The Hijab/khimār

[BobKKKindle$]

I apologise if this has been discussed before, it is an issue that interests me and I would be interested to hear your views on wearing the Hijab and the legality of religious expression in public faces. I personally find it unfair that many 'socialists' assume that Muslim women wear the Hijab because they are subject to the pressure of their communities and families; many Muslim women make a conscious choice. If instances of coercion do exist, then it is necessary to ask whether these women are somehow more oppressed than other women in society. Non-Muslim women are also pressured to present themselves in a certain way according to what is considered acceptable, attractive, and consistent with the female gender role - hence the prevailing female 'look' of revealing clothing and make-up use. Why do politicians speak out against the Hijab, and, in some countries, advocate the criminalisation of the Hijab in public places and certain professions, but remain silent when faced with 'secular' womens' oppression? Why the emphasis and persecution of the Muslim community.

Liberal politicians who have never experienced life in a muslim community and who are ignorant of the principles of Islam feel they have the obligation to 'liberate' Muslim women - yet these women have had an important role in many contemporary political movements that have posed a challenge to the policies of mainstream parties, such as the Stop the War Coalition in the United Kingdom and the affiliated Respect Party. These women are capable of standing up for themselves - they don't need white, christian, old men to tell them what to do - or, for that matter, student socialists.

Recently I have begun to encounter islamophobic sentiment in my community and a disdain for the Hijab. Has anyone else had these kinds of experiences, and does anyone hear oppose the (right to wear the) Hijab?

[Vargha Poralli]

Well Burqa was not unique to Muslims. In India many Hindu women wear it too.

And not all Muslim women are forced to wear it. To my knowledge the Indian state does not say anything in this regards. Some misogynistic Jammaths do. But in those places and circumstances it is the Muslim women themselves and Progressive Muslim men who stand in front to fight against the Jamaats.

Muslim women have started to form their own Jamaats (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68805&hl=Muslim+women) to reform their religion and fight against various patrachal practices of their community.

As for west given majority of people are immigrants I assume it is the common Xenophobia which is expressed by the Politicians.

Regardless it is the choice of Women themselves in many places. And it is up to them to make a choice.

If the society forces them Muslim women have made it clear that they will fight against it as shown from the thread I have linked.

[hajduk]

look bob in my country women in TITO time didnt wear the hijab becouse in that time EX-YU was socialistic state
today situation is different in positive way
those females who whant to wear hijab they wear
those who dont they not wear
but you have politicians who whant to use islamofobia for own political carrier so in that manner they confuse public telling that those females who wear hijab are potential terrorists and those politicians hide that kind of politic telling that those females must bee liberate
liberate from what?
i mean there is some traditional issues in muslim famillies which they are too old to provide them in new millenium but hijab is not that issue
so when you hear that some politician talk about hijab bob you must know that is attack on muslim familly and not on those tradition issues which they are too radical to accepted them

[Cencus]

It's a symbol of religion, and on those grounds alone should be opposed the same as wearing a crucifix or any other religious bollocks.

On top of that as I understand it all the Quoranstates is that a woman should do is cover her hair, so it is not actually religious but cultural.

In the U.K. we have had a muslim population for years but only with this generation has the wearing of full face covering become popular. Why is this? One this is the rise of muslim extremism here.

The other big reason is as an act of rebellion. Kids of 3rd generation muslims wear the burka in the same way that kids got mohecians 25 years ago. It's a sign that you want no part of western capitalist society, it pisses your parents, who have done thier best to integrate, off, it's just a big FUCK YOU everyone who ever pissed you off.


Unless you really believe muslim extremism is a good thing theres no reason to stand by the burka. If like me you feel that any religious extremism should be opposed at any oppertunity then don't defend the cultural dress of those that would have women as 2nd class citizens.

[BobKKKindle$]

Unless you really believe muslim extremism is a good thing theres no reason to stand by the burka.


It's a symbol of religion, and on those grounds alone should be opposed the same as wearing a crucifix or any other religious bollocks.

This is the kind of attitude that makes me fucking angry. How is the Burqa a form of islamic extremism? Are you suggesting that all those that wear the Burqa advocate attacking innocent civilians in order to establish an Islamic state?

I am an atheist, but I try to respect religion (although I am willing to criticise when I feel that religion is providing an ideological justification for reactionary policies or objectives) because I understand that for many people it is a very personal subject; I also try to uphold the right of all humans to follow the tenets of any religious belief they may hold - so long as they do not directly infringe on the rights and wellbeing of others. I fail to see how the display of any religious item is harmful.

By advocating opposition to the Burqa (whatever form that may take) you actually risk further alienating vulnerable muslim communities and encouraging them to consider all non-muslims as ignorant of their faith. As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK, I cannot see how this is conducive to developing class consciousness.


...it pisses your parents, who have done thier best to integrate, off, it's just a big FUCK YOU everyone who ever pissed you off.


then don't defend the cultural dress of those that would have women as 2nd class citizens.

What exactly are you trying to suggest? If wearing the Burqa is a form of rebellion why does it need to be oppossed and how can it be described as reactionary if it is an expression of anti-capitalist sentiment? What justification or evidence do you have for suggesting that wearing the Burqa annoys Muslim parents? If they want to degrade the status of women, why would they oppose something that Islamists believe should be a legal obligation in an Islamic state? Why should Muslim communities and individuals be forced to 'integrate' if that means they are unable to follow their religion?

You have lots of questions to answer; It sounds to me like you should be restricted for your blatant islamophobia.


On top of that as I understand it all the Quoranstates is that a woman should do is cover her hair, so it is not actually religious but cultural.


It's a symbol of religion, and on those grounds alone should be opposed the same as wearing a crucifix or any other religious bollocks.

Contradiction? Is it cultural or religious? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[BobKKKindle$]

Cencus, the fact that the Freedom Party, a far-right dutch political party, also opposses (and has advocated a ban of) the Burqa shows just how reactionary your position is.

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page...owitz112106.htm (http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=rabinowitz112106.htm)

[Vargha Poralli]

Cencus, the fact that the Freedom Party, a far-right dutch political party, also opposses (and has advocated a ban of) the Burqa shows just how reactionary your position is.


That is really a stupid response Bob.

And I don't expect any reasonable reply from someone who claims that Wearing Hijab is some what related to the rise of Islamic Extremeism in UK.

[BobKKKindle$]

That is really a stupid response Bob.

How is it a stupid reponse? Do you support the policies of a far-right party on any issue? Do you think it is acceptable to be ideologically consistent with a far-right party? Cencus' utter hatred of the Burqa and religious expression means he would surely support any campaign to discourage wearing the Burqa by any means necessary - he supports a policy of a fascist party!

[spartan]

i have no problem with women wearing the hijab and/or burqa. in fact i find it quite sexy! which is odd because normal islamic protocol says that women should wear it to stop men lusting after them!

[Vargha Poralli]

How is it a stupid reponse?

Association Fallacy I suppose.



Do you support the policies of a far-right party on any issue? Do you think it is acceptable to be ideologically consistent with a far-right party?

Well the far right in my country opposes the Nuclear deal with the United States for some specific reasons.

I oppose it for completely different reasons. Does this means I am somehow influenced by Far Right ?



Cencus' utter hatred of the Burqa and religious expression means he would surely support any campaign to discourage wearing the Burqa by any means necessary - he supports a policy of a fascist party!

Obviously he is wrong in it.

But your response is might not encourage him to debate more rather accuse you of supporting "Oppression of Women" or "Muslim Terrorism" etc.

***************************


It's a symbol of religion, and on those grounds alone should be opposed the same as wearing a crucifix or any other religious bollocks.


Why wearing a religious symbol should be opposed in the first place ?



On top of that as I understand it all the Quoranstates is that a woman should do is cover her hair, so it is not actually religious but cultural.

Really ? Just one sentence back you said that it is religious bollocks ? So what do you think it is ? religious or Cultural ?



In the U.K. we have had a muslim population for years but only with this generation has the wearing of full face covering become popular. Why is this? One this is the rise of muslim extremism here.



On what basis you are asserting that Muslim extermism is on the rise in UK ? And how does it influence this Hijab/Niquab/Burqa ?



The other big reason is as an act of rebellion. Kids of 3rd generation muslims wear the burka in the same way that kids got mohecians 25 years ago. It's a sign that you want no part of western capitalist society, it pisses your parents, who have done thier best to integrate, off, it's just a big FUCK YOU everyone who ever pissed you off.

Unless you really believe muslim extremism is a good thing theres no reason to stand by the burka. If like me you feel that any religious extremism should be opposed at any oppertunity then don't defend the cultural dress of those that would have women as 2nd class citizens

Clearly what is your point ?


i have no problem with women wearing the hijab and/or burqa. in fact i find it quite sexy!


:rolleyes:

Are you sure you know what a burqa is ?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)I personally find it unfair that many 'socialists' assume that Muslim women wear the Hijab because they are subject to the pressure of their communities and families; many Muslim women make a conscious choice. If instances of coercion do exist, then it is necessary to ask whether these women are somehow more oppressed than other women in society. Non-Muslim women are also pressured to present themselves in a certain way according to what is considered acceptable, attractive, and consistent with the female gender role - hence the prevailing female 'look' of revealing clothing and make-up use.[/b]

I think that the first thing that must be asked here is why members of the SWP are raising this question. Is it because they want to end up with a pro-hijab position that will allow them to cuddle up closer to their Islamic allies in 'Respect'.

The whole questioning of the fact that many women are forced to wear it then becomes more logical. It is true that many women are force to wear hijab because of presure from their communities. It is also true that the whole thing comes from a really disturb view of sexuality, and of women being property that any socialist should be against. The whole thing stinks to me of pandering to backward religious prejudices because it is politically expedient.

That said it is also true that many women do make a choice to wear it. In fact I personally remember one woman at work many years ago who came in without a headscarf one day because her father had told her to take it off.

I think that there are two questions that Bob should ask himself; First, Are a majority of women choosing to wear it, or forced to wear it, and second even if a majority are choosing to wear it does that mean that socialists should support it.

Personally I don't think the first question is that relevant, and I also think that it is very difficult to provide an answer to. The reason I raised it is that I sincerely believe that large amounts of women are forced to wear it, and Bob is trying to obscure this fact.

For me the answer to the second question is a resounding no. However, not supporting it doesn't mean that we join in the campaign to ban it.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Liberal politicians who have never experienced life in a muslim community and who are ignorant of the principles of Islam feel they have the obligation to 'liberate' Muslim women

...These women are capable of standing up for themselves - they don't need white, christian, old men to tell them what to do - or, for that matter, student socialists.

...and does anyone hear oppose the (right to wear the) Hijab?

My wife, who is not a liberal politician, nor (that) old, nor a student, nor Christian, and has lived all her life in a 'Muslim' country opposes the right to wear the hijab in certain circumstances, and so do the vast majority of my personal friends, both female, and male. The reason I mention this is that you are trying to portray opposition to the hijab as the premise of ignorant bourgeois Western males.

By the way, in case you are wondering I don't oppose people's right to wear the hijab, but I am certainly not lining up with the imams on demonstrations to fight for the right to wear it.

It is important to look at the situations where this is being discussed in context, and not in abstract. In abstract of course communists are against the capitalist state invading people's lives. That is it full stop.

In the UK any attempt to get the hijab banned is part of a racist campaign originating from the right. I think that the most important task for revolutionaries on this issue is to make it clear that it is a racist campaign even though allegedly 'progressive' ideas such as 'Freedom', and 'Secularism' are brought out in its defence. Many workers are confused on this issue.


bobkindles replying to someone against the hijab
It sounds to me like you should be restricted for your blatant islamophobia.

It does not mean that they are racists.

Do you want me restricted for Islamophobia too?

In Turkey, where it is illegal to cover your hair in certain public buildings, it is obviously not a question of racism. The vast majority of the left leaning workers (especially female ones) would probably support the ban. My wife for example who is quite liberal on this question thinks that students should be allowed to wear them, but the idea of government employees (like teachers, nurses,...) wearing a headscarf horrifies her. Many workers feel (however irrationally so) that it is the first step along the road of Turkey turning into another Iran. The Kemalist bourgeoisie managed to call three massive demonstrations of between one, and two million people earlier this year in defence of secularism this year. Many of the people on them were workers.

For us, as a communist organisation it is important to argue that the struggles around headscarves are part of an ongoing battle between two rival factions of the bourgeoisie, and that the working class has no interest in supporting either side.

There is one other point that needs raising here:


As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK, I cannot see how this is conducive to developing class consciousness.

To be charitable I will except this as shorthand for what is meant. It is, however, a ludicrous statement; Muslims are not a part of the working class. Many people who are Muslims, probably the majority, are working class, but Islam is a religion that is spread across all classes in the UK. I think that this sort of 'fuzzy' shorthand leads to 'fuzzy' thinking.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

Just some quick comments; I have to go to bed


I think that the first thing that must be asked here is why members of the SWP are raising this question. Is it because they want to end up with a pro-hijab position that will allow them to cuddle up closer to their Islamic allies in 'Respect'.

Please don't make such crass and unfounded judgements; the SWP has consistently campaigned against the oppression of women and we do not advance a 'prop-hijab' position because we want to develop closer political ties; rather, because the SWP contends that banning the hijab and suggesting that the hijab is innappropriate in certain environments is an affront to muslims' freedom.


That said it is also true that many women do make a choice to wear it. In fact I personally remember one woman at work many years ago who came in without a headscarf one day because her father had told her to take it off.


workers feel (however irrationally so) that it is the first step along the road of Turkey turning into another Iran. The Kemalist bourgeoisie managed to call three massive demonstrations of between one, and two million people earlier this year in defence of secularism this year. Many of the people on them were workers.

I can also point to various movements and demonstrations, supported by muslim working-class women that have actively campaigned for the right to wear the hijab and against condemnations of the Hijab; this suggests that women are capable of asserting an independent political identity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3805733.stm I am unable to comment on the issue of Turkey; I find it unfair, however, that you base your position on your personal experience and do not refer to specific movements.


To be charitable I will except this as shorthand for what is meant. It is, however, a ludicrous statement; Muslims are not a part of the working class. Many people who are Muslims, probably the majority, are working class, but Islam is a religion that is spread across all classes in the UK. I think that this sort of 'fuzzy' shorthand leads to 'fuzzy' thinking.

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who make up the bulk of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims, face dramatic levels of unemployment, as much as three times higher than their white counterparts [Socialist Review, June 2006] and Muslims are increasingly subject to racial discrimination and abuse; as socialists, who oppose all racism and hardship, the struggle against Capitalism in the UK must encompass the struggle against islamophobia and rests on the support of the Muslim community.


By the way, in case you are wondering I don't oppose people's right to wear the hijab, but I am certainly not lining up with the imams on demonstrations to fight for the right to wear it.

The right to wear the Hijab is under attack; if socialists do not rally to the cause muslim communities may turn to radical religious ideology in order to preserve their collective identity, and other ethnic groups will continue to view mulsims as backward and isolated within society. It is therefore necessary for socialists to actively campaign against banning the Hijab - needless to say, RESPECT is an integral part of this struggle.


It is also true that the whole thing comes from a really disturb view of sexuality, and of women being property that any socialist should be against. The whole thing stinks to me of pandering to backward religious prejudices because it is politically expedient.

Do you have any evidence or justification for characterising Islam in this manner? The Cairo declaration of Human rights (a document of rights within the framework of the muslim theological perspective) clearly recognizes the importance of women

Article 6. a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity.... she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage"

[Cencus]

To clarify.

Islam, like Christianity, is a male dominated religion. Spot any female Imans anyone? In the past the idea of the headscarf became full covering in some cultures, due to women being seen as property, it's stil the same here in the west to a degree, a woman wears a short skirt she's asking for it. What was cultural interpretation became inbedded in religious bull. I personaly don't give a fuck what the right supports, I can smell a sexist religious edict a mile off. Hitler was a veggie do you think I should start to eat meat because of that?

Why do I oppose religion?

Religion, especially monothesism, promotes a hierarchical male dominatred structured society. Religion sells the idea that no matter how shit your life is it doesn't matter because it will all be alright in the afterlife or your having a shit life because of past sins. Religion has pesistantly been cited as an excuse by the ruling class as an excuse to kill millions of working class people. Today religion still tolerates, and some would say promotes, homophobia. The list is endless.

[Hit The North]

I think that the first thing that must be asked here is why members of the SWP are raising this question. Is it because they want to end up with a pro-hijab position that will allow them to cuddle up closer to their Islamic allies in 'Respect'.


They raise the question because the SWP is one of the few organizations on the Left who are actually making positive steps to win allegiance amongst the Muslim community in the UK which is predominantly poor, working class and fucked off.

The reason it becomes a question at all is the attitude of doctrinaire, Leftists who would allow religious symbolism to become an excuse for not engaging with this sector of the working class.

There's a lot of ideologically-pure sounding rhetoric spouted out about religion but what would be the concrete result of Communists opposing the hijab apart from strengthening the role of the state, further alienating moderate Muslims and pandering to the bigots on both sides?

Cencus, What actual concrete measures would engender your practical opposition to such religious paraphernalia?

Would you call upon the capitalist state to legislate against the hijab?

Would you campaign on the streets and confront individual Muslim women?

Refuse to stand on a picket line with women wearing a hijab?

What?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bobkindles+September 10, 2007 02:11 pm--> (bobkindles @ September 10, 2007 02:11 pm)
I think that the first thing that must be asked here is why members of the SWP are raising this question. Is it because they want to end up with a pro-hijab position that will allow them to cuddle up closer to their Islamic allies in 'Respect'.

Please don't make such crass and unfounded judgements; the SWP has consistently campaigned against the oppression of women and we do not advance a 'prop-hijab' position because we want to develop closer political ties; rather, because the SWP contends that banning the hijab and suggesting that the hijab is innappropriate in certain environments is an affront to muslims' freedom.
[/b]
They are not 'crass and unfounded judgments'. It is just stating the obvious.



That said it is also true that many women do make a choice to wear it. In fact I personally remember one woman at work many years ago who came in without a headscarf one day because her father had told her to take it off.


Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles)workers feel (however irrationally so) that it is the first step along the road of Turkey turning into another Iran. The Kemalist bourgeoisie managed to call three massive demonstrations of between one, and two million people earlier this year in defence of secularism this year. Many of the people on them were workers.

I can also point to various movements and demonstrations, supported by muslim working-class women that have actively campaigned for the right to wear the hijab and against condemnations of the Hijab; this suggests that women are capable of asserting an independent political identity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3805733.stm I am unable to comment on the issue of Turkey; I find it unfair, however, that you base your position on your personal experience and do not refer to specific movements.[/b]

Did you read what I wrote, Bob?


Originally posted by Devrim
I don't think the first question is that relevant, and I also think that it is very difficult to provide an answer to.

I don't believe that there are statistics that would prove it either way. Therefore all evidence is drawn from experience. However, if you look at the two examples I cited the personal one supported your point. The other one concerned mass demonstrations over over 1,000,000 in three cities this year. If finding a link was impossible, here is one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Protests


Originally posted by bobkindles

Originally posted by bobkindles
Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK
Originally posted by Devrim
To be charitable I will except this as shorthand for what is meant. It is, however, a ludicrous statement; Muslims are not a part of the working class. Many people who are Muslims, probably the majority, are working class, but Islam is a religion that is spread across all classes in the UK. I think that this sort of 'fuzzy' shorthand leads to 'fuzzy' thinking.

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who make up the bulk of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims, face dramatic levels of unemployment, as much as three times higher than their white counterparts [Socialist Review, June 2006] and Muslims are increasingly subject to racial discrimination and abuse; as socialists, who oppose all racism and hardship, the struggle against Capitalism in the UK must encompass the struggle against islamophobia and rests on the support of the Muslim community.

It is the same 'fuzzy' thinking.

Nobody is denying that workers from Muslim backgrounds are among 'the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK'. That is different from saying that Muslims are this group. Some Muslims are part of the bourgeoisie, and many are part of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Nor am I denying that their is a racist campaign against people from South Asian, and Middle eastern backgrounds in Britain, which could be referred to as Islamophobia.

Your analysis though ignores class divisions, and ends up talking about working with the 'Muslim community'. The is reactionary nonsense. I don't have time to develop on this now, but I will tomorrow.


Originally posted by bobkindles



Originally posted by Devrim
By the way, in case you are wondering I don't oppose people's right to wear the hijab, but I am certainly not lining up with the imams on demonstrations to fight for the right to wear it.

The right to wear the Hijab is under attack;

Not from where I am standing it isn't. It is perfectly legal in the streets (a burqa is technically illegal though you see them today, and there haven't been any prosecutions for years). It is illegal to wear it in a public building. If anything there is a possibility of liberalisation.


Originally posted by bobkindles
if socialists do not rally to the cause muslim communities may turn to radical religious ideology in order to preserve their collective identity, and other ethnic groups will continue to view mulsims as backward and isolated within society. It is therefore necessary for socialists to actively campaign against banning the Hijab - needless to say, RESPECT is an integral part of this struggle.

Again something I would like to develop upon tomorrow.


[email protected]



Devrim
It is also true that the whole thing comes from a really disturbed view of sexuality, and of women being property that any socialist should be against. The whole thing stinks to me of pandering to backward religious prejudices because it is politically expedient.

Do you have any evidence or justification for characterising Islam in this manner? The Cairo declaration of Human rights (a document of rights within the framework of the muslim theological perspective) clearly recognizes the importance of women

Article 6. a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity.... she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage"

Are you joking, Bob? I can't be bothered to support this argument with any evidence as it is so obvious. Why do you think the imams tell women to wear it. It is because men are not supposed to be able to control themselves if they see women's flesh. That is a distorted view of sexuality. You really think that it has nothing to do with women as property? I suggest you read something about what you are talking about.

Devrim

[Redmau5]

My position is simple. I defend a woman's right to wear it, and I defend a woman's right to refuse to wear it.

[spartan]

My position is simple. I defend a woman's right to wear it, and I defend a woman's right to refuse to wear it
spot on and i could'nt agree more comrade. when it comes to issues like this we as leftists cannot take one side of the arguement or the other we must remain neutral and as you say support a persons right to wear it and not to wear it.

[Faux Real]

Agreed with Makaveli. It should not be compulsory nor banned because of Islamophobia.

If a Muslim woman should not want to wear it she shouldn't, if she does, she does.

(A rare) agreement with spartan, they look great also! Well, not so much the burqa but the hijab and half-hijab/niqab. :P

[LSD]

Why do politicians speak out against the Hijab, and, in some countries, advocate the criminalisation of the Hijab in public places and certain professions, but remain silent when faced with 'secular' womens' oppression? Why the emphasis and persecution of the Muslim community.

Islamic "dress codes" are some of the worst examples of socialized oppression on the planet today. They should be fought with everything we've got.

But we should never start trusting the bourgeois state to solve these problems for us. Especially not when such "solutions" take the form of prohibitions on adult expression.

And not only is this a fundamental breach of basic human rights, but it's not even liable to actually accomplish anything -- other than making rightwing politicans feel good, of course.

Women who where Burkas and other demenaing subjugating atire do so because they'be been socialized to believe that it's nescessary. The way to break that socialization isn't to rip the Burkas off of them, it's to offer them real alternatives and give them choices.

These women (the one's who won't be allowed to cover themselves any more) will still have to go back to oppressive husbands and exploitive socities. Taking away this one aspect of their subjugation is superficial and is much more about making white people feel better than making Muslim women free.

Of course, actually helping Muslim women escape from their reactionary "culture" would cost money; prohibiting superficial manifestations of that culture is much much cheaper.

Not that this has anything to do with actually helping women.

Europeans don't like to see women in Burkas, it bothers them. Not because they "fear" Islam, but because they fear what the Burka says about the world around them.

After all, no one's scared at the sight of women in Burkas; rather they're disturbed by it. It reminds them of the billions of women around the world who don't have even basic civil rights. It reminds them of all the inequalities and injustices going on, and it makes them angry.

And because no bourgeois government is about to do anything about the injustices that prop it up, they've come up with a far simpler solution: out of sight, out of mind.

If people don't see outward visible signs of sexism and oppression, maybe they'll forget it's going on. It still will be of course, even in their own countries, but so long as it's not in their faces ...they can ignore it.

This isn't about "attacking Islam", it's about maintaining the illusion of "enlgihtened" liberal republican society. If a few civil rights have to be trampled along the way, that's what they'll do, but nothing will get in the way of keeping the citizenry sedated.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:54 am
I personally find it unfair that many 'socialists' assume that Muslim women wear the Hijab because they are subject to the pressure of their communities and families; many Muslim women make a conscious choice.
That is exactly why, I would think, a vast majority do. Let's completely ignore the valid argument about forced - wearing of the Hijab for this argument.

How, then, could coercion exist toward such an end? The answer lays in the question of freedom itself. Many here are taken in by the capitalist concept of freedom - that is, that it is a purely political (and perhaps economic) issue. The issue of psychological freedom, especially from the domineering forces of the social organization, is completely ignored. Understanding psychological freedom means recognizing the controls, inhibitions and compulsions inserted into the common person. One of these compulsions can be seen as the tradition of wearing the Hijab. Why should women be compelled to cover certain parts of their body? I see no reason. But I do see how, and that of course is through tradition, religious compulsion, etc.

I am sure that there are subjective, aesthetic interests for many women who wear the Hijab. But the common reason is no doubt about covering women up; it is quite telling that the term Hijab is translated as "cover" and is used by scholars not just to refer to the article of clothing, but to modesty, covering and morality.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:36 am
On top of that as I understand it all the Quoranstates is that a woman should do is cover her hair, so it is not actually religious but cultural.
Well here's the koranic justification (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/24/index.htm#31).
However Islam is in itself very anti-woman, and the veil cannot be taken out of context from that.
And lets not forget the hatiths and the multiple additional clerical enumerations, that are very specific about such things as the dirtyness of women, their unequivocal role as chattel to be owned, and how to play along in the sexual apartheid prescriped by Islam.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:53 am
By advocating opposition to the Burqa (whatever form that may take) you actually risk further alienating vulnerable muslim communities and encouraging them to consider all non-muslims as ignorant of their faith. As Muslims are the most oppressed and abused section of the working class in the UK, I cannot see how this is conducive to developing class consciousness.
I think your confusing individuals with communities. And elevating the latter above the individual. Why should one pander to self-segragating Islamic ghettos. How does helping a backward and reactionary ideology hold sway over people possibly increase class-conciousness among them?

The Council of Ex-Muslims (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/) critizise this mulit-cultural segregationism quite frequently in their press appearances as well as manifesto (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexManifesto.html). They state;


We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and 'Muslim community leaders'.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:54 am
Non-Muslim women are also pressured to present themselves in a certain way according to what is considered acceptable, attractive, and consistent with the female gender role - hence the prevailing female 'look' of revealing clothing and make-up use. Why do politicians speak out against the Hijab, and, in some countries, advocate the criminalisation of the Hijab in public places and certain professions, but remain silent when faced with 'secular' womens' oppression?
Are those 'pressures' really similair? Or justifiably combarable in their severtity?

Is the 'honor'-killing of women that don't wear make-up a common thing in your neighborhood, by any chance? Or do those women offenders just go under 'house arrest (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#15)' for being to chaste or unprovocative in their choice of clothing?

Could you also specify this 'secular oppression' of women that is not currantly being addressed?

[Faux Real]

God-Fucking-Damn.

A woman, who consciously decides on her own of wearing a veil or not, cannot think on her own now just because she's wearing one?

I am sorry but you are not going to make a cultural heritage that has lasted for centuries, no matter how much you may dislike it or consider it to be "backwards", go away overnight. Let the Muslim women make that decision for themselves, it's none of your damn business.


Why should one pander to self-segragating Islamic ghettos. How does helping a backward and reactionary ideology hold sway over people possibly increase class-conciousness among them?
Absolutely hilarious. We shouldn't cater to urban teens in conflict either simply because they're involved with gang affiliations. Sure! :rolleyes:

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:14 am
However Islam is in itself very anti-woman, and the veil cannot be taken out of context from that.
However much that is true, you have to recognize that nearly all cultures are anti-women, insofar as religious, cultural and economic traditions are considered. People like to take things like the veil as proof that Islam is somehow worse in this regard, but the fact is that most sexism is quite masked especially in more industrialized cultures, even when it is deeper than the Islamic traditions.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:11 pm
Do you have any evidence or justification for characterising Islam in this manner? The Cairo declaration of Human rights (a document of rights within the framework of the muslim theological perspective) clearly recognizes the importance of women

Article 6. a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity.... she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage"
Ahh, but isn't a woman just worth half that of a man? Look (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#282)! ... see (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#228) and look (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#11) again.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:51 am
A woman, who consciously decides on her own of wearing a veil or not, cannot think on her own now just because she's wearing one?
I can't speak for all the others here, but I know that not what I'm saying. I am simply pointing out that giving people the right to choose such dress free from overt coercion will not free people from more hidden, psychological coercion.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Dean+September 10, 2007 09:18 pm--> (Dean @ September 10, 2007 09:18 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 03:51 am
A woman, who consciously decides on her own of wearing a veil or not, cannot think on her own now just because she's wearing one?
I can't speak for all the others here, but I know that not what I'm saying. I am simply pointing out that giving people the right to choose such dress free from overt coercion will not free people from more hidden, psychological coercion. [/b]
I noticed, that was mainly directed at LSD and al8.

As for the hidden, it will wither away as the need for religion dies away in the same fashion, under communism. There's no need to get all dogmatic about it before that certain society comes about.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:51 am

Why should one pander to self-segragating Islamic ghettos. How does helping a backward and reactionary ideology hold sway over people possibly increase class-conciousness among them?
Absolutely hilarious. We shouldn't cater to urban teens in conflict either simply because they're involved with gang affiliations. Sure! :rolleyes:
I don't get you. Do you then support urban teen gang-conflict because it increases class-conciousness? :blink:

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:42 pm
I don't get you. Do you then support urban teen gang-conflict because it increases class-conciousness? :blink:
No. Rather give them alternatives to killing themselves and help them realize they're being used as pawns by those who see them as nothing more than the unwanted pits of civilization.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:51 am
A woman, who consciously decides on her own of wearing a veil or not, cannot think on her own now just because she's wearing one?


To be strict I can never fully know for sure what (that hypothetical) she thinks. But I do know within what seditious context of that professed "concious choice" is made in. For it is similar with the prostitutes professions of happy harlotdom. One never knows if she is forced by a pimp or just painting over a pleak picture. Puting flowers in the chains, so to say.

But also, the veil has particular meaning and a particular reference which can't be overlooked. It's not just random clothing. It's a cloth made to hide and segregate women. And mark their submission as chattel - to be owned by men.

[Faux Real]

To be strict I can never fully know for sure what (that hypothetical) she thinks.
Therefore you cannot judge her regarding a piece of cloth on her head.

But I do know within what seditious context of that professed "concious choice" is made in. For it is similar with the prostitutes professions of happy harlotdom. One never knows if she is forced by a pimp or just painting over a pleak picture. Puting flowers in the chains, so to say.
The analogy is quite unfair. Do you really know why they wear it in the first place? Find a convert to Islam or watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LG1VLtkkeg).

But also, the veil has particular meaning and a particular reference which can't be overlooked. It's not just random clothing. It's a cloth made to hide and segregate women.
How would that segregate women, as in Islam men are told to be moderate in their clothes just as women were asked to?

And mark their submission as chattel - to be owned by men.
Women in veils in pre-Islamic eras had power over men, their children were named after them(the mothers) and not after their fathers. Does that say anything? Yes, a piece of cloth can never be a symbol of male domination. However, it is the economic independence that makes the difference.

However Islam is in itself very anti-woman
You need an Islamic History course.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:58 am

To be strict I can never fully know for sure what (that hypothetical) she thinks.
Therefore you cannot judge her regarding a piece of cloth on her head.

But I do know within what seditious context of that professed "concious choice" is made in. For it is similar with the prostitutes professions of happy harlotdom. One never knows if she is forced by a pimp or just painting over a pleak picture. Puting flowers in the chains, so to say.
The analogy is quite unfair. Do you really know why they wear it in the first place? Find a convert to Islam or watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LG1VLtkkeg).


Yes, I looked at that video. And once more, the same old yap. Even the example of that western woman condemned to wear a mini-skirt wasn't missing. What she said was blatently false. She has a rediculously optimistic view of her own racket and compares it with some other nebulus religions - which she does not name (conveniently). May peanut butter and jelly be upon her, respectfully.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:58 am

However Islam is in itself very anti-woman
You need an Islamic History course.

Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?

We can put it in context if you like. Yes, catholicism is also anti-woman. Yes, in 7th century Arabia Islamic law did make improvements in women's position in society.

However, this does not change the fact that Islam is shockingly anti-woman. The societies where Islam has influence are shockingly anti-woman.

I think you need to spend some time in an Islamic country.

To give just one basic example, I remember a friend of ours who won a court case allowing her to be the first woman in the country to have a job without her husband/father's permission. This is relativity recently in Turkey, probably the most secular of the Islamic countries.

As for some of your other comments:


as in Islam men are told to be moderate in their clothes just as women were asked to?

Personally, I have never heard of any Islamicist telling men to wear bags on their heads. Actually, I have never heard of an Islamicist telling men not to wear shorts (which I presume is what you mean by moderate). I have heard about Islamicists attacking women on the streets for being dressed improperly on the night of an election victory though.

Devrim

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:01 pm
My position is simple. I defend a woman's right to wear it, and I defend a woman's right to refuse to wear it.
That's basically what I think.


One of these compulsions can be seen as the tradition of wearing the Hijab. Why should women be compelled to cover certain parts of their body? I see no reason. But I do see how, and that of course is through tradition, religious compulsion, etc.

So instead we'll force them not to wear it?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 11, 2007 01:36 am--> (devrimankara @ September 11, 2007 01:36 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 05:58 am

However Islam is in itself very anti-woman
You need an Islamic History course.

Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?

We can put it in context if you like. Yes, catholicism is also anti-woman. Yes, in 7th century Arabia Islamic law did make improvements in women's position in society.

However, this does not change the fact that Islam is shockingly anti-woman. The societies where Islam has influence are shockingly anti-woman.

I think you need to spend some time in an Islamic country.

To give just one basic example, I remember a friend of ours who won a court case allowing her to be the first woman in the country to have a job without her husband/father's permission. This is relativity recently in Turkey, probably the most secular of the Islamic countries.

As for some of your other comments:


as in Islam men are told to be moderate in their clothes just as women were asked to?

Personally, I have never heard of any Islamicist telling men to wear bags on their heads. Actually, I have never heard of an Islamicist telling men not to wear shorts (which I presume is what you mean by moderate). I have heard about Islamicists attacking women on the streets for being dressed improperly on the night of an election victory though.

Devrim [/b]
Of course, the difference between Islam and Islamism is prevalent in your examples and I acknowledge that. I was referring to the prior.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:06 am
Of course, the difference between Islam and Islamism is prevalent in your examples and I acknowledge that. I was referring to the prior.
I have no idea what you are talking about now. What difference? Is it one that you are inventing to preserve your ideology. What is called Islamism today is clearly a part of Islam. In fact it is probably the most flourishing part.

Devrim

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:24 am
I have no idea what you are talking about now. What difference? Is it one that you are inventing to preserve your ideology. What is called Islamism today is clearly a part of Islam. In fact it is probably the most flourishing part.

Devrim
The teachings of the original texts versus contemporary political Islam that shapes the rule of law in certain countries, or at least holds a certain amount of influence along with it's misinterpretations.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 11, 2007 09:28 am--> (rev0lt @ September 11, 2007 09:28 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:24 am
I have no idea what you are talking about now. What difference? Is it one that you are inventing to preserve your ideology. What is called Islamism today is clearly a part of Islam. In fact it is probably the most flourishing part.

Devrim
The teachings of the original texts versus contemporary political Islam that shapes the rule of law in certain countries, or at least holds a certain amount of influence along with it's misinterpretations. [/b]
So what you are claiming is that Islam today is not Islam, and that to see a true Islam we need to go back to some 7th century texts. This is nonsense. Nobody is discussing some 'real' forgotten Islam. People are discussing Islam as it exists, and Islam as it exists is a reactionary anti-woman religion, just as catholicism is.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

I can't speak for all the others here, but I know that not what I'm saying. I am simply pointing out that giving people the right to choose such dress free from overt coercion will not free people from more hidden, psychological coercion.

Attributing wearing the Hijab to 'psychological' coercion is a reactionary position; it is reminiscent of the argument regarding rape put forward by MIM; that all forms of heterosexual intercource can be described as 'rape' because expectations and pressures mean that women can never be described as making conscious choices - you can extend this concept of 'psychological' coercion to argue that any form of behaviour is the result of 'coercion'. Muslim women are able to make their own decisions; they are aware of how islam is sometimes used to justify the oppression of women; this argument undermines their social independence.


have no idea what you are talking about now. What difference? Is it one that you are inventing to preserve your ideology. What is called Islamism today is clearly a part of Islam. In fact it is probably the most flourishing part.

It is part of Islam insofar as that Islamists use Islam as a justification for their actions; but it is wrong to say that Islamism is consistent with muslim principles or that Islamism commands respect amongst the ummah. Islamists claim that Islam should inform political decisions and should not simply serve as a guideline for an individual's morals and lifestyles; yet the prophet Mohammed always warned against an extremist interpretation of Islam;

In a Haddith rophet Mohammed wrote; "Beware of extremism in religion, since those before you were only destroyed by extremism.”

So please do not make such unfair and pejorative judgements about the islamic faith.

[Intifada]

I have no idea what you are talking about now. What difference? Is it one that you are inventing to preserve your ideology. What is called Islamism today is clearly a part of Islam. In fact it is probably the most flourishing part.

There is a difference between Islamism (as professed by Maududi, Qutb and Nabhani) and Islam, which is abundanty clear to anybody who has studied the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

The likes of Nabhani drew their ideas of "Political Islam" ironically from Western political discourse, with the addition of Muslim religious idiom. Basically, he took European political thoughts and laced them with the language of the Quran in order to gain mass appeal in the Muslim world.

Indeed, I was just about to post that very quote of the Prophet Muhammad, but it seems as though bobkindles beat me to it.

Regarding the actual topic of this thread, I think it is necessary to define certain words as it appears some have confused the hijab with the burqa.

The former is simply a headscarf, while the latter is a full black veil which has holes for the eyes.

Why do people find it wrong for a woman (who just happens to be a Muslim) to wear the hijab out of her own freewill?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:37 pm

I can't speak for all the others here, but I know that not what I'm saying. I am simply pointing out that giving people the right to choose such dress free from overt coercion will not free people from more hidden, psychological coercion.

Attributing wearing the Hijab to 'psychological' coercion is a reactionary position; it is reminiscent of the argument regarding rape put forward by MIM; that all forms of heterosexual intercource can be described as 'rape' because expectations and pressures mean that women can never be described as making conscious choices - you can extend this concept of 'psychological' coercion to argue that any form of behaviour is the result of 'coercion'. Muslim women are able to make their own decisions; they are aware of how islam is sometimes used to justify the oppression of women; this argument undermines their social independence.
Of course, you'd be right in what you were saying if you weren't attributing the ideas you attack to me.

I never said wearing the Hijab was inherantly a form of psychological coercion; in fact I made sure not to make any blanket statement even when I thought it would probably be true (i.e. "almost all societies are anti-women"). But I don't think the Hijab is inherantly a response to coercion; I think many wear it out of free, personal choice and without any real coercion. I pointed this out already; the only reason I bring up mental coercion is because I think many women who have been politically freed but still have social coercions use the Hijab, which has been a symbol of male dominance, to submit or appear submissive.

By saying wearing the Hijab is often an act of a coerced women, you are not denying that some women make a fully free choice to do it.

[Jazzratt]

I oppose anyone forcing people to wear things against their own will for religious reasons. I think anyone wearing something because some invisible fairy in the sky told them to is being stupid and irrational - but I despise all the more anyone seeking to force them not to wear it.

There is no difference between someone coerced into dressing a certain way and a person coerced into not dressing that way.

[al8]

Originally posted by bobkindles+September 11, 2007 12:37 pm--> (bobkindles @ September 11, 2007 12:37 pm)In a Haddith rophet Mohammed wrote; "Beware of extremism in religion, since those before you were only destroyed by extremism.” [/b]
And doubtless there are Hadiths to the contrary.
But then I would like to mention; Extremism dosn't exist. It's a made up word decribing nothing of substance. All it decribes, if anything, is that its user thinks s/he is the center of the world. And that everyone that is not him/her is bad article, on the periphery edge of things.


[email protected] 11, 2007 12:37 pm

So please do not make such unfair and pejorative judgements about the islamic faith.

What!? You don't have to read long in the Koran to realize that here you have a religion that espouses a male dictator in the sky. Which so happens to self-congratulate himself in every other sentence, but in addition demanding praise and compliment from subservients by the treat of hell-fire. And more; It's edicts, themes and over-all message are archaic, backwards, violent and reactionary - in no small degree. I name in that regard the clear-cut call to the killing of unbelievers. Are you an unbeliever, Bobkidles, from the Islamic stand-point? If so why are you defending, in any way what so ever, an ideology which calls for your gutting?

That being Islam - Why do people find an urge to ""moderate"" such crap. Why not just drop it all together?

[LSD]

I noticed, that was mainly directed at LSD and al8.

um... did you even read my post? 'Cause we actually agree on this issue.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:53 pm
By saying wearing the Hijab is often an act of a coerced women, you are not denying that some women make a fully free choice to do it.
But even if it were so - a free choice by the woman - I would consider it a bad choice. Because of what it represents. Either a backward cultural remnant, a following of tradition for tratitions sake, or a religious statement. The only instance I think such cloathing would be appropriate is in costume-parties. Where the burka/hijab would be in company with the Ghost costume, the Nazi uniform and the Sari, and so on.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:37 pm

have no idea what you are talking about now. What difference? Is it one that you are inventing to preserve your ideology. What is called Islamism today is clearly a part of Islam. In fact it is probably the most flourishing part.

It is part of Islam insofar as that Islamists use Islam as a justification for their actions; but it is wrong to say that Islamism is consistent with muslim principles or that Islamism commands respect amongst the ummah. Islamists claim that Islam should inform political decisions and should not simply serve as a guideline for an individual's morals and lifestyles; yet the prophet Mohammed always warned against an extremist interpretation of Islam;

In a Haddith rophet Mohammed wrote; "Beware of extremism in religion, since those before you were only destroyed by extremism.”

So please do not make such unfair and pejorative judgements about the islamic faith.

There is a difference between Islamism (as professed by Maududi, Qutb and Nabhani) and Islam, which is abundanty clear to anybody who has studied the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

The likes of Nabhani drew their ideas of "Political Islam" ironically from Western political discourse, with the addition of Muslim religious idiom. Basically, he took European political thoughts and laced them with the language of the Quran in order to gain mass appeal in the Muslim world.

Indeed, I was just about to post that very quote of the Prophet Muhammad, but it seems as though bobkindles beat me to it.

I don't believe it. The SWP, and their friends seem to have gone from a defence of Muslims against racism to a defence of Islam.

I have no interest in swapping Suras ,or Hadiths with pro-Islamic western leftists, as I think they are worthless*.


please do not make such unfair and pejorative judgements about the islamic faith.

The are not unfair. They may be disparaging. I find it hilarious that so-called socialists are calling for people not to be unfair to Islam.

Devrim

*Both the pro-Islamic Western leftists, and the Islamic nonsense if anyone is wondering which.

[Dean]

Originally posted by al8+September 11, 2007 02:50 pm--> (al8 @ September 11, 2007 02:50 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 01:53 pm
By saying wearing the Hijab is often an act of a coerced women, you are not denying that some women make a fully free choice to do it.
But even if it were so - a free choice by the woman - I would consider it a bad choice. Because of what it represents. Either a backward cultural remnant, a following of tradition for tratitions sake, or a religious statement. The only instance I think such cloathing would be appropriate is in costume-parties. Where the burka/hijab would be in company with the Ghost costume, the Nazi uniform and the Sari, and so on. [/b]
What if a woman wears it to block the sun (part of why such garb is worn in the middle east and africa so much)?

What if she finds it beautiful, and likes that style of dress?

What if there is no coercion, and it doesn't represent patriarchy (which it doesn't have to).

You can say it's a bad choice due to the implications of patriarchy, but that doesn't allow for those instances where it doesn't symbolize that.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:38 pm
What if she finds it beautiful, and likes that style of dress?


Well I find nazi uniforms to be quite fancy - but do I wear them just as I would any other clothes? No. Why? Because they have strong connotations. It similarly goes for the veil.

[Dean]

Originally posted by al8+September 11, 2007 07:59 pm--> (al8 @ September 11, 2007 07:59 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:38 pm
What if she finds it beautiful, and likes that style of dress?


Well I find nazi uniforms to be quite fancy - but do I wear them just as I would any other clothes? No. Why? Because they have strong connotations. It similarly goes for the veil. [/b]
The veil does not have strong connotations towards patriarchy except in western culture, except perhaps where the Burqa and Niqaab are concerned (full - body covers).

One has to recognize that men are also known to wear covers in many middle eastern cultures; have you ever seen men wearing Turbans, Igals and Kuffiyyas? The covers worn by men tend to be about as revealing as a Hijab, and are extremely common in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran to name a few countries. Do you think these men are scared into wearign these things due to patriarchy?

I'm sure there is a degree of truth to that coercion, on both males and females (the Iranian state for instance has been policing women who wear too "revealing" clothes recently) but I don't think it's fair to judge these things with such blanket statements. Remember, its very hot in the middle east, and that is the real root of the basic coverings of the head.

[al8]

Well, what can I say. I live in the West. And of course I speak from that context.

[counterblast]

I was born in southern Azerbaijan, and lived there until I was 11. After the age of 4, I was expected to wear my hijabi at all times. I hated my hijabi, and despite protests from my extremely religious parents, I opted out of wearing it when I was 9 years old after a short-lived infatuation with Snow White. I would recieve constant remarks in public from men (and some women, too) calling me everything from "sharmoota" to "demon girl". After a month without wearing my hijabi, my teacher called my parents and suggested I not return to school until I practiced "hygenic standards".

Ironically, when I revealed this story years later to my friend who grew up in the U.S.; the same thing had happened to her in junior high when she refused to shave her armpits or her mustache.

I find that many of the same double standards faced by western women, are faced by middle-eastern women, only in more culturally relevant ways.

[counterblast]

EDIT: And thats not to say theres anything wrong with voluntary hijabi wearing or voluntary body shaving; but there is something wrong when a culture constantly holds you to double standards against your will.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:45 pm
Remember, its very hot in the middle east, and that is the real root of the basic coverings of the head.
Superb pro Islamic Western leftists are now using the weather in defence of Islam.

It gets more, and more amusing.

Devrim

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:22 am
I find that many of the same double standards faced by western women, are faced by middle-eastern women, only in more culturally relevant ways.
I think we can learn a lot from your first-hand experience. For one, it is clear that the Hijabi is a form of sexism in the culture you came from. Secondly, the sexist implications about who should shave where are ignored in the U.S.; I can't recall much argument about how western culture is "patriarchal" due to women being encouraged to shave their legs and armpits, but I can see how that would be a logical conclusion.

[Dean]

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 12, 2007 05:32 am--> (devrimankara @ September 12, 2007 05:32 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 08:45 pm
Remember, its very hot in the middle east, and that is the real root of the basic coverings of the head.
Superb pro Islamic Western leftists are now using the weather in defence of Islam.

It gets more, and more amusing.

Devrim [/b]
I'm not "pro-Islamic" or "anti-Islamic."

I think it's interesting that a cultural dress norm cannot be judged in part by weather. Are women forced to cover up in Russia due to culture? By your logic, we couldn't factor the often below - freezing temperature into that question, but it would be nonsensical without recognizing the weather there.


Well, what can I say. I live in the West. And of course I speak from that context.
AKA "I have a xenophobic western worldview and I'm damn proud of it!"

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:32 pm

Superb pro Islamic Western leftists are now using the weather in defence of Islam.

It gets more, and more amusing.

Devrim
When confronted with pro-Islamic goof balls, er, I mean "leftists", there will never be a shortage of amusing quirks that come from these cats.

They will be performing their little tricks for us for some time to come.

At least until a new "chic fad" gets hep with these kids.

I remember when they were were on their "Dali lama" kick a few years ago.

The names of course change as these cats become all gwows up but the game is still the same.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 12, 2007 08:35 pm
When confronted with pro-Islamic goof balls, er, I mean "leftists", there will never be a shortage of amusing quirks that come from these cats.

They will be performing their little tricks for us for some time to come.

At least until a new "chic fad" gets hep with these kids.

I remember when they were were on their "Dali lama" kick a few years ago.

The names of course change as these cats become all gwows up but the game is still the same.
I'm glad you enjoy Mickey Mouse so much.

Seriously, do you ever post anything meaningful, or do you have to make sure that someone who posts on the site is intentionally insulted by every remark you post? I find it mind boggling how your "maturity" is manifested as repetitive insults with little substance sprinkled onto your arguments, usually trying to find some monolith to attack.

Maturity, indeed.

[Red Scare]

muslim should have the right to choose plain and simple, although it is stereotyped to be a symbol of oppression, many muslim women choose to wear it and are not forced

[al8]

Originally posted by Dean+September 12, 2007 08:15 pm--> (Dean @ September 12, 2007 08:15 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:22 am
I find that many of the same double standards faced by western women, are faced by middle-eastern women, only in more culturally relevant ways.
I think we can learn a lot from your first-hand experience. For one, it is clear that the Hijabi is a form of sexism in the culture you came from. Secondly, the sexist implications about who should shave where are ignored in the U.S.; I can't recall much argument about how western culture is "patriarchal" due to women being encouraged to shave their legs and armpits, but I can see how that would be a logical conclusion.[/b]
I think these demands and pressures transgress genderlines. Males are also often expected to keep a beardless face and shave their legs and chest-hair. Foregoing it is considered untidy.

But admittedly the social pressure on a man is much less intense then it would be for a bearded lady.

[al8]

Originally posted by Dean+September 12, 2007 08:19 pm--> (Dean @ September 12, 2007 08:19 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:32 am

Well, what can I say. I live in the West. And of course I speak from that context.
AKA "I have a xenophobic western worldview and I'm damn proud of it!"[/b]
No, I'm not afraid of foreigners. I've even been one myself. And yes I am against backwards cultures wherever their origins. Be it from abroad or from "my own" country.

[Revolution Until Victory]

This is just basic common sense and logic. Anyone should have the right to were anything, as longs as it doesn't limit the freedom of anyone or harm anyone, no matter what racist, bigoted, xenophobes think of them.


However Islam is in itself very anti-woman

This is just pure non-sense. Islam isn't just pro-woman when compared to Judiasm and Christianity, but is even pro-woman on a more general scale. The issue of "Islam is a violent anti-women relegion" is pure right-wing propaganda in an effort to slander Islam, not from the leftist viewpoint of all relegions are bad, but from a right-wing fundemantalist view of Islam is the worst. Indeed, the fact that Islam is pro-women couldn't be better proven by the fact that actually more women convert to Islam than men!


Ahh, but isn't a woman just worth half that of a man? Look! ... see and look again.

Sorry to break it to you, but I believe you sould look for just a little bit more relaiable source than this.

In Islam, man is equal to women in obligations and responsiblities and both have the same rights. This is more than clear in Islam with anyone with basic knowledge of the relegion.

Allow me to demonstrate to you how reliable your source is:

here is the first "evidence" you have:

2: 228 "And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise."

now, accoring to the above statment, it either suggests the men are "a degree above" women in rights or in general superiority.

However, neither is the case. What the above statment means is that men are a degree above women in responsiblity, not rights or superiority. Big difference. According to the Quran, the fact that men have more responsibilty towards their women (as a wife in a family) is due to the fact that, in general, men are physically more able than women. (not, according to the Quran, coz of the superiority of men's intellegence or emotional state, rather, mere physical state).

Your second "evidence' is as much of a fraud as the first one. Unlike what your source suggests, the statment doesn't imply "a woman is worth 1/2 of a man". Not at all. In fact, that statment was in an effort to insure the right of women. It is a proven scientific fact that women during menstrual and post labor periods, along with the hormonal disturbances of menopause, are under psychological stress that makes them lack the ability to concentrate. So this procdere is simply to insure women's right. Nothing more.

Then we come to your third "evidence:

4:34 "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other."

again, this seems to suggest that men are superior to women, which is completely false. What the statment means is that men have more responsiblities towards thier women (as thier wifes in a family) due, not to any emotional, intelegence, or spiritual reasons, but merely due to the physical capabilties of men.

Here we get to the fourth falsification:

4:98 "Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way."

This above statment is fake. It doesn't exist. It's a pure fraud.

This is the real 4:98:

"Except the weak ones among men, women and children who cannot device a plan, nor are they ablet to direct thier way" (suggesting that the "weak ones" could exist equally among everyone: men, women and children, denying any inferiority of any of those former catagories)

as opposed to your fake:

"Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way." (which suggests that the feeble among the men, and all women and children are unable to device a plan etc., clearly implying superiority of men).


The source you provide for your baseless claim that Islam is "VERY anti-women" is a mix misinterperations and blatant lies and falsfying of passages from the Quran.

But I really liked LSD's explanation:


Europeans don't like to see women in Burkas, it bothers them. Not because they "fear" Islam, but because they fear what the Burka says about the world around them.

After all, no one's scared at the sight of women in Burkas; rather they're disturbed by it. It reminds them of the billions of women around the world who don't have even basic civil rights. It reminds them of all the inequalities and injustices going on, and it makes them angry.

I mean seriously, can you get anymore bigoted?

This seems to imply "we the white, civlized and advanced Europeans hate those damn ugle Burkas coz they remind us of the opressive brown people over there".

Europeans refuse the Burka coz of either their xenophobia, rejecting anything forgien, or thier pure racism and ignorance.

[Dean]

Originally posted by al8+September 13, 2007 04:33 am--> (al8 @ September 13, 2007 04:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:19 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 05:32 am

Well, what can I say. I live in the West. And of course I speak from that context.
AKA "I have a xenophobic western worldview and I'm damn proud of it!"
No, I'm not afraid of foreigners. I've even been one myself. And yes I am against backwards cultures wherever their origins. Be it from abroad or from "my own" country. [/b]
Wow! you've "been a foreigner"? Guess what? so has everyone in the world.

It's no argument against my point that you "think from a western viewpoint." I should just say "I think from the viewpoint of Dean" and be done with any debate, if it were so simple.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13, 2007 12:47 am
muslim should have the right to choose plain and simple, although it is stereotyped to be a symbol of oppression, many muslim women choose to wear it and are not forced
I agree. It's important to note that often the Hijabi is worn out of religious obligation/respect.

Similarly, many Christian women (although this has become a hot issue in some Muslim sects, as well) are anti-abortion out of religious obligation/respect.

Only when you impose these personal choices/beliefs on ALL women, do these concepts threaten the womens rights and the sovereignty of the individual.

[Devrim]

Today is the first day of Ramadan, which I personally hate. As always doctors in this country advise people especially the old, and the ill, not to fast as it is dangerous with the weather worsening the risk of dehydration.

Let's see if the pro-Islamic leftists can come up with any defence of this religious nonsense.

Devrim

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:46 pm
Today is the first day of Ramadan, which I personally hate. As always doctors in this country advise people especially the old, and the ill, not to fast as it is dangerous with the weather worsening the risk of dehydration.

Let's see if the pro-Islamic leftists can come up with any defence of this religious nonsense.

Devrim
Maybe you need to spend less time hating other people's rituals, even if they do harm themselves.

Perhaps if you tried to learn about why such rituals came about, and what they mean, you'd respect them more. You're more dogmatically opposed to random ideas than the religious are dogmatically in favor of them.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Dean+September 14, 2007 09:13 pm--> (Dean @ September 14, 2007 09:13 pm) Maybe you need to spend less time hating other people's rituals, even if they do harm themselves.

[/b]
Personally, I hate Ramadan not because people are harming themselves, but because their is a guy who walks round the streets, and stands outside every apartment block banging a drum before sunrise. For some strange reason this annoys me somewhat.


Dean
Perhaps if you tried to learn about why such rituals came about, and what they mean, you'd respect them more. You're more dogmatically opposed to random ideas than the religious are dogmatically in favor of them.

I know 'why such rituals came about'. It doesn't mean I have any respect for religious nonsense. As for me being dogmatic about it, yes of course I am. In case you have failed to notice, I am right on this, and they are wrong. There is no God, and therefore there was no divine revelation.

Devrim

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:33 pm
I know 'why such rituals came about'. It doesn't mean I have any respect for religious nonsense. As for me being dogmatic about it, yes of course I am. In case you have failed to notice, I am right on this, and they are wrong. There is no God, and therefore there was no divine revelation.
Your way of thinking is no better than that of the dogmatic religious people; you have committed yourself to something wholly, devoid of criticism or reason.

In case you haven't noticed, anti-religious dogma is just as stupid.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Dean+September 15, 2007 02:53 am--> (Dean @ September 15, 2007 02:53 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 09:33 pm
I know 'why such rituals came about'. It doesn't mean I have any respect for religious nonsense. As for me being dogmatic about it, yes of course I am. In case you have failed to notice, I am right on this, and they are wrong. There is no God, and therefore there was no divine revelation.
Your way of thinking is no better than that of the dogmatic religious people; you have committed yourself to something wholly, devoid of criticism or reason.

In case you haven't noticed, anti-religious dogma is just as stupid. [/b]
Explain to me: How is atheism devoid of reason?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Dean+September 15, 2007 02:53 am--> (Dean @ September 15, 2007 02:53 am)
[email protected] 14, 2007 09:33 pm
I know 'why such rituals came about'. It doesn't mean I have any respect for religious nonsense. As for me being dogmatic about it, yes of course I am. In case you have failed to notice, I am right on this, and they are wrong. There is no God, and therefore there was no divine revelation.
Your way of thinking is no better than that of the dogmatic religious people; you have committed yourself to something wholly, devoid of criticism or reason.

In case you haven't noticed, anti-religious dogma is just as stupid. [/b]
Ok, so what you are saying is that 'the idea that there is no god is 'something wholly, devoid of criticism or reason'.

There are facts. Evolution is one of them. The idea that God made man out of clay is simply untrue. When people say he did, they are wrong.

Also interesting is why I am being criticised here. I am almost certain that if somebody living in the west criticised Christianity there wouldn't be this response. Why does it happen when somebody in the Middle East criticises Islam?

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

Also interesting is why I am being criticised here. I am almost certain that if somebody living in the west criticised Christianity there wouldn't be this response. Why does it happen when somebody in the Middle East criticises Islam?

I seek to defend the Islamic community and, to an extent, the Islamic faith because, in contrast to Christians who are able to enjoy relative security, Muslims are increasingly the subject of racial abuse and discrimination as all Muslims are percieved as being complicit in terrorist attacks against civilians by those who do not fully understand Islam. Rights that are of great importance to the Muslim community - including the right to wear the Hijab - are threatened, and, in several countries such as France, it is now illegal to wear the Hijab in certain contexts.

Regardless of the ethnic origin of the proponent, Islamophobia is of far greater concern and importance than any discrimination against the Christian community - and of course much more common.

Although I agree that atheism is based on rational logic, I think the previous poster was trying to suggest that an open rejection and criticism of religion and a disregard for religious tradition could be considered dogmatic and 'stupid' as it leads to the alienation and animosity of an important social group. Now, you may think this is opportunistic - I prefer to think of it as being politically tactful.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:21 am
Regardless of the ethnic origin of the proponent, Islamophobia is of far greater concern and importance than any discrimination against the Christian community - and of course much more common.


Are you accusing me of 'Islamophobia' here, Bob?


Although I agree that atheism is based on rational logic, I think the previous poster was trying to suggest that an open rejection and criticism of religion and a disregard for religious tradition could be considered dogmatic and 'stupid' as it leads to the alienation and animosity of an important social group. Now, you may think this is opportunistic - I prefer to think of it as being politically tactful.

What are you saying here? Generally, I don't spend my life going round criticising religion. There are times when it has to be criticised though. You seem to go one step further even. When you agree that an 'open rejection' of religion 'could be considered dogmatic and 'stupid'', are you suggesting that we lie about our atheism, to avoid 'alienation and animosity'?


I seek to defend the Islamic community and, to an extent, the Islamic faith because, in contrast to Christians who are able to enjoy relative security, Muslims are increasingly the subject of racial abuse and discrimination as all Muslims are percieved as being complicit in terrorist attacks against civilians by those who do not fully understand Islam. Rights that are of great importance to the Muslim community - including the right to wear the Hijab - are threatened, and, in several countries such as France, it is now illegal to wear the Hijab in certain contexts.

Again you write from your perspective. In our country Muslims are not 'increasingly the subject of racial abuse'. Christians, though, have been murdered recently purely for being Christians, and going back further I can remember pogroms against the Alevi. Wearing a headscarf in a public place is , however, illegal, but not for racist reasons.

As communist we have an international perspective. We also reject all religion. It is important in the west to recognise that there is a demonisation of people from a Middle Eastern, and South Asia background, and to explain to workers the way 'Islamophobia' is being used. That does not mean that we should end up lining up alongside the imams though.

Devrim

[counterblast]

I seek to defend the Islamic community and, to an extent, the Islamic faith because, in contrast to Christians who are able to enjoy relative security, Muslims are increasingly the subject of racial abuse and discrimination as all Muslims are percieved as being complicit in terrorist attacks against civilians by those who do not fully understand Islam.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but are you trying to justify Islamic terrorism by saying those who carry it out are incomplicit and are just fulfilling the will of Allah? I understand Islam perfectly well, and just because a few obscure verses in the Qu'ran justify religious murder, that does not make religious murderers exempt from accountability for their actions, any more than if a friend had told them to do it.


Rights that are of great importance to the Muslim community - including the right to wear the Hijab - are threatened, and, in several countries such as France, it is now illegal to wear the Hijab in certain contexts.

Likewise, wearing a Hijabi or Burka is required in many Muslim countries and provinces.

It seems to me while you're defending the rights of Muslim women in non-Muslim countries, you're conveniently overlooking the rights of non-Muslim women in Muslim countries.

[BobKKKindle$]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but are you trying to justify Islamic terrorism by saying those who carry it out are incomplicit and are just fulfilling the will of Allah?

No, I have never suggested that - I have already made my position clear in previous posts. Those who do conduct or advocate terrorism are fully accountable to their actions. The vast majority of Muslims do not condone terrorism and contend that Islamism is inconsistent with Islamic religious principles. However, not everyone is able to appreciate this, and those who have not interacted with Muslims or studied Islam often assume that Islamism reflects the general political orientation of the global ummah.


It seems to me while you're defending the rights of Muslim women in non-Muslim countries, you're conveniently overlooking the rights of non-Muslim women in Muslim countries.

I have never supported or excused such governments. However, preventing someone from wearing the Hijab is just as bad as enforcing dress as part of Islamic law. Wearing the Hijab must be an individual choice - however, in the middle east and in the so-called liberal west the state makes this decision with no regard for individual sovereignty. Socialists support the rights of the individual, and so we must join in the campaign against coercive state policies which aim to prevent muslim women from making choices.

Several times, devrimankara, you have suggested that we should not stand alongside Imams in pursuit of our objectives. Why not? Are you suggesting that all Imams reject socialist principles and want to subordinate women? Religious leaders from all faiths have often had an integral role in liberation struggles - as this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=3191) SW article recounts:

"Not all imams are the same, of course, but they occupy a particular social position in their communities. ...I like to think of a historical analogy. In the late 1950s in the southern states of the US a young Baptist preacher led the civil rights movement. I have no doubt there were reactionary Baptist ministers, but would any socialist worth their salt really think it wrong to work with the young Martin Luther King?"

Several Imams have actually struggled against the growth of fundamentalism in their communities. From the same article:

"At the election in Preston there was a small group of what we could term "fundamentalists". Their intervention amounted to leafleting outside Friday prayers the week before the election telling people it was "haram" (against Islam) to vote or take part in the electoral process. The imam came out, grabbed the leaflets and told onlookers, 'We were born here-we have the right to march, protest and vote. We should exercise these rights and support anti-war, anti-racist candidates' "

Your rejection of Imams makes you somewhat Islamophobic.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 15, 2007 08:45 am--> (counterblast @ September 15, 2007 08:45 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:44 am

I seek to defend the Islamic community and, to an extent, the Islamic faith because, in contrast to Christians who are able to enjoy relative security, Muslims are increasingly the subject of racial abuse and discrimination as all Muslims are percieved as being complicit in terrorist attacks against civilians by those who do not fully understand Islam.


[/b]
Counterblast, I would just like to make it clear that that quote does not come from me even if it looks that way there. It comes from Bob Kindles.

I am sure there was no ill intent, and I just want to clarify.

Devrim

[counterblast]

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 15, 2007 09:15 am--> (devrimankara @ September 15, 2007 09:15 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:45 am

[email protected] 15, 2007 06:44 am

I seek to defend the Islamic community and, to an extent, the Islamic faith because, in contrast to Christians who are able to enjoy relative security, Muslims are increasingly the subject of racial abuse and discrimination as all Muslims are percieved as being complicit in terrorist attacks against civilians by those who do not fully understand Islam.



Counterblast, I would just like to make it clear that that quote does not come from me even if it looks that way there. It comes from Bob Kindles.

I am sure there was no ill intent, and I just want to clarify.

Devrim [/b]
Oh, I knew it wasn't!

Sorry, I didn't even realise I left your name in the quote.

[Dean]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 15, 2007 05:32 am--> (counterblast @ September 15, 2007 05:32 am) Explain to me: How is atheism devoid of reason? [/b]
I never said that. I said dogmatic anti-religious ideology is "no better than that of the dogmatic religious people; you have committed yourself to something wholly, devoid of criticism or reason." I never insulted atheism.


devrimankira
Ok, so what you are saying is that 'the idea that there is no god is 'something wholly, devoid of criticism or reason'.
No, I said concering oneself with such criticisms primarily is a dogmatic institution comparable to those things you criticise in the religious dogmas.


There are facts. Evolution is one of them. The idea that God made man out of clay is simply untrue. When people say he did, they are wrong.
Ok, I don't disagree.


Also interesting is why I am being criticised here. I am almost certain that if somebody living in the west criticised Christianity there wouldn't be this response. Why does it happen when somebody in the Middle East criticises Islam?
Perhaps, for some. I would still criticise you if I saw an ignorant bashing of the christian faith, especially if it started to be xenophobic.

There's a logical reason why more people here defend Islam - it's because Islam has been made a boogeyman in the west, and people like Vinny eat that shit up. I'm not saying you're xenophobic, but many attacks on Islam here have been.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:11 am
Several times, devrimankara, you have suggested that we should not stand alongside Imams in pursuit of our objectives. Why not? Are you suggesting that all Imams reject socialist principles and want to subordinate women? Religious leaders from all faiths have often had an integral role in liberation struggles - as this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=3191) SW article recounts:

"Not all imams are the same, of course, but they occupy a particular social position in their communities. ...I like to think of a historical analogy. In the late 1950s in the southern states of the US a young Baptist preacher led the civil rights movement. I have no doubt there were reactionary Baptist ministers, but would any socialist worth their salt really think it wrong to work with the young Martin Luther King?"

Several Imams have actually struggled against the growth of fundamentalism in their communities. From the same article:

"At the election in Preston there was a small group of what we could term "fundamentalists". Their intervention amounted to leafleting outside Friday prayers the week before the election telling people it was "haram" (against Islam) to vote or take part in the electoral process. The imam came out, grabbed the leaflets and told onlookers, 'We were born here-we have the right to march, protest and vote. We should exercise these rights and support anti-war, anti-racist candidates' "

Your rejection of Imams makes you somewhat Islamophobic.
I missed this, Bob, as you posted it just before I posted. I am not sure what you mean when you say that I am somewhat 'Islamophobic'. Remember that I live in a country where the (soft) Islamicists are currently in control of the state. What do you want me to do, get along to the Mosque, and express my solidarity with the government?

Of course it is very clear that the vast majority of clerics are reactionaries. If the best argument you can come up with against that is one imam who argued for the exercise of bourgeois democratic rights, it pretty much proves my point.

Of course in struggles there are many times that we line up alongside Islamic, and even fascist workers. On a personal level I was involved in organising a walk out at my work last year when an Islamic woman was sacked. The point is though that we do it as workers. The SWP on the other hand, is lining up with them as 'Muslims'. It is completely different.

So yes, I reject imams. On a personal level, I even occasionally have a friendly chat with them. I was having a drink with the ex-Diyanet only last week*. But on a political level, yes I reject them.

Devrim

*I was drinking anyway. He obviously wasn't.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Dean+September 15, 2007 12:19 pm--> (Dean @ September 15, 2007 12:19 pm) Perhaps, for some. I would still criticise you if I saw an ignorant bashing of the christian faith, especially if it started to be xenophobic.

[/b]
Whatever my criticisms of Islam have been they are certainly not ignorant. Also you imply that I have 'started to be xenophobic'. Please cite one example.


Dean
There's a logical reason why more people here defend Islam - it's because Islam has been made a boogeyman in the west, and people like Vinny eat that shit up. I'm not saying you're xenophobic, but many attacks on Islam here have been.

Yes, Islam has been made into a 'bogeyman', but what needs to be defended in the west is workers from the Middle Eastern, South Asia, and North African backgrounds, not Islam.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Even leading members of the SWP realise that there is a problem with cuddling up to the imams:


Originally posted by John Rees
We believe that the constant adaptation to what are referred to as ‘community leaders’ in Tower Hamlets is lowering the level of politics and making us vulnerable to the attacks and pressures brought on us by New Labour. It is alienating us not only from the white working class but also from the more radical sections of the Bengali community, both secular and Muslim, who feel that Respect is becoming the party of a narrow and conservative trend in the area.

Devrim

[Dean]

Originally posted by devrimankara+September 19, 2007 08:39 pm--> (devrimankara @ September 19, 2007 08:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:19 pm
Perhaps, for some. I would still criticise you if I saw an ignorant bashing of the christian faith, especially if it started to be xenophobic.


Whatever my criticisms of Islam have been they are certainly not ignorant. Also you imply that I have 'started to be xenophobic'. Please cite one example. [/b]
I won't, because I didn't I said the contrary in the quote you cite:



Dean
There's a logical reason why more people here defend Islam - it's because Islam has been made a boogeyman in the west, and people like Vinny eat that shit up. I'm not saying you're xenophobic, but many attacks on Islam here have been.

Yes, Islam has been made into a 'bogeyman', but what needs to be defended in the west is workers from the Middle Eastern, South Asia, and North African backgrounds, not Islam.

The truth needs to be defended. When western lies about Islam are perpetuated, and Islam is made an enemy, it also makes an enemy out of the Muslim workers in the regions in question.

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:36 am


Unless you really believe muslim extremism is a good thing theres no reason to stand by the burka. If like me you feel that any religious extremism should be opposed at any oppertunity then don't defend the cultural dress of those that would have women as 2nd class citizens.
so are you also gonna stop people from going to mosque?? if a prson wishes to wear the burka that is her choice, i dont see why you or i should get involved in it. yes it symbolizes religion which we are all against, but look at it this way. ban the chrch churh go underground and bam like that some freaky deaky man leads it opposes socialism and people who feel disenfranchised will join, soon they turn to violent protest troops on the treet killing people and the govt is ousted cause the people cant stand for dead people in there own country, and all of that because you take away there right. the point is that no matter how much you dislike it it is her choice (in some cases) and no one sould have the power to take that away