The prison food and burkini ban dual thread

[HVC]

Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.

The fact that these regulations in France were adopted as a direct response to two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed suggests it's rather not a mere speculation and assumption.

you harassed two of our women? Fuck yiu we're going to harass all of your women.

[Valmy]

And many Muslim women are actually speaking out against hijabs, seeing it as a symbol of oppression, like Asra Namani, for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/

So again, if you wish, you can go beyond "speculations and assumptions" - it takes 15 minutes to research on google. But it is much easier to just ignore the problem.

As I said, Muslims are the only one who can really kill the Hijab.

We provide our ideas to their communities and they have to do the rest. Just like other religions do.

[Martinus]

And many Muslim women are actually speaking out against hijabs, seeing it as a symbol of oppression, like Asra Namani, for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/

So again, if you wish, you can go beyond "speculations and assumptions" - it takes 15 minutes to research on google. But it is much easier to just ignore the problem.

As I said, Muslims are the only one who can really kill the Hijab.

No, they need our help. We need to pick the voices like the ones made by Asra Namani, and support them, empower them, give them strength. We can't just wash our hands and say this is purely for Muslims to decide and we do not interfere - because such voices lack the institutional and financial support (of our dear "allies", like Saudis, no less!) that the ultra-conservatives get.

Not to mention, the reformists within the Muslim world say exactly that - they say "we need the support of the Western (liberal) elites". Really, if you listened to one interview with these people (Bill Maher have them on very often, for example), it would be much clearer.

[Brazen]

The creepy bottom line (no pun intended) is fully dressed men are forcing women to wear fewer clothes than they want to wear.

[Malthus]

Again, Malthus is playing the trick of saying that the problem with Islam or Islamism is limited to the likes of ISIS.

Really? Where did I say anything like that?

What I actually said was more like 'we will never win ISIS over, so there is no use in trying, but there IS use in trying to win over Muslims'.

To quote:

We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.

[Valmy]

The creepy bottom line (no pun intended) is fully dressed men are forcing women to wear fewer clothes than they want to wear.

True. Doesn't play well.

[Martinus]

Again, Malthus is playing the trick of saying that the problem with Islam or Islamism is limited to the likes of ISIS.

Really? Where did I say anything like that?

What I actually said was more like 'we will never win ISIS over, so there is no use in trying, but there IS use in trying to win over Muslims'.

To quote:

We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.

But this creates the false dichotomy - ISIS vs. other Muslims living in our countries.

The dichotomy should be between Islamists (i.e. Muslims who believe in supremacy of Muslim religious law over the law of the land - and who believe in all the attrocities I listed) and Muslims who embrace Western values of separation of church and state, supremacy of the state law, freedom of religion and gender equality.

This is where the line should be drawn between those we fight and those we support and seek to ally with.

Edit: And this is exactly the mistake we have been making over and over again with AQ, Boko Haram and now the ISIS. Our enemy is not one organisation or another - if we defeat it, there will be a new one to take its place (often, more radical and violent than the last one). No, our enemy is the ideology of islamism. Until we eradicate it, we will never have peace.

[Valmy]

Really anybody who believes things like apostates should be killed are the bad guys/gals here, not just the people who take it into their own hands. But ultimately my position on this doesn't change. We enforce the law and stand by what we believe in.

[Malthus]

But this creates the false dichotomy - ISIS vs. other Muslims living in our countries.

The dichotomy should be between Islamists (i.e. Muslims who believe in supremacy of Muslim religious law over the law of the land - and who believe in all the attrocities I listed) and Muslims who embrace Western values of separation of church and state, supremacy of the state law, freedom of religion and gender equality.

This is where the line should be drawn between those we fight and those we support and seek to ally with.

No it doesn't. The dichotomy I am suggesting is between those we have no hope of influencing, and those we have a hope of influencing. The latter group includes Muslims living in our country who currently hold beliefs we both deplore.

Where we differ is that I think there is potential to change their minds, and I think that a policy of gradual incorporation and assimilation has the best hope of achieving that - all while of course making it clear that violations of the rule of law will not be tolerated, but allowing the law to accept largely symbolic accommodations with Islam (such as allowing female Mounties to wear the Hijab if they want, just as male Sikhs are allowed to wear the Turban).

You would I guess disagree, and state we must simply label them as "enemies" and fight them, and so presumably you would not be in favour of such accommodation. 

[Valmy]

I think we can even influence ISIS. After all it is not their extremism that makes us compelled to bomb them, it is their actions. If they were just sitting around talking about sex slavery and Caliphs, like say the normal garden variety Salafist, we wouldn't be doing so.

There will be important ex-ISIS members speaking out against this type of thing, presuming there are not already.

[Martinus]

Really anybody who believes things like apostates should be killed are the bad guys/gals here, not just the people who take it into their own hands. But ultimately my position on this doesn't change. We enforce the law and stand by what we believe in.

Yeah, but then you end up like those polls from the UK from few years ago, where you get 30% of young Muslims declaring they believe in death penalty for apostasy.

Responding to you (and Malthus), I don't think we should necessarily label them as enemies outright, but I think we need to state our position more decisively and not tolerate, say, preachers and clerics who argue such positions (even if they couch them in ambiguous language). And, more so, we should initiate PSA campaigns, perhaps reminding people of their rights.

In any case, my post was mainly in response to Malthus's initial claim that there is no evidence that Muslim women are being forced to wear hijabs in the West - and I think this is wrong and there is a plenty of evidence of this being done - surely, not every time, but enough to do something about it. 

[Razgovory]

The dichotomy should be between Islamists (i.e. Muslims who believe in supremacy of Muslim religious law over the law of the land - and who believe in all the attrocities I listed) and Muslims who embrace Western values of separation of church and state, supremacy of the state law, freedom of religion and gender equality.

So you want Muslims to be SJWs?

[Valmy]

So you want Muslims to be SJWs?

Ok that was good.

But yes

[Martinus]

SJWs are not for rule of law, freedom of religion and gender equality - they hate the US constitution, christianity and men.

In fact, there are many similarities between them and Islamists.

https://youtu.be/ecJUqhm2g08

[Malthus]

Yeah, but then you end up like those polls from the UK from few years ago, where you get 30% of young Muslims declaring they believe in death penalty for apostasy.

I view this poll, of US Muslims and their attitudes, to be a rather more hopeful sign. It indicates that American Muslim attitudes to an issue that can be likened to a canary in the coal mine - namely, acceptance of homosexuality - are (a) about the same as that of Protestant Christians; and (b) getting more tolerant over time.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/

The important findings for our purposes: Muslims in America are not notably different in attitudes towards homosexuality from other mainstream religious groups.

One of the questions was whether homosexuality should be accepted by society. The answer for Muslims was: 38% said "yes" in 2007; while 45% said "yes" in 2012. The answer for Protestants as a whole: 38% said "yes" in 2007; 48% said "yes" in 2012.

[The groups that polled the worst were Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians. Witnesses polled only 12% "yes" in 2007, and 16% "yes" in 2012].

This poll demonstrates some useful points, based on some facts rather than rhetoric:

(1) In America itself, Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality are reasonably mainstream, on average. They are no worse than American Protestants (again, on average).

(2) Muslim attitudes, like that of anyone else, can change: they have, fairly significantly, in the short time between 2007 and 2014.

(3) These attitudes are found in a population that is itself majority immigrant. It is interesting to note that the majority (61%) of American Muslims are themselves immigrants.

(4) Therefore, there is nothing essential in being Muslim, or being a Muslim immigrant, that requires or imposes homophobic attitudes. It is perfectly possible to be both Muslim, an immigrant, and not homophobic - at least, the American polling data appears to demonstrate that Muslims in America, including Muslim immigrants, tend to either already have, or to assimilate, much the same attitudes as their fellow-countrypersons.

[As an aside, the most liberal attitudes on this issue are on average displayed by Jews, Atheists/Agnostics, and Buddhists, in order of increasing liberalism; the group with the greatest level of increased liberalism is Hindus].

Responding to you (and Malthus), I don't think we should necessarily label them as enemies outright, but I think we need to state our position more decisively and not tolerate, say, preachers and clerics who argue such positions (even if they couch them in ambiguous language). And, more so, we should initiate PSA campaigns, perhaps reminding people of their rights.

In any case, my post was mainly in response to Malthus's initial claim that there is no evidence that Muslim women are being forced to wear hijabs in the West - and I think this is wrong and there is a plenty of evidence of this being done - surely, not every time, but enough to do something about it.

Again, that's not a claim I actually made. What I said was that there was no data so far to indicate that Muslim women were motivated to wear garb like the hijab or burkini because of fear of violence, not that "there is no evidence that Muslim women are being forced to wear hijabs in the West". I have no doubt that there are some incidents of force being used. What I doubt is whether there is data to show how widespread such force is, and whether it is a significant motivator for wearing the things (as opposed to women wanting to wear them from religious motives, because of cultural notions of modesty, or out of religious/tribal pride). 

None of us here are from the Muslim community, some data (such as the poll I point to) makes more sense than simply jumping to conclusions such as "a couple of Muslim guys threatened women based on their outfits. therefore Muslim women wear the outfits because they are threatened".

Maybe, maybe not. Let's see something like data.