Islam vs. Leftist Multiculturalism

So I just wanted to put up a quick discuss about Islam and Leftist Multiculturalism. I recently talked with my mum who's generally fairly progressive/liberal (especially for a 60 year old). She is by all means left. However, she is adamantly against Islam as she is a feminist (note: feminist as in pro egalitarian rights). While the following notions of Islam are not necessarily practiced by moderate Muslims, these are concrete "rules" or tenants of the religion that practitioners must believe or abide.

• Menstruating women are "dirty" during their menstruation, and a man becomes dirty if he decides to have sex with a menstruating woman
• Menstruating women are separated during prayer and must observe instead of participating, for they are dirty
• Women cannot see their husbands when they die. They must always stay in another room. They are forbidden to have access to their husband's body.

There are more tenants surrounding divorce, marriage, ownership, etc.

This is where the discussion begins: leftist multiculturalism accepts all cultures into one "melting pot". If you talk to anyone on the left about Islam, they will defend it tooth and nail and claim it is the right of these people to practice their religion in western countries as immigrants. These are the same people, however, who will preach equality for all (or superiority for women) in the same breath. It's contradictory.

I wanted to know from supporters of leftist multiculturalism: how do you defend Islam and why? When it is practiced outside of a moderate context, it contradicts all western egalitarian values. How do you support your argument?

 

[xLiquidsnake]

When you say something on a sensitive subject you should put a source. I just did a google search on all 3 of these topics and the replies I got indicated that your "points" are all bullshit. Whatever you find on the internet or whatever your mum says might not be true, did the thought ever occur to you?. Come on bruh stop posting things like there facts lol, when in reality you don't know.

Your talking shit about someone's religion when you don't even know if what your saying is true, How the hell where you a ex-mod? Did it ever occur to you that religion might be a sensitive subject? You want a debate great, you want a debate about your opinion, not so great. The debate which your looking for is "how do you defend such a shitty religion and why?" even if you didn't word it like that.

If you wanted to debate the 3 points you made I would have some respect for that but nah man u gotta be a hater.

> Menstruating women are separated during prayer and must observe instead of participating, for they are dirty

Reply: Why does the menstruating woman not pray or fast? A personal and practical possible answer - Muslimah in Progress

> Menstruating women are "dirty" during their menstruation, and a man becomes dirty if he decides to have sex with a menstruating woman

Reply: The point i got from below is that it is possibly harmful to the women to have sex hile on her period, which is why it is forbidden. Same source as below.

It is haraam for her husband to have intercourse with her, and it is haraam for her to allow him to do so, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore, keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they are purified (from menses and have taken a bath)”

But it is permissible for him to do that which will satisfy his desire without having intercourse, such as kissing, touching and intimacy that is less than intercourse, but it is better not to be intimate with that which is between the navel and the knee except through a barrier, because ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to tell me to wear a waist wrapper, then he would be intimate with me when I was menstruating. Agreed upon.

> Women cannot see their husbands when they die. They must always stay in another room. They are forbidden to have access to their husband's body

Reply: It is permissible for a woman to see her husband after he has died? - islamqa.info

All of these replies contradicts your points, can you point out your source? Sure these replies might not be right either and I don't know enough about Islam to contest your points with full conviction, but why spread hate for no reason. Clearly all your points are not facts / are grey areas open to interpretation, why post it like its a fact?

> How do you defend Islam (To answer your question)

I defend Islam by engaging in conversation with the retards who try to bring it down without knowing anything about the religion. (Above)

 

[tMoon]

Liquid if you're going to attempt to attack points with sources, may I suggest better sources than blogs; however, your point about Blu's claims are fair.

It is worth noting, even if this was the case (points enumerated by Blu), how true are they? Even if it is a tennant of Islam, is it followed? There sure are quite a few Christian commandments that are continually broken and if these are written but broken, how much do they matter?

I will likely build on my response when I'm off my phone, but what I believe is needed is a choice. Feminism itself is a very broad topic and there are plenty of disagreements within feminist theory, but a lot of what Western feminism seems to ignore is the ability of choice. Now, choice itself is complicated (is it really choice, or pressure, manipulation, etc.), but if women choose to believe in these points and choose to abide by them, what would be the problem? Wearing a niqab verse a swimsuit does not show different amounts of "liberation", the choice to wear either is what is of utmost importance.

 

[AbdulMalik]

The problem nowadays is, people judge without knowledge, only based on hearings...i would write more but my right hand is broken.

I can only suggest generally, people to seek wisdom, by themselves, to make appropiate judgements and comparisons.

 

When you say something on a sensitive subject you should put a source. I just did a google search on all 3 of these topics and the replies I got indicated that your "points" are all bullshit. Whatever you find on the internet or whatever your mum says might not be true, did the thought ever occur to you?. Come on bruh stop posting things like there facts lol, when in reality you don't know.

Your talking shit about someone's religion when you don't even know if what your saying is true, How the hell where you a ex-mod? Did it ever occur to you that religion might be a sensitive subject? You want a debate great, you want a debate about your opinion, not so great. The debate which your looking for is "how do you defend such a shitty religion and why?" even if you didn't word it like that.

If you wanted to debate the 3 points you made I would have some respect for that but nah man u gotta be a hater.

> Menstruating women are separated during prayer and must observe instead of participating, for they are dirty

Reply: Why does the menstruating woman not pray or fast? A personal and practical possible answer - Muslimah in Progress

> Menstruating women are "dirty" during their menstruation, and a man becomes dirty if he decides to have sex with a menstruating woman

Reply: The point i got from below is that it is possibly harmful to the women to have sex hile on her period, which is why it is forbidden. Same source as below.

It is haraam for her husband to have intercourse with her, and it is haraam for her to allow him to do so, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore, keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they are purified (from menses and have taken a bath)”

But it is permissible for him to do that which will satisfy his desire without having intercourse, such as kissing, touching and intimacy that is less than intercourse, but it is better not to be intimate with that which is between the navel and the knee except through a barrier, because ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to tell me to wear a waist wrapper, then he would be intimate with me when I was menstruating. Agreed upon.

> Women cannot see their husbands when they die. They must always stay in another room. They are forbidden to have access to their husband's body

Reply: It is permissible for a woman to see her husband after he has died? - islamqa.info

All of these replies contradicts your points, can you point out your source? Sure these replies might not be right either and I don't know enough about Islam to contest your points with full conviction, but why spread hate for no reason. Clearly all your points are not facts / are grey areas open to interpretation, why post it like its a fact?

> How do you defend Islam (To answer your question)

I defend Islam by engaging in conversation with the retards who try to bring it down without knowing anything about the religion. (Above)

A good way to start start intellectual discourse is by insulting your opponent. Definitely makes you look more intelligent and absolutely gives you the upper hand.

Relating to my points about dirtyness/impurity: Introduction
Section #9, Bullet #5:

5. A woman who is in her periods is excused from salat (prayers) because she does not have an important qualification for salat, i.e., taharat (cleanliness). She does not even have to perform them later on as qaza. Imam 'Ali Raza (peace be upon him) said, "When a woman has her monthly period, she does not ...pray because she is in the state of impurity (of blood), and Allah likes to be worshipped only by a pure (tahir) person..."12

Section 9 also outlines the specificities of what a woman can and cannot do due to her impurity while menstruating. The post you linked provides an awfully convenient excuse that "it is best for the woman", when in fact, the explanation for exclusion is due to perceived impurity as outlined above. Section 9 provides a counter-point to my original two points of argument.

For my final point, a quote from your own source:

What is forbidden is for women to wail over the deceased. It was narrated in a hadeeth that Umm ‘Atiyah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) took our pledge of allegiance to him on the grounds that we would not wail (over the dead). None of us fulfilled their promise except five women: Umm Sulaym, Umm al-‘Alaa’, the daughter of Abu Sabrah the wife of Mu’aadh and two other women, or the daughter of Abu Sabrah, the wife of Mu’aadh and one other woman.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari (al-Janaa’iz, 1223).

It was narrated from Abu Maalik al-Ash’ari that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are four things in my ummah from the jaahiliyyah which they will not give up: pride in one’s ancestry, slandering the lineage of others, seeking rain from the stars and wailing over the dead. If the woman who wails does not repent before she dies, she will be raised on the Day of Resurrection wearing a garment of tar and a shirt of scabs.’ (Narrated by Muslim, al-Janaa’iz, 1550).

Definition of wailing from Google Dictionary: "give a cry of pain, grief, or anger.".

So, a woman is not allowed to demonstrate an appropriate emotional response to her husband's death (and if pregnant may not see him at all, again from your source). If the woman demonstrates this appropriate emotional response, "she will be raised on the Day of Resurrection wearing a garment of tar and a shirt of scabs". Ok then.

Admittedly my original points were too vague, but as per my citations above, they are correct and relevant.

So, my question still stands. How does the left defend women's rights and Islam in the same breath? The above arguments I've made were not difficult to find. These are common tenants of the Muslim faith and by no means radical notions in the context of the religion.

 

[Spyder69]

I simply look to their founder and his successors. During the lifetime of Muhammad Islam began to conquer the Arabian peninsula, and following his death Islam came to conquer much of the known world. The entire meme of "Islam is a religion of peace" exists for a reason. Claiming that "true" Muslims/Islam are those who aren't waging holy war or practices carried out in other majority Islamic nations is asinine; by definition you are claiming the founder of Islam and his successors aren't "true" Muslims.

Another good example of this would be Mormons. Smith wrote in D&C that you MUST practice polygamy, however, the modern Mormon Church is adamantly against it and i'd wager would claim any Mormon who does practice it isn't a "real" Mormon.

The irony and parallels between the two are quite hysterical in that regard, but I digress.

Fact of the matter is since Islam's founding it has been a suppressive and expansionist theology, and has not changed since its founding.

If Muslims want to actually reform their religion to bring it in line with some of the beliefs of their so-called "prophets" (Jesus for example, which I find to be solemn mockery) who in no way, shape or form lend any credibility to the religion (based on contradictions in belief), then by all means, reform it for the better.

 

I simply look to their founder and his successors. During the lifetime of Muhammad Islam began to conquer the Arabian peninsula, and following his death Islam came to conquer much of the known world. The entire meme of "Islam is a religion of peace" exists for a reason. Claiming that "true" Muslims/Islam are those who aren't waging holy war or practices carried out in other majority Islamic nations is asinine; by definition you are claiming the founder of Islam and his successors aren't "true" Muslims.

Another good example of this would be Mormons. Smith wrote in D&C that you MUST practice polygamy, however, the modern Mormon Church is adamantly against it and i'd wager would claim any Mormon who does practice it isn't a "real" Mormon.

The irony and parallels between the two are quite hysterical in that regard, but I digress.

Fact of the matter is since Islam's founding it has been a suppressive and expansionist theology, and has not changed since its founding.

If Muslims want to actually reform their religion to bring it in line with some of the beliefs of their so-called "prophets" (Jesus for example, which I find to be solemn mockery) who in no way, shape or form lend any credibility to the religion (based on contradictions in belief), then by all means, reform it for the better.

I mean I suppose that a lot of the issues centrists and the right have with Islam are its orthodox values. As I know from personal experience, non-orthodox practising Muslims are absolutely tolerable and do not share the values of inequality that we've mentioned previously. The same can be said for the orthodox Jewish, Christians, and even Hindus.

 

[Spyder69]

I mean I suppose that a lot of the issues centrists and the right have with Islam are its orthodox values. As I know from personal experience, non-orthodox practising Muslims are absolutely tolerable and do not share the values of inequality that we've mentioned previously.

Orthodox, you mean the reality of what a theology is as practiced by the founder? "Tolerable" Muslims today would be dubbed virtually apostates by the founders of Islam.

E: Actually, ironically that's what happens in the world of Islam today.

The same can be said for the orthodox Jewish, Christians, and even Hindus.

Not really, all-things Jewish (such as Levitical law) apply only to the Jews/children of Israel; there's nothing negative to be found in Christianity that follows only the doctrine of Christ (the Council of Nicea and their Bible isn't 'what' Christianity is or how it's even applicably defined, its formation isn't even the work of Christ to begin with), and I couldn't care less about Hinduism/Buddhism because its 'founders' lack any form of historicity.

Islam has the most issues with its founding among the big religions in the world that start quite literally with its own founders. I can't really think of any other religion or its founder that is so backwards in relation to its modern form than Islam.

 

Orthodox, you mean the reality of what a theology is as practiced by the founder? "Tolerable" Muslims today would be dubbed virtually apostates by the founders of Islam.

E: Actually, ironically that's what happens in the world of Islam today.



Not really, all-things Jewish (such as Levitical law) apply only to the Jews/children of Israel; there's nothing negative to be found in Christianity that follows only the doctrine of Christ (the Council of Nicea and their Bible isn't 'what' Christianity is or how it's even applicably defined, its formation isn't even the work of Christ to begin with), and I couldn't care less about Hinduism/Buddhism because its 'founders' lack any form of historicity.

Islam has the most issues with its founding among the big religions in the world that start quite literally with its own founders. I can't really think of any other religion or its founder that is so backwards in relation to its modern form than Islam.

This is a good read that illustrates and deconstructs your point: Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

The main concept in that essay is that people often confuse Judeo-Christian historical events with the Judeo-Christian scripture. A good quote that sums up the argument:

The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence.

I suppose that the errors of non-Muslim orthodox practitioners lie in their interpretations and subsequent actions as opposed to what is written in their scripture, whereas Islamic scripture encourages violence very literally.

 

[Tanged]

All religion is trash its not a complex thing... all arguments against is have been used 1000x time now nothing new to say.
If you have read the quran it is very clear that woman are second class. Isis is a pretty close version of islam if you have read the quran. If you need sources... just go to your local city centre I am sure some bloke is passing them out. If thats not good enough go to the library and just read the Quran ( learn arabic first so they cant say " you must read it in the original text " ). Moderate muslims are not muslims they are people who grew up with islam in the house but dont follow the tenants ... Inorder to be a muslim you must practice islam..
ex
your not a vegan if you eat chicken even if you call yourself a vegan
same thing goes for Christians or w.e
also trying to have multiculturalism is stupid
dont mix everything
if you like indian food
have indian food but dont take there politics and caste system
Their are superior cultures if anyone says different then they are retarded.( source is my opinion to say north korea system = usa system is retarded)
In my local town there is sharia watch I have to tell them idiots off all the time.
They walk about to random gay and woman and yell at them...
Is this all "muslims" nope but if your not active i dont consider you a muslim.
ex
you drop a seed by accident on to the floor it becomes a plant
you aint a farmer now all of a sudden.

@xLiquidsnake
This guy here is retarded lool


also leftist multiculturalism is a basic bs because no one agrees to it 100%
if they wanted to start cutting of clits all across USA i assure you the leftist multiculturalism people would be against it

Be centerist its easy and simple
i dont care what you do aslong as it doesnt effect me or harm anyone in a gross manner .
gross meaning
you cant steal
you cant rape
you cant kill
you cant assault physically
you cant spread
propaganda
you cant harass ( if someone says leave me alone ; just fuck off)

anything other then that is free reign
if everyone followed those rules we be fine no one cares what sky daddy you care about aslong as you dont do anything of those things

also back to islam
I am pretty sure there are less then 5 people on the planet who 100% believe every single word of the quran who have actually read it and rationalized every single thing with 0 questions left.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So I just wanted to put up a quick discuss about Islam and Leftist Multiculturalism. I recently talked with my mum who's generally fairly progressive/liberal (especially for a 60 year old). She is by all means left. However, she is adamantly against Islam as she is a feminist (note: feminist as in pro egalitarian rights). While the following notions of Islam are not necessarily practiced by moderate Muslims, these are concrete "rules" or tenants of the religion that practitioners must believe or abide.

• Menstruating women are "dirty" during their menstruation, and a man becomes dirty if he decides to have sex with a menstruating woman
• Menstruating women are separated during prayer and must observe instead of participating, for they are dirty
• Women cannot see their husbands when they die. They must always stay in another room. They are forbidden to have access to their husband's body.

There are more tenants surrounding divorce, marriage, ownership, etc.

This is where the discussion begins: leftist multiculturalism accepts all cultures into one "melting pot". If you talk to anyone on the left about Islam, they will defend it tooth and nail and claim it is the right of these people to practice their religion in western countries as immigrants. These are the same people, however, who will preach equality for all (or superiority for women) in the same breath. It's contradictory.

I wanted to know from supporters of leftist multiculturalism: how do you defend Islam and why? When it is practiced outside of a moderate context, it contradicts all western egalitarian values. How do you support your argument?

The supporters of multiculturalism that I know adamantly oppose fundamentalist Islam, but have no issues with so-called "moderate" Muslims.

When you say something on a sensitive subject you should put a source. I just did a google search on all 3 of these topics and the replies I got indicated that your "points" are all bullshit. Whatever you find on the internet or whatever your mum says might not be true, did the thought ever occur to you?. Come on bruh stop posting things like there facts lol, when in reality you don't know.

Your talking shit about someone's religion when you don't even know if what your saying is true, How the hell where you a ex-mod? Did it ever occur to you that religion might be a sensitive subject? You want a debate great, you want a debate about your opinion, not so great. The debate which your looking for is "how do you defend such a shitty religion and why?" even if you didn't word it like that.

If you wanted to debate the 3 points you made I would have some respect for that but nah man u gotta be a hater.

> Menstruating women are separated during prayer and must observe instead of participating, for they are dirty

Reply: Why does the menstruating woman not pray or fast? A personal and practical possible answer - Muslimah in Progress

That reply doesn't make sense. It's incredibly easy to sort out alcoholics from safe drinkers, just as it's incredibly easy to sort out women who suffer a great deal while on their period from those who don't.

> Menstruating women are "dirty" during their menstruation, and a man becomes dirty if he decides to have sex with a menstruating woman

Reply: The point i got from below is that it is possibly harmful to the women to have sex hile on her period, which is why it is forbidden. Same source as below.

It is haraam for her husband to have intercourse with her, and it is haraam for her to allow him to do so, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore, keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they are purified (from menses and have taken a bath)”

But it is permissible for him to do that which will satisfy his desire without having intercourse, such as kissing, touching and intimacy that is less than intercourse, but it is better not to be intimate with that which is between the navel and the knee except through a barrier, because ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to tell me to wear a waist wrapper, then he would be intimate with me when I was menstruating. Agreed upon.

Having sex with a woman on her period is absolutely not harmful. Also, the use of the term "purified" strongly suggests that they viewed a period as "impure".

Women cannot see their husbands when they die. They must always stay in another room. They are forbidden to have access to their husband's body

Reply: It is permissible for a woman to see her husband after he has died? - islamqa.info

All of these replies contradicts your points, can you point out your source? Sure these replies might not be right either and I don't know enough about Islam to contest your points with full conviction, but why spread hate for no reason. Clearly all your points are not facts / are grey areas open to interpretation, why post it like its a fact?

So she can see her dead husband's body, but she's forbidden to cry over it? She just lost her husband, what's wrong with grieving?

Also, what's up with that guy saying

If a woman is permitted to wash her husband;s body, then it is definitely permitted for her to see her husband’s body.

This ruling applies only if the woman is still within the ‘iddah period. If her ‘iddah period has ended, for example if she was pregnant but gave birth straight after her husband died, then it is not permissible for her to wash him or to see him.

I (Shaykh al-Munajjid) asked Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) before he died about a man who dies and his wife gives birth a few hours later – can she wash her husband?

He replied: No, because when she gives birth the connection between her and her husband is severed, so it is not permissible for her to wash him, because he is now no longer her husband.

So she's able to wash her husband's body, but not if she gave birth after he died? That doesn't sever the connection at all, giving birth doesn't interfere with the bond between a man and his wife.

 

[OrangeCounty]

My right wing brother makes the comments all the time. Honestly, if you can't see how protecting the rights of 1.6 billion practicing Muslims fits into liberal ideology, I'm really not sure how you figured out how to use a computer.

The right to practice any religion one wants is protected by the left even more fervently than the right- which is supposed to treat the constitution like a holy book.

 

My right wing brother makes the comments all the time. Honestly, if you can't see how protecting the rights of 1.6 billion practicing Muslims fits into liberal ideology, I'm really not sure how you figured out how to use a computer.

The right to practice any religion one wants is protected by the left even more fervently than the right- which is supposed to treat the constitution like a holy book.

You didn't read my posts. I'm targetting the exact point you mentioned; how can someone who is left-leaning and liberal defend a religion that promotes active sexism against women? It's contradictory. You can't defend women's rights and defend the rights of practicing Muslims at the same time. It'd be the same as protecting the rights of shop owners but also protecting shoplifters in the same breath. You see the contradiction? That's what this thread is about. If you need more specific points please read my reply a bit further up to that other guy.

 

[OrangeCounty]

You didn't read my posts. I'm targetting the exact point you mentioned; how can someone who is left-leaning and liberal defend a religion that promotes active sexism against women? It's contradictory. You can't defend women's rights and defend the rights of practicing Muslims at the same time. It'd be the same as protecting the rights of shop owners but also protecting shoplifters in the same breath. You see the contradiction? That's what this thread is about. If you need more specific points please read my reply a bit further up to that other guy.

Look- I see you right wingers try to push that argument all day long.

The fact that you just compared defending the civil rights of a religion practiced by 1.6 BILLION people to defending shoplifters/condemning shoplifters....

Do you see how sad of an argument that is??? It's just riddled with holes and fallacies man.

If most Christians or Jews lived by EVERY word of their books and were fanatics they'd have a bad name too- and they HAVE. There are hundreds of millions of moderate and liberal Muslims. Claiming otherwise is an outright lie.

You want to tell me that the US respects women more than Islamic countries????????????

We just elected DONALD TRUMP AS PRESIDENT. The guy was caught on tape saying "You can just grab them by the pussy- doesn't matter if their married."

Get out of here with that shit man.

 

[OrangeCounty]

Also: we defend the civil rights of ALL religions. It's funny how your righties want to pick and choose who the constitution applies to or who should be protected from persecution in general.

Fuck it right? Let's just waterboard them all and lay waste to their city's because they don't show their appreciation for women as we do.

Your rhetoric makes me sick. Seriously.

 

Also: we defend the civil rights of ALL religions. It's funny how your righties want to pick and choose who the constitution applies to or who should be protected from persecution in general.

Fuck it right? Let's just waterboard them all and lay waste to their city's because they don't show their appreciation for women as we do.

Your rhetoric makes me sick. Seriously.

I'm a little shocked at how emotional people get when this sort of thing is brought up. I'm not right, I'm actually left myself. This is something I can't wrap my head around, however.

Now, if you read my posts, you'd realize that the points I brought up regarding the demonization and exclusion of women in Islam is not something that is radical or extremist or practiced only by those who follow the scripture word-for-word. These sexist practices are literally happening in every mosque whether it be in the Middle East or in North America. It's a fundamental part of their religion. It has nothing to do with how many people practice that religion. The fact is that they antagonize women for being women. Again, that is a fact. And, again, this is not something that is exclusively practiced by fundamentalists. It's something average-joe Muslim practices on a regular basis, if he attends a mosque.

If you want to continue this discussion please try to reduce your emotionally charged banter. You've made no valid points in either of your posts. If you haven't read my previous posts either, please do so. As we're both left leaning, I'm hoping you'll be just as confused as me once you've understood what I'm trying to discuss.

 

[OrangeCounty]

I'm a little shocked at how emotional people get when this sort of thing is brought up. I'm not right, I'm actually left myself. This is something I can't wrap my head around, however.

Now, if you read my posts, you'd realize that the points I brought up regarding the demonization and exclusion of women in Islam is not something that is radical or extremist or practiced only by those who follow the scripture word-for-word. These sexist practices are literally happening in every mosque whether it be in the Middle East or in North America. It's a fundamental part of their religion. It has nothing to do with how many people practice that religion. The fact is that they antagonize women for being women. Again, that is a fact. And, again, this is not something that is exclusively practiced by fundamentalists. It's something average-joe Muslim practices on a regular basis, if he attends a mosque.

If you want to continue this discussion please try to reduce your emotionally charged banter. You've made no valid points in either of your posts. If you haven't read my previous posts either, please do so. As we're both left leaning, I'm hoping you'll be just as confused as me once you've understood what I'm trying to discuss.

Lol. I can assure you that nothing I've said is emotionally charged. I've made no valid points?

You really think the Western world has any firm ground to stand on when it comes to how women are treated?

I'm a sociology student looking at acceptance letters from UCLA and Berkeley. Those are the #4 and #1 schools in the country for social sciences. As far as the politics go- I could care less. But the US confirmed in this last election EXACTLY how important gender equality is. Not important at all.

As far as women wearing a hijab or a burkah, in many cases it is the choice of the woman once she is of age whether or not she wants to wear it, depending of course on where she lives.

So what isn't clear to you..? The left defends the civil rights of Muslims as they defend the rights of everyone else. Inclusivity and diversity are what make America great- as well as equal protection of civil liberties.

You want me to copy and paste the section of the constitution that guarantees equal protection of rights for all citizens? Or do you want the section that declares monitoring and discriminating based on religion unconstitutional?

Just because a concept (like leftists standing up for the rights of a religion that SEEMS to be sexist/prejudice) is counter intuitive doesn't make it illogical or nonsensical. It just means it's a complex issue that needs some study to wrap your mind around.

^^ Sounds to me like you're in that category.

 

[OrangeCounty]

Which woman is being disrespected/repressed/manipulated again..?

 

[Tanged]

Also: we defend the civil rights of ALL religions. It's funny how your righties want to pick and choose who the constitution applies to or who should be protected from persecution in general.

Fuck it right? Let's just waterboard them all and lay waste to their city's because they don't show their appreciation for women as we do.

Your rhetoric makes me sick. Seriously.

Which woman is being disrespected/repressed/manipulated again..?

Tbh thread be closed. Forget right or left wing it doesn't matter trash is universal .

 

Lol. I can assure you that nothing I've said is emotionally charged. I've made no valid points?

You really think the Western world has any firm ground to stand on when it comes to how women are treated?

I'm a sociology student looking at acceptance letters from UCLA and Berkeley. Those are the #4 and #1 schools in the country for social sciences. As far as the politics go- I could care less. But the US confirmed in this last election EXACTLY how important gender equality is. Not important at all.

As far as women wearing a hijab or a burkah, in many cases it is the choice of the woman once she is of age whether or not she wants to wear it, depending of course on where she lives.

So what isn't clear to you..? The left defends the civil rights of Muslims as they defend the rights of everyone else. Inclusivity and diversity are what make America great- as well as equal protection of civil liberties.

You want me to copy and paste the section of the constitution that guarantees equal protection of rights for all citizens? Or do you want the section that declares monitoring and discriminating based on religion unconstitutional?

Just because a concept (like leftists standing up for the rights of a religion that SEEMS to be sexist/prejudice) is counter intuitive doesn't make it illogical or nonsensical. It just means it's a complex issue that needs some study to wrap your mind around.

^^ Sounds to me like you're in that category.

Please do not assume that the West incorporates just the United States. If you're going to study sociology you should be opening your mind to the fact that the United States is not the whole world. I am not American.

Secondly, the hijab/burka is an idea of modesty enforced by the Muslim patriarchy. It's men telling women what to wear. That isn't even my main point though. Again, you didn't read my posts so I suppose I'll have to summarize.

Women during their menstrual cycle are seen as impure. You talk of inclusion when the exact opposite is happening on a regular basis in mosques. Women are sent to the back of the mosque to observe prayer during their periods as they are impure. They may not touch the Quran because they are impure. While a woman is pregnant, if her husband dies, she may not see or touch her husband. The woman is also forbidden to demonstrate an appropriate emotional response during her husband's death, as it is is deemed inappropriate.

If you need sources for this then read my previous posts that you've thus far avoided.

Women are lesser according to Islam. They use a scale of purity to determine a woman's merit during her menstrual cycle which is abhorrent. This is where my confusion comes in. How can those who are pro-multiculturalism (such as yourself) defend Islam in the same breath, while also being anti-sexist? Islam directly contradicts this notion. This is the exact equivalent of saying "in a religious context, sexism is ok", which is so wrong on so many levels.

Do you see where I'm coming from now? Again, to reiterate, this is not a notion exclusive to orthodox/radical/fundamentalist muslims. This is a regular occurrence in mosques, just as eating the body of Christ is a regular occurrence in Christian churches.