Arab Woman gives Muslims a Thrashing

[Gmart]

Little things like "which statements of hers I agree with and why" are useful when it comes to this sort of thing.

I agreed with her, that's why I posted it.

This is a discussion website...

 

[Gmart]

Also the video puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media, and so why not?

 

[invisibleplanet]

I've no idea what this means...

I do, and Gmarthews appears to be wrong about that - it was a good point to focus on, but poor choice of religious terminology - The Book is the book that is common to Jews, Muslims and Christians - the TaNaKh. It contains the Torah (Teachings*), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). People can of course have many books, but phrase "the People of The Book" only refers to the People who follow the G0D of Abraham (Jews, Muslims and Christians) and the common book they share between them (i.e the TaNaKh aka The Old Testament).

*also called in arabic: Taurat. Also referred to many times in the Qu'ran is 'The Book' (TaNaKh)

 

[Gmart]

I do, and Gmarthews appears to be wrong about that - it was a good point to focus on, but poor choice of religious terminology - The Book is the book that is common to Jews, Muslims and Christians - the TaNaKh. It contains the Torah (Teachings*), Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). People can of course have many books, but phrase "the People of The Book" only refers to the People who follow the G0D of Abraham (Jews, Muslims and Christians) and the common book they share between them (i.e the TaNaKh aka The Old Testament).

Absolutely IP, in the video she states this, but then makes a progression, stating that the books used in science are very good too, and so states that 'they' would be better named as people of the books!! Because of these other books which are so valuable to Muslims; people who they denigrate.

Did ANYONE watch the video, or are you ALL guessing??

 

[FridgeMagnet]

At the very least, make a specific statement - "this statement here is something I support, for these reasons" - not just "oh well I support everything she says" which just makes you sound like some sort of stalker, particularly as you don't even know who she is. That way somebody could actually, you know, argue with you.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Also the video puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media, and so why not?

No it doesn't.

 

[rover07]

Why wasn't the guy allowed to reply to her? It was just a rant really with no purpose.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Absolutely IP,

I'm not agreeing with you, Gmarthews.

in the video she states this,

But that's not how YOU described it to us. You said:

She goes on to point out that the people of the book are actually the people of many books, which are used in medicine etc in Islamic society.

Which is a completely different occurrence to the one you described thus:

but then makes a progression, stating that the books used in science are very good too, and so states that 'they' would be better named as people of the books!! Because of these other books which are so valuable to Muslims; people who they denigrate.

From you, two very different 'descriptions of the same words spoken by one person.

Did ANYONE watch the video, or are you ALL guessing??

I saw it when it first began circulating. I saw it on the web. I've seen it on Tv. I've seen it discussed on chat shows, politics shows and discussed across internet forums. She's become the darling of anti-Islamic elements. Her (false) premise is that Islam cannot be reformed.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Meet Islam's Ann Coulter

The more Sultan talked, the more evident it became that progress in the Muslim world was not her interest. Even more troubling, it was not what the Jewish audience wanted to hear about. Applause, even cheers, interrupted her calumnies.

Judea Pearl, an attendee and father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, was one of the few voices of restraint and nuance heard that afternoon. In response to Sultan's assertion that the Koran contains only verses of evil and domination, Pearl said he understood the book also included "verses of peace" that proponents of Islam uphold as the religion's true intent. The Koran's verses on war and brutality, Pearl contended, were "cultural baggage," as are similar verses in the Torah.

Unfortunately, his words were drowned out by the cheers for Sultan's full-court press against Islam and Muslims.

[...]

Make no mistake: I am not an Islamic apologist. But Sultan's over-the-top, indefensible remarks at the fundraiser, along with her failure to mention the important, continuing efforts of the Islamic Center, insulted all Muslims and Jews in L.A. and throughout the nation who are trying to bridge the cultural gap between the two groups. And that's one reason why I eventually walked out of the event.

Here's another: As I experienced the fervor sparked by Sultan's anti-Muslim tirade and stoked by a roomful of apparently unsuspecting Jews, I thought: What if down the street there was a roomful of Muslims listening to a self-loathing Jew, cheering her on as she spoke of the evils inherent in the Torah, in which it is commanded that a child must be stoned to death if he insults his parents, in which Israelites are ordered by God to conquer cities and, in so doing, to kill all women and children — and this imagined Jew completely ignored all of what Judaism teaches afterward?

In a world far too often dominated by politicians imbued with religious fundamentalism of all flavors — Jewish, Christian, Muslim — we need the thoughtfulness, self-awareness and subtlety that comes from progressive religious expression. We have that in Judaism, in Christianity — and in Islam, right in our backyard. If only Sultan, applauded in many quarters yet miscast as a voice of reason and reform in Islam, were paying attention.

 

[invisibleplanet]

In today's The Australian, and under the provocative headline "Breakout (sic.) of Islam's mental prison", Janet Albrechtsen writes in defence of Syrian-Alawite psychiatrist Dr Wafa Sultan. Albrechtsen cites "an American rabbi". Here's what she says ...

Can this be the woman recently described as an "international sensation"? The woman who drove an American rabbi to publicly accuse her of being "Islam's Ann Coulter"? ...

The American rabbi who walked out on Sultan at a conference complained that she failed to allude to a healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative.

But what did the Rabbi actually say? I reproduce in full the article of Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on 25 June 2006. Readers can decide for themselves whether Ms Albrechtsen has accurately reflected Rabbi Stein's views . . .

Decide for yourself: http://planetirf.blogspot.com/2007/08/on-wafa-sultan-janet-albrechtsen-rabbi.html

 

[invisibleplanet]

One of the joys of this vid was the calmness of her in comparison with the religious priest, whose comments halfway thru were pretty much out of order... Still both you and Aldeberan are prejudiced because of the lack of knowledge you have due to your refusal to watch it. I don't mind ignorance (from an ignoring POV) but going on to comment in the thread from this position would seem almost troll-like!

And yet you've watched the video, but still you can't quote or report what was said accurately.

 

[frogwoman]

Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

You are without knowledge of the video.

Difficult to put it much clearer than that...

I might not know about this particular video but it sounds suspiciously similar to quite a few things i've heard about before which were intended to spread racist feelings among people who didn't know any better

and i prefer not to just blindly believe something without knowing where it came from or who benefits from the views being portrayed

I can think of two off the top of my head but there are more

the fact that someone comes from a particular group (or apparently does) gives it an extra credibility
from what people are saying and your replies on this thread it just seems like it's the typical ill thought out islamophobic stuff which you commonly find on websites like frontpagemag and littlegreenfootballs

you seem to have quite worrying views about women, religion and discrimination against different groups already and i think that it just confirms what you are saying

There are reasons why people make this stuff other than to "tell the truth"

and if people can see that conspiracy videos about 9-11 are made to fit a certain agenda why can't they see that this kind of stuff is as well?

I dont think anyone actually denies that there are a lot of problems with the treatment of women in the islamic world and in middle eastern culture but I have trouble lumping all religious muslims together and saying "this is what they're like, those muslims"
they're not all the same
they never have been
And this is the sort of stuff that gets used on the other side too ... never forget that ... the "documentaries" in arab countries about the protocols and about how people are plotting to "destroy islam"
Its all the same thing and it benefits nobody except the people who make money out of this stuff

 

[butchersapron]

Also the video puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media, and so why not?

Which is what Gmarthews?

 

[Gmart]

And yet you've watched the video, but still you can't quote or report what was said accurately.

#88

I might not know about this particular video but it sounds suspiciously similar to ....

Anyone who starts a post from such a prejudicial position is not worthy of comment.

Which is what Gmarthews?

Described in #88

There are lots of 'this is old news' posts from people who knew this. Well not everyone knows these issues and I see no reason to not post it on that basis. By that rationale nothing would get posted.

I'm not agreeing with you, Gmarthews.

Yes you were, you just didn't notice

No it doesn't.

Well again maybe you've seen different articles to me?

I have not seen many media outlets report the following:

1) Discussing the division between believers and non-believers and its negative effects in contrast to the common humanity of us all.

2) Encouraging Muslims to acknowledge that the people of the book (the TaNaKh as IP and I agree), have a lot of (other) books which are very valuable to Muslims world wide and that this should be counted as a positive aspect of freedom and creativity.

3) Stating that Muslims should pronounce freedom of religion in contrast to the practices in many Muslim countries.

4) Stating that violence against other religions by Muslims is specifically against the Islamic faith.

All of these points I agree with, and I would challenge anyone here to disagree with them. Moderates would do well to state these truths mmore openly, but they don't for fear of offending the extremists. They come out against violence (point 4) occasionally, but I have not seen a statement which covered the first 3 points, though maybe you have. Excellent, I thought I would bring these interesting points up in one of the few areas of discussion we have in our 'free' society. It intrigues me that I should get such abuse for my troubles.

At the very least, make a specific statement - "this statement here is something I support, for these reasons"

OK.

I support 1 because I think that having a division between believers and nonbelievers within Islam encourages Muslims to consider nonbelievers as somehow inhuman.

I support 2 because the other books she refers to save Muslim lives daily.

I support 3 because I believe in freedom of religious practice.

I support 4 because faith is a personal issue and should not manifest itself into violence.

All pretty obvious I thought.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Which is what Gmarthews?

Well, Gmarthews? There's more than butchersapron who'd like an answer to this question.

 

[Gmart]

Well, Gmarthews? There's more than butchersapron who'd like an answer to this question.

OK, state the question clearly and I will give you an answer. I thought I had covered everything, but if you feel I've missed something then I will try.

 

[butchersapron]

Also the video puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media, and so why not?

Which is what Gmarthews?

Described in #88

#88 doesn't mention 'the war on terror'.

So what is this other postion never seen through the media?

 

[Gmart]

So what's your question Butcher? Do you want to know my opinion on the War on Terror? I think its an excuse for a modern form of colonialism.

 

[Gmart]

Points 1-4 in #104 are positions rarely discussed in the media.

 

[butchersapron]

Points 1-4 in #104 are positions rarely discussed in the media.

Maybe, maybe not, byt they have nothing to with 'the war on terror' and the alternative viewpoint that you claim this woman is giving on it that it rarely seen through the media.

 

[butchersapron]

So what's your question Butcher? Do you want to know my opinion on the War on Terror? I think its an excuse for a modern form of colonialism.

What's my question?

So what is this other postion on the war on teror that this woman presents that's never seen through the media?

No, don't really want to know *your* opinion on it - thanks though, for asking

 

[invisibleplanet]

Gmarthews - You claim that the video "puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media".

1. Describe the 'side to the WoT' that is presented by this video.

2. Give examples of how 'this new way of looking at 'WoT' had never before been seen until this media/video was released.

 

[Gmart]

Points 1-4 Butcher and IP, they are good points which she has highlighted and which are rarely commented on in the media.

I am impressed in how much you two can avoid commenting on these points preferring to attack me.

Please tell me why you feel her points are not valid?

 

[butchersapron]

This is all very entertaining, but i fear pointless. You're simply not going to say what this alternative postion on the war on teror that you've claimed that this woman presents that's never seen through the media are you?. Why not though? It's your own claim. There's no trick or trap here.

 

[Chilliconcarne]

I support 1 because I think that having a division between believers and nonbelievers within Islam encourages Muslims to consider nonbelievers as somehow inhuman.

wow, thats very enlightened of you. I presume the rules dont apply to you though, as you have been very vocal in other posts about the need for "labelling" people dependant on their beliefs. Such as bright v non-bright, creationists and evolutionists etc

Labels equal division, so I find your comments above quite hypocritical.

 

[Gmart]

This is all very entertaining, but i fear pointless. You're simply not going to say what this alternative postion on the war on teror that you've claimed that this woman presents that's never seen through the media are you?. Why not though? It's your own claim. There's no trick or trap here.

Apart from you misrepresenting my position as 'never seen' rather than the position I've actually taken which is 'rarely seen'?

The position she describes as put forward in my 4 points are clearly a different position rarely seen in the media.

What confuses me is why you are avoiding comment??

If it makes it easier I will ask you the implied questions:

1) Where in the media is there a discussion as to the division between believers and unbelievers in the Koran?
2) The knowledge of the Western world evidently aids Muslims daily, where in the media is this hypocrisy discussed?
3) Where in the media is there a discussion as to the lack of freedom of religious practice in Islamic countries?
4) Where in the media is there a discussion as to the violence in the Koran and the response from moderates to this?

You might find the occasional website, but these are issues which are not discussed often in the news, and which affect the evolution of Islam within a globalised world. This is why I started the thread, I am at a loss as to why people here would prefer to discuss me, rather than the video itself!


And Chilliconcarne, I have never stated that these labels should be an excuse for violence, though thankyou for actually engaging in the discussion, rather than just attacking me (though actually you did try!)

 

[butchersapron]

Apart from you misrepresenting my position as 'never seen' rather than the position I've actually taken which is 'rarely seen'?

The position she describes as put forward in my 4 points are clearly a different position rarely seen in the media.

Also the video puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media, and so why not?

Where's the misrepresentation?

I've little or no interest in the general points you've put forward. I do have an interest in the specific point that you choose to make and that i quote above. What is this position?

 

[Gmart]

Where's the misrepresentation?

I apologise for using the word 'never' when actually I meant the word 'rarely'.

What is this position?

Just restating the question every time I answer it, is a common tactic for you. I have answered every question you have come up with, you just show no willingness to discuss.

It seems to me that when you don't have an answer you just restate the question as if I hadn't answered it.

Well I have. And I refuse to accept that you don't know this, I suspect you are just a windup merchant.

Meanwhile Chilli. I slightly resent the implication of your question. I stated in 'other threads' that labeling is a perfectly normal activity for our species. What I have against point 1 of the position I have stated so often now is that this label might be used as an excuse for violence!

I am disappointed that you might think that I would use the label 'Bright' as an excuse for violence if that was your implication.

 

[butchersapron]

I apologise for using the word 'never' when actually I meant the word 'rarely'.

Just restating the question every time I answer it, is a common tactic for you. I have answered every question you have come up with, you just show no willingness to discuss.

It seems to me that when you don't have an answer you just restate the question as if I hadn't answered it.

Well I have.Well I have. And I refuse to accept that you don't know this, I suspect you are just a windup merchant.

No worries, i accept your full and frank apology. The fact of the matter is though, that you really haven't answered my question as to what postion on 'the war on terror' that's rarely seen through the media you're referring to in the below quote:

Also the video puts forward a side to the so-called 'War on Terror' which is never seen through the media, and so why not?

At best you've given a general defence of your posting of the OP, you've said precisely nothing about this specific claim that you used in defence of your posting, that you felt important enough to add on as a seperate point even.

Any chance you might do so now?

 

[Gmart]

Again restating the question I have already answered. You say:

you really haven't answered my question as to what postion on 'the war on terror' that's rarely seen through the media

You refuse to comment on the four points you insisted I gave. You even accuse me of avoiding when here is my answer very clearly put earlier:

I have not seen many media outlets report the following:

1) Discussing the division between believers and non-believers and its negative effects in contrast to the common humanity of us all.

2) Encouraging Muslims to acknowledge that the people of the book (the TaNaKh as IP and I agree), have a lot of (other) books which are very valuable to Muslims world wide and that this should be counted as a positive aspect of freedom and creativity.

3) Stating that Muslims should pronounce freedom of religion in contrast to the practices in many Muslim countries.

4) Stating that violence against other religions by Muslims is specifically against the Islamic faith.

So you plainly have no interest in discussion, and are just a windup merchant who insists on comment and then restates this insistence even when the comment is given.

When you wish to comment on them, then I will answer, until then I will ignore you.