Greed and power to blame, not Islam
Report shows women's plight
RIYADH - In Riyadh, the college day begins for female students behind a locked door that will remain that way until male guardians collect them. Later, in a female-run business, everyone must vacate the premises so a delivery man can drop off a package. In Jeddah, a 40-year-old divorced woman cannot board a plane without the written permission of her 23-year-old son. This is the daily reality for women in the Saudi kingdom, the one country where they legally belong to men. The New York-based group Human Rights Watch has finally been granted access to Saudi Arabia, where it reported on women forced to live as children, denied basic rights and confined to dependency on men. Wajeha al-Huwaider, a critic of Saudi's guardian laws that force women to seek male permission for almost all aspects of their lives, part of a growing number demanding change. "Sometimes I feel like I can't do anything; I am utterly reliant on other people, completely dependent. If you are dependent on another person, you've got nothing. That is how the men like it. They don't want us to be equals." The House of Saud, in alliance with an extremist religious establishment, has created a legal system that treats women as minors unable to exercise authority over even trivial matters. The most egregious consequences of this repressive regime occasionally filter out from the Gulf Kingdom: the notorious case of the girl who was jailed after being gang raped, the schoolgirls believed to have burnt to death in Mecca as religious police would not let them leave the fiery premises without headscarves. Beyond these cases is a demoralising reality in which women cannot open bank accounts, take children to the dentist or on a field trip without the written permission of the father. Petty humiliations are endemic. Two women said judges had refused them the right to speak in court as their voices were "shameful" - only their guardians were allowed to speak on their behalf.
If you look at the teachings of the Koran, it’s a lot more liberal and peaceful than the radical mutations it has spawned, very much like Christianity. In my mind, the issue here is not Islam so much as it is the greed and power of the House of Saud who have used this 18th century puritanical wahhabi sect to manipulate and hold absolute power over their ‘kingdom’. It is the House of Sauds’ use of this sect that is to blame, the House of Sauds’ global support of this type of mutated form of Islam that needs to be addressed and it is the House of Saud who have the most to lose from dismantling this farce. Blaming Islam is a mistake, the real criminals are the same elite who have always used violent versions of religion to push their own agendas, stop feeding the mutation and it will eventually wither and die as many violent mutations of religion have done historically.
posted by Bomber @ 7:06 am
140 comments
140 Comments:
In every middle east country, with the exception of Israel, women are seen as being lessor of men. The one commonality they share, again with the exception of Israel, is that they are all muslim.
Obviously this logic has eluded bomber.
...
Hold on, wasn't that also the case for much of Europe in the middle ages? Couldn't you use the same logic to suggest that Christianity was the common thread there and thus Christianity is sexist? It wasn't until the development of the individual with democratic rights till those vestigaes of Christianity were whittled away and that process and the necessary cultural friction they produced to create those conditions took a long time, we have a 600 year start on these issues in the Western tradition don't we?
Yeah basically you just agreed with anon bomber. Separation of church and state is where it's at, ideally the church (whichever one) would have only faith and no power, and the government power without faith.
In the west we developed reason to the point where we don't need religion anymore, in a way what your saying is that the east is 600 years behind us on the evolutionary ladder.
If I was Satan I'd disguise myself as religion.
Couldn't you use the same logic to suggest that Christianity was the common thread there and thus Christianity is sexist?
It was and it is, so what's your point? It's a matter of degree - Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, except for, oh, God, Jesus, the Apostles, the Pope, Priests, Baptists who won't let their women wear pants and any one of another hundred fucking examples...
But at least the women don't have to wear bags over their heads. Now after you've lectured me on how it's the women who really want to wear the bags over their heads (like how they used to love to stay in the kitchen and not go out to work or worry their pretty little heads about the finances), backpedal quickly and explain to me how that when you said that we have a 600 year start on those issues you didn't intentionally mean to say that Islam was a primitive religion that's at least 600 years behind the times. Which it is of course.
Think about the bright side of islam.
- men can have up to 4 wives.
- they can divorce their wive by text message.
- The man automatically gets custody of the children.
- Women have no right to matrimonial property.
It's all good notwithstanding the credit card bills of having 4 wives but just wave the cellphone them and threaten them with divoirce if they get upperty.
Islam gets my vote!!
Damn, I just wrote a long comment in response to the retarded comments here but thanks to an error, I lost it all. Instead, i'm going to remind you guys to stop with the colonial mentality. You're all trying to understand and criticise Islam based on your own normative understandings. Europe's experience with religion (christianity) should not be something you apply to other societiies. That's what colonialsim was known for. The implication being made here is that the West is 'modern' and 'progressive' and 'civilised' because of the way religion was treated. It's ridiculous to say that's how modernity, progress and civilisaiton should be measured. In the Muslim world for instance, religion for one is not conceptualised in the same way as Europeans and the broader 'West' understands it. Nor is the 'West' the pinnacle of 'civilisation'. That's completely laughable and is being implied here. I'm in agreement with critics of Europe like Fanon, Said, Satre, Cesaire all who have argued that the West's 'privileged' position is the result of the blood and sweat of the 'third world' which it routinely destroyed and MADE 'inferior'. Anyway, can't be fucked repeating what I had written earlier. But i'm disturbed by the colonial mentality of some you guys.
And for the last anonymous comment. What the fuck would you know what Islam says about those issues? I love how you bring up complicated issues which require complex expalanations and state them as fact. You really have mastered the orientalist take on Islam haven't you. If you want to debate me on Islam, i'd be happy to so I can expose you for the uneducated racist moron that you are. : )
-Anti-Flag.
So colonialism caused the Wahabbist sect and colonialism causes the Saudis to deny wimin basic human rights? Anti-Flag/Sahar, YOU are the apologist moron, because if anything the West has looked the other way at the medieval wierdness of the Saudis because of their oil resources. If you had a brain you would realise that colonialism attempts to mould the colonial subject in the empire's image, and in fact was a modernising influence in most cases that forcibly suppressed pre-colonial social practices etc. in order to impose "civilised" norms on the unwashed masses. This was not good because it was oppressive, but that is exactly why the subjugation of Saudi wimin, and to a lesser extent Muslim wimin on the Arabian penninsula in general, is not a product of colonialism--it is the relic of pre-modern times that is allowed to exist precisely so that the patriarchical oligarchies of the region continue to bend over and offer their oil supplies readily to the West.
You need to stop regurgitating that Kathy Smits po-mo arse-spew and read something a little more heavy than Fanon, Said et. al. if you are going to advance your argument past Craccum-level bullshit. Oh--and barking at and lying about those you disagree with does not make you tough, just pathetic. Now go back to masturbating yourself on the shitty blog of yours.
Well said anti-sahar
Love how these cowards can't even provide a name but stick to anonymous status.
“This was not good because it was oppressive, but that is exactly why the subjugation of Saudi wimin, and to a lesser extent Muslim wimin on the Arabian penninsula in general, is not a product of colonialism--it is the relic of pre-modern times that is allowed to exist precisely so that the patriarchical oligarchies of the region continue to bend over and offer their oil supplies readily to the West”—
Aside from one minor detail you missed out, the Wahaabi movement is in fact new to the region with its puritanical understandings of Islam. BUT, it does reinforce orientalist images of the Muslim Other and conveniently justifies its inferiority. If you actually read Fanon and co you’d realise they too have made this point. Other than that, you’re not saying anything new here. I’ve made the above point on countless occasions in my criticism of West-Saudi relations. All that ‘heavy’ reading you must do hasn’t really produced anything of significance.
“You need to stop regurgitating that Kathy Smits po-mo arse-spew and read something a little more heavy than Fanon, Said et. Al”.
Oh, please do recommend to me more ‘heavier’ reading as oppose to my ‘light’ postcolonial reading. I’m always open to alternative reading—especially if it’s in defence of Israel’s state terrorism.
“If you are going to advance your argument past Craccum-level bullshit. Oh--and barking at and lying about those you disagree with does not make you tough, just pathetic. Now go back to masturbating yourself on the shitty blog of yours”.
Is it shitty because I unlike you don’t shy away from pointing out the fuck-ups of Israel? Because if I am right about who you are, your criticism of anything I have to say is directly related to my position on Israel. How’s your blog anyway? Is it still as dead as when you were posting?
-Anti-Flag.
They must cook some really good eggs though...
ANTI-SAHAR YOU WROTE: “So colonialism caused the Wahabbist sect and colonialism causes the Saudis to deny wimin basic human rights?”
1.Whabbism is not a sect, it’s a hanbil movement within Sunni Islam following the teachings of Muhammad Abdul Wahab who in coalition with Ibn Saud and the British created the Saudi nation state, to offset the Hashimites claim for a pan Arab state. So yes Colonialism created both “Saudi” and gave the power behind “whabbi”. Its safe to say without the british there would be no saudi state.
2. In regards to the denying of “wimin” Basic human rights? I think you are a touch emotional here, basic human rights means shelter, food, and the right to live. I don’t think women in Saudi are starving, homeless and dead. So relax. Regardless, any oppressive system has to be seen in its totality, that is, the entire space that is the state has to be studied in its relation to a global order. The Saudi nation-state was developed according to European economic and political determinations, and subsequent factors have defended her to remain as such – this makes it a DIRECT product of colonialism. It’s not even debatable. The state is not tied together by a singular nationality, one language, or one religion – for her neighbours share all this, if it was so, the whole region might be one state. That maintaince of the state is defended by US military arms and the US “blind eye” (as you mentioned)is further testimony. Political prisoners are imprisoned, executed, alternate views of Islam are oppressed and ignored – not only are women oppressed, but so are minorities, and other Muslims who disagree with the Saudi regime. So yes its creation, its maintence, its sins and crimes are all a product of colonialism. And it is there to defend your lifestyle, highlighting the oppression of women will not exonerate your sins nor distance you from the reality that you are the benefactor of Saudi’s women’s. Enjoy your slurpee.
ANTI-SAHAR YOU WROTE: “If you had a brain you would realise that colonialism attempts to mould the colonial subject in the empire's image, and in fact was a modernising influence in most cases that forcibly suppressed pre-colonial social practices etc. in order to impose "civilised" norms on the unwashed masses. This was not good because it was oppressive, but that is exactly why the subjugation of Saudi wimin, and to a lesser extent Muslim wimin on the Arabian penninsula in general, is not a product of colonialism--it is the relic of pre-modern times that is allowed to exist precisely so that the patriarchical oligarchies of the region continue to bend over and offer their oil supplies readily to the West.”
1. This seriously is lacking in basic structure, it doesn’t make any sense: How did you link (1) “this was not good because it was oppressive” to
(2) “that is exactly why the subjugation... is a relic of pre modern times” I don’t get the connection. Perhaps its because neo-Colonialism is not conscious of itself, in the same way you are not conscious of what you are saying, its easy to blurt out sentiment... easy to say things you have heard.
2.What do you mean by unwashed masses? This sounds like a relic of ultra-modern fascist speak?
3.Create the subject in the colonial Empires image?” All except for what matters hey - the colonized’s freedom. How do you create that? How do you imprison people in order to liberate them,how do you destroy their order in an attempt to give them order, it’s a bit like raping a girl to give her virginity, isn’t it? That is the most perverted logic I have heard, and that you speak with such self righteousness regarding your dismissal of the "unwashed" millions of killed in Africans, South American, Middle East and Asia all at the hands of European colonialism is disgusting.
4. Civilize yourself.
Love how these cowards can't even provide a name but stick to anonymous status.
Ooh, touchy touchy AF. Not getting under your skin now are we? Be sure to outlaw it when you're made marja... oh but wait, that's pretty unlikely for a woman isn't it? Now why would that be?
Aside from one minor detail you missed out, the Wahaabi movement is in fact new to the region with its puritanical understandings of Islam.
Why those dirty progressive modernists! So we should stick with the ancient interpretations of Islam instead eh? Lol, 600 years isn't backward enough...
Look at the Wahabis of today. Majority of them shave off their hair and lift their pants high above their ankles. How true are the prophecies of Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallalahu alaihi wasallam) of over 1,400 years ago. They fit on the behavior of the present day Wahabis perfectly.
Sahar's pretty hot, I'd even let her be my 2nd wife if she's lucky.
She just has to watch the feminist lip of hers because its un-islamic.
Just to clarify sahar:
Is it more insulting to be accused or fascist speak or ultra modern fascist speak.
I'm not sure that I know the difference.
And can you quit this bullshit cultural relativism. It doesn't exactly show arabs in the best light does it when you consider their modern accomplishments.
PS wasn't Edward Said a christian?
Nikolas what makes u think that the Ottomans are not part of the colonial project - the very dynamics created by this idea of a pure nation is European, that leads to genocide, wether the idea is executed by Turks or not. Its a European virus caught by the East.
Pro Sahar!
what kind of forum glorfies "wafa whoever" who made her fame on paltalk by appeasing a bunch of drooling groupie zionists, while denoucing fanon as light reading?
seriously....?
A forum full of sugar plump westerners looking for an easy excuse to justify their affluence...with ready made feel good excuses like the arab world is backward, while we earnt our wealth through "reason" and "good lifestyle"
Pro Sahar!
LOL@ using Wafa Sultan as a reference. Who are you going to use next? Hirsi Ali?
I've seen that interview you pasted from. You should check out that same interview on Al Jazeera and how the other guy debating her destroyed every single argument she makes. It was quite amusing actually. She should definitely stick to psychology.
"What, are you feigning stupidity? You seriously don't understand what anti-sahar said? Cough *wilful blindness* cough"
I definitely had trouble understanding 'anti-sahar' because he can't express himself well. Perhaps he thought if he writes in such a way where his argument is ambiguous or contradictory it might come off as a decent refutation. I think not. I recommend he uses proper england.
And hey guys, if you think throwing in the odd arabic word to come off as somehow 'informed' you're not fooling anyone. : )
-Anti-Flag.
I don't know of anyone who claims colonailism is a consciouss decision made by a bunch of white people around a table - wether you denouce it otherwise is irrelevant, wether you value it or ignore it is irrelevant. In the same way that whatever you think about a tornado will not stop it from uprooting your home...
...if you are seriously arguing that the spaces created for the first world are not creatd through the explotation of the third world, past and present, then you are caught inthe matrix of your own false worship...
the point made to anti-sahar was not that he is or is not anti-colonisation, for that is beside the point, the point is in attacking saudi arab he misses the big picture and actually deludes himself in believing he is defending the rights of women... again, the oppression of Arab woman comes because Arab states are defended by your goverments.
attacking Islam as the root cause is ignorance, and only defers the idea that Arabs, Muslims, suffer so you can enjoy your lifestyle...
Pro Sahar
...
Whoa - have we all had enough beating each other up? My original point was that the blame is NOT with Islam, that the very colonisation that everyone is talking about - ie the West propping up dictatorships who use a mutated form of Islam to keep absolute power is to blame - and that within the Western tradition that fight between the creation of a democractic state and the religious state has in fact been interupted in the Islamic world by our self imposed dictatorships. You all seem to be just picking things to have a punch up over, although I do love that the very second the real heavy intellectual guns are all rolled out those just posting shit about Islam shut up pretty quick.
...
DOH! Except the clown above me - mate you are aware the Muslim world had a working theory of gravity about 500 years before Newton and in fact Newton used a lot of Muslim scholars or that the entire modern concept of Universities are taken from the Muslim world? In fact a huge amount of science and technology were taken from the Muslim world - you do know that right and that the only reason that progress has regressed to burka-rama is because of the dictatorships we prop up there?
Can't you fucking read bomber, I said MODERN middle east.
Islam use to be a great force but it has ossified to the point where it has become intolerant of everything.
I really don't think you can back up your assertion that the arab dictatorship are responsible for the current stated of intellectual decline because those military dictatorship were a means of modernity. They modeled themselves on the achievements of ataturk who built the modern turkish state along western secular line.
You're sounding like George Bush with you assertion that democracy will somehow magically appear in a region that has no democratic culture whatsoever. Explain to me how the fuck are a people with a tribal based culture which cannot even treat women as equals are suppose to suddenly obey democratic ideals of equality and respect for the individual.
Your opinions are glib and superficial but lack and understanding of the culture of the region. And as I suggested in the OP since the only country in the middle east which is democratic is Israel who are not muslim what does this does suggest that the problem is Islam.
Oh come on Bomber. There is no "heavy intellectual" anything going on here. What you have is an interesting first post followed by the usual and now tired defensive reactions from Sahar and a few other weak-minded people who believe that Islam is never at fault and all evil is the product of Western colonialism. Now you have fallen into that vacuous cesspit by stating that the 'regression to burka-rama" and all other problems in the Muslim world is because the West "props up" dictatorships there. It would be funny if you were joking but as written you are basically claiming that if there was no Western influence in the Islamic world, they would be socially enlightened, scientifically advanced and politically progressive. An intellectual gnat like Sahar can spout such gibberish without blushing but for you to do so makes you look stupid.
Gee, you're struggling aren't you AF, so perhaps we should revisit AS's statement.
Anti-Flag/Sahar, YOU are the apologist moron
Any confusion so far?
because if anything the West has looked the other way at the medieval wierdness of the Saudis because of their oil resources.
Seems pretty clear cut.
If you had a brain you would realise
It's called sarcasm AF: AS is drawing attention to your lack of mental agility, rather prophetically as it turns out
that colonialism attempts to mould the colonial subject in the empire's image
Too complex for you AF? It's honestly quite clear, perhaps you should do some English revision yourself. The colonial subject is the country being colonised; AS is discussing the colonisers' aims to turn the colony into a place very similar to their homeland. Pretending confusion over such a simple statement is disingenuous (look it up).
and in fact was a modernising influence in most cases that forcibly suppressed pre-colonial social practices etc. in order to impose "civilised" norms on the unwashed masses.
Yes, it's a long sentence isn't it, but try to keep up. AS is saying, and it follows as a logical consequence from his previous statement about what colonists were trying to achieve, that as colonisation involved a general attempt to remake the country in the image of the colonists homeland, that (and an unsaid assumption has to be inferred here that the coloniser was more advanced in some areas than the colony) the colony was forcibly modernised in the areas in which the coloniser was more advanced. If you don't accept that the coloniser was more advanced then feel free to dispute the point AF, but don't pretend to misunderstand it. The term "unwashed masses" may not be to your liking, but it's used in the context of the sort of language the colonisers would have used at the time. DO try and keep up.
The bit you are deliberately trying very hard to misunderstand is that the colonisers, being more advanced on the subjects of women's rights and so forth, would have attempted to bring those to the colony rather than the reverse.
This was not good because it was oppressive
Pretty clear statement that one AF
but that is exactly why the subjugation of Saudi wimin, and to a lesser extent Muslim wimin on the Arabian penninsula in general, is not a product of colonialism
He's saying that the subjugation wasn't brought with the coloniser AF, in case you still don't understand.
it is the relic of pre-modern times
It means that there was subjugation there already AF, TRY to keep up
that is allowed to exist precisely so that the patriarchical oligarchies of the region continue to bend over and offer their oil supplies readily to the West.
He's saying that barbaric practices were tolerated despite the colonisation, AF, because what was really wanted was an area of stability so that the West could get their oil.
However I'm clearly wasting my time explaining all this because it was already concise, clear and to the point, and if you didn't understand it the first time then you're certainly not going to understand it now. But if you thought though that you could avoid dealing with the argument by pretending to be stupid then you really are an idiot.
My original point was that the blame is NOT with Islam
And we are arguing the opposite. Islam clearly has a stranglehold on society in numerous countries.
Once again Bomber's ignorance is on display.
He precisely reverses the cause and effect of the Muslim intellectual decline with western intervention. This conveniently ignores the fact that said decline started well before 1800 which marks the beginning of modern western intervention in the Arab world. It also ignores the fact that for the previous 1000 odd years it was the Muslims doing the intervening in the west.
He then confuses an "awareness of gravity" with Newton's unique *mathematical* description of the universal law of gravitation. This ignores the fact that people have been aware of gravity, a spherical globe, and a heliocentric universe since the ancient Greeks and that Newton is demonstrably not famous for merely noting that stuff falls downwards.
Then he engages in sophistry by making an arbitrary distinction between Islam (specifically his own interpretation thereof) and Islam as it is commonly practiced. Unfortunately for his this leads to the question of whether his interpretation is actually correct? Whether Islam will necessarily follow a Christian like reformation towards his interpretation? And whether it makes a blind bit of difference so long as substantial numbers of people follow an "incorrect" form of Islam?
It also ignores the fundamental problem of the separation of church and state. A problem that is neatly solved in Christianity by "render unto Caesar" and from the early years of the church when it was demonstrably not a state religion. But which is specifically not mentioned in Islam because the opposite is actively encouraged ie. the chruch is the state. "Dar-al-Islam" vs "Dar-al-Harb"
Ouch! I think I hear the sound of a serious intellectual arse-kicking going on here...
That is true on the level of individuals being described as belonging to one of the two houses. However, the logical conclusion, and the one taught by many Imams, is that there can not be peace until the entire world is under "Dar-al-Islam" and "Dar-al-Harb" has been eliminated. Thus if they had their way it would be impossible for you to form a non-Muslim state ie. a collection of individuals freely living under non-Muslim law. And in my book "any government you like so long as it's Muslim" is not separation of church and state.
Actually, check this out. This mufti contradicts what bomber has been claiming.
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15522
I'm not too sure about the validity of his views since south africa isn't a centre of islamic scholarship like najef would be but he certainly has more credibility than some infidel kaffir blogger living an immoral un-islamic in kingsland would have.
my2C
I do love that the very second the real heavy intellectual guns are all rolled out those just posting shit about Islam shut up pretty quick.
Lol@the irony
While Sahar defends the indefensible......
Saudi women face severe discrimination in many aspects of their lives, including education, employment, and the justice system and are clearly regarded as inferior to men. Although they make up 70% of those enrolled in universities, women make up just 5% of the workforce in Saudi Arabia,[5] the lowest proportion in the world. The treatment of women has been referred to as "gender apartheid."[6][7][8]
Implementation of a government resolution supporting expanded employment opportunities for women met resistance from within the labor ministry,[9] from the religious police,[10] and from the male citizenry.[11] These institutions and individuals generally claim that according to Sharia a woman's place is in the home caring for her husband and family. It is a country where culture and religion make women live mostly restricted segregated lives. There is also segregation inside their own homes as some rooms have separate entrances for men and women. [12]
In the legal system, women face discrimination as the criminal laws of Saudi Arabia adhere to strict Islamic precepts. An example of this is the requirements for testifying in criminal proceedings; The witness must be deemed sane, the age of an adult, and a Muslim. Non-Muslims may not testify in criminal court. Women may not testify unless it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men. The testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. The reasons women are forbidden to testify in proceedings are (quote):[13][14]
Women are much more emotional than men and will, as a result of their emotions, distort their testimony.
Women do not participate in public life, so they will not be capable of understanding what they observe.
Women are dominated completely by men, who by the grace of God are deemed superior; therefore, women will give testimony according to what the last man told them.
Women are forgetful, and their testimony cannot be considered reliable.
As a result of these laws women are particularly vulnerable in cases of assault and/or rape, as their testimony is treated as a presumption, while that of their attackers is accepted as fact. In some cases, victims of sexual assault are punished on the grounds that they should not be alone with unrelated males. It happened recently when a woman, victim of a gang rape, was sentenced by a Saudi court to six months in prison and 200 lashes for violating laws on segregation of the sexes, as she was in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack.[15] This case attracted the attention of the UN which expressed its concerns regarding the social attitudes and the system of male guardianship which deter women from reporting crimes and lead to a patriarchal system. Women are therefore prevented from escaping abusive environments because of their lack of autonomy and economic independence, practices surrounding divorce and child custody, the absence of a law criminalizing violence against women, and inconsistencies in the application of laws and procedures.[16] Women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles on public roads in large cities. However, some do so on rural roads illegally.[citation needed] Women are allowed to fly aircraft, though they must be chauffeured to the airport.[17]
Women’s rights are at the heart of calls for reform in Saudi Arabia - calls that are finally challenging the kingdom’s political status quo[18] and the pressure from Western governments and from institutions such as the UN helps speed up the process. Local and international women’s groups are also pushing governments to respond, taking advantage of the fact that some rulers are eager to project a more progressive image to the West. The presence of powerful businesswomen—still a rare breed—in some of these groups helps get them heard.[19] Prior to 2008, women were not allowed to enter hotels and furnished apartments without a chaperon or “mahram.” With a 2008 Royal Decree, however, the only requirement needed to allow women to enter hotels are their national ID cards, and the hotel must inform the nearest police station of their room reservation and length of stay.[20]Encouraged by the recent advances in women's rights, advocates for the right of women to drive in Saudi Arabia - the only country in the world that prohibits female drivers – have collected more than 3,000 signatures hoping that the driving ban will also be lifted this year (2008) by King Abdullah. But the chances for this to happen are still small in Saudi Arabia’s deeply religious and patriarchal society, where many believe that allowing women the right to drive could lead to Western-style openness and an erosion of traditional values.[21]
According to the CIA world factbook, 70.8% of females are literate, in comparison to 84.7% literacy rates in males.[22][original research?]
Deconstruction (noun); cf (verb) deconstruct: to demolish; reduce to rubble; raze; break down; undo; pulverise.
As in: "Anti-Flag's insipid argument was deconstructed by Anti-Sahar and several anonymous posters to the point that the silly little cunt had to shut up and crawl back to her shitty little Afghan hole."
Now THAT is postmodernism with bite!
No need to call sahar a cunt.
She may be an apologist for a primitive, violent and repressive death-cult and while she heaps vitriolic abuse at our freedom and way of life at the same time taking advantage of them, totally ignoring the fact that her islamic brothers the taliban would flog her for learning how to add and subtract, this doesn't mean you can call her a cunt.
Oh of course yes, that's it! She hates your freedoms and way of life. I heard President Bush say that too, oh isn't he a smart man!
Lay off the Fox News crack, anonymous contributors, maybe also stop fellating each other. Seems like you are in competition to see who can have the most distorted sense of history and perverted sense of morality.
The funniest thing is your immense bravery in posting personal attacks without providing even a nickname, let alone a real name.
...
Wow, lotta hate for the Muslims in the house today - sorry I've been a bit busy to respond but I will in depth the second I'm a bit more free as a lot of the tripe that has passed for debate here can't go unchallenged, that someone seriously is claiming that dictatorships created in the Muslim world is modernity in its true form is a farce - the individual wasn't created with the simple render to ceaser - we had absolute monarchs until democratic theory and the concept of the individual was able to break the absolute monarchs - processes that haven't been allowed to occur within the Muslim religion because of the intervention of the West - but I will repond in a lot more detail the moment I have time - prolly by the weekend - I have to produce our ANZAC Day programming for the next couple of days.
Democracy is incomptible with Islam. It came from from imam's mouth as I posted. Obviously with your years of islamic scholarship you can refute the point.
...
Jesus H Christ - do you know how Islam works clown?
Yes.
And you are refuting my point with what evidence - none.
Which in turn reflects your credibility on the issue which is - none.
That must be why you haven't addressed any of the arguments here, because you don't have any except your incessent whining.
Wow, didn’t realise a response due to being busy (because people do have a lives and can’t always be making anonymous hate comments on blogs) constitutes as backing down from this oh so ‘intellectual refutation’ coming from the numerous anonymous cowards. Some of what you lot have resorted to (calling me a cunt etc—so unbecoming) is very telling.
Oh anonymous 4286387- the light at the end of the tunnel of my lack of comprehension! I really do appreciate you taking your time to breaking it all down for me.
While I actually agreed with ‘anti-Sahar’s’ point that colonialism benefits from repressive regimes in the region, why the Saudi Family for instance continues to rule and have close ties with the West as a result. ‘cause we all know (and see it today in the Middle East) that democracy isn’t exactly going to benefit Western powers because it gives more power to the general population. Instead, brutal dictatorships are the way to go to control the masses and keep the oil flowing. That’s not a novel thing to say! But what’s more interesting is the coloniser while supporting repressive regimes --we are told-- genuinely wanted to promote women’s rights. I don’t exactly know what you mean by ‘advanced’ (technologically? Sure. Morally? Not quite.) Now, my own research is feminist and postcolonial based—so I write from this perspective-- what colonialism actually did was use Muslim women as a tool to wage an ideological battle with this ‘menace’: Islam. Thus, the issue of women’s rights in the Muslim world became suddenly imperative for the colonial mission. While the colonisers advocated women’s rights in the Muslim world, these rights weren’t something their women were benefiting from. I suggest you do some feminist and postcolonial reading of this and see just how ‘advanced’ these colonisers were. So the suggestion that the colonisers were superior on all grounds and only allowed the ‘evils of Islam’ to continue and exploited them, dispels this assumption when you look at it from this perspective. Nor does Saudi Arabia with its treatment of women reflect Islam or the entire Muslim experience in the region.
“If you tried this in a muslim country you'd have a fatwa on you head and wahabis at the doorstep trying to behead faster than you can say 'salman rushdie'”.
Way to homogenize the Muslim experience Stian, you must be so proud.
I'll respond to the rest in due time..
-Anti-Flag.
lack of response*
-Anti-Flag.
processes that haven't been allowed to occur within the Muslim religion because of the intervention of the West
I see... so the West runs the Islamic states using puppet strings does it? They're not responsible for their own religion, much less their own laws? Oh right, we WANT them to mistreat their women. They don't want that but we MAKE them.
As if. The US still can't control Iraq five years after it invaded it. It can't even stop Afghanistan switching its production over to opium!
I'm majoring in Imperialist Studies with a minor in Practical Misogyny (awesome workshop sessions).
My research in the area has convinced me that it's colonialism fault that these countries are hell holes because of its failure to impose civilised values. If they followed the examples that we, the west have set then they'd be thriving democracies. Instead their peoples are reduced to worshiping allah in caves with their goats.
The Two Faces of Al Qaeda
by Raymond Ibrahim
Chronicle for Higher Education
When the September 11 attacks occurred, I was in Fresno, Calif., researching my M.A. thesis on the Battle of Yarmuk, one of the first yet little-known battles between Christendom and Islam, waged in 636 A.D. That battle, in which the Arab invaders were outmatched and yet still triumphed, would have immense historical repercussions. A mere four years later, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and all the land between, would become Islamic. A century later, all the land between southern France and India would be added to the House of Islam.
The next time I came across any reference to this pivotal battle was four years later, as I was translating the words of Osama bin Laden. Surprisingly, an event that seemed so distant, almost irrelevant, to the West was to bin Laden a source not only of pride but of instruction. For him it was not mere history but an inspiring example of outnumbered and under-equipped mujahedin who, through faith-inspired courage, managed to defeat the Western empire of Byzantium. When the Arab and Afghan mujahedin, including bin Laden's nascent Al Qaeda — outnumbered and under-equipped — defeated the Soviet invaders, history was repeating itself.
Yet why would this band, so reminiscent of their seventh-century forebears, attack the United States, its onetime ally against the Soviets, and in such a horrific manner? What was its motivation?
Finding answers seemed easy enough. From the start, the Internet — unregulated, uncensored, unfettered — has been Al Qaeda's primary mouthpiece. Then, as now, whenever Al Qaeda has wanted to communicate with the West, it has posted videotaped messages, some complete with English subtitles.
After the events of 9/11, my increased interest in Arabic language and history led me to enroll in Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. Before and during my studies at Georgetown, I avidly read any and all posted Al Qaeda messages. The group's motivation seemed clear enough: retaliation. According to its widely disseminated statements, the West in general and the United States in particular had been — overtly and covertly — oppressing and exploiting the Islamic world. The accusations included: unqualified U.S. support for Israel at the expense of Palestinians; deaths of Iraqi children due to U.N. sanctions; U.S. support for dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world; and, most recently, Western occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Every single message directed to the West by Al Qaeda includes most of these core grievances, culminating with the statement that it is the Islamic world's duty to defend itself. "After all this, does the prey not have the right, when bound and dragged to its slaughter, to escape? Does it not have the right, while being slaughtered, to lash out with its paw?" bin Laden asks.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Even the 9/11 strikes are explained as acts of reprisal. After describing the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where several high-rise apartment buildings were leveled, reportedly leaving some 18,000 Arabs dead, bin Laden, in a 2004 message directed at Americans, said: "As I looked upon those crumpling towers in Lebanon, I was struck by the idea of punishing the oppressor in kind by destroying towers in America — giving them a taste of their own medicine and deterring them from murdering our women and children."
Soon after relocating to Washington in order to attend Georgetown, I landed an internship, which later evolved into a full-time position, at the Near East Section of the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress, where thousands of new books, serials, and microfilms arrive yearly from the Arab world.
Numerous Arabic books dealing with Al Qaeda passed through my hands in this privileged position. A good number contained not only excerpts or quotes by Al Qaeda but entire treatises written by its members. Surprisingly, I came to discover that most of these had never been translated into English. Most significantly, however, the documents struck me as markedly different from the messages directed to the West, in both tone and (especially) content.
It soon became clear why these particular documents had not been directed to the West. They were theological treatises, revolving around what Islam commands Muslims to do vis-à-vis non-Muslims. The documents rarely made mention of all those things — Zionism, Bush's "Crusade," malnourished Iraqi children — that formed the core of Al Qaeda's messages to the West. Instead, they were filled with countless Koranic verses, hadiths (traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), and the consensus and verdicts of Islam's most authoritative voices. The temporal and emotive language directed at the West was exchanged for the eternal language of Islam when directed at Muslims. Or, put another way, the language of "reciprocity" was exchanged for that of intolerant religious fanaticism. There was, in fact, scant mention of the words "West," "U.S.," or "Israel." All of those were encompassed by that one Arabic-Islamic word, "kufr" — "infidelity" — the regrettable state of being non-Muslim that must always be fought through "tongue and teeth."
Consider the following excerpt — one of many — which renders Al Qaeda's reciprocal-treatment argument moot. Soon after 9/11, an influential group of Saudis wrote an open letter to the United States saying, "The heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity." Bin Laden wrote in response:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.
Bin Laden goes so far as to say that the West's purported hostility toward Islam is wholly predicated on Islam's innate hostility toward the rest of the world, contradicting his own propaganda: "The West is hostile to us on account of ... offensive jihad."
In an article titled "I was a fanatic ... I know their thinking" published by the Daily Mail soon after the London and Glasgow terrorist plots, Hassan Butt, a former jihadist, helps explain the Islamist dichotomy between the propaganda of reciprocity and the theology of eternal hostility toward the infidel: "When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network ... I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and 7/7 was Western foreign policy."
One is reminded of the captured video showing bin Laden laughing and gesticulating soon after the 9/11 strikes, boasting that many of the hijackers weren't even aware that they were on a suicide mission. Butt continues:
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. ... As with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today program, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
Whatever position one takes as to why Al Qaeda has declared war on America, one thing is clear: We must begin to come to terms with all of Al Qaeda's rhetoric, not just what is aimed specifically at Western readers. We must particularly come to better appreciate the theological aspects that underpin radical Islam. As Butt puts it:
The main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever — and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.
When news of The Al Qaeda Reader leaked to the press in 2005, some on the left questioned whether the book would be a pseudo-scholarly attempt to demonize Muslims. Others on the right worried that unfiltered exposure to the radical beliefs and propaganda of bin Laden and his cohorts might unintentionally lead to more converts or sympathizers.
My reply is simply this: Whatever one's position in regard to the "war on terror," understanding the ideas of our enemy is both a practical necessity in wartime and a fundamental liberal value. It is my hope that both sides in this bitter debate will profit from a deeper acquaintance with these works. In any case, it simply will not do to dismiss Al Qaeda as an irrational movement without ideas.
Raymond Ibrahim is the editor of the Al-Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.
Wow, didn’t realise a lack of response due to being busy (because people do have a lives and can’t always be making anonymous hate comments on blogs) constitutes as backing down
Turnabout is fair play. If you don't like it, tell Bomber:
I do love that the very second the real heavy intellectual guns are all rolled out those just posting shit about Islam shut up pretty quick.
from this oh so ‘intellectual refutation’ coming from the numerous anonymous cowards. Some of what you lot have resorted to (calling me a cunt etc—so unbecoming) is very telling.
You call them cowards. I don't approve of the name calling but you can hardly say you haven't participated in it.
Oh anonymous 4286387- the light at the end of the tunnel of my lack of comprehension! I really do appreciate you taking your time to breaking it all down for me.
You're welcome. As Bomber said,
a lot of the tripe that has passed for debate here can't go unchallenged
So it's nice to see you post a half-decent argument. Lets go into it then.
I actually agreed with ‘anti-Sahar’s’ point that colonialism benefits from repressive regimes in the region, why the Saudi Family for instance continues to rule and have close ties with the West as a result
You have it exactly arse-about-face. The West is Saudi's lapdog. Saudi do what they bloody well like and the West daren't complain about it because they want the oil. THAT is why there is repression in Saudi Arabia, because the ruling elite do exactly what they want, because the places that like to poke their noses into others business (mostly the West) daren't complain in this instance.
Also take note, Islam is a perfect tool for Saudi because what really works in propping up a crappy dictatorship is dispensing shit that the populace will swallow. For that, there's nothing better than some ancient scrolls guiding moralistic rules which can be interpreted any way the rulers say they HAVE to be, or else. And the population run as fast as they can to jump on the bandwagon because to do otherwise would be anti-Islamic.
brutal dictatorships are the way to go to control the masses and keep the oil flowing
Not really. All the oil-hungry countries prop up any government that provides enough stability to get the oil flowing to them. If that means despots, yeah, too bad. But the despots themselves are the ones pulling the most strings - anything to keep themselves in power.
what colonialism actually did was use Muslim women as a tool to wage an ideological battle with this ‘menace’: Islam
It certainly did to some extent, and the issue is used as a propaganda tool today too. But your point is misguided because it doesn't matter how much the issue is pushed, it doesn't exonerate Islam. If Islam didn't support stupid repressive laws they couldn't be used as propaganda tools against it.
While the colonisers advocated women’s rights in the Muslim world, these rights weren’t something their women were benefiting from
Whose women? If you mean the colonisers', lets hear some evidence of your assertion. If you mean the Muslim women themselves, no, because they never got those rights!
I suggest you do some feminist and postcolonial reading of this and see just how ‘advanced’ these colonisers were
Nice attempted evasion, and I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and provide some evidence of your assertion (implied) rather than dodging the issue by pretending you know more than you obviously do.
So the suggestion that the colonisers were superior on all grounds
Yawn, straw man, it was never suggested that the colonisers were superior on all grounds. Do try to keep up.
dispels this assumption when you look at it from this perspective
Well holy shit, you proved it! You knocked that straw man right over!!
Actually you didn't even do that because it's all based on your suggestion that the colonisers' women were more oppressed than those of the colonised rather than the other way around. Feel free to provide some evidence of that. I think the burden of proof is on you in this instance.
Nor does Saudi Arabia with its treatment of women reflect Islam or the entire Muslim experience in the region.
Because Saudi is so bad doesn't make other places good. Shall we discuss women's rights? What Islamic country would you like to start with? Go for it - anywhere except Saudi Arabia and western Turkey.
Anonymous 4286387
P.S. whoever posted "The Two Faces of Al Qaeda", it's irrelevant crap, piss off or stick with posting a link and only do that if it supports something you're saying.
It amazes me how a criticism of the West automatically means a defense of oppression in non-Western (in this case Muslim) societies. Convenient that!
“If Islam didn't support stupid repressive laws they couldn't be used as propaganda tools against it”.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…Seeing as you’re making a lot of the assertions here, how about YOU provide me with some evidence to support your claims? And please, don’t make them Western, ‘cause that’s not credible in any Muslim’s eyes.
“Whose women? If you mean the colonisers', let’s hear some evidence of your assertion. If you mean the Muslim women themselves, no, because they never got those rights!”
I’m talking about women in colonial societies. I recommend you have a read of Leila Ahmed, who provides an excellent feminist reading of colonial societies and the situation of women there and also in the Muslim world. Both women falling victim to and their existence defined and dictated to by a specific intrusive male gaze.
“Yawn, straw man, it was never suggested that the colonisers were superior on all grounds. Do try to keep up”.
Let’s not get caught up in semantics here. The thrust of the above argument was that the colonisers WERE superior (advanced) and the implication made was based on morality (seeing as that’s what the issue at hand)
“Actually you didn't even do that because it's all based on your suggestion that the colonisers' women were more oppressed than those of the colonised rather than the other way around. Feel free to provide some evidence of that. I think the burden of proof is on you in this instance”
Where did I say “than those of the colonised” You must be pretty simple if you think I would make such a silly statement. My point was the colonial enterprise EXPLOITED feminist ideas in order to use it as a weapon against those it colonised in the Muslim world. Of course that doesn’t automatically get translated as “Muslim women weren’t oppressed”. Women are oppressed everywhere, and that’s nothing something I’m not going to deny. You on the other hand seem to be reducing oppression geographically and socially. Try to broaden your understandings of the experiences of women just a little. I know you revel in pointing out the evils of Islam in regards to women, but how about you provide me with some evidence that does not constitute some random dubious fatwa by some unknown sheikh. Or something from jihadwatch. Oh, and please, don’t make me laugh by thinking some dubious unauthentic hadith is going to be sufficient evidence for Islam’s oppression of women.
“Because Saudi is so bad doesn't make other places good. Shall we discuss women's rights? What Islamic country would you like to start with? Go for it - anywhere except Saudi Arabia and western Turkey”.
Women’s rights in accordance to whose normative understandings? Western understandings of what these rights should be? ‘cause it’s not as clear-cut as you would like them to be.
The fact that you refer to countries in the region as “Islamic” makes me wonder if you know anything about the region at all. Aside from Saudi Arabia and Iran, no country can be labeled as such—and even those two are heavily debatable. I think what you are trying to say is “MUSLIM country”. That way, you’re making room for the secular and other non-Islamic influences which factor in. DO try to understand something as simplistic as this. I know it’s typical in Orientalist fashion to homogenize by reducing the social and historical complexities of these countries into it all being a product or manifestation of ‘Islam’ to make it easier for Western powers to provide ‘proof’ that Islam is inferior etc-- but in reality that’s far from the case. Societies aren’t as simplistic as that. So yes, let’s discuss any Muslim country. Which one infuriates you the most?
I'm off to study and make birthday plans. If you don't get a response straight away, it'll be because of this. So don't get too excited that you've 'shut me up'. : )
-Anti-Flag.
I don’t know what most of you anti-Sahar people are saying! Most of what is said on your behalf is hidden by a need to frame Sahar as some unfortunate departure from the truth, a truth you all seem to have unmediated access too– so typical of the intellectual weaklings who finds refuge in talking about his superiority rather than showing it. Here lays the irony of the Western repression, an incredible blind spot regarding its narration, here you have all these want-to-be humanitarians running to the defense of Afghan/Saudi/Muslim women while ACTUALLY attacking, defaming, insulting, and abusing one – Sahar! Which proves a point, in part, for the only Muslim women you are interested in representing are the ones that suit your heroic imagination of yourselves as a superior cultural being, hence, the Muslim woman CAN ONLY BE that which acts as a means to your end – the oppressed silent woman who needs the Western hero to save her. When she represents herself she needs to be silenced least she jam your abilty to narrate your own heroism. When Sahar betrays this image, and hence betrays your inflated sense of worth, she indeed castrates you. All that remains is these boyish and bruised male egos attempting to recapture their right to hold their penises by insulting her.
Pro Sahar
PS--you really are a postscript. Sahar is a duplicitous, scheming, bullying, anti-Semetic, fraudulent pseudo-intellectual, ahistorical attention-seeker, which is why she gets called out by former friends and acquaintances of both genders. To know her is to loathe her. Nothing more and nothing less.
Now fuck off unless you have something to contribute to the topic.
Seeing as you’re making a lot of the assertions here, how about YOU provide me with some evidence to support your claims? And please, don’t make them Western, ‘cause that’s not credible in any Muslim’s eyes.
Lol@your evasion
I’m talking about women in colonial societies. I recommend you have a read blah blah blah
Oh, fine evidence that! "Go read a book". I didn't expect any more from you AF. Obviously the book wasn't good enough to help you make any concrete points though, or you would have.
Let’s not get caught up in semantics here.
Where did I say “than those of the colonised”
I thought we're not going to get caught up in semantics here? Unless it suits you eh? "Suggested" can also mean "implied" AF, which is the sense in which I was using it. Do keep up.
You must be pretty simple if you think I would make such a silly statement.
Lol, history suggests otherwise...
My point was the colonial enterprise EXPLOITED feminist ideas in order to use it as a weapon against those it colonised in the Muslim world.
Was that your point? You didn't make it very well AF, because that's not what you said at all. Just as well you're here to translate for us all.
Of course that doesn’t automatically get translated as “Muslim women weren’t oppressed”. Women are oppressed everywhere, and that’s nothing something I’m not going to deny.
We are agreed then. Muslim women were oppressed prior to any colonisation. What a pity Saudi Arabia wasn't left in peace then to become a great liberal Islamic country like, um, er, ...
Oh, the hell with it, lets call it "country of Muslims" instead so you can say Turkey.
You on the other hand seem to be reducing oppression geographically and socially. Try to broaden your understandings of the experiences of women just a little. I know you revel in pointing out the evils of Islam in regards to women, but how about you provide me with some evidence that does not constitute some random dubious fatwa by some unknown sheikh. Or something from jihadwatch. Oh, and please, don’t make me laugh by thinking some dubious unauthentic hadith is going to be sufficient evidence for Islam’s oppression of women.
Riiiight. Islam doesn't oppress women really... it's just coincidence that all these horror stories come out of countries where the law is Islamic law. But that doesn't make them Islamic countries, oh no, they are countries with Muslims in them, riiighht.
No really, I get it, there are no Islamic countries because there is no Islamic Law as part of the laws of government in the country. There is no Islamic Law as part of the laws of government in the country because Shar'iah only applies to Muslims. That's why no Westerner would be run into trouble if they, say a teacher, oh, called a teddy bear "Mohammed" or something blasphemous but unintentional like that.
You are boring me AF. Go ahead, take your time before you return to get the last word in.
Lol@Pro Sahar. That's it, I'm really just recapturing my right to hold my penis! You should have stopped right after I don’t know what most of you anti-Sahar people are saying!
You sick little fool, what the hell are you going on about? You clearly know nothing about the Muslim world beyond the usual vitriolic islamophobe material. If you're going to talk about women's rights in the muslim world, how about you a) read a book (from your almost allergic reaction to AF's request that you do so, I suppose that's out of the question), b) start paying women equal wages here, and c) stop viewing women entirely as pieces of meat to be used and abused. New Zealanders are going to talk women's rights, with your rates of domestic violence, rape, etc? Thank you kindly, keep your views of women, and also keep your epidemic STD rates (try not to get too drunk in Hamilton, never know what you'll catch). Highly fucking hilarious, it must be that good old kiwi alcoholism which makes your posts so devoid of sense and full of bile.
I'd like to send a big hearty "you're a fucking retard" to the the...uhh...fucking retard...who said that AF had the West-Saudi relationship "arse about head" or whatever it was. Where did you learn that, pseudo-historians Spencer and Pipes? STOP SNIFFING GLUE. On the other hand, it must give Muslims hope...we look at our situation and think "wow we're really in a bad way", but according to idiots like you, we're not the shattered victims of colonialism and exploitation, we're actually pulling the strings! Go figure.
Keeping hiding behind anonymity, assholes. As for personal attacks on AF, her friends know she's one of the best people around, full stop. Her only problem is that she expects high moral standards from people around her - meaning there's quite a few jaded former friends floating around who got dumped along the way, for such delightful reasons as incurable whoredom or tendency to backstab. I wouldn't be surprised if the people on this thread aren't some of them.
Well ignoring the obvious flaws of post mod feminism (which seems to be slowly destroying Auckland University), and ignoring Sahar's blantant hypocritical and militant views, her argument is hollow.
Fuck this normative understanding horse shit. You can't have it both ways Sahar. Do woman in Saudi Arabia have the same rights as men? Yes or no? Because if not, then there is inequality. I am sure your supervisor could help you - although on second thoughts that might be a stretch.
"And please, don’t make them Western, ‘cause that’s not credible in any Muslim’s eyes."
We must respect you, but not you us. Right.
As a final thought - why did you come to this country if things are so rosey for Muslim woman in greater Arabia? Which life do you prefer, and why?
Oh and btw - if you want to find the limits of post mod world views take a jump off the sky tower - I think you will be grounded in a very objective reality.
"Keeping hiding behind anonymity, assholes. As for personal attacks on AF, her friends know she's one of the best people around, full stop. Her only problem is that she expects high moral standards from people around her - meaning there's quite a few jaded former friends floating around who got dumped along the way, for such delightful reasons as incurable whoredom or tendency to backstab. I wouldn't be surprised if the people on this thread aren't some of them."
Careful now. Sahar has backstabbed more than I care to imagine. One day it might bite her in the arse.
Glass windows. Stones. Not good.
Lol, sahar backstab? that's a laugh. She's loyal to a fault. Maybe name a person involved if you dare, though in their interests you probably won't, because then you know the shit will hit the fan, and whatever mischief they got up to will be public knowledge.
http://anticapitaliste.blogspot.com/2007/03/marxist-muslim-alliance-response-to.html
Despite crossing swords with Sahar myself politically, I have to say she is one of the most dedicated organisers for Palestinian solidarity I have met.
Joe Carolan
Socialist Aotearoa
Sahar's actions are well known.
"Sahar's actions are well known."
Hahahahahaha
oh i mean... "good one, champ!"
A most legendary thread.
I didn't expect this when I posted the OP. Full props to sahar for taking it like a man and a shoutout to stian for actually posting his name.
Western Education huh? LOL
1)
how the HELL is Lacan postmodern?
and 2)
How is jumping out a window a refutation to postmodernity? WTF
postmodernity dosnt state there is no reality, or that there is no material existance, (thats radical idealism -if that) PMod simply destablizes grand narratives by underlining power structures that PRODUCE a web/paradigm of privelged meaning. i.e, it exposes the political
notwithstanding, it is an outgrowth of the very cartestian scepticism that brought about "modernity", which apparently according to this sheep shearing NZ higher education thread is a signifer for Western cultural supremcy -- and is, what some of you bastards of the Enlightement are whoring as the solution to Arab women's existance, i.e become modern and utterly commodified and packaged as an identifable capitalist sellable image of liberty - And at the direct expense of the REAL material condition brought about first world explotation, a Real which incidently can not be symbolized...
...its you who dosn't believe in reality because you think you have captured it through repetive value language.
...friggen puppet, free yourself and submit to Allah!
WHABBI & PROUD!
Anon: no, you don't condemn fascism, or you would have condemned kemalist turkey instead of promoting it, and the Shah in Iran instead of promoting him, and you would not stand for the extreme right wing parties present in all European countries. You would not support the egregious crimes of the Colombian regime, amongst others, and you would have the decency to be honest about the state of Israel. And shall we cast our minds back to Central America during the Cold War? The Iran-Contras scandal?
As for the Muslim world condemning the actions of salafists, wahhabis, and deobandis... please excuse me for saying this in capitals but you need to understand this... THE MUSLIM WORLD DOES CONDEMN THESE THINGS, VERY HEAVILY, BUT YOU DON'T ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE MUSLIM WORLD, AND YOUR MEDIA ONLY REPORTS WHAT IT WANTS.
It's that simple. Or else you would know that the salafis are heavily attacked on:
- juridicial grounds, because their approach to sharia law is fundamentally wrong; they attempt to bypass the madhhab paradigm, but instead merely create a new, weaker madhhab. doubtless you understand these concepts. This is a huge issue.
- theological grounds, because they exhibit anthropomorphic tendencies such as attributing a place to God, which is worse than what even the Shiites do.
- spiritually, for their denial of, and attacks, on tasawwuf (i'm sure you are a master of tasawwuf). Another huge issue.
- for their hypocrisy in supporting jihad on the one hand, but for hosting the American troops in the Arabian Peninsula on the other.
So that's salafis/wahhabis for you. Even though the cause of fighting in Iraq and elsewhere is seen as just, as a sect they are reviled by most of the muslim world, and by virtually all scholars. It's not my fault if you don't hear the criticism - you're not engaged with the muslim world in anything but the most superficial way.
As for deobandis, they are in an unfortunate position. They are associated with wahhabis by the ignorant and their perpetual enemies, the barelvis, but in reality they are an educational movement and also provide a great deal of social services to the poor. Now, personally, I may disagree with deobandi positions on plenty of things, but they are not the monsters they are made out to be.
So just to recap, if you don't hear the criticism, it's merely because you don't listen. It's not your fault that the media is so careful in what it displays about Islam, but it is your fault for being so gullible.
To be honest I don't really believe you. Could be place a link for a major muslim news website condemning the killing of shia civilians in Iraq.
The post-colonial push towards modernisation came from the secular military nationalists led by Nassar in the 1950s (do any of you remember King Farouk?). Be it Hussein in Iraq, Assad in Syria, Ghaddafi in Lybia, or the Algerian revolutionary leaders, they forcibly supressed Islamicism with Soviet help in order to create socialist societies rooted, in the distance, in Shari'a economics.
The US and UK countered with support for the Shah of Iran (fully understanding the Shiaa-Sunni divide), pro-capitalist monarchs like King Hassan in Morocco and the King(s) Hussein in Jordan, and of course Israel as a counter-weight to the whole Muslim weirdness. Realise, of course, that the entire
Arab (if not Muslim) world supported the Nazis in WW2, which explains the pains "western colonisers" went to extirpate this sort of sympathy in Muslim governments.
More importantly and germane to this thread, the US actively supported the Muslim Brotherhood against Nassar and looked the other way at the pre-modern practices of the House of Saud as well as the other Gulf Principalities. (I should note that NZ has now opened its doors to these quasi-monarchies in a number of ways, none of them socially beneficial other than as a revenue stream).
Lebanon of course was the only Arab democracy until Islamicists showed up to contest the system. At that point Western and Israeli intervention ensued, and things spiraled downwards. If you really believe that having Hizbollah as the majority party is conducive to peace and stability in Lebanon, you obviously have not been there. This does not mean that Israel should have a say in Lebanese domestic politics. It just states the obvious--Lebanese democracy (such as it was) was ruined by Islamicists, not colonisers.
Thus, contrary to the claims of Bomber and the "post-colonial feminist" (a self-aggrandising term if there ever was one amongst the post-modern sycopanths), the sins of the Gulf oligarchies were overlooked by the purported "colonialists" so long as there was money to make off of the oil resources they were too primitive to exploit for themselves.
The fault, therefore, for the oppression of females in Arab society is not with Western colonialism or dictatorship, but with the nature of Islam both as an ideology as well as a the dominant form of social organisation. Remove Islamic dominance, as the secular military nationalists did for two decades, and you get, among other signs of progression, a greater participatory role for women in society.
Ansar's comments about Kemalist Turkey and the Shah of Iran being facists displays such utter ignorance so as to be alarming because if nothing else, she shows little evidence of a university education. Let s call her then, "Anti-Flag lite."
I could go on but why kick the feeble minded when they are down?
I will say this: the victimising claims from AF and AF lite are demonstrative of their inherent dishonesty, both intellectual as well as personal. Could it be that is a cultural trait or simply the opportunism of two shallow people with a similar grudge against the country that gave their parents refuge (since neither of them did anything of any political merit prior to arrival).
Do your newspapers condemn the killing of iraqi civilians by the US? Or do they merely report it? "Muslim news websites" (i assume you mean news websites from muslim countries) report the news (obviously with more middle eastern content). Anyway, feel free to check out the many, many blogs and forums, you can avail yourself of "google" or perhaps try sunniforum.com (where you can chat with real live deobandis and see them criticise wahhabis! Mashallah).
By the way, you failure to engage with anything I said really shows your ignorance. Congrats.
NOW.
As for Abdul al-Rauf
OH ABDUL al-RAUF
OH YOU FLAMING MORON
Dear readers, behold the idiot. He has tried to use an arabic sounding name to gain credibility, but he's actually made a monstrous mistake! Abdul-al-rauf eh... the "al" is already there in the "ul" of the "Abd". Lest I confuse you further, the translation of his name as he as puts it is:
"Servant of THE THE Kind One" - why the two "the's", retard? Most people would simply go for "Servant of the Kind One" but you really needed the extra "the" i suppose. Is it because you're actually an imposter pretending to be middle eastern? YOU FAKE IDIOT.
Okay Mr "Double the THE!" now for your "arguments"
As for Arab support for the Germans in world war 2 - perhaps, oh masterful idiot, you might remember that the arabs were being occupied and colonised by Britian and France, who were the enemies of the Germans. Or do you suppose they should have supported the boot that was on their throats? Having pointed that out, perhaps you can tell me: are you demented or retarded?
Lebanon being the only Arab democracy. HAHAHAHA you have absolutely zero knowledge of Lebanon. Lebanon was a sectarian division of spoils. Nothing democratic about the sons of the zuama inheriting ministries and other government jobs from their deceased fathers, and various sects being alloted various posts in the government, and even then out of proportion to the actual population distribution between the sects! An obligatory Christian president, for instance, when the Christians were a third or less. As for me obviously not having been to Lebanon, (oh LORD you are being kind to me tonight) here is the kicker..
I AM LEBANESE, YOU FUCK WIT, I HAVE BEEN THERE MANY TIMES. In fact, in the big street battles at the beginning of 2007, i was there watching the crowds of sunnis and shiites pelt rocks at each other (and getting teargassed by the army in the subsequent crackdown). What's your on-the-ground experience, Mr "Double the The"?
Your analysis of Lebanon is so ignorant it's hilarious. Hezbollah is motivated to a degree by Islam of course, but in the context of Lebanese politics it is merely the physical manifestation of shiite desire to have a stake in the country, much like the kataeb and PSP for the Christians and Druze respectively.
But I'll stop there as you obviously don't know what you're talking about and I don't think it's fair to keep humiliating you.
Also congratulations for being wrong again, my parents were certainly not granted "refuge" by this country, but keep going with your idiotic assumptions, you're doing so well! :)
Abdul al Rauf, what a crack up. Alhamdulillah rabul`alamein for the foolishness of these fools.
"I could go on but why kick the feeble minded when they are down?"
Mr "Double the THE", in hindsight, this is by far the funniest part of your post!
You really should keep posting, and please don't change your name, so that I can make sure to keep an eye on your clownish antics.
New Zealanders are going to talk women's rights, with your rates of domestic violence, rape
Yeah, we have no right. When I get home I beat my wife and daughters and then I put bags over their heads.
stop viewing women entirely as pieces of meat to be used and abused
Woah, it's not the cat's fault if the meat is left uncovered is it?!
"Servant of THE THE Kind One" - why the two "the's", retard? Most people would simply go for "Servant of the Kind One" but you really needed the extra "the" i suppose. Is it because you're actually an imposter pretending to be middle eastern? YOU FAKE IDIOT.
Wow ansar, you intellectual giant you, you really put us in our places! Bit of a whoops in there though, it was your great goddess who wrote Let’s not get caught up in semantics here. Slipped up there ansar.
You can detach yourself from her arse now.
...
Ok - I LOVE how vigerous the debate is and I really respect some of the views that have been posted and thank everyone for contributing - I have put aside an entire morning on Saturday (I'm supposed to be writing questions for the Henry Rollins interview but I'm putting that off for a couple of days) because I think this issue is important enough not for the usual glib snideness that blogs tend to slid into. So I apologise to the haters and those who have painted my none rsponse as some sort of ignorance on my part of the issue, because there are some arseholes that need ripping here, and I want to make sure it hurts when I repost - the absolute ignorance some of you have shown towards Islam is jaw dropping - but I will get into that on Saturday -please stay tuned.
"Woah, it's not the cat's fault if the meat is left uncovered is it?!"
Brutal, straight from the mufti's mouth.
Lol, you guys are hilarious. Hope you enjoyed your caning. Oh Abdul al rauf, please come back!!! We miss you and your tomfoolery.
"Wow ansar, you intellectual giant you"
LOL, well next to little maggots such as yourselves, it's not difficult to come across as intellectual :)
"it was your great goddess who wrote Let’s not get caught up in semantics here. Slipped up there ansar."
Back to high school for you retard, time to learn the difference between "deception" and "semantics". They're surprisingly different in meaning!
Lol, funnily enough, Craccum recently had a female contributor saying "yes girls wear skimpy outfits on purpose and YES we like the attention." Doesn't really help your argument now does it? Unless that "female" contributor was one of you peverts in disguise, which wouldn't be surprising.
You obviously don't have what it takes to trade blows with people with basic literacy, and you obviously have no evidence to rely on except for the generic islamophone crap. It's not surprising that you keep resorting to insults, since you idiots get the shit ripped out of you any time you venture into the world of facts. SOOO it's time, dear anonymous contributor, to press ALT-TAB, go back to your gay porn, and have a happy day :)
Intellectual giant ansar, there's a reason why you're being ignored. At least you can say of Bomber and Anti-Flag that they make an effort. The crap you spew on the other hand is merely laughable.
I'd like to send a big hearty "you're a fucking retard" to the the...uhh...fucking retard...who said that AF had the West-Saudi relationship "arse about head" or whatever it was. Where did you learn that, pseudo-historians Spencer and Pipes? STOP SNIFFING GLUE. On the other hand, it must give Muslims hope...we look at our situation and think "wow we're really in a bad way", but according to idiots like you, we're not the shattered victims of colonialism and exploitation, we're actually pulling the strings! Go figure.
I said I didn't approve of the name calling but since you're stupid enough to let loose, I'll just point out that you're a pig-ignorant blowhard who hasn't made a decent point yet. Not only do you not understand the points that were made, you don't even try to address them. You think you're clever throwing out insults but honestly they're not worth piss.
The greatest thing you've done so far is to draw our attention to the double use of the word "the", a feat so wonderful it had you rolling around in hysterics at your own cleverness.
Clearly you don't know how to argue any point whatsoever so you have to distract by resorting to insults. And just as obviously, you're used to this situation. Other people must have cut you down to size many times in the past because you're hurrying to spew out insults that would be better applied to yourself. In fact there's hardly a thing in your last post that wouldn't suit being better addressed to all of your posts.
Lol, you guys are hilarious.
Hope you enjoyed your caning.
LOL, well next to little maggots such as yourselves, it's not difficult to come across as intellectual :)
Back to high school for you retard
Dear oh dear ansar...
time to learn the difference between "deception" and "semantics". They're surprisingly different in meaning!
Lol, you really have no fucking idea what you're talking about...
You obviously don't have what it takes to trade blows with people with basic literacy
you obviously have no evidence to rely on
It's not surprising that you keep resorting to insults
since you idiots get the shit ripped out of you
Enough, please, the irony is just killing me...
any time you venture into the world of facts
Omg, the irony!!
SOOO it's time to press ALT-TAB, go back to your gay porn, and have a happy day :)
I await your next reply with relish, ansar. Just expect me to reply in the same vein. And please, do pull your face off Sahar's arse.
I hear that Abdul's father was a stutterer....
Makes me sick to think of the money the taxpayer spent on sahars BA and MA could have been put to better use like saving african aid's orphans or freeing child labourers in india.
Instead we educate someone who dispises NZ and places a higher value of a violent repressive religion which is against everything we stand for like (ironically)women's rights and gender equality.
"Lol@your evasion"
LOL@your inability to provide me with evidence when I hit you up on it. Coward.
You've just proven to me you're just another jihadwatch.com regurgitation who STILL does not have the balls to write under a name but instead hides behind an anonymous status. Coward.
When you actually do something about the above, perhaps i'll take your dribble more seriously. Until then, wipe it up and run along now.
As for the rest of the oh-so-enlightened 'true Kiwis'. Isn't it amazing how criticism of colonialism and defence of Islam is translated into hating NZ and not wanting to be here. WOW. Talk about insightful! What's fascinating is, I doubt any of you would have responded in the same way to someone like Bomber or another pakeha making the same observations/arguments regarding colonialism etc. The double standards are truly telling. Not that any of you chimps have a monopoly on who should be here or not or what constitutes being a New Zealander. The ironic thing is, YOU'RE the minority in this case, not me.
As for my BA and MA-- thank your lucky stars people like myself are using my education for the benefit of others-- in other words, trying to knock some sense into ignorant folks like yourself who have nothing else to offer but spewing hateful bile.
-Anti-Flag.
This comment has been removed by the author.
LOL
Okay "anonymous still not brave to put any name at all on his posts", let's have a recap of this thread:
- Muslim baiting
- sahar offers an intelligent critique of the islamophobia
- you clowns resort to personal attacks on her
- sahar responds, but you continue with personal attacks on her
- i respond to the personal attacks and dare you to actual bring up some evidence
- you chicken out
- you go for more personal attacks and try to bring up the ridiculous theme of muslims not condemning salafis, etc
- i destroy you on that with decent points galore
- you (one of you clowns) tries to bring up lebanon and other issues such as arab sympathy for germany in WW2
- i destroy you on that too [and with a healthy dose of polemic since you seem to love it so much, go back and read the posts if you need to]
- for bonus points, i caught out one of you clowns trying to pass of as arab, lol, (come back Abdul we miss you!)
- you switch to pure personal attacks, i happily respond.
- you try to act tough in an anonymous sort of way.
That's pretty much it, nothing you have said is actually any more compelling than what you'd find in a BNP pamphlet. Ra ra ra immigrants ra ra ra our freedoms. Hehe, you let people in out of the kindness of your hearts? Or to keep the economy going since the birthrate is too low? Don't be daft. Next time the government analyses its policy on how many immigrants to let in and with what qualifications, i'll be sure to remind them that they should be generous, because anonymous said they do it out of the kindness of their hearts. [Because you clearly are daft, i'll point out here that this is another stupid claim by you that has been destroyed. Take note].
It's astounding, you idiots have had almost nothing of concrete to say, just attacks on people's culture, religion, intelligence (highly ironically), etc. Come on, grow up. If you actually want to talk details you know you will be crushed further. :)
"I await your next reply with relish, ansar", lol you ass, this is highly entertaining for me, you haven't made any sense at all! Haven't laughed this hard in a while. But the trouble is that the bigotry that simmers in your posts is quite widespread, probably not just among the anonymous trolls on this blog. So on the one hand, encountering you has been an extremely fun, but on the other hand, extremely disturbing, because people like you, in large enough numbers and with bad enough leaders, can be a terrible plague on humanity.
PS: the funniest thing of all? I am neither a refugee nor an immigrant :)
Come on anonymous let's have some more of your bigotry :)
Classic, you even have to plagiarise my insults!! :) Please feel free to continue your rollercoaster of try-hard.
ps Hitler is dead, move on.
To the latest anonymous contributor:
That's a good point. A lot of Muslims (like myself) are really sick of the hot-headed reactions. Perhaps to go into it in a bit more detail than to say "there's something wrong with the religion", the real problem is the fact that the people are often miserable and oppressed. In arab countries like Jordan and Egypt, it is actually the STATE itself which organises protests again Danish Cartoons, etc. It's a good way to trick people into thinking they have a share in the country or that the government is in line with their sensibilities. It's important to bear something like that in mind...people often find their anger blocked from its rightful target, and vent it somewhere else.
But please don't compare it to Sir Ed. A proper comparison would be with whatever is the core of people's identity - be it nation, ethnic group, whatever. Nowadays it's unacceptable to criticise someone for their colour or sexuality or whatever - meanwhile for many Muslims, Islam is the most important, definitive element in their identity, more than even ethnic group. So it's not a question of people's abstract theological speculations being challenged, it's a direct attack on people. And it doesn't take place in a vacuum, it comes from the people who spent the last few centuries attacking, oppressing and exploiting the muslim world, with a horrific cost in lives and prosperity. That historical experience in fact continues now, though recast in different terms and with different mechanisms.
So of course Muslims are upset. You wouldn't expect black South Africans to take kindly to being insulted for their blackness by Afrikaaners, but people seem to think that Muslims are somehow deserving of it.
What it boils down to is a sustained campaign over centuries to control resources and demonize (and homogenize) a huge portion of humanity. You can dress it up however you want, you may purposefully confuse cultural practices with religion, you may quote fabricated hadith, you can do a lot of things: but at the end of the day you know it's true that the enemy your society and media has manufactured for itself just happens to be sitting at the centre of the world's historical trade routes, and is presently on top of the world's greatest treasure. If you don't wonder about that 'coincidence' then there's little hope I'm afraid.
At least have the honesty to acknowledge that the balance of harm does not weigh on the Muslim side, it does not even weigh somewhere near the middle; it is overwhelmingly the West which is causing recent history's death and exploitation. Not just to the Muslims, let us not forget Vietnam and the rest! Compared to that, who rarely cares if people burn some effigies of Bush at a protest rally? What is barbarity and what is civilisation when the barbarian is a Western man wearing a business suit and the civilised on both sides have little say?
So I suggest your theory, that there are too many crazy muslims for there not to be a problem with Islam, applies better to the west, because surely there is something wrong with a civilisation that produces:
- the Inquisition
- the extermination of the American Indians
- the pogroms
- the holocaust
- the colonisation of indonesia with over 100,000 dead, killed, by dutch bullets
- the colonisation of algeria, and over a million algerians killed in their fight for independence, mostly civilians, as well as institutionalised torture
- slaving in the Americas, particularly cotton plantations in the US and silver mines in South America
- communism
- the indescribable rape of virtually all of africa by the colonisers
- south east asia through til the Vietnam War
- the conquest of the Aborigines in Australia
- the conquest of the Maori in NZ
- Nazism
- fascism in general
- pollution on a massive scale
- racism on a massive scale
- apartheid
- continuing exploitation of third world mineral resources
- continuing destruction of third world agriculture by dumping markets with subsidised agricultural products
- continuing exploitation of third world workers with sweatshop conditions and pathetic wages, in order to maintain a comfortable life of luxury for the West
- ongoing sex slave trade especially from eastern europe to western europe
- a desperately bad divorce rate
- the development and USE of nuclear bombs
- intentional fire-bombing of cities (ie civilians) with the intention of causing mass civilian deaths
- trench warfare aimed to bleed rival nations of their male population until they had to give in
- bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan out of spite - the only one in the region - as if Sudanese civilians (men, women and children) were responsible for paltry acts of terrorism - leading to the deaths of thousands of said innocents [that was Clinton, btw]
- THE LIST IS POTENTIALLY ENDLESS.
Seriously, when someone can account for this and tell me how the West is not actually the problem, then we can talk about angry mobs.
Geez, look what happens when I don't reply for a moment. But since you seem to have woken up to the fact that you weren't saying anything and made some points now ansar, I'll address them. Except for your first post which was more crap, but to save time I'll just laugh at you and advise you to stop tossing yourself.
A lot of Muslims (like myself) are really sick of the hot-headed reactions.
That's ironic considering that in most instances it's the hot-headed overreactions of Muslims that really stir up the hot-heads. A perfect example is the case you mentioned, the overreactions to the Danish cartoons. How can you honestly claim frustration at a backlash to that overreaction?
"there's something wrong with the religion"
To be fair, it's something wrong with religion in general not just Islam. Most of religion is about telling people how they should behave (and people wonder how they get so patriarchal). Go ahead and listen to any sermon: it's rules, not advice. If you need a reason to explain why the STATE (your caps) organises protests against Danish Cartoons et cetera, it's exactly and solely because there is no separation of church and state, and I put it to you that that is because it's hard-coded into Islam not to accept such a separation. All other forms of religion have the same problem but in most countries there has been enough leeway for people to stand up for reason to the point where religions can be separated out of government, ironically providing a platform for Islam (a particularly non-tolerant religion IMO and I think you'll find most non-Muslims agree) to coexist with other religions in the country. It doesn't stop bigots from throwing stones at churches, mosques, synagogues or whatever, but the religions are on an even footing in most areas.
AF points out that Muslims coexist fine in countries that don't have Islamic law built into their government (and hence she despises the term Islamic country). Fine, but that's because, excluding the obvious exception and I'll come back to it, that they are in the minority in those countries and don't have any say in the matter! What is of concern is that the countries (except you know where) where Muslims form the majority can't manage to keep Islam, with all it's stupid laws (ok and some good ones, I'm merely pointing out that some laws are stupid and even the stupidest are held out as correct by some nuts) out of the government, and we get an Islamic country.
That's what I mean by Islamic country, since you seem to have difficulty with the definition, a country in which Islamic teachings are enshrined in law. Don't try an say they don't exist! That means laws that wouldn't be there if Islam didn't stipulate that they have to be because to not have them in there would be anti-Islamic. Are we clear?
For contrast, imagine a Christian country, by which I mean a country that had the teachings of the Bible enshrined in law. Doesn't it make you shudder? It should, read the Old Testament again! That's what Islamic countries are. Saudi and Iran are some at the top of the heap but there are plenty of others which also need to dump Islamic law from their constitution. And because none of them has managed it I point the finger at Islam. I'm still waiting for someone to raise a decent reason why I shouldn't. Go for it - educate me.
Now for the exception: Turkey mostly has it's shit sorted out in this regard. That's great - really great. If there were more places like Turkey, I'd leave off singling out Islam, but I can't bring myself to do that over one single exception. Personally I believe it's to do with the multi-cultural nature of Turkey and it's in spite of the Islamic preponderance there, not because of it. You will disagree, ok, we can argue about it, but whatever the reason it's the only exception so far as I know (a tip here: listing other examples would really help bolster your argument).
You can point to some core teachings of Islam and show that they preach tolerance rather than intolerance. Sorry, but that's not enough. There's not a single religion out there that didn't start out with tolerance that hasn't turned into intolerance (Christians, feel free to pipe up now and tell us the crusades weren't really the fault of Christianity). The problem with religion is it won't tolerate a separation of reason and belief. Which is why church and state need to be separated. But trying to do that in an Islamic country is really pushing shit uphill. Yay Turkey, go Turkey (except when you kick the shit out of your kurds), but does nobody else wonder why other Islamic countries can't achieve what it has?
Bomber's theory of "stop feeding the mutation and it will eventually wither and die" is wishful thinking. Left unopposed, sects don't wither, they flourish. Until they fracture into more sects. The ironic thing is that the most effective way of dealing with the issue, if it were even possible, would probably be to send missionaries from other religions to places like Saudi until there were so many different enclaves of opposed nutcases that the government had no choice but to try and come up with a halfway decent form of govennment for it's people. I seriously doubt it will be Islam that leads the way though. Has it ever?
people often find their anger blocked from its rightful target, and vent it somewhere else.
That they do. Unfortunately my short time is up for now. Obviously we can either make points or we can throw shit at each other, and either is fine, I don't care - I'm completely anonymous and I'm going to stay that way so it's no skin off my reputation. I don't mean to ignore the rest of your points, I will try to address them later when I get some more time. Don't expect me to always be this reasonable though, expect me to reply in kind to whatever you say . Me, I'm expecting that if you can provide decent ripostes to my points you will, but that if you can't you'll switch back to talking shit again.
Just one more point, on reflection I didn't make clear why I single out Turkey as an exception because of course by my definition it's not an Islamic country at all. So when I said does nobody else wonder why other Islamic countries can't achieve what it has I meant to say does nobody else wonder why Islamic countries can't achieve what it has. The way Turkey is an exception is because it's a country where Muslims make up the greater part of the population and yet it has managed to avoid laws of Islam entering into its constitution.
My oh my, you really do have your knickers in a twist. As for you claim that my remarks on arab slavery invalidate my opinion: lol. If you were actually serious about history or scholarship you would know full well that there is no comparison between american slavery and arab slavery. They fulfilled entirely different economic purposes and had entirely different social implications. But like always, faced with reality, you turn away and resort to personal insults and pompous claims. The fact remains that in order to keep arguing, you have to make outrageous claim, then ignore the correction, and make another outrageous claim, over and over again. Look at your posts!! Look how bitter you are! It's sad. You haven't responded to anything I have said, just kept on spewing up bile. Look at you still going after Sahar and attacking her intelligence! LOL, you are demonstrating with ever-greater clarity that you have no knowledge or comprehension of history, since you evade anything concrete at all!
Now, you turn to a general attack on religion. But look at your timing: after the question has been put forward to you "what is wrong with the West that it has been such a harmful, damaging pestilence on the world", you run away from that and come up with "religions are intolerant." Aside from your cowardice in failing to respond, your smokescreen is simply not good enough. You simply can't blame all the horrific phenomena of the modern world, the chief one of which is economic exploitation by the West, on religion, Islam or the rest! So enough with the smoke and mirrors :)
As for Islamic countries, you insist on using incorrect descriptions because they are loaded with meaning and support your false arguments. Despite what you and the House of Saud agreement that Saudi Arabia is an "islamic country", no, it's a Muslim country, one inhabited by Muslims but ruled in a non-muslim fashion. There is nothing "islamic" about a royal family, a western financial system based on riba and gharrar, and so on; in other words the fundamental structures of the state are not Islamic at all. The Iranian REPUBLIC (republic!) has the same problem but to an even worse degree; they effectively maintained the status quo in most state functions, but with "islamic" terminology superimposed on un-islamic structures. Again, nothing Islamic there, and certainly nothing Islamic about vilayet-al-fiqh, iran's constitutional theory, more specifically Khomeini's personal ideology which was in fact rejected by the other senior shiite scholars of Iran!
You know so little, but spew so much, classic. Come on, please show that you actually have a clue.
As for throwing shit at each other, don't be dishonest. I have been making points this whole time, but that isn't really important to you because you know you can't respond to points, so you have tried to frame this discussion purely in islamophobic slogans and ad hominem. I don't deny my own polemics, but they came with arguments at least, and they came because you are such an donkey. Also, hahaha.. stop trying to act tough with this "don't always expect me to be reasonable", LOL. How is anyone supposed to take your macho antics seriously when you're sitting anonymously behind a computer? You say "no skin off my reputation" - congratulation on cowardly staying anonymous, hero, but you are being exposed to your own ignorance and tremendous lack of knowledge, and your impotence in attempting to disguise your lack of knowledge with polemics. No-one's asking even for your real name, retard, just a nickname so that we can be sure of which posts are yours, in case there are even stupider anonymous people on this forum than you. That's it.
As for Turkey.. oh God. Hearing you is like Abdul al Rauf trying to talk about Lebanon. Why you people insist on embarrassing yourselves is beyond me. So, Einstein, according to you it is Turkey's "multicultural" that is the cause of it being an exception. Really? Which cultures are you talking about? You obviously don't realise that the defining feature of Turkish state policy since the Young Turk movement has been to DENY the existence of non-Turkish cultures in Turkey. Mustapha Kemal Ataturk defined Kurds as "Mountain Turks!" In case you didn't follow the media, there is an article in Turkish law stating it is a crime to "insult Turkishness"!
The tremendous irony here is that now the turkish government is FINALLY showing a more conciliatory attitude towards the Kurds - allowing kurdish language broadcasting, for instance, after decades of trying to deny "kurdishness". But, idiot, which Turkish political party is this? It is the ISLAMIST party! The party which is also just lifted the ban on the headscarf! Now, why was there a ban on women putting a cloth on their heads in the first place if Turkey was such a beacon of progress? The answer is obvious, it was a strict authoritarian society in which the personal ideology of the founder (Mustafa Kemal, who renamed himself "Ataturk" or "father of the turks") and his colleagues was imposed on the rest of an unwilling population. Do you know what the Hat Law was? It was a law which required turkish males to stop wearing the fez and instead wear European hats. Do you know what the punishment was for not complying? DEATH BY HANGING.
Yes, what progress! Now what has happened in Turkey today is that a deep fissure entered society; the secular urban elite mainly on the western seaboard who supplied the military leadership, and the rest of the country. Unfortunately for you and Ataturk, in the long term the secular forces did not have the desired success, Islam stayed and is now in the ascendant. Even Istanbul, the cosmopolitan liberal centre, ended up selecting Tayyip Erdogan as its Mayor! Now Erdogan is prime minister, and his Islamist party has won control of Parliament with the strongest support of any turkish government from the public in decades, and Abdulluh Gul sits as president despite the rumblings of the secular army elite! More salt in secular wounds. Returning to the theme of irony, which is that the secular party which imitated the west was always fascist and oppressive, especially to the Kurds, look at the EU accession talks. Who is opposing and who is in favour? It is the Islamists in favour and the secularists opposing! Largely because if Turkey enters the EU, the secularists and their army allies will no longer be able to throw coups (as they have done four times) every time the popular will sways towards Islam.
So the problem you face is that Turkey, when it has imitated the west, as in fact been oppressive, fascist and anti-Kurdish, and when it has affirmed its Muslim identity , it has been the opposite. So your laughable "despite islam" argument in fact bears no relation to reality - like everything else that you say. Stop talking about things you have no knowledge of.
Now that that little diversion is done, kindly return to explaining how there isn't something terribly wrong with Western civilisation considering its perennial urge to fuck up and exploit the rest of the world.
:)
"That's what I mean by Islamic country, since you seem to have difficulty with the definition, a country in which Islamic teachings are enshrined in law. Don't try an say they don't exist! That means laws that wouldn't be there if Islam didn't stipulate that they have to be because to not have them in there would be anti-Islamic. Are we clear?"
LOL a perfect example of a charlatan having to invent his own strawman to argue against. The definition of what is an Islamic state can only come from Islam itself. If a country has one or two laws derived from Islam, and everything else is Western, that doesn't make it an islamic country. Duplicity didn't work out too well for Abdul al Rauf (speaking of him, come back we miss you!!), and it isn't working out too well for you either!
But I digress, you can go to telling us why the muslim world should get rid of our own legacy and replace it with the West's, when the West has been the chief instigator of murder, rape, exploitation and suffering in history. :)
Now now girls, lets not get all hysterical. Your defensive shrillness undermines any valid points you may have, and of course your personal behaviour and bullying politics at Uni give a good picture of what you really are.
I thought my brother Abdul made some very good points across the board and stated the obvious that it was fundamentalist Islamicists that are the major cause of all the shit stirring in Lebanon. So who cares if you come from there? Given your age what direct knowledge would you have anyway? Just passed down revisionism from the parents and some shallow reading, nothing else.
Your silence on Arab military nationalism speaks volumes about your bias and ignorance.
Now go back to playing with each other like the naughty little vixens you secretly like to be.
Ansar said
"If you were actually serious about history or scholarship you would know full well that there is no comparison between american slavery and arab slavery. They fulfilled entirely different economic purposes and had entirely different social implications."
In an interview on 2 April 2004, the UN Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, Jan Egeland, noted that large numbers of civilians have been killed and "scores of women and children have been abducted, raped and tortured."
http://www.antislavery.org/archive/submission/submission2004-sudan.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMGjJJhHvqY
Latest anonymous poster (i'm not sure if you're the same quivering imbecile): oh yes Sudan, a conflict over desperately scarce resources in which approximately 300,000 have died. Like a toned down, less evil version of Iraq, where over a million have died, over control of resources which are "necessary" to safeguard the aggressor's luxurious way of life.
I'm waiting for you guys to post something where it doesn't backfire on you.
Hassan al-Rauf: oh keeping it in the family are you? Just like your parents did!
"Given your age what direct knowledge would you have anyway? Just passed down revisionism from the parents and some shallow reading, nothing else."
This entire thread is testimony to that fact that you idiots' only reading seems to be jihadwatch. You have no idea :)
Weighing up whether I should bother explaining the Lebanese conflict to you. It's little to do with fundamentalism, everything to do with hangovers from feudalism and sectarianism, and the unfortunate fact that Lebanon has for a long time now been an arena for the playing out of international conflicts. But you wouldn't understand any of this because your "brain" seem to be coded in Fox News-style binary: Us/Terrorist. I almost feel sorry for you...but then again, they say ignorance is bliss, so I'm sure you are very, very happy :)
Militant arab nationalism? Arab nationalism had a lot of talk, but didn't actually do very much. It also hasn't been a significant force since the death of Nasser OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. Maybe that is why no-one is talking about it?
WHY DO YOU MAKE THIS SO EASY?
"WE don’t want you here? Hahah. Now you speak for the entire country do you? Wow. I’m sure plenty of Kiwis will have a bit of a problem with that so I recommend you don’t make silly assumptions."
Considering that you are not a kiwi, you belong to a religion whose values we find disagreeable to say the leat and advocate beliefs that despise western society then I think we can safely say that you don't belong here.
But since this is not an intolerent muslim society I suppose we can let you stay as long as you don't step over the line - just like your mate omar.
"just like your mate omar."
*dramatic facial expressions*
Like sands in the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.... *doo, do do doo, doo...*
We don't begrudge them their religion. What we do say is don't force us into it.
It is a privledge for them to be here. Now, lets consider Sahar when she/it says "I am a New Zealander" Ok so as she wasn't born here (wasn't she off the tampa, a queue jumper in other words), she must have taken the citizenship affirmation (one assumes she didn't swear on the bible - Allah would not have liked that!)
It reads:
I (your name) solemnly and sincerely affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen.
Sahar: Were you lying?
Now a quick check of the website reveals the responsibilities of being a citizen
One is:
Not to act in a way that is against the interests of New Zealand.
Clearly you are more interested in implementing Islamic law here than you are anything else. Not in NZ's interests, in other words
An honest person in your situation would renowned their citizenship. Are you an honest person, Sahar?
....
Martyn Bradbury on the life of Muhammad, gang banging Anti-flag (oh and the West has a lot to answer for the radicalization of Islam).
Well, well, well – haven’t we all had a good chunk of each other during this little debate. I’m going to try and answer some of the points that I blogged on rather than the abuse that’s been hurled at Anti-flag, most of which if we were all a bit honest has much more to do with her connections to the Paul Buchanon case rather than any intellectual debate on the ideas she has brought up, but that’s only if we were being honest. So let’s have a wee bit of a stroll around some of the points I’d like to make, as my opinion (and it’s my opinion only, no pretense of being a Muslim Scholar anymore than I am Christian scholar, but understanding the religion shows up some of the claims made here that Islam is somehow evil and that’s that simply are not true, where as I argue those radicalized and brutal interpretations of Islam have been fostered and used as a means of control mainly by regimes we in the West are propping up, or have become radicalized due to our military meddling in their country – examples range from Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, Israel, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia).
So let’s start from the beginning of the posts and see what we can chat about.
Paul said
In the west we developed reason to the point where we don't need religion anymore, in a way what your saying is that the east is 600 years behind us on the evolutionary ladder.
Well I think that Christianity in the West had a lot of social friction between absolute monarchs and the democratic individual, I don’t think that type of social friction has occurred within Islam, and it certainly hasn’t recently, if anything it has become radicalized, mainly due to the Wests interference, and the natural friction that allows a culture to adopt progressive human rights hasn’t been allowed to develop at all.
I agree that if I was Satan I would hide as religion as well.
However, interesting to note that Muhammad was a member of Hilf al-fudul, so chivalry was a binding concept in his life right from the beginning, so the concept of treating eachother with some respect and help was a core part of who the man was. That said he seemed to have taken charity to some broad definitions, “To bring about a just reconciliation between two contestants is charity, helping a person mount his animal or to load his baggage onto it is charity, a good word is charity, to remove obstacles in the street is charity, smiling upon the face of your brother is charity…sexual relations with your spouses is charity”.
Anonymous 22/4/08 11:07am then asks It was and it is, so what's your point? It's a matter of degree - Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century, except for, oh, God, Jesus, the Apostles, the Pope, Priests, Baptists who won't let their women wear pants and any one of another hundred fucking examples...
Well again I’m saying that we went through that debate in the West with Christianity, and there are even in our progressive human rights countries still vestiges of sexism, so my point comes back to why Islam hasn’t been allowed to develop the same way, some argue that because there is no division of state and religion in Islam, where as I contend we didn’t have that with Absolute monarchs either and that it’s a process towards those rights, a process that has been interrupted in Islam.
But at least the women don't have to wear bags over their heads. Now after you've lectured me on how it's the women who really want to wear the bags over their heads (like how they used to love to stay in the kitchen and not go out to work or worry their pretty little heads about the finances), backpedal quickly and explain to me how that when you said that we have a 600 year start on those issues you didn't intentionally mean to say that Islam was a primitive religion that's at least 600 years behind the times. Which it is of course.
Look, do I believe that when asked on what people should wear and Muhammad says you have to be modest, was he talking about wearing a, what is the delightful term you use, a ‘bag’ over ones head? Well I’d say no he wasn’t meaning that at all, but when a culture is under deep stress they tend to revert to strict interpretations and the ‘bag’ becomes on one hand a badge of honour, on another a symptom of a deep psychological stress – again just my opinion, perhaps we could ask those polygamy sects in the US why they choose to dress the way they do? Now I didn’t intentionally mean to say Islam is a primitive religion at all, I’m saying that the radicalized versions of it have been twisted as a means of control by regimes we back (Saudi Arabia) and in other ways its is a radicalized response to who we are backing.
Anon 22/4/08 11.16am then makes some hilariously side splitting comments about why he wants to become Islamic.
THEN Anti-flag makes some reasonable comments about colonialism, which then sees the heavens open up with a lot of barbed commentary that as I pointed out above may have a lot more to do with a certain fight elsewhere than on the opinions she wrote here – I’m more inclined to leave that whole argument alone as it doesn’t seem to have any real point other than making people bleed.
Jon 22/4/08 12:19pm makes a very good point Its rather ironic that Iraq used to have one of the more "liberal" attitudes towards women in the Arab world..........until it was invaded by a christian fundamentalist clique posing as the West, intent on "liberating" it!
And let’s not forget Iran, if the CIA hadn’t gone through with their coup to put in a dictatorship under the Shar, maybe the radicalized Islamic response to the Shar wouldn’t have ended in a Theocracy…. In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response Britain embargoed Iranian oil and invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. After Operation Ajax Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in religious circles, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964 Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. While in exile he continued to denounce the Shah.
The Iranian Revolution, also known as the Islamic Revolution,[54][55][56] began in January 1978 with the first major demonstrations against the Shah.[57] After strikes and demonstrations paralysed the country and its economy, the Shah fled the country in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini soon returned from exile to Tehran, enthusiastically greeted by millions of Iranians.[58] The Pahlavi Dynasty collapsed ten days later on 11 February when Iran's military declared itself "neutral" after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on 1 April 1979 when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.[59][60] In December 1979 the country approved a theocratic constitution, whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country. The speed and success of the revolution surprised many throughout the world,[61] as it had not been precipitated by a military defeat, a financial crisis, or a peasant rebellion.[62] Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, the revolution ultimately resulted in an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.[63]
Some bitter fighting between Anti-flag and some anonymous posters, then this classic from anonymous 22/4/08 1:12pm They must cook some really good eggs though...
Sidesplitting, the kinda comments you’d hope would stay on kiwi blogh.
Then there is a lot of Anti-flag personal comments dressed up as debate points.
But I do like what Pro Sahar has to say with the point made to anti-sahar was not that he is or is not anti-colonisation, for that is beside the point, the point is in attacking saudi arab he misses the big picture and actually deludes himself in believing he is defending the rights of women... again, the oppression of Arab woman comes because Arab states are defended by your goverments.
Then we get to this point…. The arab world is backward. Take away oil from the equation (which they need western technological expertise to exploit) and what are the main exports of the middle east - dates, olives and islamic jihadist.
I wouldn't say that arabs are genetically morons since many of them I know are studying engineering, compsci and business at uni but they are the one who ignore islam opting for a western style of life. Islam is a culturally and economically regressive force in the middle east. The fact that nothing of value comes from the modern middle east is empirical proof of this.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME! NOTHING HAS COME OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST – Anon tries to wipe this clean with the words ‘modern’ middle east, which I think is junk let’s have a wee look at the ‘NOTHING’ that has come out of the Middle East historically, can we do that Anon?
Let’s remember the Muslim philosophers and scientists….
Al-kindi, author of 270 books on mathematics, physics, music, medicine, pharmacy, and geography, plus a commentator of Aristotle.
Al-Farabi, master of Greek philosophy, the author of ‘The Bezels of Philosophy and the Perfect State (appropriated by St Thomas Aquinas).
Ibn Sina child prodigy, author of the text ‘Canons of Medicine’, the corrector of Aristotle.
Ibn Rushd – the greatest Muslim philosopher of the West.
Al-Ghazzali the 11th century professor at Nizamiyyah college and the author of the monumental ‘The revival of the religious sciences in Islam’
Fakhr al-Din Razi mathmatician, physicist, master of Kalam, author of an influential encyclopedia of science: ‘one of the greatest masters of Islam’.
We can write all these off as modern Islam has nothing worthwhile coming out of it?
What about literature Anon – al-Hariri’s ‘The Assemblies’ – we write the magic of the Arabic language off do we? What about ibn Shahid’s al-Tawabi or al Maari’s Risalah al-Ghufran, the appropriation of The Thousand and One Nights.
Let’s talk science Anon, nothing of worth that has come from modern Islam writes off the scientific method we use, it was introduced by al-Baatani (he died 929), al-Baruni (he died 1048) and ibn Haytham (he died 1039). What about the creation of logarithms and algebra, he wrote kitab al-jabr wa’ muqabala (the book of inheritance), 300 years after he died the West were introduced to the zero and adopted Arabic numerals. Addul Wafa developed trigonometry and spherical geometry in the 10th century, came up with sine and tangent tables, and discovered variations in the moon’s motion. Omar Khayyam solved third and fourth degree equations by intersecting conic – the highest algebraic achievements of modern mathmatics. 500 years before Galileo, Al-Baruni discussed the rotation of the Earth on its axis, and Al-Battani measured the circumference of the earth. Ibn al-Haytham in the 11th century was a trailblazer in optics, his optical thesaurus is one of the most plagiarized texts in the history of science. Jabir ibn Hayyan in the 9th century invented numerous types of laboratory apparatus while introducing distillation for the puriofication of water, identified numerous alkalis, acids, salts, prepared sulphuric acid, caustic soda and nitohydrochloric acid for dissolving metals discovering mercury. Al-Majriti in the 11th century proved the principle of chemical conservation of mass – 900 years before Lavoisier took the credit. I suppose we should also junk the 1121 book by Al-Khazini – ‘book of the balance of wisdom’ – where he details the techniques of measurement and construction of balances, the law of mechanics and hydrostatics and physics not to mention the basics of gravity 566 years before Newton. I suppose we dump al-Razi’s book of the secret of secrets which focused on professional technology like distilling crude petroleum in the 9th century. I suppose we dump Ibn Sina’s 11th century ‘The canons of medicine’ which was a standard text in the West for 700 years.
I’m not even touching the social sciences of al-Tabri, al-Masudi, al-Athir and ibn Kaldun or the advanced trade or town planning or even environmental harams or hima, didn’t Ibn abd as-Salam formulate the first statement of animal rights in the 13th century?
I haven’t even mentioned art or music – but apparently all of that, every inch of it is wiped clean because ‘modern middle east’ is worthless – staggering, truly staggering.
Anon backpeddles the modern thing with Can't you fucking read bomber, I said MODERN middle east. - I’m sorry but you just destroyed all value in a culture by wiping all it’s value to many sciences we’ve adopted in one single sentence, yes I can read, can you?
Anon then says … Islam use to be a great force but it has ossified to the point where it has become intolerant of everything.
If I was invaded by the West and had regimes backed by the West all the time, I’d be pretty intolerant as well I would suspect. Now I agree the ulama in the 14th century have a lot to answer for, and I agree that the reduced concept of ilm from meaning “all knowledge” to mean only “religious knowledge” has frozen the Qur’an in time and that is an issue that needs to be rectified, and their suppression of printing presses did end the golden muslim age, but it got worse under colonialism.
Anon goes onto say…
I really don't think you can back up your assertion that the arab dictatorship are responsible for the current stated of intellectual decline because those military dictatorship were a means of modernity. They modeled themselves on the achievements of ataturk who built the modern turkish state along western secular line.
This is funny, the CIA and British backed coups were important as they would drag these backward states into the modernity of servitude to the West – are you even real? I mean I realize you need a backpeddle from the ‘modern middle East thing’ but justifying dictatorships we prop up in the middle east as modernity in action is just farcical.
Anon goes on…
You're sounding like George Bush with you assertion that democracy will somehow magically appear in a region that has no democratic culture whatsoever.
And yet there is the Ilm, the pursuit of knowledge is an obligation of every Muslim male and female, Muslim communities everywhere have to ensure that experts in certain branches of knowledge – eg law, medicine, education, engineering – are adequately represented in the community – are you really telling me a culture that values knowledge, hell you even note that there are many at Uni learning – even though you have no idea about Ilm – are you telling me that culture cannot learn anything other than through dictatorships under the West? UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!
Anon goes on…
Explain to me how the fuck are a people with a tribal based culture which cannot even treat women as equals are suppose to suddenly obey democratic ideals of equality and respect for the individual.
Okay, in Saudi Arabia the House of Saud have taken a violent form of resistance that fell back to ultra conservative values and used it to keep control – we in the West support Saudi Arabia – is that simple enough? Look at the response colonialism seeded, Shah Wali Allah in the 18th century in the Indian subcontinent, in Sudan, Mohammad Ahmad in the 19th century, in Libya, Muhammad Ali al-Sanusi, in Algeria, Amir Abd al-Qadir who established the Ulama movement that fought against the French – as much as you wish to write off colonialism as the reason why things are still fucked up in some parts of the Muslim world from a human rights position, you can’t write off its effects, it was a direct reason why Jalamuddin Afghani rose to prominence, now it takes a more modern voice at this point, and the impression given by Urwat al-Wuthqa (the weekly Arabic newspaper he edited with Muhammad Abduh, the Grand mufti of Egypt) is that a pan-Islamism can grow by respecting the old traditions in a modern world, the problem seems to be that the Elites propped up by the West have held some of those ‘traditions’ while denying the wider philosophy of modernity that people like Muhammad Iqbal voiced through his poetry and passionate vision of Islamic revival through social justice. The Islamic response to colonialism is a major factor and the twisting of that for dictatorships we in the West prop up has a lot to answer for and I don’t think you can comment on these issues without understanding the history.
Should we even start on the crusades?
Oh Anon goes on Your opinions are glib and superficial but lack and understanding of the culture of the region. And as I suggested in the OP since the only country in the middle east which is democratic is Israel who are not muslim what does this does suggest that the problem is Islam.
Oh you are kidding me – I don’t have the energy to be glib and your last point suggests I’m wasting my time here. I’ve written for about two hours now, and realized I’ve only even gone through about a third of the comments, so I’m taking a break and coming back to this latter in the week.
"An honest person in your situation would renowned their citizenship."
Renowned? Luckily for you, citizenship doesn't involve a language competence test. Here is the correct usage: "The anonymous contributor is renowned for stupidity."
"I (your name) solemnly and sincerely affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth"
Poor republicans I guess. :)
You guys are such teases, three new replies and no actual responses. Oh what's that, a link to islamism! I'm sorry, what are you trying to say here? You opened up the subjects of Lebanon, Turkey, Muslim views on salafis, Arab nationalism, etc, and got exposed as ignorant on every one of them, so are you looking for another beating? :) [hint: i don't know much about..say..geology, maybe you'd feel more comfortable talking about that].
And I see you are back to insulting Sahar..which is, again, only demonstrating that you have zero capability to actually argue the issues.
In any case, please, you still haven't stopped running away from the big issue here: you say Islam is this and that, and we should replace Islam with your values (and it's a pity colonialism didn't, apparently), but it's patently obvious that the West has been nothing other than a malicious virus on this planet for the past five hundred years. So what is it about this civilisation of yours that made it kill hundreds of millions of people and bring abject poverty to billions, and actively maintain that poverty? And you want to compare to Muslim civilisation? The biggest mistake Muslim civilisation made was sharing the tools and knowledge that enabled Europe to emerge from its muddy huts.
I'll be busy for the rest of today I'm afraid, so don't start wanking in relief just because you don't get a reply : )
The taliban were SOOOOO right.
Educating women is wrong.
No good can come of it.
"– are you telling me that culture cannot learn anything other than through dictatorships under the West? UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!"
So Bomber, can you point to any country which has made the transition straight through to a flawless pluralistic democracy? I suspect not.
It's unfortunate that you have the weight of history going against you, still keep up the good fight
Bomber: Let's be really honest. The disgust for Sahar long predates her involvement in the "Buchanon (sic) case" and will continue long after he returns to campus (as many hope). Her involvement in the leaking of the email and the orchestration of the "racist" claims against him in the media only cemented what was well known--she is authoritarian, ill-tempered, opportunistic, intolerant and profoundly dishonest. Since you know her well, it behooves you to ask of her the hard questions you ask of others. Forget the Buchanan case--ask her how she feels about Shiia!
She leaked the email?
What a bitch. I knew she had issues with him but that is pretty fucking low.
Of course she had issues with the shia. She was mightily pissed with some of her iraqi shia friends when they welcomed US invasion.
And sahar's pashtun so she's bound to side with the sunni no matter what they do. Just another sectarian sellout in my book.
I find it amusing that she goes on about colonialism but fails to recognise that in Iraq the sunnis who comprised about 25% of the population colonised and suppressed the majority by force.
DEAR anon @ 26/4 9:25 pm
Why do you talk without knowledge, what chemical imbalance triggers your neurotic hate driven response, what childhood trauma transfered into a fear of sahar occured, that is, which uncle touched you in your private parts while forcing you to call them "daddy", that is, what inescapable insecurity suffocates your intelligence so much that it lights up a green light in your head to spew out such unquestioned rubbish like:
"in Iraq the sunnis who comprised about 25% of the population colonised and suppressed the majority by force."
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT A COLONY IS?
Westerners are historically retarded!
Pro Sahar
Haha, oh god...you guys are really getting desperate now. I'm now anti-Shia? Haha. How about I just be everyone's preferred constructed enemy? Wouldn't that just be convenient?
"Her involvement in the leaking of the email and the orchestration of the "racist" claims against him in the media only cemented what was well known--she is authoritarian, ill-tempered, opportunistic, intolerant and profoundly dishonest".
Okay, this is just getting way too fucking ridiculous and incredibly full of shit. You demonstrate you know NOTHING of what actually happened in the Buchanan incident. What you're actually doing is repeating what Buchanan has likely told you OR what his acolytes choose to believe. Paul has put himself to shame by blaming everyone else but himself for that email regardless of the result of his case. In fact HE is the one who went to the media with his 'story' no one else. I did not leak the emails and nor was I involved in his sacking. What the fuck would I get out of that? Jesus! It's fucking absurd and i'm sick and tired of hearing this rubbish coming from imbeciles who have no clue what actually happened in the case but in their moment of hysteria will put the blame on anyone in order to ensure Buchanan is put in the best light. To them and to you I say get a fucking clue.
"Since you know her well, it behooves you to ask of her the hard questions you ask of others. Forget the Buchanan case--ask her how she feels about Shiia!
Yeah Bomber ask me how much I hate Shia! Ask me about my mates who just happened to be Shia. Ask me about how i've had falling out with Muslims who have made the sunni-shia thing an issue amongst themselves? Let's see how insightful this "inside-AUSA" really is.
"Of course she had issues with the shia. She was mightily pissed with some of her iraqi shia friends when they welcomed US invasion".
Like I was equally as pissed when some of my Iraqi SUNNI friends intially supported the U.S. invasion.
"And sahar's pashtun so she's bound to side with the sunni no matter what they do. Just another sectarian sellout in my book".
I don't even consider myself Sunni in fact-- why it appalls me when sectarian issues arise amongst Muslims. I don't adhere to sectarian belief or identity because of the political implication. What the fuck has my ethnicity got to do with anything anyway? You truly are getting desperate aren't you?
"I find it amusing that she goes on about colonialism but fails to recognise that in Iraq the sunnis who comprised about 25% of the population colonised and suppressed the majority by force".
I find it amusing you fail to recognise the Sunni power monopoly in Iraq as a product and strategy of colonialism. Off you go to Colonialsim 101.
-Anti-Flag.
Ah yes another apologist for sunni atrocities against the shia and kurds.
You must be pissed now that the shia have control of the govnt and military with backing from the US. I guess that why your sunni friends from saudi arabia, jordan and egypt send suicide bombers to target these imperialist centres of repression:
pet markets: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jP2FMIfm_K6LfTYdivmM-ND_N37Q
religious processions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23675352/
it is well known the email was leaked by Sahar to craccum to print. They got the email in late July and printed early August. And Buchanan is coming back. Sahar you owe Dr Buchanan an apology. You played a large part in his dismissal. He WILL get his job back - and you would be well advised to make amends now because those involved in his public humiliation will be made to pay for it.....
Sorry did I miss something, is the West pro Shia all of a sudden?
Someone tell Iran quick? lol
...and while your at it, tell Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and all Western sunni allies that "here in NFIZ (No Fucking Idea Zeland) we no longer love you because sahar is a bad pushtoon"
http://IgotnofuckingcluewhatImsayingbecauseimwhiteandstupid.com
Pro Sahar
Anti-Stupid White People who talk out of their IKEA cushioned asses
LOL. So anonymous is pro-shia now? Hopefully we'll see you in ashoura next time.
As for Buchanan... you muppet! Buchanan was the one who went to the media. Sahar did not leak the email. Go ask TVNZ, they know all about it :) You see, Buchanan in his cowardice leaked HER name to the media to try to set up a smokescreen for his racism. So the media did come calling, only to find that - whoops, Sahar had nothing to do with it. No story there after all. Away they went again! So I'm afraid Sahar has not been dishonest at all, rather it was Buchanan, yourself and the rest of the Buchanan lackeys. Must feel great being a lackey :)
Can somebody ask matty b what the real deal is with this and post here. Since these postings are archived then sahar's lies will live on on a server room somewhere as proof of her duplicity.
"it is well known the email was leaked by Sahar to craccum to print. They got the email in late July and printed early August. And "Buchanan is coming back. Sahar you owe Dr Buchanan an apology. You played a large part in his dismissal. He WILL get his job back - and you would be well advised to make amends now because those involved in his public humiliation will be made to pay for it....."
Haha. Apologise for what? For doing something he and others claim I have done and that's that? I don't think so. How about you ask Matty and Simon (last year's Craccum editors) whether it was me who sent them the email. You'll be very interested in their response. I assure you. What Paul should be doing is apologising to me for dragging my name into this case and my having to put up with incompetent journalists who were looking for a sensational angle and nothing more.
-Anti-Flag.
"Can somebody ask matty b what the real deal is with this and post here. Since these postings are archived then sahar's lies will live on on a server room somewhere as proof of her duplicity."
OMG. This is too funny. YES PLEASE go ahead. Let's see if you can add "dishonest" to your list of traits (alongside cowardly, immoral, slanderous, and pig-ignorant).
LOL @ acolyte. Hope you got some kneepads for Christmas :)
LOL @ Ansar
Maybe you should get one last look at your beloved lebanon before the Israeli's bomb it back into the stoneage in their upcoming offensive. Again.
"He WILL get his job back - and you would be well advised to make amends now because those involved in his public humiliation will be made to pay for it....."
Wow, I love the cultish overtones...you sound sooo dangerous. We're all very very afraid. Who can we turn to for protection from Buchanan's mysterious lackeys?!?
Wait...I think I know who can help us...a band of escaped prisoners... Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no-one else can help - and if you can find them - maybe you can hire..
THE A TEAM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls8mKdKYQV8
"Maybe you should get one last look at your beloved lebanon before the Israeli's bomb it back into the stoneage in their upcoming offensive. Again."
Umm...is this actually supposed to hurt? Anonymous, you should be a scriptwriter for Shortland St. As for Lebanon, at the end of the day, it's just a rebellious province of Syria :)
But you know it's true.
Shalom
Pro Sahar: Prior to that, I think his mother was also a hooker for Paul Buchanan
"But you know it's true.
Shalom"
And yet, it was the West which committed the Holocaust. Ohhh bitter irony. Anonymous, how do you feel about the West committing the holocaust? Not just Germany of course, don't forget how the rest of Europe happily sent their Jews on those trains. What a lovely heritage you have.
Bomber said
"didn’t Ibn abd as-Salam formulate the first statement of animal rights in the 13th century?"
"Prohibition of slaughtering an animal in any other way except in the prescribed manner of tazkiyah (cleansing) by taking Allah’s name which involves cutting the throat of the animal and draining the blood. Causing the animal needless pain, ... is strictly forbidden. Modern contemporary 'painless' methods of slaughter like the captive bolt stunning are also prohibited."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia)
I fail to see how letting an animal bleed to death is not causing of needless pain, seeing as how animals can be slaughtered instantaniously these days.
Feel free to educate me on this.
Anon said:
"http://www.igotnofuckingcluewhatimsayingbecauseimwhiteandstupid.com/"
I really wish this site existed. Would be fucking hilarious.
"Buchanan". Oh so thats who Sahar is. sometimes my ignorence knows no bounds. *shurg*
Personally, I think consummerism is to blame. I really don't have the nessicary ammo or frankly sleep right now to justify my position.
"Haha. Apologise for what? For doing something he and others claim I have done and that's that? I don't think so. How about you ask Matty and Simon (last year's Craccum editors) whether it was me who sent them the email. You'll be very interested in their response. I assure you. What Paul should be doing is apologising to me for dragging my name into this case and my having to put up with incompetent journalists who were looking for a sensational angle and nothing more."
Lets also get the people around AUSA to comment on the fact that you were the one showing everyone the email....
"apologise for what? For doing something he and others claim I have done and that's that? I don't think so."
Sahar, no one really believes you because the brutal truth is that it's the kind of back stabbing, unethical, self-serving behaviour that everyone expects from you.
Paul was known for sending these types of emails to students but he apologised for it later so nobody took it seriously. He sent one to you but you were too gutless to complain because you were afraid it would damage your standing within the department.
Instead you used this girl as a proxy to carry out your little poison whisper campaign because you didn't have the balls to handle the consequences. And now the blowback has come back to piss all over you and your ass covering attempts have clearly been revealed for the lies they are.
The UOA loses a great but flawed lecturer all because of a loud mouthed, lying islamic extremist couldn't handle his opinions.
What a crack up. Anonymous, what blowback? If you mean your hysterical ravings... As for 'Paul', (ooh I'm liking the first name basis with your cultish master) you'd have to be an idiot not to see that he did it to himself.
"And now the blowback has come back to piss all over you and your ass covering attempts have clearly been revealed for the lies they are."
You must be referring to Paul Buchanan here, since the piss and humiliation is all over him. You haven't proved what you alleged, and won't be able to, since it is not true. Buchanan went to the media, full stop. Not Sahar. And it wasn't Sahar who sent the email to craccup. Full stop. As for "showing everyone the email", lol. You're an idiot, it's true, but even so you must realise that there were a heck of a lot of people discussing the matter at the time. He got fired very, very quickly, after all.
"The UOA loses a great but flawed lecturer all because of a loud mouthed, lying islamic extremist couldn't handle his opinions."
No, he lost his job partially because of his racism but mostly because he pissed off everyone else in his department with his loud-mouthed egotistical ways. Now, if you had any intelligence you would figure out (like the journalists eventually did) that the real story here is why the university fired him so quickly.
It is spectacular that you seem to be a politics student but you are demonstrably retarded when it comes to both international and personal politics. Do you even know how to spell your name? Is that the real reason you remain anonymous? :)
Again, lets be real honest here. The student in question had no clue how to make a complaint much less go to the media. Sahar and co. not only facilitated the former by alerting the University and then walking her through the initial complaint interview, but peddled the email to various media outlets before Craccum decided to run the story. She no only suggested to the student that the email was racist--any sensible read shows that it was not--but repeated that charge in multiple forums, including this one. In fact, Sahar made the charge that his email was a sign of "institutional racism," which is clearly nuts. Buchanan initially was silent on the matter, but once the racism stuff started he defended himself in public. Sahar would do well to remember that her revisionism does not escape the attention of several people who have direct knowledge of how things went down.
If I was Sahar I would be worried about Ansar's comments above, as she repeats several falsehoods and seems to ignore the fact that the Employment Relations Authority found that the dismissal was unjustified (and therefore illegal). In fact, had anyone taken the time to read the ERA decision they would see that Buchanan had no prior warnings of any kind, and that the University escalated a simple misconduct charge to one of serious misconduct in order to fire him--which is illegal. Thus the rush to dismiss had nothing to do with "prior complaints" and the other nonsense spouted By Sahar (then) and Ansar (now) about Buchanan. As it turns out, he was cleared of any prior wrongdoing involving students.
My understanding is that the decision to not reinstate is being appealed to the Employment Court, which should be interesting because all of the above, including the role of various parties such as those mentioned above, will be examined under oath by the judges. For a habitual liar like Sahar, that could spell trouble....
"Again, lets be real honest here. The student in question had no clue how to make a complaint much less go to the media. Sahar and co. not only facilitated the former by alerting the University and then walking her through the initial complaint interview,"
Yes, let's be honest. You're already lying here, I personally know the student at the interview stage, it wasn't Sahar.
"peddled the email to various media outlets before Craccum decided to run the story."
No, in fact the opposite: the girl involved wanted to go to the media, whereas Sahar advised her not to. And again, Sahar did not send the email to craccum, as their editors can plainly tell you.
"Buchanan initially was silent on the matter, but once the racism stuff started he defended himself in public"
No, Buchanan raced off to the media once he got fired. And it was Buchanan who gave Sahar's name to the media as a scapegoat. Don't be deceitful :)
"Sahar would do well to remember that her revisionism does not escape the attention of several people who have direct knowledge of how things went down."
Indeed, there were plenty of people right there who can verify this, especially the people who were around her at uni at the time and know first hand that you are full of shit.
"f I was Sahar I would be worried about Ansar's comments above, as she repeats several falsehoods and seems to ignore the fact that the Employment Relations Authority found that the dismissal was unjustified (and therefore illegal)."
Haha poor little old Buchanan, egg on his face for nothing? Lucky he has his lackeys to preach this Gospel of Saint Paul.
"Thus the rush to dismiss had nothing to do with "prior complaints"
No, like I said, it most probably had to do with him insulting other lecturers, including insulting other lecturers to students. Funnily enough, the email anonymous referred to before from Buchanan to Sahar contained insults at other lecturers. (LOL). If she was really the person you are making her out to be, that would have been released to the media long ago, along with other inappropriate emails received by other students. But, she's not. But hey, why don't you keep digging this pit of lies and slander you're in?
:)
"No, in fact the opposite: the girl involved wanted to go to the media, whereas Sahar advised her not to. And again, Sahar did not send the email to craccum, as their editors can plainly tell you."
Does anyone believe this? Anybody who is acquainted with sahar knows that she loves publicity, she's like a 2 dollar whore sucking dick on a 50 dollar blowjob - she's all over it.
Sahar would loved to hold Paul to account for his 'crimes' of holding her and this arab girl to the same standards as his other students. It's called motive retard.
"No, he lost his job partially because of his racism but mostly because he pissed off everyone else in his department with his loud-mouthed egotistical ways. Now, if you had any intelligence you would figure out (like the journalists eventually did) that the real story here is why the university fired him so quickly. "
1) So why did the Uni not accuse him of racism? How come the ERA never said he was a racist
2) How come he had a clean record?
Sounds to me like you know fuck-all, or are lying. Are you ignorant or a liar?
The racism was part of the inappropriateness of his email, any fool can see that : )
His clean record - hehe, you can have a clean record and still be hated by your colleagues for being a bastard. What you can't get into your cultist head is that whether or not he had a record, he was disliked (yes, people disliked him, you may not understand this because of your desperation to have his dick in your ass), and it seems pretty obvious that the university used this episode as an exuse to get rid of him.
Am I ignorant or a liar? hmmm... I can't be! You have a monopoly on both! [as well as cowardice and inability to be effectively polemic, not to mention desperate boy-love for Buchanan]
Ps: Sahar advised the girl NOT to go to the media. That's the honest-to-God truth. If you can't handle that, you have issues.
Pot calling the kettle black I suspect in this case Ansar as regards to your cry wold racism call.
We should just apply sahar's cultural relativist theory here. Buchanan should not have written the email because he should have not expected the student up up to the higher standards of NZ students because as muslim she cannot be expected to understand with the same degree comprehension postgraduate level political science. Therefore his email inappropriately held her to an objective standard rather than one more befitting of her islamic intellectual background
Does that settle it?
Jesus, the amount of lies and bullshit you anonymous lot is coming up with are phenomenal. I suppose that is why you’re all under anonymous status.
“Again, lets be real honest here. The student in question had no clue how to make a complaint much less go to the media. Sahar and co. not only facilitated the former by alerting the University and then walking her through the initial complaint interview, but peddled the email to various media outlets before Craccum decided to run the story. She no only suggested to the student that the email was racist--any sensible read shows that it was not--but repeated that charge in multiple forums, including this one. In fact, Sahar made the charge that his email was a sign of "institutional racism," which is clearly nuts. Buchanan initially was silent on the matter, but once the racism stuff started he defended himself in public. Sahar would do well to remember that her revisionism does not escape the attention of several people who have direct knowledge of how things went down”.
Haha. Incredible. I did not attend any meeting/interview. Nor did I give the email to Craccum, ASK THE EDITORS. Go on, I dare you. Of course the email was racist and PLENTY of people saw it as such. Just because you did not see it as racist does not change the fact that it was interpreted by the student and others as racist. Nor was that the only inappropriate part of the email. There were plenty of other things in the email that got him in trouble. The email was even more offensive ESPECIALLY in the particular context it took place in which I won’t go into detail with because I unlike you and others in this blog won’t stoop to that level….and when did I claim institutional racism? I want you to fucking prove that. Go on. Again, I dare you. How about you use your real name and then perhaps I can see what YOUR agenda is? Wouldn’t that be enlightening.
“Sahar would loved to hold Paul to account for his 'crimes' of holding her and this arab girl to the same standards as his other students. It's called motive retard”.
“Instead you used this girl as a proxy to carry out your little poison whisper campaign because you didn't have the balls to handle the consequences. And now the blowback has come back to piss all over you and your ass covering attempts have clearly been revealed for the lies they are.”
Un-fucking-believable. Are you seriously going to argue that I planned this whole thing? Listen, let’s be clear on this. Buchanan mentioned to journalists that I had a ‘vendetta’ against him based on political differences—and claimed I pushed the student to make the complaint as part of my scheme to get rid of him. If my motives were political differences, why the fuck would I bother with Buchanan? There’s Hoadley in the department who is Zionist to the core and denies American imperialism. Why the fuck shouldn’t I put all my ‘evil’ ‘scheming’ energy into getting rid of him? Why bother with Buchanan then? It’s completely retarded to even be alluding to this. In fact, sure, I disagreed with Buchanan on a number of issues but he’s said a lot of things I have agreed with him on. So our political differences aren’t nowhere near as great as he and others have suggested. In reality, Buchanan was tripping off my interview with Harmeet Sooden and took it too personally. When really, it was a response to the criticism Buchanan had written about on Sooden’s release. That’s fair game don’t you think? If you criticise someone to the extent Sooden was, the person deserves the chance to respond—especially when there were popular misconceptions at the time. . Buchanan did not like that and saw it as some personal attack on him. Far from it and Sooden could vouch for this.
As for the student who made the complaint, she approached me because being one of the few if not the only other Muslim student in the department, she felt comfortable in asking me for information about how the complaint should be done. I informed her on who to see. My work was done at this stage and contrary to Buchanan and co’s understanding—I never took part in the mediation process. She had two friends who helped her with this. She soon after approached me about going to the media with the email. She was frantic and stressed out at this stage after Buchanan had gone to the media with the story. The media began a demonisation campaign which affected the student AND her family who at the time remember were grieving. But I advised her not to, knowing the nature of the media and how it could easily turn nasty.
“Paul was known for sending these types of emails to students but he apologised for it later so nobody took it seriously. He sent one to you but you were too gutless to complain because you were afraid it would damage your standing within the department”.
Oh, and the plot thickens. So either I know you or you know Buchanan very well, ‘cause that’s how you would know about the email he sent me. Oh, and thanks for bringing that up. It’s an indication of the way Buchanan has behaved with other students. However, the email he sent me was nowhere near as offensive as this one. It’s on a whole different fucking level. I did hit Buchanan up on that IN PERSON in fact later and asked him if this is his way of discouraging students from learning.
When the complaint was made, the student did not aim at getting Buchanan fired for crying out loud. In fact, I recall her telling me “I know nothing can come out of this, but I still want to make a complaint because I don’t agree with how this lecturer has responded to me”--or something along those lines. She would never have imagined he would get fired for it. Nor did I, and when he did, I assumed there were other complaints made prior to it for him to get sacked. Little did I know the university would respond with a summary dismissal. I was as surprised as everyone else. So where have I lied? I’d love for any of you to provide proof for the accusations that are being made.
Hope that clears up misunderstandings and sums up the Buchanan saga.
-Anti-Flag.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Does that settle it?"
Uhh.. no :) You've dug yourself a massive hole of bigotry, lies and slander here bitch, you won't be getting out of it that easy.
Let's wait and see what the craccumfolk says.
Does anyone believe this? Anybody who is acquainted with sahar knows that she loves publicity, she's like a 2 dollar whore sucking dick on a 50 dollar blowjob - she's all over it.
Anonymous,
Perhaps you can speak for people who are merely acquainted with her, but speaking as someone who actually knows Sahar, I can vouch for her dislike and distrust of publicity.
All you nice people should meet in person to talk about this over a drink. Clear everything up, like real-life grown-ups. You could wear fake moustaches and goofy wigs if you really like anonymity. Though, talking to people in person can detract from the sheer punchiness of $2 whore $50 blowjob metaphors.
This thread isn't destined for any constructive conclusions. That makes it a massive waste of time.
"All you nice people should meet in person to talk about this over a drink. Clear everything up, like real-life grown-ups. You could wear fake moustaches and goofy wigs if you really like anonymity."
Can I wear a berkha and speak through my posse of male guardians? You know, like they do in afghanistan.
"This thread isn't destined for any constructive conclusions. That makes it a massive waste of time."
Kinda like Students for Justice in Palestine really.
"All you nice people should meet in person to talk about this over a drink"
Come to my place for dinner! Roast Pork Sahar?
The irony in this thread runs thick.
Here we have sahar and ansar trying to defend the sacking of Buchanan for a supposedly racist email to a student whose family, owner of a construction co in UAE, is involved in the exploitation of 3rd world labour from pakistan and india, puts pressure on UOA to fire Buchanan.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/uae1106/1.htm
one, two, three, four, five posts from anonymous coward desperately trying to work up an erection over this.
"Kinda like Students for Justice in Palestine"
Nah.. more like hazbara :)
"Here we have sahar and ansar trying to defend the sacking of Buchanan for a supposedly racist email to a student whose family, owner of a construction co in UAE, is involved in the exploitation of 3rd world labour from pakistan and india, puts pressure on UOA to fire Buchanan."
The irony becomes even thicker when a westerner is yapping at an easterner for exploitation of the third world. Keep yapping bitch, you haven't proved shit and as you said, this is archived :) Keep trying.
"whose family, owner of a construction co in UAE, is involved in the exploitation of 3rd world labour from pakistan and india, puts pressure on UOA to fire Buchanan"
Another myth from the dank depths of Buchanan cultism. Lol, still making stuff up I see.
"one, two, three, four, five posts from anonymous coward desperately trying to work up an erection over this."
So what's your real name ansar? Maybe I'll see you around campus.
Anonymous really wants my name? I'll make it easy for you. If you want to discuss this in person just choose a time and a place :)
LOL
I knew you'd punk out. Arabs are all the same. For all of their much vaunted fighting words, like a saddam hussein speech there is fuck all to back them up.
Incredibly slavery is still prevelent in many arab countries such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. So what were you saying about historical slavery - that makes you either a liar or a moron.
So which one are you?
Hahahah, nice try you coward. I offer you to set a time and place and you tell me I've punked out? On top of that, you're the anonymous one :) You want to play chicken, that's just too bad. Anytime though.
No, wrong again on the slavery. What was in discussion was the historical mode of slavery in the southern USA and in spanish South America during the colonial period (where slavery was the economic engine of society and slaves were highly stigmatised) versus historical arab slavery, where the functions of slavery were highly varied, but included supplying entire military regiments, which surprisingly to someone retarded like you, did not rebel once they were given weapons! The reason being of course that slavery did not have that kind of stigma, in particular racial stigma, which was found in the west.
The "slavery" you talk about in UAE etc is low paid work, therefore it doesn't fit the strict definition of slavery, for instance American slavery or the sex slaves that Israelis traffic in. But if you want to expand the definition, well of course the economy of the West is dependant on such cheap labour and sweatshop conditions, so it's really an embarrassing case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Goodnight chicken :) change your diapers and then let me know if you have a change of heart.
Sahar didn't send us the email, nor did Paul Buchanan. The student in question forwarded it to us. We sat on it for a couple of weeks, forgot about it, then dug it up again when we heard that Buchanan was in the shit. I have no idea if Sahar tried to force the student to send it to us, but I doubt it. I also don't think she was trying to create a national feeding frenzy either, but these things happen.
- Simon Coverdale
I guess you don't want you name be be publicly attributed to some of the comments made here which are reprehensible.
Don't worry though, since I was easily able to find out that Buchanan sent an similar email to sahar it should be very easy to determine your identity, especially when you move in those circles. Maybe I'll even post it here.
Islam and slavery.
Slave women were required mainly as concubines and menials. A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women. While free women might own male slaves, they had no such right.[58] The purchase of female slaves for sex was lawful from the perspective of Islamic law, and this was the most common motive for the purchase of slaves throughout Islamic history.[59]The property of a slave was owned by his or her master unless a contract of freedom of the slave had been entered into, which allowed the slave to earn money to purchase his or her freedom and similarly to pay bride wealth. The marriage of slaves required the consent of the owner. Under the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools of jurisprudence male slaves could marry two wives, but the Maliki permitted them to marry four wives like the free men. According to the Islamic law, a male slave could marry a free woman but this was discouraged in practice.[45] Islam permits sexual relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage. This is referred to in the Qur'an as ma malakat aymanukum or "what your right hands possess".[60][61] There are some restrictions on the master; he may not co-habit with a female slave belonging to his wife,[4] neither can he have relations with a female slave if she is co-owned, or already married, but Islam allowed the master to dissolve marriages among his slaves with or without the slaves' consent
What more can a man want in a religion
- multiple wives.
- divoirce by txt message.
- The keeping of infidel slaves for sexual purposes.
I can see why muslims go for a literal interpretation of the Koran.
A quick check of Sahar's previous comments reveal she has changed tact.
"10 August 2007 1532 Tumeke.
Did you know the family had no idea this was going on until it blew up in their face- mainly via the media? Did you know that the girl did not want the family to know about this because her family was grieving the loss of a loved one? Did you know this situation has been going on for a couple of months now, and it wasn't hastily done -as the media is claiming? Did you know that Buchanan showed little remorse and refused to stay in the country to take part in the meetings soon after and even when the university warned him the situation will get far more serious if he did leave, he arrogantly left anyway? And remember, she too is grieving. Instead, the NZ public has decided to attack her on something that wasn't in her control. Buchanan sent a completely inappropriate email, which offended her in more ways than one and so she made rightly made a complaint. From there, it was up to the university to handle the situation and what was to be done about it. I'm disgusted by the media and the public at large for demonising this poor girl and making her responsible for the dismissal itself. Buchanan himself surely hasn't bothered to hold back making personal references to her and contributing to this demonisation campaign"
Sounds to me like Sahar knew very intimate details of what was going on.....Who told her the details of the disciplinary process?
"Sahar didn't send us the email" - Simon Coverdale
There you go anonymous loser, read it and weep. Your lies are exposed. :) Oh remember that big hoo-haa you raised about "oh let's get craccum involved, then her lies will be visible to all." How the cookie crumbles!! You anonymous lying cunt.
As for exposing my identity, that's your big threat? No, I don't mind :) I'm barely anonymous at all, many people know who I am. It's surprising that it's taken you this long. I'm not offering you my details merely in case you can figure out a way to spam me, but as i said, if you'd like to meet up and discuss this in person, i'm all yours. Come on, let's go for coffee (you'll be nice and safe on campus) and we can talk reasonably about your views.
Lol @ your remaining anonymous. You would have to, wouldn't you, given the completely inhuman things you have been saying. Ahh well. It would really, really suck for you if someone knew who you were huh : ):)
"Who told her the details of the disciplinary process?"
You idiot, the girl came to her upset and told her what was going on. Everyone knows that. Desperation mode now eh loser. Literal reading of the Koran says text message divorce is okay? Something a wee bit fishy there!!!
Just to remind you: Craccum confirmed that you were lying on that, just like on everythign else. Like Jacob the Liar, but instead of lying for good, lying for utter evil. :)
""Sahar didn't send us the email" - Simon Coverdale"
I'd say it was plausible denial: sahar got her to send it as an authentic touch.
Good on the editors for sitting on the email though. At least we know they are people of integrity not given to racist muckracking like some.
Sahar gets to dish the dirt on Buchanan through someone else - hence my reference to a proxy.
My issue is why UOA is bowing down to this dispicable family in the UAE. Does it need money gained from cheating desperate and abused 3rd world labourers that badly? I think not.
There is nothing to be gained from taking money or for that matter anything from muslims.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23585415-12332,00.html
"I'm barely anonymous at all, many people know who I am. It's surprising that it's taken you this long. I'm not offering you my details merely in case you can figure out a way to spam me, but as i said, if you'd like to meet up and discuss this in person"
Come to think of it we are acquainted. Let's see if you can guess who I am ;> (evil laugh)
Look I don't know about anyone else but I don't give a fuck about who you are.
So Amsa might have sent the email, the fact remains that Sahar was demonstratably involved, and probably encouraged Asma to do so. I wonder if Asma had the intelligence to do it herself.
Again I repeat - who told Sahar Buchanan was going away? That is an amazing breach of his privacy, and if that came from somebody in the department, then thats needs to be dealt with.
Simon may be correct but he is being disingeneous. Sahar pointed the student in Craccum's direction and orchestrated from the shadows, as is her style. In spite of her backtracking and revisionism in her last post, Sahar's comments on this blog and other forums about Buchanan display a pathological hatred towards him. Before the dismissal she called him a snake, worse than Hoadley, and a CIA-ZIonist agent (among other things). After the dismissal she claimed to be privy to inside details on the disciplinary process, directly accused him of being a racist and expressed joy at his sacking. Now she claims that she urged the student to not leak the email, was surprised he got sacked etc. That belies the facts on the ground at the time--again, there a number of people who know the score and perhaps a few of them have commented here already.
According to University regulations, under its email policy the leaking of the email to Craccum was a violation that required disciplinary measures. Yet nothing happened to the student and/or her friends who may have assisted her. Under University regulations all matters subject to disciplinary hearings are private and confidential, so the divulging of anything regarding the Buchanan case to either the student or Sahar, and their subsequent public comments about those details, are also violations that are subject to disciplinary measures. But nothing happened to either of them, or to those within the University who may have fed them that supposedly private information. That raises concerns about due process, to say the least.
It is all water the bridge at this point and now a matter for the Employment Court to address, so nothing said here is going to change things.
If what 'Inside Ausa' says is true, then Mr Buchanan would have grounds to make claim in court against those who leaked this information to the public. His high profile means and the public interest in the case do not limit his rights to due process and a 'fair go'.
One does wonder if Mr Buchanan will go down this path, but my feeling is that Sahar (whoever he/she is) may have a liability here for disemminating the email.
Post a Comment
<< Home