting colonial forces and the only people that any communist can legitimately support are the working class.

Fuck yeah!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This may be a crazy concept to you but workers aren't always a "side" available to support. Where are the organized workers of Nigeria you speak of?

There is still a working class whether industrial or not, whether urban or rural. It seems the point (Swagmeister can correct me if I'm wrong) is that whether western or islamic in these countries it is still colonialism.

Also, I might point out the serious racism from arab muslims toward "sub-Saharan" muslims. It is soooo obvious. And I have said over and over the same thing about christianity so no I'm not "singling out islam" before someone inevitably accuses me of that.

[adipocere]

^i get the anti-imperialist thing but there's no point in trying to deny that abducting school girls is NOT a legitimate political tactic, ever.

didn't you know that imperialism actually helps to create a lot of these idiotic groups? the point is that these people are enemies to the working class - whether female, male, muslim or otherwise - and that the only solution to the variety of problems is a united working class.

in this sense, all sides are condemnable and a criticism of islam becomes a part of that. however, islam has to be understood in the context its utilized within, in this case it is a political context.

nigeria is an african country and the whole continent has been torn apart by colonialism - supporting either the west or the muslims in this regard amounts to supporting colonial forces and the only people that any communist can legitimately support are the working class.

I was not even commenting on Islam which is, in my opinion, about as meaningful a point of discussion as the observation that the terrorists have black skin. Nor was I remotely in support of the tactics used.(?) I was only talking about imperialism.

[exeexe]

If they just had guns there wouldnt be any problem, or at least there would had been causalities on both sides

[Dagoth Ur]

There is still a working class whether industrial or not, whether urban or rural. It seems the point (Swagmeister can correct me if I'm wrong) is that whether western or islamic in these countries it is still colonialism.
So what if workers are there? They are not organized even slightly. American workers are more organized by comparison. This is exactly what I'm talking about: there are often times when "supporting the workers" doesn't make any sense because there are no organized workers to support. I'm sure you think they should be organized, so do I, but they aren't and saying "fuck everyone else, CLASS WAR!" has no meaning in Nigeria.

It isn't like America/Europe where the ruling elite are all the same people with the same ideas.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So what if workers are there? They are not organized even slightly. American workers are more organized by comparison. This is exactly what I'm talking about: there are often times when "supporting the workers" doesn't make any sense because there are no organized workers to support. I'm sure you think they should be organized, so do I, but they aren't and saying "fuck everyone else, CLASS WAR!" has no meaning in Nigeria.

It isn't like America/Europe where the ruling elite are all the same people with the same ideas.

whether the workers are organized currently or not, where there are workers to get organized, class war is relevant. period.

[Dagoth Ur]

Relevance does not equate validity. Maybe you should explain why supporting a non-existent movement is a viable policy.

[Rss]

This is why organizing, educating and arming women should wholeheartedly be supported in developing countries. What good does education make if there are reactionaries physically attacking women for having that education?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Relevance does not equate validity. Maybe you should explain why supporting a non-existent movement is a viable policy.
so you'll support a reactionary movement which abducts young children purely because there isn't a conscious workers' movement in place?

if i come to america and abduct 234 young girls as a response to a political problem, will you support me just because i'm against western capitalism? merely because there's no proletarian movement?

i'll sell the kids all under the guise of undermining the current system, are you okay with that?

[Luís Henrique]

BH is more about rape than chopping off hands. ;)

And rape, as we all know, is hilarious.

Luís Henrique

[Goblin]

Like with most horrific events, celebrities are pretending to care. My favorite has to be Michelle Obama:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/v/t1.0-9/10330444_10151949557136653_5399452667535217123_n.j pg?oh=2b1b20a01244afa01dcf450ed258a4a8&oe=53D3E793&__gda__=1406001301_4b98bac2c3773bd83a1f573f3a03bba 7

[Rosa Partizan]

I hardly believe that ^ this is a real pic.

[Goblin]

I hardly believe that ^ this is a real pic.

It isn't. Heres the real one:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02904/michelle_2904451b.jpg

I just find the edited picture to be more true.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah it has a point. Still, I don't believe that her compassion is fake. It's "just" hypocrite.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

As womyn our mere existence has been ruled unislamic by the Council of Islamic Ideology(CII) (http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/03/15/comment/coucil-of-islamic-ideology-declares-womens-existence-anti-islamic/) In countries where the ideological influence is even a factor from reactionary womyn-hating misogynist fuckfaces like that it is a basic necessity that the women be armed and mobilized to fight to secure their right to exist. In some countries where anti-womyn oppression has become a more visible problem womyn organized themselves into militias/grrrl-gangs to combat such problems like the Gulabi gang who are armed with sticks, now imagine them armed with guns. I see that is a necessity. As far as I'm concerned anyone who believes that their religion has a place in how society is run is like a tea-bagger (in the USA) at best and is reactionary. God of any religion is no different than a führer of adolf hitler's nature. In every religion the scriptures show a God that is in favor of genocide and also considers womyn inferior. This goes deeper than Islam because it is prevalent in every religion's scriptures. God is an excuse to excite entire populations and oppress womyn. Tolerance of any religion is to be an apologist for the most disgusting pieces of rightwing shit in the world. I dream of a day when all womyn are armed and mobilized to finally do away with religion world wide. Religious, state and corporate institutions must be burnt to ash. They are a part of the old world that needs to be destroyed for the new world that is in our hearts.

[adipocere]

Like with most horrific events, celebrities are pretending to care. My favorite has to be Michelle Obama:


ha...far more apt.

To be fair - Unlike other celebs, Michelle's concern bares with it an implicit threat of violence, both physical and economic. It's like a Medusa fixing it's gaze.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

yeah it has a point. Still, I don't believe that her compassion is fake. It's "just" hypocrite.



Yeah it has a point. The point (as in the intent) is to negate the fact of the specific situation that she was referring to and derail the dialogue. It was so cleverly done under our noses that some are bound to fall for that tactic. Two different subjects. One where I agree with her, and the other where the Obama administration is guilty of atrocities and cowardice. But no matter how fucked up the latter is using the former as a point of attack over the latter is counter-productive and only seeks to derail the attention focused on the abduction and sale into slavery of these grrrls. This really isn't about Michelle Obama nor her husband but about the grrrls that were kidnapped and are being sold into slavery for $12 per grrrl. This isn't about murder but whether you are an apologist for slavery. If you are than don't talk bad about slavery in the south here in the US. Rosa, based on every previous post you wouldn't fall for such bullshit. This is about kidnapping and slavery (as well as rape from the fucked up men who by young grrrls as slave-wives) period. That is something worse than death, that is slavery and rape.

[Rosa Partizan]

Yeah it has a point. The point (as in the intent) is to negate the fact of the specific situation that she was referring to and derail the dialogue. It was so cleverly done under our noses that some are bound to fall for that tactic. Two different subjects. One where I agree with her, and the other where the Obama administration is guilty of atrocities and cowardice. But no matter how fucked up the latter is using the former as a point of attack over the latter is counter-productive and only seeks to derail the attention focused on the abduction and sale into slavery of these grrrls. This really isn't about Michelle Obama nor her husband but about the grrrls that were kidnapped and are being sold into slavery for $12 per grrrl. This isn't about murder but whether you are an apologist for slavery. If you are than don't talk bad about slavery in the south here in the US. Rosa, based on every previous post you wouldn't fall for such bullshit. This is about kidnapping and slavery (as well as rape from the fucked up men who by young grrrls as slave-wives) period. That is something worse than death, that is slavery and rape.

Indeed, it is derailing. It might have some legitimization and validity, but you're right, it's a completely different subject, touched mostly by that ones that wanna deviate from what the discussion actually is about (not referring to Goblin, rather to those ones making such pictures), which kinda dilutes the current problem. Like, women in Egypt are molested and assaulted publicly, and someone jumps in and says "hurrdurr in Israel, they have to sit in the back part of the bus in some urban areas". Okay. Yeah. Now the whole molesting-part doesn't look that bad anymore, I mean, c'mon, Israel hurrdurr. We talk about structural contempt and abuse of women and I don't wanna talk about any different stuff when such a topic is on.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Indeed, it is derailing. It might have some legitimization and validity, but you're right, it's a completely different subject, touched mostly by that ones that wanna deviate from what the discussion actually is about (not referring to Goblin, rather to those ones making such pictures), which kinda dilutes the current problem. Like, women in Egypt are molested and assaulted publicly, and someone jumps in and says "hurrdurr in Israel, they have to sit in the back part of the bus in some urban areas". Okay. Yeah. Now the whole molesting-part doesn't look that bad anymore, I mean, c'mon, Israel hurrdurr. We talk about structural contempt and abuse of women and I don't wanna talk about any different stuff when such a topic is on.

And it irritates me when anyone on any side tries to make it about the celebrities that happen to make a statement. I saw the picture on my news feed on Facebook news fee while I couldn't sleep around 4 or 5 am and I literally shouted "Stop making this about celebrities like Michelle Obama and keep it about the issue! Keep your eyes on the prize! Focus on the fight at hand"

I'm lucky I didn't wake up the entire trailer park

[RA89]

"Islamaphobia" is one of the most ridiculous words ever. Literally can't take people seriously when they use it.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Islamaphobia" is one of the most ridiculous words ever. Literally can't take people seriously when they use it.

Why?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

"Islamaphobia" is one of the most ridiculous words ever. Literally can't take people seriously when they use it.

I can see things like racism directed against arabs or racism directed at africans. Islam is not a race though. There are white muslims in varying parts of eastern Europe.

[BITW434]

I can see things like racism directed against arabs or racism directed at africans. Islam is not a race though. There are white muslims in varying parts of eastern Europe.
'Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. '

Straight from Wikipedia.

[Rosa Partizan]

I can see things like racism directed against arabs or racism directed at africans. Islam is not a race though. There are white muslims in varying parts of eastern Europe.

Yes, half my family (the half I'm waaay more in touch with) is muslim. They are very moderate, though, which is the standard with Muslims from my birth country. I think that Islamphobia is a valid concept, but totally overused. I'm not talking about those dutch Geert Wilders-dickheads, this word is totally fitting here. I'm talking about questioning thinks like, why do women have to cover up, why is polygamy allowed for men only, why do you take things from the Quran that had some point in history, but nowadays are plain wrong and try to make them valid for nowadays? At this very point, the term "Islamphobia" is used to shut down an important discussion about necessary reforms.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yes, half my family (the half I'm waaay more in touch with) is muslim. They are very moderate, though, which is the standard with Muslims from my birth country. I think that Islamphobia is a valid concept, but totally overused. I'm not talking about those dutch Geert Wilders-dickheads, this word is totally fitting here. I'm talking about questioning thinks like, why do women have to cover up, why is polygamy allowed for men only, why do you take things from the Quran that had some point in history, but nowadays are plain wrong and try to make them valid for nowadays? At this very point, the term "Islamphobia" is used to shut down an important discussion about necessary reforms.

Didn't mulims go to war with Milosivich (spelling?) over there?

[Rosa Partizan]

Didn't mulims go to war with Milosivich (spelling?) over there?

No, it was the opposite, Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) were the ethnic group with the biggest number of casualties in the Yugoslavian wars, mostly killed by Milosevic's regime.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

No, it was the opposite, Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) were the ethnic group with the biggest number of casualties in the Yugoslavian wars, mostly killed by Milosevic's regime.

I wasn't talking about who started it I was asking basically did the two fight?

Now I hear these anti-imperialists from the Workers World Party or whatever idolizing him as a noted anti-imperialist hero while out of the other side of there mouth talking about imperialism against islam. That is why anti-imperialism makes about as much sense to me as imperialism. I look at both as lunacy.

Also, it's not like during the westward expansion the anglo protestants didn't butcher brown skinned catholics and rape brown skinned nuns all the while persecuting irish and other light skinned catholics with in the US army's own ranks, right? Still, I am not insane enough to defend catholicism. My dad's side of the family is Mexican catholic. The US has and continues to meddle in Mexican and other Latin American affairs in various ways and treat Mexican immigrants (as well as the chicano community born on this side of the border) in the USA like shit. These are peoples of overwhelmingly catholic background. Many of the Catholic members of my family have leanings to the liberation theology. Yet still, practicing catholics have a mental illness, just like all other adults with an imaginary friend (who is simultaneously three imaginary friends :laugh:) But the people that sell God to them, they are truly shitty people they are no better than a drug cartel as far as I'm concerned. What I said applies to all religion but I most frequently use the one I was raised with as an example because I know it better.

No gods, no masters!

[Rosa Partizan]

oh okay, I misunderstood the expression, wasn't familiar with it, sorry. I'm gonna come back to your post after some short phone call.

[Rosa Partizan]

I wasn't talking about who started it I was asking basically did the two fight?

Now I hear these anti-imperialists from the Workers World Party or whatever idolizing him as a noted anti-imperialist hero while out of the other side of there mouth talking about imperialism against islam. That is why anti-imperialism makes about as much sense to me as imperialism. I look at both as lunacy.

Also, it's not like during the westward expansion the anglo protestants didn't butcher brown skinned catholics and rape brown skinned nuns all the while persecuting irish and other light skinned catholics with in the US army's own ranks, right? Still, I am not insane enough to defend catholicism. My dad's side of the family is Mexican catholic. The US has and continues to meddle in Mexican and other Latin American affairs in various ways and treat Mexican immigrants (as well as the chicano community born on this side of the border) in the USA like shit. These are peoples of overwhelmingly catholic background. Many of the Catholic members of my family have leanings to the liberation theology. Yet still, practicing catholics have a mental illness, just like all other adults with an imaginary friend (who is simultaneously three imaginary friends :laugh:) But the people that sell God to them, they are truly shitty people they are no better than a drug cartel as far as I'm concerned. What I said applies to all religion but I most frequently use the one I was raised with as an example because I know it better.

No gods, no masters!

Milosevic is adored or at least apologized by a huge part of the left, which I find really disgusting. Those guys better not call themselves antifascists or I might smash their faces to some undefined pulp. Otherwise, I don't call myself anti-imperialist anyway, for certain reasons concerning Israel and the way anti-imperialists deal with Israeli issues. Being leftist and at the same time somehow have a pro-Israeli tendency is something that only in Germany kinda works out, as far as my impression is concerned. Well, that was a bit offtopic, I totally agree with what you say about religion and its bigotry and hypocrisy.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I would certainly never use the atrocities that catholics faced from anglo-saxon protestants as a basis for being an apologist for the child abuse rampant in the catholic church, nor would I use it as an excuse to go easy on the church for the church's anti-womyn misogynist bullshit they pull. I would be a loon if I would. I still think the IRA is just about as full of shit as the protestant invaders that they are fighting against. I mean I'd love to see the british crown kicked out of ireland entirely but sure as fuck not in the name of the catholic church.

[RA89]

Why?

Well there are some very questionable quotes in Islamic scripture, both the Qu'ran & Ahadith (both authentic and non-authentic Hadiths). It takes some very imaginative interpretations by western apologists to "prove" they're not hateful texts.
Then you have these quotes being taught by many Islamic leaders/schools.
Then you have the people being taught applying these quotes.
Looking around the world, it seems the more Islamic a country the higher the index of human rights abuse.
Even in 1st world countries Sharia courts are operating (over 100+ in the UK and more coming) which put muslim women at a severe disadvantage.

Phobia is an irrational fear. On what planet is being scared of the above irrational?

Then of course there's the fact that anyone, from any country or any race can be a muslim. Makes the people screaming racist sound silly and lose credibility - particularly in the eyes of neutrals.

[Rafiq]

I think the problem is one of terminology. When we refer to Islamophobia, we do not refer to attacks on Islam as a religion, but a growing and pervasive attitude toward Muslim immigrants in Europe which unquestionably manifests itself in alleged 'Anti-Islam' rhetoric by European conservatives. To put it frankly, European conservatives who are reactionaries in their own right (Largely display anti-semitic tendencies, are anti-feminist, prattle of "traditional values", aggressive nationalism and so forth) oppose Islam as a manifestation of racism. Why else would they? Both (Islamists) and European fascists are reactionaries, they are only separated on national (though sometimes religious) lines. And yes, Islam is not a nation or an ethnicity, but a religion, but without it's national context it means very little, politically speaking in Europe.

[Rosa Partizan]

I think the problem is one of terminology. When we refer to Islamophobia, we do not refer to attacks on Islam as a religion, but a growing and pervasive attitude toward Muslim immigrants in Europe which unquestionably manifests itself in alleged 'Anti-Islam' rhetoric by European conservatives. To put it frankly, European conservatives who are reactionaries in their own right (Largely display anti-semitic tendencies, are anti-feminist, prattle of "traditional values", aggressive nationalism and so forth) oppose Islam as a manifestation of racism. Why else would they? Both (Islamists) and European fascists are reactionaries, they are only separated on national (though sometimes religious) lines. And yes, Islam is not a nation or an ethnicity, but a religion, but without it's national context it means very little, politically speaking in Europe.

That's the way I would've defined Islamophobia for myself. Unfortunately, I had some discussions about Islam on another board where a lot of muslims were and as soon as I asked some uncomfortable questions and wanted to get more clear answers, the first ones reacted like "oh God stop this Islamophobia". It was only questions like "why can't a woman marry 4 guys?" and feminist stuff.

[Rafiq]

Though that doesn't mean defending Islam would be an effective counteroffensive against these attitudes - on the contrary, we have to reject such national and religious dichotomy and (as the Bolsheviks did during the Russian civil war) divide the Muslim populations on class lines, effectively destroying their reactionary, isolated communities and integrating the Muslim working people into a much larger movement of emancipatory politics.

[Nakidana]

Well there are some very questionable quotes in Islamic scripture, both the Qu'ran & Ahadith (both authentic and non-authentic Hadiths). It takes some very imaginative interpretations by western apologists to "prove" they're not hateful texts.
Then you have these quotes being taught by many Islamic leaders/schools.
Then you have the people being taught applying these quotes.
Looking around the world, it seems the more Islamic a country the higher the index of human rights abuse.
Even in 1st world countries Sharia courts are operating (over 100+ in the UK and more coming) which put muslim women at a severe disadvantage.

Phobia is an irrational fear. On what planet is being scared of the above irrational?

Then of course there's the fact that anyone, from any country or any race can be a muslim. Makes the people screaming racist sound silly and lose credibility - particularly in the eyes of neutrals.

My god you sound exactly like a fucking BNP member. "hurr durr Islam is not a race!!!". Well woopti fucking do, you out-thought us all didn't you, you clever bastard? Islam is not a race, but a religion, who woulda thunk it. Somebody get this genius a Nobel prize for originality. :rolleyes:

Yes, Islamophobia does exist (http://www.thenation.com/article/168379/islamophobia-and-its-discontents?page=full) you neanderthal POS. And did you read the article (http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/debunking-the-islam-is-not-a-race-argument/) I posted earlier, about how non-Muslims associate Muslims with racialized stereotypes, and how that's one reason why Islamophobia is racist? Well, obviously you didn't 'cause your arguments are still at the Sam Harris level.

Can't believe you guys are entertaining these morons.

[Rafiq]

That's the way I would've defined Islamophobia for myself. Unfortunately, I had some discussions about Islam on another board where a lot of muslims were and as soon as I asked some uncomfortable questions and wanted to get more clear answers, the first ones reacted like "oh God stop this Islamophobia". It was only questions like "why can't a woman marry 4 guys?" and feminist stuff.

There is no reason for us to spare, tolerate or pander to Muslim intellectuals. Those Muslims who have access to education, who are not victims of Islamist ideology but perpetrators are class enemies who we should oppose the same way we oppose any other reactionary. They are the harbingers of reactionary ideology within their own communities, for this crime alone we should not be hesitant to attack them. Let us not open space, in combating anti-immigrant sentiment, for the Muslim petty bourgeoisie to possess immunity from our wrath.

[RA89]

My god you sound exactly like a fucking BNP member. "hurr durr Islam is not a race!!!". Well woopti fucking do, you out-thought us all didn't you, you clever bastard? Islam is not a race, but a religion, who woulda thunk it. Somebody get this genius a Nobel prize for originality. :rolleyes:

Yes, Islamophobia does exist (http://www.thenation.com/article/168379/islamophobia-and-its-discontents?page=full) you neanderthal POS. And did you read the article (http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/debunking-the-islam-is-not-a-race-argument/) I posted earlier, about how non-Muslims associate Muslims with racialized stereotypes, and how that's one reason why Islamophobia is racist? Well, obviously you didn't 'cause your arguments are still at the Sam Harris level.

Can't believe you guys are entertaining these morons.

Between the insults and crying you've embarrassed yourself. What is actually wrong with you? I hope for the sake of muslims there are better people out there to defend them.

Summarise the main points from those articles which address my claims, I could easily link articles right back at you.

The tone of your post is pathetic btw.

[willwinall]

Like you care about Nigeria. The women of Nigeria need to organize or else this will keep happening. No matter if it is Boko Haram (with their leader of lols) or Christian militias, or "the government" of Nigeria.

Exactly, only they can stand up and fight for themselves. Otherwise the United States or some European country will step in, and with the "Democracy B.S." will send military aid, and then they will regret it.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

My god you sound exactly like a fucking BNP member. "hurr durr Islam is not a race!!!". Well woopti fucking do, you out-thought us all didn't you, you clever bastard? Islam is not a race, but a religion, who woulda thunk it. Somebody get this genius a Nobel prize for originality. :rolleyes:

Yes, Islamophobia does exist (http://www.thenation.com/article/168379/islamophobia-and-its-discontents?page=full) you neanderthal POS. And did you read the article (http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/debunking-the-islam-is-not-a-race-argument/) I posted earlier, about how non-Muslims associate Muslims with racialized stereotypes, and how that's one reason why Islamophobia is racist? Well, obviously you didn't 'cause your arguments are still at the Sam Harris level.

Can't believe you guys are entertaining these morons.

I'm not muslim and when I think of muslims a multi-racial group of men come to mind but with the religion's erasure of their womyn I usually have a hard time picturing muslim womyn. I say the same about catholicism too. Protestants all look anglo when I picture them, hmmm, odd. The only common strand that I think of when I think of practicing muslims is that they all are adults with an imaginary friend just like any other religion. I just hate religion across the board.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Milosevic is adored or at least apologized by a huge part of the left, which I find really disgusting. Those guys better not call themselves antifascists or I might smash their faces to some undefined pulp. Otherwise, I don't call myself anti-imperialist anyway, for certain reasons concerning Israel and the way anti-imperialists deal with Israeli issues. Being leftist and at the same time somehow have a pro-Israeli tendency is something that only in Germany kinda works out, as far as my impression is concerned. Well, that was a bit offtopic, I totally agree with what you say about religion and its bigotry and hypocrisy.

Yeah, it takes a German idiot to be an anti-german. You guys are the laughing stock of the rest of the world, even the idiot tankies are more coherent.

But aside from anti-german silliness, who the fuck apologises and adores Milosevic? Aside from certain vague populist nationalist left groups and PSL-type tankies who think anyone who is attacked by a U.S. military contingent is a shining beacon of ideological purity, no one fucking adores Milosevic. You're just pulling that shit out of your arse to justify your idiotic Israeli nationalist crap.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yeah, it takes a German idiot to be an anti-german. You guys are the laughing stock of the rest of the world, even the idiot tankies are more coherent.

But aside from anti-german silliness, who the fuck apologises and adores Milosevic? Aside from certain vague populist nationalist left groups and PSL-type tankies who think anyone who is attacked by a U.S. military contingent is a shining beacon of ideological purity, no one fucking adores Milosevic. You're just pulling that shit out of your arse to justify your idiotic Israeli nationalist crap.

Workers World Party in the united states tend to be fans of Milosevic.

I dont pretend to understand the Israeli-Palestinian situation but the odd thing I've noticed is that a large portion (but not all) of the american jews I've known were varying levels of pro-israeli. Almost every foreign born jew living in the united states (especially jews from Israel) are super opposed to the Israeli government. Some for varying reasons. But the ones I've known that were super pro-israeli were christian. Just something odd I've noticed about the isaeli situation. I personally don't feel I understand the situation enough to have a strong opinion.

k that was my three cents about that

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Workers World Party in the united states tend to be fans of Milosevic.

WWP and the PSL are splits from the same original mutant abomination, so that is natural, they are both the same preposterous idiots who eat dinners with Iranian leadership and make excuses for whatever Cuba or the DPRK does. Make fools of themselves ranting on the streets wherever they can, neckbeard imbeciles that they are.

[Dagoth Ur]

WWP and PSL are in the streets and working with Unions. You anarchists don't do shit but break windows and make very bad arguments for communism.


so you'll support a reactionary movement which abducts young children purely because there isn't a conscious workers' movement in place?
... are you claiming I support Boko Haram? If you're going to insult me this significantly please try to be anywhere close to the mark.


I can see things like racism directed against arabs or racism directed at africans. Islam is not a race though. There are white muslims in varying parts of eastern Europe.
Yeah so what? Being a muslim makes you non-white or a race-traitor according to basically ALL RACISTS. Nobody thinks of Albanians when they think about muslims either.


Now I hear these anti-imperialists from the Workers World Party or whatever idolizing him as a noted anti-imperialist hero while out of the other side of there mouth talking about imperialism against islam. That is why anti-imperialism makes about as much sense to me as imperialism. I look at both as lunacy.
lol anti-imperialism is as dumb as imperialism. Tell that to the people of Iraq.


I'm not muslim and when I think of muslims a multi-racial group of men come to mind but with the religion's erasure of their womyn I usually have a hard time picturing muslim womyn. I say the same about catholicism too. Protestants all look anglo when I picture them, hmmm, odd. The only common strand that I think of when I think of practicing muslims is that they all are adults with an imaginary friend just like any other religion. I just hate religion across the board.
Okay your weird multicultural view of muslims (exclusively) is completely contrary to most everyone in the world. Even muslims. Also Islam is the only religion/ideology short of socialism that makes a point out of the fact that women are equal to men and were created simultaneously.

Also you seem to hate more ACTUAL workers than you like.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Also you seem to hate more ACTUAL workers than you like.

No, what I hate is patriarchy. What I also hate are theists. Religion is vomit. Oh what I also hate are rape and sex-slavery (two things I have lived through.) I don't use that intellectualized platform bullshit, my politics are a direct response to my experience with oppression. That kind of spontaneity is my platform.

[Dagoth Ur]

Theists make up the majority of the world's workers. I hate patriarchy too for very real my-real-life type reasons, but I don't fall for these pitfalls you have. You are unconsciously supporting liberal-imperialism by your "spontaneity" or lack of ideological rigor.

Let's put it this way: if supporting people you don't like directly aids the end of patriarchy why would you resist supporting them?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Theists make up the majority of the world's workers. I hate patriarchy too for very real my-real-life type reasons, but I don't fall for these pitfalls you have. You are unconsciously supporting liberal-imperialism by your "spontaneity" or lack of ideological rigor.

Let's put it this way: if supporting people you don't like directly aids the end of patriarchy why would you resist supporting them?

Plenty of people I support who I don't like. Because on some level I relate to and empathize with them. They don't represent what I hate. You can keep your manifestos my emotions are my manifesto. If a situation is all too relatable for me I will respond to the situation accordingly based on my feelings and emotions. This has lead me to support labor unions, immigrant rights activism, antifa hooliganism, queer resistance and more than anything a variety of feminist activism from banner drops and wheat pasting to feminist ultra-violence.

I'd say that leads me in the direction that suits me. Do I even concretely have an ideology? No. That's okay though. It keeps me real and genuine.

[Dagoth Ur]

No it keeps you manipulatable and without the ability to concretely analyze events. This is why you have no understanding of the point of anti-imperialism, you say anti-worker things and generally seem to hate ACTUAL workers, and most likely think the S.C.U.M. Manifesto isn't insane. I also support feminist violence, first and foremost against those white bourgeoisie "feminists" who dominate the movement.

Emotions are good, as has been said by various people a Revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of Love. Emotions are not a coherent ideology that will help you achieve what is in you interests, hell they don't even help you understand what your interests even actually are. And before you go off on a "I know what my interests are", false consciousness is a real thing.

[Rosa Partizan]

Yeah, it takes a German idiot to be an anti-german. You guys are the laughing stock of the rest of the world, even the idiot tankies are more coherent.

But aside from anti-german silliness, who the fuck apologises and adores Milosevic? Aside from certain vague populist nationalist left groups and PSL-type tankies who think anyone who is attacked by a U.S. military contingent is a shining beacon of ideological purity, no one fucking adores Milosevic. You're just pulling that shit out of your arse to justify your idiotic Israeli nationalist crap.

This is not the first thread with you becoming rude and offensive towards someone posting their opinion without insulting anyone. Usually, admins and moderators on such boards can't go around and insult users as they please, so get your goddamn shit together. I find this really poor and pathetic. Take out your issues somewhere else.

I know plenty of leftists either liking Milosevic or at least apologizing his actions with sentences like "he was just defending his country of those Western imperialists, who are the true reason for the war". Believe me or not, this is something totally usual to hear and read in Germany from anti-imperial leftists, user BIAZED would confirm it, we talked about that plenty of times.

I am no Israeli nationalist, I find Netanyahu is a fail on every given level, I'm just sick of this onesidedness when it comes to evaluating Middle East politics, like Israel being responsible for anything bad that's ever happening there, like Hamas playing no role in harming civilians or making up fake settings with "injured" people and then claiming it was Israel. Pallywood, you know, it exists. And I don't even consider myself an Antigerman, I just sympathize with some of their ideas.

[Nakidana]

Between the insults and crying you've embarrassed yourself. What is actually wrong with you? I hope for the sake of muslims there are better people out there to defend them.

Summarise the main points from those articles which address my claims, I could easily link articles right back at you.

The tone of your post is pathetic btw.

I'm not gonna spoon-feed you, the articles directly tackles and demolishes the idiotic arguments you made. If you refuse to read and respond to them then that's your problem, not mine.


I'm not muslim and when I think of muslims a multi-racial group of men come to mind but with the religion's erasure of their womyn I usually have a hard time picturing muslim womyn. I say the same about catholicism too. Protestants all look anglo when I picture them, hmmm, odd. The only common strand that I think of when I think of practicing muslims is that they all are adults with an imaginary friend just like any other religion. I just hate religion across the board.

Okay, good for you. Unfortunately your state of mind does not generalize across the western world, where Islamophobia is indeed rampant.

And practicing Muslims are not all adults, there are practicing Muslim children too. And although you have a hard time picturing it, Muslim women exist too. If you ever meet one, try talking to her. They're normal people, just like non-Muslim women.

[DOOM]

Yeah, it takes a German idiot to be an anti-german. You guys are the laughing stock of the rest of the world, even the idiot tankies are more coherent.

But aside from anti-german silliness, who the fuck apologises and adores Milosevic? Aside from certain vague populist nationalist left groups and PSL-type tankies who think anyone who is attacked by a U.S. military contingent is a shining beacon of ideological purity, no one fucking adores Milosevic. You're just pulling that shit out of your arse to justify your idiotic Israeli nationalist crap.

Huh yeah, you've never been to Europe, have you? Major anti-imperialist groups and papers were and are defending Milosevic or 90s Yugoslavia. You don't know Jack Shit.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah, biazed and me have been exchanging like dozens of german pro milosevic-articles from leftist pages and papers. But takayuki knows better :laugh: stop making an idiot of yourself, srsly.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Huh yeah, you've never been to Europe, have you? Major anti-imperialist groups and papers were and are defending Milosevic or 90s Yugoslavia. You don't know Jack Shit.

You're implying that they were ever anything but worthless tankies who would jerk it to whoever was on the recieving end of any U.S. exploit. Of course those were having loving affairs with Hussein, Ghadaffi and Milosevic, no shit, you say that like it's any surprise. If you think their views are in any shape of form worth recognising and heeding... then again, aren't you the second Israel-loving shit-german? Funny how smashing the state works when it comes to that apartheid settler state; oh no, let's protect that one!

[DOOM]

You're implying that they were ever anything but worthless tankies who would jerk it to whoever was on the recieving end of any U.S. exploit. Of course those were having loving affairs with Hussein, Ghadaffi and Milosevic, no shit, you say that like it's any surprise. If you think their views are in any shape of form worth recognising and heeding... then again, aren't you the second Israel-loving shit-german? Funny how smashing the state works when it comes to that apartheid settler state; oh no, let's protect that one!

Oh they were. My lord, antiimperialists were THE major leftist strain in Europe untill 2000. Why are you relativising their stupidness? My god, it's still a popular opinion, and it isn't just a tankie thing, anarchists and other radlefts were and are still defending this stance.
Oh yeah I am, and everytime I have to read bullshit like this, I'm becoming more and more pro-Israel.
They're also poisoning palestinian water, huh?

[Rosa Partizan]

You're implying that they were ever anything but worthless tankies who would jerk it to whoever was on the recieving end of any U.S. exploit. Of course those were having loving affairs with Hussein, Ghadaffi and Milosevic, no shit, you say that like it's any surprise. If you think their views are in any shape of form worth recognising and heeding... then again, aren't you the second Israel-loving shit-german? Funny how smashing the state works when it comes to that apartheid settler state; oh no, let's protect that one!

stop derailing when you have no clue about the German left, will you, for God's sake? And will you be able to write a post without attacking someone personally that has a different opinion, especially considering you're someone with "power" here. You were told by 2 Germans (BIAZED is from Swiss, though) that many German leftists have at least sympathy for Milosevic, and now you go like "you say that it's like a surprise" while your older post goes like "No one adores Milosevic". Stop being a pathetic prick.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

And practicing Muslims are not all adults, there are practicing Muslim children too.
All religion is child abuse. Children are too young to legitimately consent to such bullshit being shoved down their throats.


And although you have a hard time picturing it, Muslim women exist too. If you ever meet one, try talking to her. They're normal people, just like non-Muslim women.

Catholic womyn exist too. I was raised catholic (which is why I am sooooo rabidly anti religion) Yes I know muslim womyn exist. I have friends who are womyn from muslim background (some who are practicing) and yes they are people like anyone else. It still doesn't change that religion involves an imaginary friend.

[Rosa Partizan]

It makes me puke when I see how religion is forced upon children, especially when I see very young girls wearing hijab. Why for God's sake should a 9 year old girl wear hijab? She is a CHILD, she has no sexual attributes she should be covering, goddamn this is disgusting and wrong on so many levels.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Sexual attributes are not on a person's head... How would a hijab cover "sexual attributes" There is nothing sexual about the humyn head.

[Nakidana]

All religion is child abuse. Children are too young to legitimately consent to such bullshit being shoved down their throats.

Yuck, not this bloody Dawkins crap. :rolleyes: So you consider your parents and billions of other parents child abusers then? Do you believe, like Dawkins infamously did, that it is on par if not worse than sexual abuse of children?


Catholic womyn exist too. I was raised catholic (which is why I am sooooo rabidly anti religion)

Being raised a catholic doesn't automatically make you anti-religion.


Yes I know muslim womyn exist. I have friends who are womyn from muslim background (some who are practicing) and yes they are people like anyone else. It still doesn't change that religion involves an imaginary friend.

I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to how you stated earlier that you "can't picture Muslim women", but you have no problem picturing other women. If you really do have female Muslim friends, then I don't understand why you have trouble picturing them. Is it that in your mind Muslim women are oppressed to an outrageous degree or something?


It makes me puke when I see how religion is forced upon children, especially when I see very young girls wearing hijab. Why for God's sake should a 9 year old girl wear hijab? She is a CHILD, she has no sexual attributes she should be covering, goddamn this is disgusting and wrong on so many levels.

Actually Muslim girls are exempt from wearing the veil, it's only worn from puberty and up.

[Rosa Partizan]

you know that puberty starts very early with girls, right? Nowadays, it's with 9 or 10 years, sometimes even earlier. Same goes with menstruation, girls menstruating with 10 or 11 is not seldom anymore.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yuck, not this bloody Dawkins crap. :rolleyes: So you consider your parents and billions of other parents child abusers then? Do you believe, like Dawkins infamously did, that it is on par if not worse than sexual abuse of children?
I've forgiven my dad who has since stopped practicing catholicism anyhow and feels plenty contrite about it. My mom was against my daddy raising me catholic as she was an atheist and a feminist. Mi abuelita remains devout and I remain extremely critical of her catholicism even if I still love her because she is mi familia. As ridiculous as I see people of faith I don't hate them, just the religion and the clergy.



Being raised a catholic doesn't automatically make you anti-religion.
Most of the most die-hard anti religious people I've met were raised catholic. None of them grew up with atheism. Oh wait all of the most militantly anti religious folks I know were catholic aside from one person back in who avoids her father's side of the family because they are religious (and her father happens to be saudi and muslim)



I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to how you stated earlier that you "can't picture Muslim women", but you have no problem picturing other women. If you really do have female Muslim friends, then I don't understand why you have trouble picturing them. Is it that in your mind Muslim women are oppressed to an outrageous degree or something?

OMAIGAD! A hyperbolic reaction to female erasure, lets super analyze this and pick it apart. Geez and I thought that I sometimes overthink things...

[Darth]

Uh, why are you singling out the "Islamic world" and why are you suddenly talking about the racist Muhammad cartoons? You sound like the Islamophobes who complain about how Muslims don't condemn terrorism.

I agree 100%, Nakidana.

I think mod should remove some of the comments in this thread. It's a shame that some of us resort to arguments of the white man

[Nakidana]

you know that puberty starts very early with girls, right? Nowadays, it's with 9 or 10 years, sometimes even earlier. Same goes with menstruation, girls menstruating with 10 or 11 is not seldom anymore.

And? IMO "very young girl", the term you used, is younger than puberty. Usually the first step for a girl turning into a woman is puberty. You said earlier that there were no sexual attributes for them to be covering up, but they usually start wearing the veil during puberty, the phase in which girls and boys get sexual attributes. You've just been getting fact upon fact wrong in this.

And FYI I do think it should be up to every girl and woman to choose what she wants to wear, but I'm fed up with white non-Muslim women trying to help "poor helpless Muslims". They're perfectly capable of fighting oppression themselves, and are actively doing so. In the current Islamophobic environment the approach you are taking is counterproductive and would probably lead to Muslim women becoming more defensive about their religion.


I've forgiven my dad who has since stopped practicing catholicism anyhow and feels plenty contrite about it. My mom was against my daddy raising me catholic as she was an atheist and a feminist. Mi abuelita remains devout and I remain extremely critical of her catholicism even if I still love her because she is mi familia. As ridiculous as I see people of faith I don't hate them, just the religion and the clergy.

You didn't answer my question though, if you really do consider religion child abuse, surely around a billion or more parents should be put in jail?


Most of the most die-hard anti religious people I've met were raised catholic. None of them grew up with atheism. Oh wait all of the most militantly anti religious folks I know were catholic aside from one person back in who avoids her father's side of the family because they are religious (and her father happens to be saudi and muslim)

Okay, but that doesn't mean that being raised a Catholic automatically turns you atheist. I've met very very religious converts who were raised without any religion whatsoever...that doesn't mean that being raised without religion turns you into a fundamentalist.


OMAIGAD! A hyperbolic reaction to female erasure, lets super analyze this and pick it apart. Geez and I thought that I sometimes overthink things...

Yeah of course, how do you think a Muslim woman would feel if you told her that compared to other people you can't really picture her? To me at least it has a distinct taste of the "Muslim women are all locked up inside their husband's home with a burqa on and never get out" racist stereotype. And I'm gonna call you out on it.

[Rosa Partizan]

And? IMO "very young girl", the term you used, is younger than puberty. Usually the first step for a girl turning into a woman is puberty. You said earlier that there were no sexual attributes for them to be covering up, but they usually start wearing the veil during puberty, the phase in which girls and boys get sexual attributes. You've just been getting fact upon fact wrong in this.

And FYI I do think it should be up to every girl and woman to choose what she wants to wear, but I'm fed up with white non-Muslim women trying to help "poor helpless Muslims". They're perfectly capable of fighting oppression themselves, and are actively doing so. In the current Islamophobic environment the approach you are taking is counterproductive and would probably lead to Muslim women becoming more defensive about their religion.



A girl in her early puberty is still very young, where is this a contradiction? And also a 13 year old shouldn't be worrying about if some pervs could consider her a sex object, goddamn she is no adult! You shouldn't assume what I am and what I ain't, I partly grew up with Islam since half my family is Muslim, so I feel entitled to have my opinion about the hijab and speak it out. Every woman can wear what she wants, yes, but what does choosing in this context mean? Is it a free choice if a wear some clothing because I think that otherwise, men will respect me less and Allah will be furious? To me, this is no freedom. Fear of God is one of the worst fears ever.

How can a woman in a deeply patriarchal society, even more than those in Western Europe, fight for herself? Yeah, I know, there are women's rights organizations also in countries like Egypt, Iran etc, but guess what, those women have a damn hard time to achieve anything, many of them are beaten up and threatened. As long as a woman believes that wearing a hijab makes her better, improves her worth as a human being, makes her Allah like her more, believes that any other choice of clothing is wrong, and as long as a culture exists that makes her believe all this, I will refuse to accept the hijab.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

And? IMO "very young girl", the term you used, is younger than puberty. Usually the first step for a girl turning into a woman is puberty. You said earlier that there were no sexual attributes for them to be covering up, but they usually start wearing the veil during puberty, the phase in which girls and boys get sexual attributes. You've just been getting fact upon fact wrong in this.

And FYI I do think it should be up to every girl and woman to choose what she wants to wear, but I'm fed up with white non-Muslim women trying to help "poor helpless Muslims". They're perfectly capable of fighting oppression themselves, and are actively doing so. In the current Islamophobic environment the approach you are taking is counterproductive and would probably lead to Muslim women becoming more defensive about their religion.


I can't think of anyone who is arguing that people shouldn't be able to wear a hijab. Yes I can think of plenty of people who don't think anyone should be forced to wear what they don't want to wear. There are some people who think it is okay to police other people's clothing but those people are concerned with making women more "modest" (a ridiculous concept based out the same vein as such stupid concepts as virginity and other socially constructed bullshit)



You didn't answer my question though, if you really do consider religion child abuse, surely around a billion or more parents should be put in jail?
Well you're saying this, assuming I believe jails should exist. Silly statist... Prisons are for burning. I believe in community oriented justice. But nice scarecrow burns smoothly but doesn't hit well, didn't even cough



Okay, but that doesn't mean that being raised a Catholic automatically turns you atheist. I've met very very religious converts who were raised without any religion whatsoever...that doesn't mean that being raised without religion turns you into a fundamentalist.
Where did I say that being raised catholic would turn any and everyone atheist. I just attribute it in my case, although mine is certainly not the only case. You like to jump the gun a lot don't you.




Yeah of course, how do you think a Muslim woman would feel if you told her that compared to other people you can't really picture her? To me at least it has a distinct taste of the "Muslim women are all locked up inside their husband's home with a burqa on and never get out" racist stereotype. And I'm gonna call you out on it.

They aren't even all of the same race. But that being said what I said was based of a criticism made by a grrrl with muslim background one of my friends. All religion on some level is a way of locking womyn up. I love how people assume that I single out islam when the religion I spend the most of my criticism directed toward the catholic faith that I was raised with. Am I also being racist toward my own catholic mexican brown skinned blood too, or is that okay by the way? I really want to know the answer to that. Am I a self hating malinchista, hell to the fuck yeah I am. I am waiting to see you paint me as being racst toward mexican catholics.

[Rafiq]

It is not simply the veil that is the problem, the whole of Muslim sexual ideology is reactionary and deeply misogynist. Apologia for Islam is inherently apologia for Islamism - Muslim customs and practices are not indigenous or some kind of series of sacred customs that have existed for centuries... Perhaps if we were in the early 20th century such an argument would be relevant. The exaltion of these customs is a part of a new, neoliberal religious revival. The very existence of the veil in urban enviroments is an obscenity, and signifies something has gone deeply wrong in the middle east (the veil was worn largely in rural environments - more modernized areas were lacking in them, and if you don't believe me, look up photos from the 70's). Their popularity is this an AFFIRMATIVE phenomena of new capitalist ideology, they are INHERENTLY political. Not that banning them is desirable, but apologising for them is nothing short of obscene.

[Rafiq]

Muslim women choosing to wear the veil is meaningless, sexual slavery is a phenomena which men and women actively engage in and reproduce. Women adopting anti-feminist views, or workers joining Fascists DOES NOT give them legitimacy. So shut the fuck upm

[bropasaran]

https://fbcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-0/p480x480/10270798_10201041340194018_2986136348715481306_n.j pg

[Rosa Partizan]

^ lame.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

^totally spot on with the 'lame' comment

[motion denied]

Still true, though.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

The problem with Islam as with pretty much any other religion is that it means whatever one wants it to mean. In the 19th c. in the USA people were using the same Bible both to promote and to condemn slavery. Most of the Muslims I talk to regularly are appalled by the kidnapping, just as most Christians consider the Westborough Baptist Church to be unChristian. My guess is that this Boko Haram was in need of cash and took to human trafficking to raise some. Justifying it in terms of Islam was just rationalizing. A really good book on the subject of slavery by Muslims against other Muslims is A Different Shade of Colonialism by Eve Troutt Powell.

Those of you demonizing Muslims veiling or whatever need to stop reading Sam Harris and look at the actual history of the Middle East. Veiling was never an issue until European imperialists tried to wipe it out. Then anything identified with Muslim culture became an avenue of resistance for the locals. Granted, there is gender-based oppression of varying degrees in majority-Muslim countries, but the whole so-called Muslim World is not Saudi Arabia.

Islamist movements (that is, efforts to make conservative Islam the basis for government) are an entirely modern phenomenon. While the Islamists believe they stand for the time of supposedly perfect Islam of the founding generation, they actual exist as a reaction of western imperialism. In a reversal of Saidian othering, the west becomes the constructed other against which Islamist movements define themselves. For example, the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978 for instance was the direct consequence of Project Ajax--the CIA overthrow of Iran's fledgling democracy--in 1953.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The problem with Islam as with pretty much any other religion is that it means whatever one wants it to mean. In the 19th c. in the USA people were using the same Bible both to promote and to condemn slavery. Most of the Muslims I talk to regularly are appalled by the kidnapping, just as most Christians consider the Westborough Baptist Church to be unChristian. My guess is that this Boko Haram was in need of cash and took to human trafficking to raise some. Justifying it in terms of Islam was just rationalizing. A really good book on the subject of slavery by Muslims against other Muslims is A Different Shade of Colonialism by Eve Troutt Powell.

Those of you demonizing Muslims veiling or whatever need to stop reading Sam Harris and look at the actual history of the Middle East. Veiling was never an issue until European imperialists tried to wipe it out. Then anything identified with Muslim culture became an avenue of resistance for the locals. Granted, there is gender-based oppression of varying degrees in majority-Muslim countries, but the whole so-called Muslim World is not Saudi Arabia.

Islamist movements (that is, efforts to make conservative Islam the basis for government) are an entirely modern phenomenon. While the Islamists believe they stand for the time of supposedly perfect Islam of the founding generation, they actual exist as a reaction of western imperialism. In a reversal of Saidian othering, the west becomes the constructed other against which Islamist movements define themselves. For example, the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978 for instance was the direct consequence of Project Ajax--the CIA overthrow of Iran's fledgling democracy--in 1953.

Nobody has a problem with muslims veiling (that I am aware of) hell, if they wanted to dress as superman then cool I'm happy they're happy, its not my cup of tea but kool. I have a problem with it being forced by moralistic men upon womyn. It is simple as nobody should tell anybody else what to wear. It is about individual choice.

[Tim Cornelis]

Phobia is an irrational fear. On what planet is being scared of the above irrational?

Phobia, literally, means fear -- irrational or not. But this is somewhat of an etymological fallacy, hydrophobia does not mean an irrational fear, as an element is not fearful of water. Phobia can just be an aversion of something, or a repulsion.



Then of course there's the fact that anyone, from any country or any race can be a muslim. Makes the people screaming racist sound silly and lose credibility - particularly in the eyes of neutrals.

Islamophobia is often accompanied by a racist subtext. As we can see here in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders had an anti-Islam platform, but as we've become jaded, he has made explicit he wants less Moroccans and less Antillean. I don't support calling such implicit racists racists for that reason though, I prefer xenophobia.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah grrrl said it. Every woman can put on a hijab, it's nothing that influences my own life, but don't go around claiming it's so empowering and it means freedom and stuff, when basically it is a highly patriarchal tradition that goes hand in hand with rape culture (don't you make guys want to molest you)

[consuming negativity]

I can't believe I just read a six page thread about Islam in a topic about 234 schoolgirls being kidnapped for receiving education. Just because Islam is used as justification for something doesn't mean that Islam has anything to do with why that something actually happened. There are over 1 billion persons who self-identify as Muslim in the world. The vast majority of them, even among some of the most reactionary elements, find a lot wrong with kidnapping children and selling them into slavery. It's not a coincidence that Boko Haram exists where it does in the time that it does, as it's formation and success are the products of material conditions. Placing the blame on Islam is not only inaccurate, but to ignore the political and economic factors surrounding this that could be changed in the future to prevent a repeat of this tragic and disgusting event.

[Rosa Partizan]

I can't believe I just read a six page thread about Islam in a topic about 234 schoolgirls being kidnapped for receiving education. Just because Islam is used as justification for something doesn't mean that Islam has anything to do with why that something actually happened. There are over 1 billion persons who self-identify as Muslim in the world. The vast majority of them, even among some of the most reactionary elements, find a lot wrong with kidnapping children and selling them into slavery. It's not a coincidence that Boko Haram exists where it does in the time that it does, as it's formation and success are the products of material conditions. Placing the blame on Islam is not only inaccurate, but to ignore the political and economic factors surrounding this that could be changed in the future to prevent a repeat of this tragic and disgusting event.

The discussion about the girls and Islam in general were led seperately, I don't think anyone was like "this is what Islam makes people do". I got my problems with Islam for other issues than for this abduction, knowing that this radical group is no representative of most Muslims.

[DOOM]

https://fbcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-0/p480x480/10270798_10201041340194018_2986136348715481306_n.j pg

So that explains and excuses the abduction of two-hundred-and-thirty-fucking-three girls? Why are you even posting this crap? This thread is sure no place for blatant anti-americanism.

[Rosa Partizan]

So that explains and excuses the abduction of two-hundred-and-thirty-fucking-three girls? Why are you even posting this crap? This thread is sure no place for blatant anti-americanism.

It's not the first time in this thread that this pic is posted. Grrrl and me explained some pages ago why we find this derailing and useless.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It's not the first time in this thread that this pic is posted. Grrrl and me explained some pages ago why we find this derailing and useless.

this.

[Yukari]

This thread is just terrible on all accounts. Also stop jerking each other off and use the thanks function instead of pointless spam.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

This thread is just terrible on all accounts. Also stop jerking each other off and use the thanks function instead of pointless spam.

This is one of the most hypocritical posts I've ever seen. Your comment is literally spam. If you don't like the thread, don't fuckin' post in it. Simple.

[motion denied]

Now we have spam posts complaining about spam posts.

Oh wait, yet another one!

[Rosa Partizan]

this thread is so meta.

:spam:

no srsly, Islamophobia is to me folks like Geert Wilders, who is in no way really interested in women's rights, in equality, in any kind of social progress, but who tackles Islam all the time by claiming it's about such stuff. It is NOT Islamophobia to question patriarchal structures within this religion, for the sake of people who get discriminated against and marginalized, which is not only women, but also LGBT folks.

[Dagoth Ur]

Lots of liberal feminists in this thread.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Lots of liberal feminists in this thread.

here are some big tears for you... :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Nope just kidding I'm really laughing at your silly comment.

[Rosa Partizan]

Lots of liberal feminists in this thread.

sorry to hurt your cultural relativizing feelings, but women's rights are to me no matter of negotiation. Every woman everywhere on this world should be granted the same rights, one of which should be that she can walk around in any clothing she wants, without having fear of neither divine nor male consequences. This has nothing to do with me being white and European, it is just common sense. I do not approve of the ban on college or anything like that for women wearing a hijab as it used to be in laical countries like Turkey. Having no education would make these women easier targets for extremists. But basically, yeah, I do not oppose women wearing the hijab, I oppose the hijab as a, let's say, sexist, patriarchal institution and invention to blame and objectify women.

[Darth]

The problem with Islam

Is this a Nazi forum?

I thought fascists are not accepted here...

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah being critical towards an institutionalized religion equals fascism.

Genius.

[Dagoth Ur]

I oppose white liberal westerners telling Muslim women what liberation is.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah, 'cause being allowed to wear whatever you want without fearing consequences is soooo eurocentric and totally not feminist, huh. But you can go and protest for the right to wear hijab, a clothing dividing women in virtuous and slutty. With "feminists" like you, disguised as "tolerant of different cultures", patriarchy laughs its ass off.

[Rafiq]

I oppose white liberal westerners telling Muslim women what liberation is.

"I oppose westerners telling third world workers what liberation is". What a stupid mentality. "I oppose wealthy feminists telling poor women in the south what liberation is". You see how this works? Hegel said we should hope the masses rise to us, but we should not lower ourselves to the masses. Every good Marxist since has understood this.

[Rafiq]

According to you, by merit of being oriental, they have the right to the kingdom of truth. Its orientalist bullshit, if our truth does not without exception reach all corners of the globe, IT IS NOT TRUTH AT ALL. Communism is western in origin, and yes we will hold all people's to that standard. Have a problem, then fuck off with your James Cameron romantic wet dreams.

[Darth]

I oppose white liberal westerners telling Muslim women what liberation is.

Exactly my point!

Thankfully, the vast majority of us on the real left are respectful towards Islam and Muslims.

That's the only way to deal with it. I hope to not see more of this kind of semi-fascist rhethoric here. It's sickening.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

They aren't even all of the same race. But that being said what I said was based of a criticism made by a grrrl with muslim background one of my friends. All religion on some level is a way of locking womyn up. .

Race does not actually exist. It is an artificial construct that early modern societies created to justify slavery and other forms of subjection. Different colors exist as do other differences in phenotypes, but there are no naturally occurring categories of humans.

Race can be constructed around color or lineage, of course, but it can also be constructed around religion, language, or even gender, which itself is a social construct. Orientalists, for example, considers Middle Eastern societies to be feminized, who to them meant chaotic, emotional, and weak, unlike the West which they saw as ordered, rational, and strong.

As far as religion being misogynist, a review of modern, Abrahamic religions certainly invites that conclusion. It wasn't always like that, however, as patriarchal religion seems to be a product of it becoming the establishment. In the Middle Ages, Christianity for instance afforded women considerable agency. They could no longer be married off without their consent and if they wanted to escape domestic existence, they were able to choose monastic life and be free from all male supervision. Medieval women, Christians and Muslims, owned property in their own right and men valued them for their ability to link families together through social contacts and marriages. This autonomy tended to decline by the 12th c. and by early modern times women were pretty much subjugated.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not muslim and when I think of muslims a multi-racial group of men come to mind but with the religion's erasure of their womyn I usually have a hard time picturing muslim womyn. I say the same about catholicism too. Protestants all look anglo when I picture them, hmmm, odd. The only common strand that I think of when I think of practicing muslims is that they all are adults with an imaginary friend just like any other religion. I just hate religion across the board.

The mental image that comes to my mind when someone says "muslim" is that of a woman encapsulated in a crazy dress that only shows her eyes and the tip of her fingers. When protestants are mentioned, my mental image is that of mulatto men in suits. Needless to say, those are foolish stereotypes, and would be dangerous if held acritically by a multitude.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

WWP and PSL are in the streets and working with Unions. You anarchists don't do shit but break windows and make very bad arguments for communism.

Well, I am no anarchist, and I stauchly oppose breaking windows in a non-revolutionary situation, but I don't see the WWP and the PSL (or their Brazilian counterpart, Hora do Povo/Partido Pátria Livre) in the streets and working with unions as something good at all. They are in the streets and in the unions supporting unsupportable dictatorships, slandering people of other tendencies, disrupting assemblies, peddling support for this or that bourgeois politician, scabbing, lying, and generally reinforcing reactionary ideologies.

Creepy guys.

Luís Henrique

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Nobody has a problem with muslims veiling (that I am aware of) hell, if they wanted to dress as superman then cool I'm happy they're happy, its not my cup of tea but kool. I have a problem with it being forced by moralistic men upon womyn. It is simple as nobody should tell anybody else what to wear. It is about individual choice.

I realize that not all coercion comes from the state. Women in Jordan are not required by law to keep their hair covered, but all of them do except for the small Christian community. It is a social norm there and even if one were inclined to show her hair in public, there would be social pressure, much of it from other women, not to do so. So, in principle I agree with you.

Where I run into trouble, however, is that veiling (and by that I usually mean headscarves without face-coverings) is an issue that most Muslim women don't seem to care about. It is far more of a preoccupation among westerners who think that modernity and progress must be judged by European standards. Muslim women are far more concerned about domestic rights (marriage, divorce, custody, and support rules) and with the price of vegetables than they are about their headgear. The full veil--again, not talking about Saudia--is actually a class marker. It's considered very dressy and was once the prerogative of upper class women like Hooda Sharrowi, the well known Egyptian feminist. I reminds me of Spivak's characterization that white men were trying to save brown women from brown men. The best way to start a heated argument with a Muslim woman is to suggest that her headgear is a sign of oppression.

Frankly, I sometimes feel bad for the men in the hot parts of the Middle East and N. Africa. The women are protected from the heat in their desert coverings, but men have given up their traditional gowns and headgear and must now brave the heat bare-headed in western clothes.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Race does not actually exist. It is an artificial construct that early modern societies created to justify slavery and other forms of subjection. Different colors exist as do other differences in phenotypes, but there are no naturally occurring categories of humans.
That tastes like white privilege denial to me.



Race can be constructed around color or lineage, of course, but it can also be constructed around religion, language, or even gender, which itself is a social construct. Orientalists, for example, considers Middle Eastern societies to be feminized, who to them meant chaotic, emotional, and weak, until the West which they saw as ordered, rational, and strong.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Gender =/= race nor are either of them simply dismissible as "social construct" That is just an argument that tastes like white and male privilege. Number one excuse used by manarchists and brocialists. Jajaja! A recipe for privilege denial, and a bullshit recipe.


As far as religion being misogynist, a review of modern, Abrahamic religions certainly invites that conclusion. It wasn't always like that, however, as patriarchal religion seems to be a product of it becoming the establishment. In the Middle Ages, Christianity for instance afforded women considerable agency. They could no longer be married off without their consent and if they wanted to escape domestic existence, they were able to choose monastic life and be free from all male supervision. Medieval women, Christians and Muslims, owned property in their own right and men valued them for their ability to link families together through social contacts and marriages. This autonomy tended to decline by the 12th c. and by early modern times women were pretty much subjugated.
The early religion is in no way relevant to religion now being used to maintain patriarchy. The scriptures of the old testament (which were originally jewish scriptures) in which the christian new testament was an extension off of as well as the qur'an being an extension of both each one claiming the previous one was true but incomplete, the old testament (torah) contains all the bullshit of leviticus which there is no justification for that heap of scriptural bullshit without being at the very least an apologist for rape-culture and patriarchy. It is in the very words religion is based off of. Levitican law is the kind of bullshit that influenced all three. All that bullshit about modesty and subserviency is in there there is no denying it. It isn't just limited to those religions either. Religion is sick, this is not about those who follow it (ever so foolishly) but about those who are the peddlers, pushers and dealers of such bullshit. Clergy and leadership of the religion are responsible (in large part) for the perpetuation of patriarchy. Pop culture the media and political institutions are also similarly responsible for it as well.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I realize that not all coercion comes from the state. Women in Jordan are not required by law to keep their hair covered, but all of them do except for the small Christian community. It is a social norm there and even if one were inclined to show her hair in public, there would be social pressure, much of it from other women, not to do so. So, in principle I agree with you.

Where I run into trouble, however, is that veiling (and by that I usually mean headscarves without face-coverings) is an issue that most Muslim women don't seem to care about. It is far more of a preoccupation among westerners who think that modernity and progress must be judged by European standards. Muslim women are far more concerned about domestic rights (marriage, divorce, custody, and support rules) and with the price of vegetables than they are about their headgear. The full veil--again, not talking about Saudia--is actually a class marker. It's considered very dressy and was once the prerogative of upper class women like Hooda Sharrowi, the well known Egyptian feminist. I reminds me of Spivak's characterization that white men were trying to save brown women from brown men. The best way to start a heated argument with a Muslim woman is to suggest that her headgear is a sign of oppression.

Frankly, I sometimes feel bad for the men in the hot parts of the Middle East and N. Africa. The women are protected from the heat in their desert coverings, but men have given up their traditional gowns and headgear and must now brave the heat bare-headed in western clothes.

It still does not justify enforcement of such standards. There have been many instances in countries like Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban's Afghanistan where womyn actively protested such laws and rules (though not limited to just those) In many situations, they were killed, jailed and brutalized in the most terrible of ways.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Is this a Nazi forum?

I thought fascists are not accepted here...

No but anti theists and feminists are and should be. The above is such an insane comment that I am wondering what drugs you are on. Before you accuse me of white supremacy in some silly knee jerk reaction, I'll make sure to tell you to kiss my chicana anarcha-feminist ass. And for all the womyn who had to wear the black triangles under the nazis as well as the strongly anti-religion anarcha-feminists (las mujeres libres) who took up the fight against fascism in spain and died drop the fucking brocialist/manarchist bullshit and consider the patriarchal implications of what you said. There is a problem with all religious oppression of womyn as well as that under the third reich where womyn who weren't thrown in the camps (you know, aryan womyn) were reduced to white baby incubators by the patriarchal rule of the third reich and the NSDAP.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

That tastes like white privilege denial to me.
... Gender =/= race nor are either of them simply dismissible as "social construct" That is just an argument that tastes like white and male privilege.

How do you figure? Do you have anything to add to this statement besides the ad hominem and straw man remarks you posted earlier. Some actual scholarship would be nice.

The nonexistence of race is a biological fact. For the connection between race and gender, see Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia by Kathleen Brown. Also, any of the dozens of books and articles commenting or expanding on Said's Orientalism.

I did not post it before because I assumed you knew, but your remarks givve me cause to think you do not: gender is not the same as sex. Sex is the configuration of one's body. Gender is a social construct of norms and expectations of how the sexes behave, dress, think, feel, and even eat. Refer to Judith Butler's 1988 article on gender as performance.


The early religion is in no way relevant to religion now being used to maintain patriarchy.

History is always relevant. In this case, the most significant thing about earlier interpretations of religion is that they show that modern views are not the only interpretations. It undermines the so-called literalist view which reads modern values backward in time. Granted, it would be better if people gave up their silly gods, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

It still does not justify enforcement of such standards. There have been many instances in countries like Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban's Afghanistan where womyn actively protested such laws and rules (though not limited to just those) In many situations, they were killed, jailed and brutalized in the most terrible of ways.

I completely agree.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

How do you figure? Do you have anything to add to this statement besides the ad hominem and straw man remarks you posted earlier. Some actual scholarship would be nice.

The nonexistence of race is a biological fact. For the connection between race and gender, see Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia by Kathleen Brown. Also, any of the dozens of books and articles commenting or expanding on Said's Orientalism.

That quote you were responding to, go back and read it closely. I wasn't saying that they weren't socially constructed but my concern was clearly them being dismissed on that basis. The fact is privilege exists based on race and gender anyhow. There is a social power structure that denies people rights, access to material resources as well as persecuted and disenfranchises people based on race as well as gender.



I did not post it before because I assumed you knew, but your remarks givve me cause to think you do not: gender is not the same as sex. Sex is the configuration of one's body. Gender is a social construct of norms and expectations of how the sexes behave, dress, think, feel, and even eat. Refer to Judith Butler's 1988 article on gender as performance.

If you think I didn't know that sex=/=gender then I may have overestimated your powers of observation. Click on my name and you'll see the person in wallpaper/background is Marsha P. Johnson who was a noted trans activist, one of the stonewall veterans and basically partner-in-crime to Sylvia Rivera. If you are going to try and make a backhanded implication that I am somehow cis-centric or cissexist you might want to think that through a little more thoroughly.


History is always relevant. In this case, the most significant thing about earlier interpretations of religion is that they show that modern views are not the only interpretations. It undermines the so-called literalist view which reads modern values backward in time. Granted, it would be better if people gave up their silly gods, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Oh I agree whole heartedly that history is always relevant. I am just struggling to see how that particular piece of history is significant here, am I missing something? How does it change the fact that at this point in history religion is oppressive across the board and across the world? And that religion being oppressive didn't just happen yesterday?

[Rosa Partizan]

some news.

http://jezebel.com/100-missing-nigerian-girls-surface-in-terrorist-negotia-1575025432?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_faceboo k&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[DOOM]

Is this a Nazi forum?

I thought fascists are not accepted here...

You sure have a funny definition of fascism.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

some news.

http://jezebel.com/100-missing-nigerian-girls-surface-in-terrorist-negotia-1575025432?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_faceboo k&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

China's special forces? Them Boko Haram done fucked up!

[The Intransigent Faction]

So someone posted this on Facebook...


You do realize that in order to receive the help, Nigeria would have to comply with the IMF and allow unwanted corporations? It sounds harsh, but you don't govern a country of millions for 300 missing girls slacktivists around the world want found.

It befuddled me that the same people who are against the military and militaristic intervention, say Iraq and Afghanistan (Vietnam and most others) are now in favour of it to help locate 300 missing girls.

I do agree though, the government is incompetent, but not only Nigeria's.

Obviously it's possible regardless to be against the IMF and for finding the missing girls. Is that true, though?

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Saying something is a social construct means that people believe it. Obviously, racism exists as do gender constructs. Pointing out that race is made-up undermines racist assumptions.



If you think I didn't know that sex=/=gender then I may have overestimated your powers of observation.

:laugh: I don't know you from Eve. I only know what I read.


How does it change the fact that at this point in history religion is oppressive across the board and across the world? And that religion being oppressive didn't just happen yesterday?Asked and answered, but to clarify, believing in a specific modern version of a religion means that one accepts its tenants on faith as a divine directive. It can never be wrong, never be different, and divine retribution is the result of failure to comply. Pointing out that people once followed that religion but in a very different way with different understandings of its tenants means that there is more than one way to see things, even within the doctrine of that religion. Consequently, it undermines the rigidity of modern belief. Frankly, the fact that there are multiple versions of Islam or Christianity, for example, existing right now ought to tell people that anyway, and for some it does--hence ecumenicism. Hopefully, this kind of equivocation is the first step to realizing that there is no reason to accept divine authority in the first place, or it may simply let people be less rigid in their thinking. Plus, there is the whole "know thy enemy" thing.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't know you from Eve. I only know what I read.
Really guy? To prove religion isn't racist or sexist, you call someone eve? A reference to some antique reactionary Creation myth (which even the Catholic Church acknowledges as being just that - a myth) in which a Woman is shown to be some dastardly damsel who can't contain her curiosity and as such destroys paradise and throws all into the perils of civilization (be it good or bad, it is an eternal sin nevertheless), a story where the woman is oh so sneaky and tricks the man, a story that culminates in the Woman being responsible for the horrors and decadence of civilization? Good job on demonstrating yourself to be a total twat.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Really guy? To prove religion isn't racist or sexist, you call someone eve? A reference to some antique reactionary Creation myth (which even the Catholic Church acknowledges as being just that - a myth) in which a Woman is shown to be some dastardly damsel who can't contain her curiosity and as such destroys paradise and throws all into the perils of civilization (be it good or bad, it is an eternal sin nevertheless), a story where the woman is oh so sneaky and tricks the man, a story that culminates in the Woman being responsible for the horrors and decadence of civilization? Good job on demonstrating yourself to be a total twat.

In that case, Eve is a perfect description by coincidence. I'm always fucking shit up with my curiosity. Jajaja! :roll eyes:

But I reckon I'd rather be compared to the book of Ruth. :lol:

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Really guy? To prove religion isn't racist or sexist, you call someone eve? A reference to some antique reactionary Creation myth (which even the Catholic Church acknowledges as being just that - a myth) in which a Woman is shown to be some dastardly damsel who can't contain her curiosity and as such destroys paradise and throws all into the perils of civilization (be it good or bad, it is an eternal sin nevertheless), a story where the woman is oh so sneaky and tricks the man, a story that culminates in the Woman being responsible for the horrors and decadence of civilization? Good job on demonstrating yourself to be a total twat.

Are you fucking kidding me? For Christ sake, it's a figure of speech that was once pretty common in English-language societies. Do I really have to explain it? :blink:

It usually went, "I don't know him from Adam," meaning--as it states pretty clearly--that the speaker does not know the person in question. If whoever and Adam showed up unannounced, the speaker would not know which was which. Except I'm pretty sure I could tell Agro from Adam, so I changed it to Eve. Tah-dah! That's all. Wow. And I thought the regulars at Democratic Underground were touchy.

And in point of fact, I am not trying to prove that religion is neither sexist nor racist. I did make the case that it was not always as sexist as it is now, but that's it.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Oh, here we go. It's somehow reactionary to criticize Islam I guess. Even though anywhere Muslims have political power or guns, they end up treating women, gays, and non Muslims like complete shit. Quit defending systematic violence.

In before you accuse me of being "Islamaphobic." I guess you can call me "Christianophobic" too though since I also condemn Christians when they do their insane reactionary bullshit such as in Uganda and the evangelist hate groups in the US.

It's funny because I am usually defending Muslims from racist comments in real life. Only when I get on the internet do I find myself calling out people who are trying to make excuses for Muslim violence. Why can we not condemn people who support violence without being accused of Islamaphobia? You have been brainwashed if you think that Islam should be immune to criticism.

It's important to draw a distinction between the dogma and the people who follow it. Islamism--making religion the basis of government--is largely a reaction to western imperialism. The Taliban, the Iranian government, the Wahabyists, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. are all the results of Islamic reaction to European and American intervention in the 19th and 20th centuries--not least of which was establishing a settler colony on the Levantine coast, an event Arabs still call "the Great Catastrophe."

So while there is plenty of ground from criticizing Islam--there is no God is a good starting point--it is important not to broad-brush the Muslim people who are a diverse population and are not at fault for being born into an irrational belief system. Most of them are mortified by the kidnapping development and they tend to project their basic morality onto their religion, just like everyone else who follows a religion does.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Well regardless, for future reference, I'm known on this board for four things:

1) Obviously I am an ultra-feminist

2) I am rabidly pro-LGB and T

3) Religion, corporation and the state are things I despise

4) I have fuckin' attitude. If you don't like it, I really don't care.

There we got that out of the way. Now you are caught up to speed.

Oh and my views are based around lived experience and emotions instead of manifestos and distant, intellectualized theory.

Now you know me from Eve to some extent. :grin:

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Tcharrafna. :) (Nice to meet you).

I am in favor of a common humanity devoid of artificial constructs that exist to keep us divided. Consequently, I am pro-LGBT rights, pro-gender equality. Corporations, states, nations, and religions are social constructs that keep people separated. 84 persons control more wealth than 3.5 billion people. Constructed identity based on excluding others supports this abomination by making working people blame other working people for their very real problems.

I am very suspicious of corporations, religions, and states, and hate the corporate model. Dogma basically is evil, especially when it presumes the existence of a divine mandate. Still, all those organizations are made out of humans, so I cannot say that I despise them ipso facto, although I come closest with corporations. Their very existence is to shield their owners and executives from the natural consequences of their actions. While I'm atheistic, I wasn't always, and there are bits and pieces of religious thought that still resonate with me.

I won't get into my personal experiences, but suffice it to say that white, male privilege does not protect someone from everything harmful particularly when the source of the harm is one's own family. I don't know about manifestos, but I find the theoretical approach allows a degree of objectivity in understanding society and history. Nevertheless, my background shapes my attitudes and that directs what I care about understanding.

As far as attitude, well if it works for you, then hurray. It's taken me a long time to learn to maintain an even keel and not let the crazy out. :)

[Dagoth Ur]

"I oppose westerners telling third world workers what liberation is". What a stupid mentality. "I oppose wealthy feminists telling poor women in the south what liberation is". You see how this works? Hegel said we should hope the masses rise to us, but we should not lower ourselves to the masses. Every good Marxist since has understood this.
Aside from Hegel's known elitism I thought the bolded part was the most interesting. Rich white women do not know the struggle of poor southern women anymore than our resident "hyper feminists" know the struggle of middle eastern women. As such their input is meaningless. Bourgeoisie feminists are the biggest enemies of women right next to Islamists.

[Rosa Partizan]

you're plain stupid, aren't ya? We're not talking about something culturally specific, but about some universal right of being allowed to wear what you want, without fearing any oppression or consequences, be it from God or society. Even if all those Muslim women are like, we love our hijab, it has to be allowed to wear anything else without living in fear of anything. So stop this cultural relativism bullshit, there is some universal stuff to feminism that has nothing to do with where you live.

[Dagoth Ur]

Great ad hom, you must feel better now. Also you've hit on the crux of the issue here, ie the veil isn't important at all to the middle eastern feminist. It's the whole being murdered affair. "Oh but we care about that too!" sure, but you don't listen to MUSLIM WOMEN ABOUT THEIR PROBLEM WHICH ARE NOT YOURS.

This isn't cultural relativism but that the local people know about their problems a hell of a lot more than some white liberal feminists in the west. Their local communists know more about their worker's struggle too. But keep on telling me about how you know what is best for middle eastern women.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Great ad hom, you must feel better now. Also you've hit on the crux of the issue here, ie the veil isn't important at all to the middle eastern feminist. It's the whole being murdered affair. "Oh but we care about that too!" sure, but you don't listen to MUSLIM WOMEN ABOUT THEIR PROBLEM WHICH ARE NOT YOURS.

This isn't cultural relativism but that the local people know about their problems a hell of a lot more than some white liberal feminists in the west. Their local communists know more about their worker's struggle too. But keep on telling me about how you know what is best for middle eastern women.

From earlier in this very thread.


Yes, half my family (the half I'm waaay more in touch with) is muslim. They are very moderate, though, which is the standard with Muslims from my birth country. I think that Islamphobia is a valid concept, but totally overused. I'm not talking about those dutch Geert Wilders-dickheads, this word is totally fitting here. I'm talking about questioning thinks like, why do women have to cover up, why is polygamy allowed for men only, why do you take things from the Quran that had some point in history, but nowadays are plain wrong and try to make them valid for nowadays? At this very point, the term "Islamphobia" is used to shut down an important discussion about necessary reforms.

[Dagoth Ur]

So you embraced the rhetoric of white westerners who know nothing of the Middle East. Little more depressing same result.

[toeg]

Like you care about Nigeria. The women of Nigeria need to organize or else this will keep happening. No matter if it is Boko Haram (with their leader of lols) or Christian militias, or "the government" of Nigeria.

:laugh:

I have to admit that anyone getting on board now sounds pretty lame. The government of Nigeria is pretty brutal, I admit. The majority of the deaths attributed to Boko Joko can be laid squarely on their shoulder. I haven't heard that much about Christian militias, but I can say that the US Marines are now in the country and arresting anyone they feel like!!!

please go to nigerianwatch - dot - com
us-marines-carry-out-first-arrests-of-two-boko-haram-members-in-benue-state

I'm still not allowed to post links here!!! :ohmy:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So you embraced the rhetoric of white westerners who know nothing of the Middle East. Little more depressing same result.

All I did was repost your quote and one of hers. I don't see how I was inherently embracing anything with that post. It is starting to look like you just like getting worked up over everything I post, even the most benign stuff like offering you a quote that was relevant.

[Dagoth Ur]

Worked up? I'm not the one who resorts to Ad Homs all the time. And I had directed that at Roza.

[Rosa Partizan]

you're totally not getting my point. I spoke about universal women's rights applying to EVERY country worldwide in terms of being allowed to wear whatever the fuck you want, so why are you obsessed with special rules for middle eastern women?

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

you're plain stupid, aren't ya?

This effectively reads, "I have nothing worthwhile to say, so don't bother reading any further."

[Rosa Partizan]

wait a sec, I'll write this precious post in my "things I give a fuck about"-note pad.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Asa side note, what westerners consider to be universal rights are the products of western thought and history. Middle Easterners are more concerned with the group (family or society) than with individual choices. The Arab, Muslim women I know--granted these tend to be teachers--point to the West as exploiting and degrading women in advertising, pornography, and generally valuing them mostly for their ability to deliver sexual gratification. This is despite the fact that Arab countries do have a genuine inequality between sexes, with Saudia being the worst example. Even so, the idea that for gender equality, men and women ought to be essentially interchangeable except for the biological roles in making more humans, is also a western norm created from the background of industrial capitalism. Some Muslim women feel that attacks on headscarves are an attack on their femininity. A Lebanese Muslim, female teacher who did not wear a headscarf told me that legally people should not be able to wear shorts in Ramadan or say anything offensive about Islam in public, because people will be offended. For her, maintaining public civility is more important than protecting every bit of free expression. (Super lady. I miss her). So universal feminist norms are not actually universal.

And before anyone infers what I did not say or mean: of course I support legal, social, and economic equality among men and women and alternate genders, for that matter. I also believe that those who bear the biological burden of reproduction have a natural right to control that process. I think every person should dress however he or she likes without interference from the state, clergy, bosses, businesses (denial of service), or relatives (for adults). I just don't think everyone in the world necessarily accepts all that.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

wait a sec, I'll write this precious post in my "things I give a fuck about"-note pad.

If you did not care, you would not have written it in the first place.

[RA89]

I'm not gonna spoon-feed you, the articles directly tackles and demolishes the idiotic arguments you made. If you refuse to read and respond to them then that's your problem, not mine.



Lol by this logic people could just copy and paste articles at each other. But whatever I'll entertain you.

1st article -

“So, how many camels did you have to trade for her?” I stared at him blankly, but he wouldn’t look me in the eye. He winked at my husband and proceeded to laugh at his own joke. (I had a nearly identical experience fifteen years ago in a New York airport. The only difference was that, back then, the officer was a woman. And I think her joke was about cows, not camels. Either way, I was the chattel.)

Exact same joke at 2 different airports? Yeh totally doesn't sound made up... :rolleyes: Not that it matters. These individual case studies are not proving anything.



I doubt that the people making these comments were merely interested in starting an intellectual debate with me. It seems to me they wanted to express their contempt for Islam and, in the case of the immigration officer, use his privileged status to get away with it. A term like “Islamophobia” is useful for characterizing these encounters, which did not seem to hinge on my race but instead on widely held stereotypes about the belief systems within which I was raised.

So basically it is a made up word lol. Cool proof, bro. ;)
Anyway more case studies which show discrimination. Doesn't mean you can make up words though.

Islam is an ideology. Just like Nazism. If someone criticises Nazism are they Naziphobic? No. It is retarded to use the word Islamaphobia. It has just become a default response for western apologists to shout at people who point out all of the many flaws in Islam, from the treatment of women to the treatment of non-muslims.

I seriously have no idea why the left is so protective of an ideology which is oppressive as hell.

This article doesn't give a reason for why Islamaphobia exists, if gives example of discrimination and concludes that the word Islamaphobia should exist. You talk a big game complete with a potty mouth but your arguments are stupid, matey.



2nd article -

1] The fact that some non-Muslims associate Muslims with racialised stereotypes does NOT make it a race either. Jamaicans are associated with different stereotypes than Nigerians but that doesn't make them different races. This also assumes that there aren't many people who criticise Islam WITHOUT associating muslims with any racialised stereotypes. Are they racist too?

2] I could ask a group of people to write down words they associate with Nazism much like your author asked the students to write what they thought of when hearing the words "muslim man". Ideology DOES NOT EQUAL RACE.

3] If I invented my own religion tomorrow which anyone could join, would it be racist to criticise the religion if most the believers were from a particular country? No. Just because Islam is a big religion and has been around for a long time doesn't make it special and free from criticism, hateful cults should be called out.


So much for "directly tackles and demolishes the idiotic arguments". :laugh:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Asa side note, what westerners consider to be universal rights are the products of western thought and history. Middle Easterners are more concerned with the group (family or society) than with individual choices. The Arab, Muslim women I know--granted these tend to be teachers--point to the West as exploiting and degrading women in advertising, pornography, and generally valuing them mostly for their ability to deliver sexual gratification.

You know you can be opposed to sexual exploitation without having a bullshit moralistic modesty approach, right? But the fucked up people in charge behind either side will paint either virgin or whore to somehow represent liberation.

Ether way, us womyn get fucked over. We get fucked over by corporate power, we get fucked over by national liberation movements, we get fucked over by religion and we get fucked over by every other manifestation with the phallic social structure.


And before anyone infers what I did not say or mean: of course I support legal, social, and economic equality among men and women and alternate genders, for that matter. I also believe that those who bear the biological burden of reproduction have a natural right to control that process. I think every person should dress however he or she likes without interference from the state, clergy, bosses, businesses (denial of service), or relatives (for adults). I just don't think everyone in the world necessarily accepts all that.

There is something wrong with all the social hierarchies of all the societies that do not accept that, as a matter of fact, I'd take it farther and say there is something wrong with all hierarchies.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

1] The fact that some non-Muslims associate Muslims with racialised stereotypes does NOT make it a race either. Jamaicans are associated with different stereotypes than Nigerians but that doesn't make them different races. This also assumes that there aren't many people who criticise Islam WITHOUT associating muslims with any racialised stereotypes. Are they racist too?

2] I could ask a group of people to write down words they associate with Nazism much like your author asked the students to write what they thought of when hearing the words "muslim man". Ideology DOES NOT EQUAL RACE.


Once again. Race is completely artificial and does not necessarily imply common color or lineage. In point of fact, race may be constructed based on religion, language, some other cultural aspect, and in some cases even gender. Race is a product of racism and not the other way around. So broad-brushing Muslim people is racism.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

You know you can be opposed to sexual exploitation without having a bullshit moralistic modesty approach, right? But the fucked up people in charge behind either side will paint either virgin or whore to somehow represent liberation.

Yup, I know it. That's actually pretty typical modern Christian thinking, Eve/Magdalene vs. Mary Madonna. I don't know the degree to which Islamic thought as internalized that false dichotomy, but it is clear that some very powerful men are deeply afraid of female sexuality. In a patriarchy the elite men control society and the common men emulate them. Except there is one colossal exception to that rule. Only women can create more humans. So patriarchs seek to control the women. The healthy approach for men is to appreciate and value women. The unhealthy approach is, well, Saudia. I feel like the driving force behind this demand for modesty from Muslim, Jews, and Christians is the commercialized sexualization of the female body, largely through 19th and 20th c. advertising--making women less people and more objects of desire and gaze.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yup, I know it. That's actually pretty typical modern Christian thinking, Eve/Magdalene vs. Mary Madonna. I don't know the degree to which Islamic thought as internalized that false dichotomy, but it is clear that some very powerful men are deeply afraid of female sexuality. In a patriarchy the elite men control society and the common men emulate them. Except there is one colossal exception to that rule. Only women can create more humans. So patriarchs seek to control the women. The healthy approach for men is to appreciate and value women. The unhealthy approach is, well, Saudia. I feel like the driving force behind this demand for modesty from Muslim, Jews, and Christians is the commercialized sexualization of the female body, largely through 19th and 20th c. advertising--making women less people and more objects of desire and gaze.

With the modesty bullshit they perpetuate the idea of the virgin upon womyn. That is the side of the dichotomy they paint over womyn. Wanting womyn to cover up for the sake of modesty and because of this stupid notion that womyn are responsible for men's temptation (which is the basis behind the covering up bullshit, and that applies to christian modesty bullshit as well as in religious jewish communities like the haredi) is the other side of the coin to that hypersexualization and is just as fucked up. There are solutions to the desire (which is actually about power not sex) and gaze that don't involve resorting to puritanical modesty bullshit. Within each of those three religions, as well as many others, womyn are blamed over and over for temptation (where have we heard that one before, btw, want a piece of fruit?) of men. Modesty and desexualization is equally patriarchal to hypersexualization. They both are about control by the male dominated social structure. They both encroach on womyn's bodily autonomy. Not is her body her's but so is her sexuality, it is her's too.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

There are solutions to the desire (which is actually about power not sex) and gaze that don't involve resorting to puritanical modesty bullshit.

Self control comes immediately to mind. I find acknowledging the intrusive thought or desire, then letting it go, is the best approach. It's taken a lot of self-deprogramming to get to this point. And men won't try to deconstruct the women-are-sex-objects assumption if they do not realize that thinking that way just isn't normal.

The hypersexualization is what makes patriarchs and their sympathizers so insistent on modesty--the perceived need to control it. While I have some idea where the notion of women being the instigators of unwanted advances came from, we certainly know better now. Reminds me of a poster I saw recently with helpful advice for stopping rape. 1. Don't rape anyone. There would be no victims of gender-based oppression if no one committed acts of oppression.

[Quail]

Can I just point out that pretty much everything women wear, whether it's a bikini or a hijab, is informed by the patriarchal society the woman in question lives in? My fashion choices, consciously or not, are influenced by patriarchy and so are those of the other women in this thread. I don't think we should be singling out muslim women as though their clothing is uniquely determined by patriarchy.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Can I just point out that pretty much everything women wear, whether it's a bikini or a hijab, is informed by the patriarchal society the woman in question lives in? My fashion choices, consciously or not, are influenced by patriarchy and so are those of the other women in this thread. I don't think we should be singling out muslim women as though their clothing is uniquely determined by patriarchy.

Well you're absolutely right, but it's undeniable that the patriarchy women experience in the Middle East is much worse than in a lot of other places on Earth. Women choosing to wear the hijab is a totally different thing than angry men with guns forcing her by LAW to wear the hijab. They should have a choice. In the West, it is not illegal to wear either a hijab or a bikini. They may suffer shame from certain clothing choices, but they won't get stoned or brought up on an "indecency" charge or something.

[Quail]

Well you're absolutely right, but it's undeniable that the patriarchy women experience in the Middle East is much worse than in a lot of other places on Earth. Women choosing to wear the hijab is a totally different thing than angry men with guns forcing her by LAW to wear the hijab. They should have a choice. In the West, it is not illegal to wear either a hijab or a bikini. They may suffer shame from certain clothing choices, but they won't get stoned or brought up on an "indecency" charge or something.

Well yes, there is obviously a difference when women are forced to wear certain clothes by law.

But I also don't think it makes sense to only criticise the "modest" dress certain groups of religious women choose to wear while ignoring that the choices that all women make are influenced by patriarchy.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Well yes, there is obviously a difference when women are forced to wear certain clothes by law.

But I also don't think it makes sense to only criticise the "modest" dress certain groups of religious women choose to wear while ignoring that the choices that all women make are influenced by patriarchy.

Fair enough. I think the issue is that people aren't making a distinction between Muslim women's right to wear what they want and Islamist political theocrats forcing them. I'd bet a lot of people aren't criticizing their choices, but criticizing the fact that they are forced to. Although I haven't read every single post in the thread so I can't be sure. But I would hope that most people would agree that women have the right to dress as "modestly" as they want.

[Short&Direct]

I don't want to bash on religious people, but this is the main reason why religion is dangerous. When extremists are going about their extremist business, they truly believe with all their heart and soul that God is on their side, so it justifies whatever it is they are doing... They think they will go to Heaven or Paradise for doing God's work. Religion should NOT be taken literally.:(

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Well you're absolutely right, but it's undeniable that the patriarchy women experience in the Middle East is much worse than in a lot of other places on Earth. Women choosing to wear the hijab is a totally different thing than angry men with guns forcing her by LAW to wear the hijab. They should have a choice. In the West, it is not illegal to wear either a hijab or a bikini. They may suffer shame from certain clothing choices, but they won't get stoned or brought up on an "indecency" charge or something.

That's actually pretty rare. There are penalties for not veiling in Saudia and Pakistan, and a head (not face) covering requirement in Iran. Other places, it tends to be customary rather than state-enforced. In Turkey, one takes a risk wearing a headscarf and in Lebanon it is a class marker. In Lebanon, Middle class Suunis don't wear them, but lower class Shi'ites do. It really is a much bigger issue for Westerners than it is for Middle Eastern and North African women.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

That's actually pretty rare. There are penalties for not veiling in Saudia and Pakistan, and a head (not face) covering requirement in Iran. Other places, it tends to be customary rather than state-enforced. In Turkey, one takes a risk wearing a headscarf and in Lebanon it is a class marker. Middle class Suunis don't wear them, but lower class Shi'ites do. It really is a much bigger issue for Westerners than it is for Middle Eastern and North African women.

Oh of course. I didn't mean to sound like I was stereotyping countries with a majority Muslim population. But what I mean is that Islamists have no business in a government, and I say the same thing about Christians. Were this a discussion on the U.S., I would be railing against Christians pervading the government. You cannot make decrees telling anyone what they can and cannot wear.

The issue is that many men over in those countries, whether or not the law requires it, will abuse women who choose not to cover themselves. Also consider the practice of honor killings which happens in the West as well. There is a serious serious problem because in a lot of cases, we can't tell if a woman is wearing a hijab from her own free will or if she's being coerced into wearing it by abusive family members with threat of harm. And it is extremely insulting to women who CHOOSE to wear it if you try to investigate. Because then it becomes culturally insensitive and racist to go around finding out if women are being forced. Because you're right, I'm sure most women who wear it are doing so because they want to. But as Rafiq noted in a previous post, there has been a conservative religious resurgence with Islam that has seen the rise of women in urban areas wearing a full hijab. This wasn't really the case in the past.

Also, Saudi Arabia enforces more than just "penalties" for not wearing it. I feel like people are hesitant to condemn these countries' policies out of fear of coming off as xenophobic. It would be xenophobic to condemn Muslims for choosing to wear the hijab. What is NOT xenophobic is examining the patriarchal reactionary structures in place in these countries that coerces women to the point where they are treated like complete shit.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

While I agree with you, the idea that personal choice controls is a western norm, not necessarily one shared by many other societies. If a woman wears a head covering of her own free will, it is a free will that created based on internalized social norms. We can wear what we want, but we cannot want what we want. I guess I just don't believe free will actually exists.

Yes, Islamism has been on the rise. Unfortunately with corrupt, unresponsive governments and subjugation to economic and military colonialism, a lot of people feel it is their only avenue for resistance. And the people, especially the women, always get screwed as a result. :( As far as I can tell, what Muslim women want is protection from abuse, equality in marriage and divorce rights, and in Saudia the right to drive. (I know, right?)

It does seem that the effort to look at other cultures on their own terms and from their perspective is sometimes at odds with the idea that racial discrimination is a human rights violation, so discrimination by gender cannot be ignored as simply a cultural difference.

Personally, as a historian, I'm generally more interested in figuring out cause and effect than condemnation. Still we all have a responsibility not to be bystanders when someone is suffering from an injustice and those fighting for reform over there deserve whatever support we can get. We just have to make sure noise from the West doesn't backfire and make things worse.

[adipocere]

Kidnapped Girls Become Tools of U.S. Imperial Policy in Africa (http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/kidnapped-girls-become-tools-us-imperial-policy-africa)

Wed, 05/14/2014 - 02:04 — Glen Ford



War Against Libya (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/war-against-libya) |
Niger Drone Bases (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/niger-drone-bases) |
Jihadists (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/jihadists) |
humanitarian military intervention (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/humanitarian-military-intervention) |
Susan RIce Congo Genocide (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/susan-rice-congo-genocide) |
Nigerian Army Extrajudicial Killings (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/nigerian-army-extrajudicial-killings) |
Kidnapped Nigerian Girls (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/kidnapped-nigerian-girls) |
Joseph Kony (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/joseph-kony) |
Congo genocide (http://www.blackagendareport.com/taxonomy/term/1292) |
Boko Haram (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/boko-haram) |
AFRICOM (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/africa/africom) |
Congressional Black Caucus (http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/congressional-black-caucus)


Printer-friendly version (http://www.blackagendareport.com/print/content/kidnapped-girls-become-tools-us-imperial-policy-africa) http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/imagecache/feature400/KidnappedGirls.jpg


by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

The “humanitarian” U.S. military occupation of Africa has been very successful, thus far. “The Chibok abductions have served the same U.S. foreign policy purposes as Joseph Kony sightings in central Africa.” Imagine: the superpower that financed the genocide of six million in Congo, claims to be a defender of teenage girls and human rights on the continent. If you believe that, then you are probably a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Kidnapped Girls Become Tools of U.S. Imperial Policy in Africa

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“The Boko Haram, like other jihadists, had become more dangerous in a post-Gaddafi Africa – thus justifying a larger military presence for the Americans.”
A chorus of outraged public opinion demands that the “international community” and the Nigerian military “Do something!” about the abduction by Boko Haram of 280 teenage girls. It is difficult to fault the average U.S. consumer of packaged “news” products for knowing next to nothing about what the Nigerian army has actually been “doing” to suppress the Muslim fundamentalist rebels since, as senior columnist Margaret Kimberley (http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-how-not-%E2%80%9Cbring-back-our-girls%E2%80%9D) pointed out in these pages, last week, the three U.S. broadcast networks carried “not a single television news story about Boko Haram” in all of 2013. (Nor did the misinformation corporations provide a nanosecond of coverage of the bloodshed in the Central African Republic, where thousands died and a million were made homeless by communal fighting over the past year.) But, that doesn’t mean the Nigerian army hasn’t been bombing, strafing, and indiscriminately slaughtering thousands of, mainly, young men in the country’s mostly Muslim north.
The newly aware U.S. public may or may not be screaming for blood, but rivers of blood have already flowed in the region. Those Americans who read – which, presumably, includes First Lady Michelle Obama, who took her husband’s place on radio (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/10/us-nigeria-girls-obama-idUSBREA4902Q20140510) last weekend to pledge U.S. help in the hunt for the girls – would have learned in the New York Times of the army’s savage offensive near the Niger border, last May and June. In the town of Bosso, the Nigerian army killed hundreds of young men in traditional Muslim garb “Without Asking Who They Are,” according to the NYT headline (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/world/africa/nigerian-refugees-accuse-army-of-excess-force.html?_r=0). “They don’t ask any questions,” said a witness who later fled for his life, like thousands of others. “When they see young men in traditional robes, they shoot them on the spot,” said a student. “They catch many of the others and take them away, and we don’t hear from them again.”
“When they see young men in traditional robes, they shoot them on the spot.”
The Times’ Adam Nossiter interviewed many refugees from the army’s “all-out land and air campaign to crush the Boko Haram insurgency.” He reported:
“All spoke of a climate of terror that had pushed them, in the thousands, to flee for miles through the harsh and baking semidesert, sometimes on foot, to Niger. A few blamed Boko Haram — a shadowy, rarely glimpsed presence for most residents — for the violence. But the overwhelming majority blamed the military, saying they had fled their country because of it.”
In just one village, 200 people were killed by the military.
In March of this year (http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/157853-nigerian-military-boko-haram-kill-1500-people-2014-amnesty-international.html), fighters who were assumed to be from Boko Haram attacked a barracks and jail in the northern city of Maiduguri. Hundreds of prisoners fled, but 200 youths were rounded up and made to lie on the ground. A witness told the Times: “The soldiers made some calls and a few minutes later they started shooting the people on the ground. I counted 198 people killed at that checkpoint.”
All told, according to Amnesty International, more than 600 people were extrajudicially murdered, “most of them unarmed, escaped detainees, around Maiduguri.” An additional 950 prisoners were killed (https://www.amnesty.org/en/news/nigeria-deaths-hundreds-boko-haram-suspects-custody-requires-investigation-2013-10-15) in the first half of 2013 in detention facilities run by Nigeria’s military Joint Task Force, many at the same barracks in Maiduguri. Amnesty International quotes a senior officer in the Nigerian Army, speaking anonymously: “Hundreds have been killed in detention either by shooting them or by suffocation,” he said. “There are times when people are brought out on a daily basis and killed. About five people, on average, are killed nearly on a daily basis.”
Chibok, where the teenage girls were abducted, is 80 miles from Maiduguri, capital of Borno State.
In 2009, when the Boko Haram had not yet been transformed into a fully armed opposition, the military summarily executed their handcuffed leader and killed at least 1,000 accused members in the states of Borno, Yobe, Kano and Bauchi, many of them apparently simply youths from suspect neighborhoods. A gruesome video (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2010/02/2010298114949112.html) shows the military at work. “In the video, a number of unarmed men are seen being made to lie down in the road outside a building before they are shot,” Al Jazeera reports in text accompanying the video. “As one man is brought out to face death, one of the officers can be heard urging his colleague to ‘shoot him in the chest not the head – I want his hat.’”
“950 prisoners were killed in the first half of 2013 in detention facilities run by Nigeria’s military.”
These are only snapshots of the army’s response to Boko Haram – atrocities that are part of the context of Boko Haram’s ghastly behavior. The military has refused the group’s offer to exchange the kidnapped girls for imprisoned Boko Haram members. (We should not assume that everyone detained as Boko Haram is actually a member – only that all detainees face imminent and arbitrary execution.)
None of the above is meant to tell Boko Haram’s “side” in this grisly story (fundamentalist religious jihadists find no favor at BAR), but to emphasize the Nigerian military’s culpability in the group’s mad trajectory – the same military that many newly-minted “Save Our Girls” activists demand take more decisive action in Borno.
The bush to which the Boko Haram retreated with their captives was already a free-fire zone, where anything that moves is subject to obliteration by government aircraft. Nigerian air forces have now been joined by U.S. surveillance planes (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/13/nigeria-boko-haram-kidnapped-girls-surveillance-plane-iraq-africom) operating out of the new U.S. drone base in neighboring Niger, further entrenching AFRICOM/CIA in the continental landscape. Last week it was announced that, for the first time,AFRICOM troops will train a Nigerian ranger battalion in counterinsurgency warfare.
The Chibok abductions have served the same U.S. foreign policy purposes as Joseph Kony sightings in central Africa, which were conjured-up to justify the permanent stationing of U.S Special Forces (http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/world/africa/africa-obama-troops/)in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, in 2011, on humanitarian interventionist grounds. (This past March, the U.S. sent 150 more Special Ops (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-sending-more-special-forces-planes-to-uganda-in-kony-hunt/1877651.html) troops to the region, claiming to have again spotted Kony, who is said to be deathly ill, holed up with a small band of followers somewhere in the Central African Republic.) The United States (and France and Britain, plus the rest of NATO, if need be) must maintain a deepening and permanent presence in Africa to defend the continent from…Africans.
When the crowd yells that America “Do something!” somewhere in Africa, the U.S. military is likely to already be there.
“AFRICOM troops will train a Nigerian ranger battalion in counterinsurgency warfare.”
Barack Obama certainly needs no encouragement to intervention; his presidency is roughly coterminous with AFRICOM’s founding and explosive expansion. Obama broadened the war against Somalia that was launched by George Bush in partnership with the genocidal Ethiopian regime, in 2006 (an invasion that led directly to what the United Nations called “the worst humanitarian crisis is Africa”). He built on Bill Clinton and George Bush’s legacies in the Congo, where U.S. client states Uganda and Rwanda caused the slaughter of 6 million people since 1996 – the greatest genocide of the post War World II era. He welcomed South Sudan as the world’s newest nation – the culmination of a decades-long project of the U.S., Britain and Israel to dismember Africa’s largest country, but which has now fallen into a bloody chaos, as does everything the U.S. touches, these days.
Most relevant to the plight of Chibok’s young women, Obama led “from behind” NATO’s regime change in Libya, removing the anti-jihadist bulwark Muamar Gaddafi (“We came, we saw, he died,” said Hillary Clinton) and destabilizing the whole Sahelian tier of the continent, all the way down to northern Nigeria. As BAR editor and columnist Ajamu Baraka writes in the current issue, “Boko Haram benefited from the destabilization of various countries across the Sahel following the Libya conflict.” The once-“shadowy” group now sported new weapons and vehicles and was clearly better trained and disciplined. In short, the Boko Haram, like other jihadists, had become more dangerous in a post-Gaddafi Africa – thus justifying a larger military presence for the same Americansand (mainly French) Europeans who had brought these convulsions to the region.
If Obama has his way, it will be a very long war – the better to grow AFRICOM – with some very unsavory allies (from both the Nigerian and American perspectives).
Whatever Obama does to deepen the U.S. presence in Nigeria and the rest of the continent, he can count on the Congressional Black Caucus, including its most “progressive” member, Barbara Lee (D-CA), the only member of the U.S. Congress to vote against the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001. Lee, along with Reps. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and fellow Californian Karen Bass, who is the ranking member on the House Subcommittee on African, gave cart blanch to Obama (http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/05/members_of_the_congressional_black_caucus_speak_ou t_for_nigerian_girls.html) to “Do something!” in Nigeria. “And so our first command and demand is to use all resources to bring the terrorist thugs to justice,” they said.
A year and a half ago, when then UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s prospects for promotion to top U.S. diplomat were being torpedoed by the Benghazi controversy, a dozen Black congresspersons scurried to her defense. "We will not allow a brilliant public servant's record to be mugged to cut off her consideration to be secretary of state," said Washington, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.
As persons who are presumed to read, Black Caucus members were certainly aware of the messy diplomatic scandal around Rice’s role in suppressing United Nation’s reports on U.S. allies’ Rwanda and Uganda’s genocidal acts against the Congolese people. Of all the high profile politicians from both the corporate parties, Rice – the rabid interventionist – is most intimately implicated in the Congo holocaust, dating back to the policy’s formulation under Clinton. Apparently, that’s not the part of Rice’s record that counts to Delegate Norton and the rest of the Black Caucus. Genocide against Africans does not move them one bit.
So, why are we to believe that they are really so concerned about the girls of Chibok?
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected] ([email protected]).

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

But I also don't think it makes sense to only criticise the "modest" dress certain groups of religious women choose to wear while ignoring that the choices that all women make are influenced by patriarchy.

Wait, who is criticizing womyn choosing to wear a hijab? Criticizing it being imposed on womyn makes sense and I agree, but I don't see anyone criticizing womyn for choosing to wear "modest" clothes. If someone wants to cover themselves, believe in god, eat bread once a week thinking it is a 2000 year old god, wear magic underpants, not eat bacon or think santa can commit mass breaking and entering, I aint got nothing to say about it other than that is their own damn business. I'm happy for them that they are living their lives. These standards are never something to be forced upon someone.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah grrrl, I feel that rather, as I said, the hijab as sexist "institution" and patriarchal invention is criticized. Women with hijab can be absolutely smart, confident, aspiring and all that, but the hijab itself, in the form it exists, namely worn by exclusively females, will to me always be a sign of sexism and oppression.

[khad]

I wonder who Boko Haram will pledge Bay'ah to first, Zawahiri or Baghdadi.

[Max]

I find that all forms of organized religion lead to fucked up shit, like 9/11, abortion clinic bombings, and this incident in Nigeria. I hope they rescue the girls, its awful that someone would do this, but I'm not surprised that something like this happened, organized religion causes shit like this.

[Dagoth Ur]

Oh is it organized religion? It's not the crushing material conditions? Are you really this idealist?

[Max]

Its both, but in some instances it is motivated purely by religion.

[Dagoth Ur]

It is never motivated by "purely" religion. Even bombing abortion clinics is about social inequality.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

What religion does is stamp divine mandate to one's preconceived ideas. Disagreement becomes blasphemy. No socially-based argument against, say, banning birth control is valid because God has already commanded it, at least in the mind of the zealot.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't want to bash on religious people, but this is the main reason why religion is dangerous. When extremists are going about their extremist business, they truly believe with all their heart and soul that God is on their side, so it justifies whatever it is they are doing... They think they will go to Heaven or Paradise for doing God's work. Religion should NOT be taken literally.:(

At least in the case of Boko Haram, though, it's hard to argue that religious fealty is the root cause. Boko Haram's viability arguably has more to do with limitations of Nigerian federalism, ethnic tensions, and unease with what is perceived as lingering British influence.

True, this is cloaked in an Islamist rhetoric, but as historical materialists it's important to see through that. Perhaps on some level we are arguing the same point. But it would be a serious mistake to think that going after religious faith is how we would smash reactionary groups like Boko Haram.

[greenforest]

Actually Muslim girls are exempt from wearing the veil, it's only worn from puberty and up.

Wrong.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/86/eb/fd/86ebfda851bcecab3a38329f1bfb1761.jpg

Large image:

http://siobhanfallon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/veiled-ladies.jpg

[Rosa Partizan]

that whole statement is stupid anyway, when nowadays girls have their periods with 10 or 11 and have to wear it then. No justification for little girls' sexualization.

[Nakidana]

Wrong.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/86/eb/fd/86ebfda851bcecab3a38329f1bfb1761.jpg

Large image:

http://siobhanfallon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/veiled-ladies.jpg

Nothing wrong about it. There are lots of traditions in the Islamic world that are not Islamic but people do them anyway in the name of islam. Girls are not required to wear the veil until after puberty in islam, some Muslims wearing it earlier does not change that fact.

Some Muslims wear a burka, that does not mean islam requires you to wear a burka.

[greenforest]

Nothing wrong about it. There are lots of traditions in the Islamic world that are not Islamic but people do them anyway in the name of islam. Girls are not required to wear the veil until after puberty in islam, some Muslims wearing it earlier does not change that fact.

Some Muslims wear a burka, that does not mean islam requires you to wear a burka.

Please don't shift your goal-posts. You previously made the demonstrably false claim that veils are only worn by post-pubescent girls. It's also wrong since Afghanistan, under the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia's dress code laws are based off their interpretation of Islam where pre-pubsecent children wear veils.

I also find your comments regarding the burka quite Islamophobic and outright bigoted/ignorant as Islam is not monolithic and there are many different interpretations regarding the requirement of wearing the burka.

[Nakidana]

Please don't shift your goal-posts. You previously made the demonstrably false claim that veils are only worn by post-pubescent girls. It's also wrong since Afghanistan, under the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia's dress code laws are based off their interpretation of Islam where pre-pubsecent children wear veils.

I also find your comments regarding the burka quite Islamophobic and outright bigoted/ignorant as Islam is not monolithic and there are many different interpretations regarding the requirement of wearing the burka.

That's your interpretation of my claim. It's not a requirement to wear the veil until puberty in islam, whatever the Taliban might have imposed on people. The Taliban also excluded women from working, that does not mean women in islam are excluded from working.

There's also nothing whatsoever bigoted about the fact that women are not required to wear the burka in islam. As you yourself admit, there are different interpretations all over the world of what constitutes the veil. That does not make the burka a requirement.

[greenforest]

That's your interpretation of my claim. It's not a requirement to wear the veil until puberty in islam, whatever the Taliban might have imposed on people. The Taliban also excluded women from working, that does not mean women in islam are excluded from working.

There's also nothing whatsoever bigoted about the fact that women are not required to wear the burka in islam. As you yourself admit, there are different interpretations all over the world of what constitutes the veil. That does not make the burka a requirement.

Since when did Islam become a monolithic entity for racist bigots?

[#FF0000]

That tastes like white privilege denial to me.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Gender =/= race nor are either of them simply dismissible as "social construct" That is just an argument that tastes like white and male privilege. Number one excuse used by manarchists and brocialists. Jajaja! A recipe for privilege denial, and a bullshit recipe.

Huh I'm kinda thrown by how stupid what you're saying is cuz I wouldn't expect it from you. Saying race doesn't exist in biology but is only a social construct doesn't mean that "race" isn't a factor in society or that people aren't oppressed on the basis of it.

Plus the whole "ISLAM ISN'T A RACE" thing is dumb cuz obviously "islam" is shorthand for "brown" for bigots. I think we can criticize shitty, patriarchal, and reactionary ideas n attitudes without stooping to the level of xenophobic nationalists. And if you think Islamophobia isn't a thing then I dunno, maybe you should talk to the increasing nuber of folks who've been victimized by violence on the basis of being (or just "looking") like a Muslim.

[Nakidana]

Since when did Islam become a monolithic entity for racist bigots?

Repeating statements over and over again does not make them any more true you know.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Wrong.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/86/eb/fd/86ebfda851bcecab3a38329f1bfb1761.jpg



Are we sure these girls are Muslim. There are other Christian and Jewish cultures in the Levant and Balkans in which females wear head coverings. Also, the so-called Muslim world is a pretty big place and the practices are by no means uniform. In Lebanon, Egypt, and in Jordan, girls do not cover their hair. In Lebanon, middle class, adult Suunis do not cover their hair, but lower class Shiites do.

[synthesis]

I can't describe enough my distaste for the "Muslims are not a race" argument. A Mexican person can be white, black or from any of the ethnic groups we call "indigenous," or any combination of such, but when you hear someone inveighing against "Mexicans" for whatever negative trait that person has decided to associate with the entire population, who here would hesitate to call that racist? Or would you say "Mexicans are not a race" to that as well?

[greenforest]

Repeating statements over and over again does not make them any more true you know.

So the racist bigot is saying Islam is a monolithic religion with one interpretive tradition?

[greenforest]

Are we sure these girls are Muslim. There are other Christian and Jewish cultures in the Levant and Balkans in which females wear head coverings. Also, the so-called Muslim world is a pretty big place and the practices are by no means uniform. In Lebanon, Egypt, and in Jordan, girls do not cover their hair. In Lebanon, middle class, adult Suunis do not cover their hair, but lower class Shiites do.

So in other words you're agreeing with me?

[synthesis]

So the racist bigot is saying Islam is a monolithic religion with one interpretive tradition?

How is that in any way a fair conclusion to be drawn from the statement that sparked this righteous outrage from you?

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

So in other words you're agreeing with me?

If your point is that Muslims are not monolithic, then yes.

[Nakidana]

So the racist bigot is saying Islam is a monolithic religion with one interpretive tradition?

Hehe, nope, I completely disagree with that statement.

[greenforest]

How is that in any way a fair conclusion to be drawn from the statement that sparked this righteous outrage from you?

Claiming there is one interpretative tradition regarding dress or age of wearing veil when in reality there are many interpretive traditions is making Islam monolithic.

This would be no different than if the racist bigot claimed abolishing slavery were un-Islamic because the racist bigot could cite some interpretative traditions allowing slavery while other, divergent, interpretive traditions existed.

Failing to see how one racist bigot is impoverishing Islamic civilization's numerous interpretive traditions highlights deeply rooted Islamophobia.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Huh I'm kinda thrown by how stupid what you're saying is cuz I wouldn't expect it from you. Saying race doesn't exist in biology but is only a social construct doesn't mean that "race" isn't a factor in society or that people aren't oppressed on the basis of it.

I didn't say it wasn't a social construct. I said that they aren't dismissible as a social construct. I've seen too many people dismiss their privilege on the basis of race being a social construct. I was also responding to someone who thought gender and race are the same thing. They are both social constructs but it doesn't take a genius to see they are separate social constructs.


Plus the whole "ISLAM ISN'T A RACE" thing is dumb cuz obviously "islam" is shorthand for "brown" for bigots. I think we can criticize shitty, patriarchal, and reactionary ideas n attitudes without stooping to the level of xenophobic nationalists. And if you think Islamophobia isn't a thing then I dunno, maybe you should talk to the increasing nuber of folks who've been victimized by violence on the basis of being (or just "looking") like a Muslim.

Not everyone who criticizes Islam does it for the same reason. Both the front national (france) and femen have made statements critical of islam. However, front national and femen are ideologically opposed to each other and femen has protested against front national as well. Clearly the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

[synthesis]

Claiming there is one interpretative tradition regarding dress or age of wearing veil when in reality there are many interpretive traditions is making Islam monolithic.

This would be no different than if the racist bigot claimed abolishing slavery were un-Islamic because the racist bigot could cite some interpretative traditions allowing slavery while other, divergent, interpretive traditions existed.

Failing to see how one racist bigot is impoverishing Islamic civilization's numerous interpretive traditions highlights deeply rooted Islamophobia.

Okay, this has to be some kind of satirical account criticizing people who use the term "Islamophobia" or something.

[Nakidana]

Okay, this has to be some kind of satirical account criticizing people who use the term "Islamophobia" or something.

Yeah, I was thinking that too.

[Dagoth Ur]

@roza/nakidana/all the other people who keep insisting that the veil is mandatory: Muhammad explicitly said that women cannot be forced into the veil, but the some must choose it. Many Islamic countries ignore this but they ignore how Muhammad was against honor culture as well.