Wilders' movie "Fitna" released

[FireGarden]

It could easily be argued that it is, yes.

Does that answer both of the questions you quoted?

 

[RandFan]

It's from the daily mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_article_id=510184&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

yuck! But I'm too lazy to carry on readin google's returns.

On Turkey's plans to lift the headscarf ban:

An opinion poll and women voting with their feet.

Here's the first lady of Syria:
http://www.syrianembassy.us/photogallery/syrian_photos/thefirstlady.jpg

I'm not sure what this proves other than one can find exceptions. Turkey is secular.

Clearly many women do not want to live under oppression. This is proof of that. Sadly not all women have a choice. Many face death at the hands of their family members and many face social pressure to conform.

I think if we were intellectually honest we would admit that one would have to perform a more methodologically sound study. Right?

 

[RandFan]

So is supporting dictators an American ideal?

Yes, it could easily be argued that it is.

 

[Oliver]

...just like on British TV a suit and tie is normally worn by insurance salesmen.

LOL. So true. Darn society! ... Safe the Salesmen! ...Thanks for the laughter.

Can't even remember the last time I saw a young female muslim wearing a headscarf.

 

[FireGarden]

I'm not sure what this proves other than one can find exceptions. Turkey is secular.

I take this as moving the goalposts.

I answered this question:

What evidence do you have that it is common that those who wear scarves do it out of their own free will?

So Turkey is secular?
I gave evidence that it is common for Muslim women to wear the headscarf of their own free will.

Syria isn't officially secular, I think, but it's not particularly religious either. Female role models are on TV without headscarves. It doesn't seem that there is so much pressure to wear the headscarf. And yet many do.

So is supporting dictators an American ideal?
Yes, it could easily be argued that it is.

That's not the way I have ever understood American ideals. I'll wait to see what MrB says.

Yeah! you shut me up!

 

[RandFan]

I gave evidence that it is common for Muslim women to wear the headscarf of their own free will.

Yes, you gave evidence but not evidence that proves that it is "common" only that it could be common for two areas and this evidence is at best anecdotal.

That's not the way I have ever understood American ideals.

An ideal isn't static nor is it necessarily monolithic. Given that so many Muslims, clerics and leaders hold the ideals that we are talking about it is a no true Scotsman argument for you to dictate to them what is and is not their ideals.

Propping up dictators is not so much in the popular culture or propagated by religious or political leaders nor is it advocated by many so I would have to say that it is a very poor analogy but in the end an argument still could be made.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah! you shut me up!

I thought we were having a discussion not a pissing contest.

I'm not adverse to rhetoric, hence the Michael Moore comment but let's not get too out of focus here. I like JREF because it's possible to have an intellectual discussion without grade school silliness ("dude, you got pwned").

 

[Earthborn]

Let me note, Mormons don't have honor killing. Muslims do.

Not all Muslims do. I don't think there actually are many Muslim scholars who regard honor killings to be Islamic. Here are some who claim that it is particularly un-Islamic.

According to Ayan Hirsi Ali...

It would be much easier to take you seriously on your claims of what she has said if you finally bothered to spell her name right.

You act as though there is no such pressure.

Social pressure to conform to societal norms is everywhere, but I think it is rare for Muslim women living in The Netherlands to feel pressured to wear a head scarf.

As if there is no honor killing or if Muslim women are not given in marriage against their own wishes

I don't see any reason to assume that Muslim women who are pressured to wear a head scarf are more likely to be killed for honour or given in marriage against their will. AFAIK, these things are more common in the Turkish community (but still very rare) which has never been particularly strict on head scarves.

I also think it is wrong to equate social pressure with force.

What evidence do you have that it is common that those who wear scarves do it out of their own free will?

I live in a town in which there is a large Muslim community. I often see young Muslim women shopping together; some are wearing full chadors, while others have their hair loose, wear short skirts, high heels and too much make-up. If these girls who are obviously from the same ethnic background can be so diverse in the way they dress and at the same time so friendly to eachother, I don't see how they suffer from much pressure to a specific type of dress.

There are also Muslim women who say they wear head scarves out of their own free will. Sometimes they even see it as a symbol of their empowerment. You may think that they only say that because of their oppressors want them to say that, but for those women who are highly educated, have successful careers, and are not afraid to criticise the male dominated dogmas of their religion, I see no reason to assume that they are oppressed.

 

[RandFan]

It would be much easier to take you seriously on your claims of what she has said if you finally bothered to spell her name right.

Ad Hominem. I'm human. I made a mistake. That doesn't invalidate anything.

 

[mrbaracuda]

So why did she convert, then?

That is a question I can not answer. She says "she had a dream where Allah spoke to her" and that the Quran "is the truth" or something like that; I say it has more to do with the Turk she was married to (Islamically) and the lack of guidance in her life she was frustrated with (I consider her to be a rather weak person when it comes to self-confidence among other things; which Islam gave her somehow it seems; especially in regards to "women only being seen as sex objects").

Which Islamic text is a biography of Mohammad?
Even when it comes to Hadith (the sayings of the prophets and his companions) Muslims do not agree which are accurate and which are not. Did you find out which of the Hadith your sister believes? Some Muslims don't believe any.

Ibn Ishaq's "Sira Rasul Allah"; although I am still trying to get my hands on an English version which is richer than the German translation I borrowed from her(difference was about 400 pages if I remember correctly).

And yes, I know what you are trying to say about the ahadith and am aware of this. Yet there doesn't seem to be such a big problem anymore of which are accurate or not. Also I'm mainly talking about "Sunni-stuff" in my posts.

Warning (especially for Muslims)

There are many early hadith scholars and teachers to whom we are indebted for introducing the critical science of collecting and evaluating ahadeeth. These teachers each collected many different ahadeeth. They did not allow students to quote from their collections until the students had actually come to them and learnt from them directly.

Today, the situation is different. The collections of ahadeeth have for the most part stabilized, and with the advent of the printing press, the collections are easily mass-produced. There is a blessing in all this of course, but there is a real danger that Muslims will fall under the impression that owning a book or having a database is equivalent to being a scholar of ahadeeth. This is a great fallacy. Therefore, we would like to warn you that this database is merely a tool, and not a substitute for learning, much less scholarship in Islam.

(ETA) Link.

So do you think the people who converted her believe the bad things about Islam, but don't tell the newbies? Why would they go on being Muslims if they believe that Mohammed was all the things you accuse him of?

Isn't it more likely that they honestly don't believe those things? And that is why they didn't tell your sister what you think she ought to know.

First of all, in her case, I think "they" do not exist. I don't know who had a (or the) big(gest) influence on her, but it appears she got her knowlegde only in rare cases from Imams or other scholarly figures. So I can not speak for them.

I'm sure you are aware of Muhammad's position as a role model for every Muslim though and that one should love Muhammad more than his own parents. Especially this makes it hard for Muslims in my opinion to criticise Muhammad and his doings.

For instance, I don't know of any Muslims who believe that Mohammad went around like a pirate raiding caravans. The only caravan I can think of that was targeted was the one led by Abu Sufyan.

Fine, make it singular. But the theme seems to be somewhat the same and can be seen in Israel if I'm not wrong and understoof the fellow Jewish JREFers: What has once been in Muslim possession is deemed to be rightfully theirs - even for eternity it seems. Another example would be Spain, or Al-Andalus.

It was filled with the property of Muslims that had been forced out of Mecca. The Muslims didn't regard their property as his to sell. So they set out to capture his caravan -- perhaps on his way back from Syria, or perhaps on his way there. Abu Sufyan was warned and moved out of danger. Instead, the Muslims met a Pagan army at the battle of Badr.

To my knowledge there were numerous other raids of this sort and not only on caravans but settlements and such; currently I'm investing more time in Shaf'i Shari'a. I can tell you though that they're stating in 'Umdat al-Salik (or "Reliance of the Traveller") the following:

[...]

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched orders. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number).

Emphasis mine. So you might want to call him a divine pirate now.
Your source though?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Muslims that had been forced out of Mecca.

I'd like to address this point because this is part of what I'd call the "poor-and-oppressed-and-persecuted-Muslims-attitude". Yes, they were forced out of Mecca, but I doubt any devout Muslim would like to acknowledge (if at all) that this may have happened because their noble "Prophet" pissed off a whole lot of people by insulting their religions and pagan gods. There's a story of how Meccan (?) residents made fun of Muhammad by throwing a dead baby camel fetus on his back while prostrating (funnily enough towards Jerusalem at that time I guess) - you got to wonder why anyone would toss a dead baby camel fetus on someone so noble and nice, don't you.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Here are some who claim that it is particularly un-Islamic.

They really woo'd you, didn't they? Call me stupid, but those shady statements sound more like "Yes there is something similar / cases you could call honour killings, but we don't call it honour killings or would translate it as such, thusly it's not something you would find labelled as honor killings in Islamic texts" and "It's up to a court to judge the trespassing and when justified the executioner or whoever is needed to act on the verdict to solve the problem instead of someone acting on his own".

Now ask yourself why anyone would push the idea of Shari'a courts in western countries.

It's kind of the same as "Jihad does not translate to holy war, therefore it's not a holy war!" like I saw on their page.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Social pressure to conform to societal norms is everywhere, but I think it is rare for Muslim women living in The Netherlands to feel pressured to wear a head scarf.

You might just be wrong about the supposed safety of a non-Muslim country.

I don't see any reason to assume that Muslim women who are pressured to wear a head scarf are more likely to be killed for honour or given in marriage against their will. AFAIK, these things are more common in the Turkish community (but still very rare) which has never been particularly strict on head scarves.

Funny that you mention Turkey (creepy **** if you ask me; and it's not only this but other things about the AKP and Erdogan that make this instant so creepy). Anyway, why can't you see that? Are you already beyond the point of pressure so the person is wearing the headscarf? Then maybe. But see above.

I also think it is wrong to equate social pressure with force.

Well in those peoples' minds there is nothing beyond pressure other than force.

I live in a town in which there is a large Muslim community. I often see young Muslim women shopping together; some are wearing full chadors, while others have their hair loose, wear short skirts, high heels and too much make-up. If these girls who are obviously from the same ethnic background can be so diverse in the way they dress and at the same time so friendly to eachother, I don't see how they suffer from much pressure to a specific type of dress.

The violence is coming from the men, not the women. At least it would be new to me if it's the women, although some seem to tolerate these so called honour killings.

There are also Muslim women who say they wear head scarves out of their own free will. Sometimes they even see it as a symbol of their empowerment. You may think that they only say that because of their oppressors want them to say that, but for those women who are highly educated, have successful careers, and are not afraid to criticise the male dominated dogmas of their religion, I see no reason to assume that they are oppressed.

Like my sister, yes. She wouldn't get rid of it either though, because Allah said so. But anyway, she didn't grew up in a devout household under the rule of a man (ETA - let me make that men as well, since the brother(s) can play a major role) or a community where men rule. And what does education have to do with one's free will being suppressed by others? Sorry but I hate this argument about education being the reason for who knows what.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I've finally had a chance to see it and the only thing that offends me one way or another about it is how ridiculously overhyped this knee-jerk and cheap attack video is.

Seriously, is that all there is?

You get better discussion of Islam and the state of geopolitical world affairs on the IMDB soapbox message board. If Geert Wilder's name wasn't attached to it, this MySpace level video wouldn't have gotten 10 views on YouTube.

My advice to him is to leave the movie-making to bloggers and 16-year-olds with home editing software. Cause he ain't Errol Morris.

 

[FireGarden]

There are also Muslim women who say they wear head scarves out of their own free will. Sometimes they even see it as a symbol of their empowerment. You may think that they only say that because of their oppressors want them to say that, but for those women who are highly educated, have successful careers, and are not afraid to criticise the male dominated dogmas of their religion, I see no reason to assume that they are oppressed.

Have you read this piece by Manal Omar?
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/fashion/story/0,,2061958,00.html

It's worth looking up more of her journalism, too.

I thought we were having a discussion not a pissing contest.

Sorry,
I didn't mean to imply anything. Just having fun because I couldn't think of a response.

Yes, you gave evidence but not evidence that proves that it is "common" only that it could be common for two areas and this evidence is at best anecdotal.

So now you want me to prove the opposite of your claim for... how many Muslim communities?

What is transmitted on TV is not anecdotal. You can tune in over the internet or satellite. You don't have to understand it to see if the women all wear headscarves or not.

An ideal isn't static nor is it necessarily monolithic. Given that so many Muslims, clerics and leaders hold the ideals that we are talking about it is a no true Scotsman argument for you to dictate to them what is and is not their ideals.

Propping up dictators is not so much in the popular culture or propagated by religious or political leaders nor is it advocated by many so I would have to say that it is a very poor analogy but in the end an argument still could be made.

An ideal can't be a guilty secret.
That it isn't transmitted in the popular culture is a big sign that supporting dictators is not something can be sold to Americans in the raw. It has to be dressed up with talk about stability and lesser of two evils or whatever the figleaf is.

Even bin Laden used the presence of American troops in Saudi as part of his justification for war. Why? If, as you might suppose, he's in it to kill infidels and he believes he has a divine right to do so, then why does he dress up his divine right with references to Palestine, sanctions against Iraq, troops in Saudi Arabia?

How many people do you think would join him on a purely "divine right to kill infidels" platform?

 

[FireGarden]

Ibn Ishaq's "Sira Rasul Allah"; although I am still trying to get my hands on an English version which is richer than the German translation I borrowed from her(difference was about 400 pages if I remember correctly).

Apologies for some of my earlier comments.
You clearly care about your sister, since you are going to some considerable work to discuss something important to her.

I've not previously heard of any Muslims that regard this work as a religious text -- in the sense that laws are derived from it, etc.

I'm sure you are aware of Muhammad's position as a role model for every Muslim though and that one should love Muhammad more than his own parents. Especially this makes it hard for Muslims in my opinion to criticise Muhammad and his doings.

It also makes it hard for them to believe that he is guilty of some of the things he is accused of.

Fine, make it singular. But the theme seems to be somewhat the same and can be seen in Israel if I'm not wrong and understoof the fellow Jewish JREFers: What has once been in Muslim possession is deemed to be rightfully theirs - even for eternity it seems. Another example would be Spain, or Al-Andalus.

Muslims are not the only ones who dislike thieves.
And this is property they owned directly. Not some birth-right or other.

To my knowledge there were numerous other raids of this sort and not only on caravans but settlements and such; currently I'm investing more time in Shaf'i Shari'a. I can tell you though that they're stating in 'Umdat al-Salik (or "Reliance of the Traveller") the following:



Emphasis mine. So you might want to call him a divine pirate now.
Your source though?

My source is that my parents are Muslim. I'm an atheist, however.

You might find it easier to consult the film "The Message" which will show you what Muslims believe about their history. Mohammed wasn't portrayed by an actor because many Muslims believe he shouldn't be. But he plays a role off camera.

The film does, in this way, imply that Mohammed fought in the battle of Uhud. The Muslims lost that battle, and the film has people worrying that Mohammed himself had been killed.

This battle was initiated by the Meccans as retaliation for the battle of Badr, btw.

Yes, they were forced out of Mecca, but I doubt any devout Muslim would like to acknowledge (if at all) that this may have happened because their noble "Prophet" pissed off a whole lot of people by insulting their religions and pagan gods. There's a story of how Meccan (?) residents made fun of Muhammad by throwing a dead baby camel fetus on his back while prostrating (funnily enough towards Jerusalem at that time I guess) - you got to wonder why anyone would toss a dead baby camel fetus on someone so noble and nice, don't you.

This is strange.
Because, earlier, you didn't regard theft of property by town big-wigs who command armies as cause for war.

But now the Muslims provoked the Pagans by insulting Pagan gods. Did they deserve to be forced out of their homes?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Apologies for some of my earlier comments.
You clearly care about your sister, since you are going to some considerable work to discuss something important to her.

Very much so and I still can't understand - from my viewpoint at least - why a "young western woman" would join a "club" like that.

I've not previously heard of any Muslims that regard this work as a religious text -- in the sense that laws are derived from it, etc.

Really? The laws might not be derived from it, but the laws and siras use ahadith, so it is in a sense a religious text.

It also makes it hard for them to believe that he is guilty of some of the things he is accused of.

Very much so, but the problem I see is rather when it comes to things like child-marriage and seeing how that might be not so well. Or when their prophet said that homosexuals ought to be killed.

Muslims are not the only ones who dislike thieves.
And this is property they owned directly. Not some birth-right or other.

Sure, but you're not suggesting that their property spread so far and wide that another 20+ raids conducted over decades were necessary, are you?

My source is that my parents are Muslim. I'm an atheist, however.

You might find it easier to consult the film "The Message" which will show you what Muslims believe about their history. Mohammed wasn't featured in the film because many Muslims believe he shouldn't be portrayed by an actor. But he plays a role off camera.

I wanted to but haven't. I'm not too interested either and I think what you mean is "what is suitable for the big screen". I can't see any Che Guevara killing little farm boys in Hollywood movies about him, as it has been suggested can be found in his diaries, if you know what I mean.

Do you know more about the directors of "The Message" though?

The film does, in this way, imply that Mohammed fought in the battle of Uhud. The Muslims lost that battle, and the film has people worrying that Mohammed himself had been killed.

Yea if I remember this correctly he feigned death. He apparently also wore two chain mails at once and promised paradise to his fellow Muslims when the enemy got too close to him to get time to escape - with the help of some other Muslims who lifted his fat ass up a hill, heh.

This is strange.
Because, earlier, you didn't regard theft of property by town big-wigs who command armies as cause for war.

Pardon me? What and where?

But now the Muslims provoked the Pagans by insulting Pagan gods. Did they deserve to be forced out of their homes?

Fallacy? No, and you won't get me to say that. But what would you expect to happen to you when you constantly piss off pagans and others (like merchants that would be affected by any lack of pilgrimaging people for example; and those had reasonable influence on tribal leaders etc in my opinion) by proclaiming your very new religion to be the only true one? During that time, mind you.

 

[RandFan]

So now you want me to prove the opposite of your claim...?

No. A.) I'm just saying you haven't established yours. B.) I withdrew my claim.

What is transmitted on TV is not anecdotal.

Clearly you don't know the definition of anecdotal. That it is transmitted on TV does not prove that it is typical.

An ideal can't be a guilty secret.
That it isn't transmitted in the popular culture is a big sign that supporting dictators is not something can be sold to Americans in the raw. It has to be dressed up with talk about stability and lesser of two evils or whatever the figleaf is.

Misses the point. That there exists a group of people who believe that such foreign policy is an ideal makes it so. To argue otherwise is the equivalent of a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Even bin Laden used the presence of American troops in Saudi as part of his justification for war. Why? If, as you might suppose, he's in it to kill infidels and he believes he has a divine right to do so, then why does he dress up his divine right with references to Palestine, sanctions against Iraq, troops in Saudi Arabia?

How does this disprove the point?

How many people do you think would join him on a purely "divine right to kill infidels" platform?

I think many, if not most, are already there in part for that very ideal.

Human behavior is complex. To think that motivations are one dimensional ignores what we know about people and history.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Even bin Laden used the presence of American troops in Saudi as part of his justification for war. Why? If, as you might suppose, he's in it to kill infidels and he believes he has a divine right to do so, then why does he dress up his divine right with references to Palestine, sanctions against Iraq, troops in Saudi Arabia?

He does not dress up his divine right with that if I'm not mistaken (I still have to look at this statements and value them; I heard for example that he's still talking of the enemy in terms of crusaders), but he rather enforces his point of view and those who follow it in Palestine etc - be it al Qaeda or other groups.

If I may quote from 'Umdat al-Salik again:

[...]

o9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter and cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means.

Emphasis mine. I could go on but I'm too tired right now.

 

[FireGarden]

Sure, but you're not suggesting that their property spread so far and wide that another 20+ raids conducted over decades were necessary, are you?

Am I suggesting that every battle had the same cause? No.

I wanted to but haven't. I'm not too interested either and I think what you mean is "what is suitable for the big screen". I can't see any Che Guevara killing little farm boys in Hollywood movies about him, as it has been suggested can be found in his diaries, if you know what I mean.

You pointed out that Mohammed is a role model for Muslims. That role model is the one that made it to the film. The argument that Mohammed wasn't what Muslims believe him to have been is a different argument. The film shows what Muslims believe.

Do you know more about the directors of "The Message" though?

Akkad?
He directed the Halloween movies.

He also died in a bombing in Amman, sadly.

Yea if I remember this correctly he feigned death. He apparently also wore two chain mails at once and promised paradise to his fellow Muslims when the enemy got too close to him to get time to escape - with the help of some other Muslims who lifted his fat ass up a hill, heh.

First I've heard of that.