Hundreds of women assaulted in German NYE celebrations

[Thomsy]

I can't think of a single upbeat cheery argument to make that all go away.
You'd be ok in Bradford for a while though, surely, seeing as the law that governs Bradford does not sanction stoning people to death.

But Bimble, there are honour crimes and killings now. (Sorry so short - really rushing for time.)

 

[Thomsy]

You're a Walter Mitty who does Daesh's work for them. You're a fucking useful idiot for the Daeshbags who want to destroy the grey zone. And you're telling me my answer is pathetic?

No. It was a great answer. You're right.

 

[Thomsy]

Sorry. Double post again. In a rush and messing up!

 

[bimble]

Relevant and similar case from New York, 2000 (and one that doesn't involve Muslims or asylum seekers):

Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That does sound quite similar yes. Apart from all the outraged references to marijuana.
And this little nugget of detail's kind of striking:
"There was yelling of ''Get 'em, get 'em,'' and chants of ''Go, go, go,'' and misogynistic curses, and more young men joined the mob -- men who wore crucifixes. And some of these men began to tear at shirts, to pull on bras, to tug on shorts."

A Volatile Mixture Exploded Into Rampage in Central Park

 

[Thomsy]

During the crusades, Muslim Tunisia happily traded grain with Christian Sicily - something that had been going on between those parts of the Mediterranean world from Roman times onwards. Do you think it was carried over the sea by Aladdin's genie?

You should have read the whole thread.

I posted at length about relations between Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb and the treaties which can, in Islamic law, suspend hostilities between them. I cited Marx on the subject. He also wrote at some length on the capitulations granted by the Porte. I suggest you read his: 'On the Eastern Question' of 1854. That will answer your question.

 

[Thomsy]

I don't think that's entirely true for the Shia. Each Shia follows the interpretation of the law provided by a mujtahid, so not a personal interpretation but at least one provided by a currently living person which therefore has the potential to evolve.

Good point, irf520. But you've just stuck another couple of books on my reading list!

 

[Coolfonz]

Hi Frogwoman.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with much of it. But I can't agree that it is just a question of how ‘the individual’ sees his religion, or politics or identity. It is often a question of how the broader community – or even just the radical elements of that community – see it.

I gave a personal example earlier. My ex was Iranian. She was guilty of four offences: as an apostate, an atheist, having relations outside marriage, and having relations with a non-Muslim man. All bear the death penalty in Islam. If we had gone to the Muslim world, the state would have pursued those offences. If not the state, her own family would have killed her. If her family refused, the people in the street would have done it. If the neighbours had not, some militants would.

I mentioned before that we decided not to travel in the Islamic World. But we felt safe here.

Twenty five years on, England is changing. Would we be safe if we lived together in, eg Bradford?
Does that matter?
In future, do you think it will become easier or more dangerous to move there?

Of course there is a solution. If we were still together, she could return to Islam, I could convert to Islam, and we could get married. Then we would be safe anywhere. Is that the solution?

I get it. Whatever you do, the Muslim "militants" will dictate to the rest of the Mulsim "community" how to behave. You just can't reason with them can you. It's almost as if you see "Muslims" as one huge lump defined by yourself. Who would have killed you if you had "gone to the Muslim world."
Get on with your life, stop being an eternal victim/conspiracy theory whatsit.
That's my advice anyway

 

[Thomsy]

Who would have killed you if you had "gone to the Muslim world."

Why would you post insults on this thread when you admit you're ignorant of the answer to a question as basic as this?

 

[Diamond]

either thomsy's right: or he's not: and you can't say yer man's on the money but er he's not, not and remain consistent anyway.

But Thomsy is talking about a related but, to my mind, different subject matter Pickman's model.

I agree with his views on the topics that he is focusing on but I don't think that they explain the totality of the situation re: NYE, and I would be surprised if anyone did do so.

It's a question of nuance - a concept that is apparently alien to you.

 

[panpete]

There's a racist undertone to the reporting.

I dunno what to believe on this, too much propeganda and biasity
Like terrorists sneaking in with refugees, middle easterners treating females bad, all this bloodthirsty stuff from middle east, ISIS, bla bla bla
My nephew plays footie with some syiran refugee lads who've just come.

 

[Thomsy]

Re Coolfonz's enquiry above.

In Egypt:

* If you leave / convert from Islam, the police will arrest and incarcerate and abuse you indefinitely until you recant. If your apostasy becomes public knowledge before you are arrested, you will almost certainly be murdered. NO ONE in Egypt converts from Islam.

* Atheism is illegal. You cannot put it on your ID card. For a Muslim or any other Egyptian to announce it is to invite assassination.

* A non-Muslim man cannot legally marry a Muslim woman. It is illegal. It would therefore be adultery. Are you really so ignorant that you do not know what would happen?

*Relations between Muslim women and non-Muslim men are forbidden. Even dating. Or close friendship. If a Coptic Christian tried, he would not only endanger himself. He would likely provoke a sectarian pogrom in his locality.

Egypt is fairly typical.

 

[Diamond]

There are many Islams and many schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Rooting around in the texts to say that this stuff is inherent, always present in Islamic Societies is a blind alley. If so, why don't most or even many Muslims behave in this way? And there is always the 'outside' of older tradition or of those imported from cultural contact. A picture of Islam as static, monolithic and bound in time has been building over these last few pages and it aint necessarily so...

The general viewpoint that I got from a study of "Fundamentalisms in Comparative Perspective" at uni is that Islam is uniquely suited to a fundamental interpretation.

The bible is all over the place with direct contradictions whereas the Quran is very internally consistent.

And the non-Abrahamic faiths are almost deliberately vague by comparison.

 

[Coolfonz]

Why would you post insults on this thread when you admit you're ignorant of the answer to a question as basic as this?

It wasn't a question senor Plum.
Were Mi5 after you as well?

 

[Thomsy]

[

It wasn't a question senor Plum.
Were Mi5 after you as well?

I answered your question. You have no reply.

Do you think of your wit as a compensation for your ignorance?

 

[seventh bullet]

Quite so - and the disappearance of the previously large Communist movements in many of these countries (Afghanistan for example). Zizek is right I think when he quotes Walter Benjamin here to the effect that "every rise of fascism bears witness to a failed revolution"...

The Communist 'movement' in Afghanistan was never large.

 

[frogwoman]

I agr

Hi Frogwoman.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with much of it. But I can't agree that it is just a question of how ‘the individual’ sees his religion, or politics or identity. It is often a question of how the broader community – or even just the radical elements of that community – see it.

I gave a personal example earlier. My ex was Iranian. She was guilty of four offences: as an apostate, an atheist, having relations outside marriage, and having relations with a non-Muslim man. All bear the death penalty in Islam. If we had gone to the Muslim world, the state would have pursued those offences. If not the state, her own family would have killed her. If her family refused, the people in the street would have done it. If the neighbours had not, some militants would.

I mentioned before that we decided not to travel in the Islamic World. But we felt safe here.

Twenty five years on, England is changing. Would we be safe if we lived together in, eg Bradford?
Does that matter?
In future, do you think it will become easier or more dangerous to move there?

Of course there is a solution. If we were still together, she could return to Islam, I could convert to Islam, and we could get married. Then we would be safe anywhere. Is that the solution?

I'm not saying it is a matter of how they see the religion - clearly there are social trends and geopolitical factors that influence the way it is practiced and clearly these will differ depending on the particular history of the region and the social / economic factors governing that society, as well to some extent on the texts themselves. However surely you must know that there are loads of people who only go Mosque a couple of times a year, that there are various people who preach a sermon in the mosque similar to what a local vicar would come out with, and that for many people it's a place to socialise primarily rather than something that is actually believed in any sort of serious sense? I converted to Judaism several years ago and I had to educate myself almost entirely because most of the Jewish side of my family didn't know the first thing about it, including people with real hate and prejudice against non Jews. Why would Muslims be any different? The idea that they all know about all the Islamic teaching to do with kuffars etc doesn't fit with my experience of Muslims at all that I have known in the real world, even the more religious ones who wear a hijab etc. Would my work colleague really have spent like half an hour ranting about what bastards ISIS are for beheading people and how it was forbidden to behead anyone under Islam if she actually believed that it was? I actually have read quite a few extremist type websites in an attempt to understand what's going on with them. I don't like Islam as a religion and the whole emphasis on women having to cover themselves up which most branches of it seem to endorse, but it is surely the case that a more extreme interpretation has come to the fore over several decades through the influence of Saudi Arabia and various events in the Middle East meaning that people have turned to an extremist ideology. As well as the internet meaning that these wankers are able to disseminate their views to angry young people. I mean when I was younger I used to get anxious about the fact that I wasn't able to follow a Jewish dress code at home and would I be punished etc because of the writing of fundamentalists I had read about online, I used to get upset that my community wasn't religious enough. As it happens fundamentalist views are now on the rise in the Jewish community. But surely this is a result of political trends towards reactionary ideas in general meaning that people are going to take them seriously in general?

 

[Joe Reilly]

I get it. Whatever you do, the Muslim "militants" will dictate to the rest of the Mulsim "community" how to behave. You just can't reason with them can you. It's almost as if you see "Muslims" as one huge lump defined by yourself. Who would have killed you if you had "gone to the Muslim world."
Get on with your life, stop being an eternal victim/conspiracy theory whatsit.
That's my advice anyway

You have identified certain key themes but sort of wrong way around. It is Muslims who increasingly self-identify as Muslims and thereafter are encouraged to see the Muslim world as 'one huge lump'. Western identity politics further greases the wheel. Increasing numbers see the world through a prism of entitlement, victim hood and yes, conspiracy as a result. Some may think they're right to do so. Fair enough. But you do everyone else a disservice when in trying to belittle someone, you present said scenario as being all in his head.

 

[bimble]

As it happens fundamentalist views are now on the rise in the Jewish community. But surely this is a result of political trends towards reactionary ideas in general meaning that people are going to take them seriously in general?

Yep. I think we're all doing a sort of millenarianism, even the atheists.

 

[frogwoman]

Also regarding honour killings, Sikhs and Hindus also carry them out (and occasionally Christians in the Middle East) but yet in theory the texts of Sikhism and Hinduism ascribe a far more equal role to women?

 

[Thomsy]

I converted to Judaism several years ago and I had to educate myself almost entirely because most of the Jewish side of my family didn't know the first thing about it, including people with real hate and prejudice against non Jews. Why would Muslims be any different?

Hi FW

The reason Islam is different is that Mohammed was famously reported to have said: "Whosever changes his religion, kill him with the sword." (Sahih el Bukhari) And Mohammed is the model man and community leader.

I noted above (prob while you were writing) that NO ONE in, for example, Egypt ever converts from Islam to any other religion. It is just impossibly dangerous to do so.

 

[frogwoman]

You have identified certain key themes but sort of wrong way around. It is Muslims who increasingly self-identify as Muslims and thereafter are encouraged to see the Muslim world as 'one huge lump'. Western identity politics further greases the wheel. Increasing numbers see the world through a prism of entitlement, victim hood and yes, conspiracy as a result. Some may think they're right to do so. Fair enough. But you do everyone else a disservice when in trying to belittle someone, you present said scenario as being all in his head.

It's called deterritorialism. Frazer Egerton has a fantastic book about this called Jihad and the West , examining the replacement Bengali, Arabic, Pakistani nationalism with this ideology which is essentially a deterritoralised movement based on religion, it's a great book and I would recommend that anyone should read it.

 

[frogwoman]

Hi FW

The reason Islam is different is that Mohammed was famously reported to have said: "Whosever changes his religion, kill him with the sword." (Sahih el Bukhari) And Mohammed is the model man and community leader.

I noted above (prob while you were writing) that NO ONE in, for example Egypt, ever converts from Islam to any other religion. It is just impossibly dangerous to do so.

But the Torah also says that anyone who criticises another Jew or leaves the religion should be killed. It talks about smashing pagan tombs etc. But there are factors in Jewish history that have meant that these verses are usually (not always) not taken literally. Jews haven't controlled a religiously based state for thousands of years, if they did I am sure that you would get some trying to implement that law.

 

[bimble]

Also regarding honour killings, Sikhs and Hindus also carry them out (and occasionally Christians in the Middle East) but yet in theory the texts of Sikhism and Hinduism ascribe a far more equal role to women?

I'm totally ignorant about Islam but .. Hinduism (texts, stories, gods, religious art) is FULL of women, which I think 'helps'. Are there any important women in the Koran?

But the ideologies of honour (for men) and shame (for/ from) women are everywhere & not a religious thing so much as one of social organisation and control.

 

[frogwoman]

It's called deterritorialism. Frazer Egerton has a fantastic book about this called Jihad and the West , examining the replacement Bengali, Arabic, Pakistani nationalism with this ideology which is essentially a deterritoralised movement based on religion, it's a great book and I would recommend that anyone should read it.

I'd also argue it is a good way to look at much of the contemporary far right such as Pediga and even 'white nationalism'

Hitler would have hated 'white pride worldwide' and 'no more white man's war's'

 

[Thomsy]

But the Torah also says that anyone who criticises another Jew or leaves the religion should be killed. It talks about smashing pagan tombs etc. But there are factors in Jewish history that have meant that these verses are usually (not always) not taken literally. Jews haven't controlled a religiously based state for thousands of years, if they did I am sure that you would get some trying to implement that law.

Why are you and Joe R. making so many good points when I am literally just going out the door!!!

I will def get the Egerton. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[J Ed]

The Communist 'movement' in Afghanistan was never large.

You are right but I think his point here is sound if you replace Communist with Socialist/Left Nationalist in a lot of the Arab world, and the process of encouraging Islamists as a counterweight to those sorts of movements was encouraged by the West and Israel throughout the 20th Century. It doesn't really go on now because the process has been more or less completed, which I suppose is why the YPG seem so non-threatening to NATO.

 

[frogwoman]

It's definitely true to an extent when you look at say Indonesia

 

[J Ed]

It's definitely true to an extent when you look at say Indonesia

Yeah, aside from the main political genocide of Communists in Indonesia it's worth remembering that the repression and genocide in Timor-Leste was also anti-Communist in its origin and motivations. Suharto got the go ahead from Australia and the US, both of whom feared a 'Cuba in the pacific'.

 

[Pickman's model]

You should have read the whole thread.

I posted at length about relations between Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb and the treaties which can, in Islamic law, suspend hostilities between them. I cited Marx on the subject. He also wrote at some length on the capitulations granted by the Porte. I suggest you read his: 'On the Eastern Question' of 1854. That will answer your question.

but what do you think?

 

[frogwoman]

I'm totally ignorant about Islam but .. Hinduism (texts, stories, gods, religious art) is FULL of women, which I think 'helps'. Are there any important women in the Koran?

But the ideologies of honour (for men) and shame (for/ from) women are everywhere & not a religious thing so much as one of social organisation and control.

Dunno, tbh I think a lot of it is to do with religion, it's certainly made easier by religion (eg pro lifers and the whole idea of dressing modestly which as you must know is a massive thing in certain orthodox sects too). Most religions are made up by men and are massively misogynistic