It's official. We need to abolish feminism and secularism.

Why?

Because both are causes of Islamophobia.

You think I am joking?

Quote from "Muslims in the EU" by the Open Societies Institute EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program.*

"…As Schiffauer states (2004: 355), in contrast to most minorities in the country [Germany], the Muslim minority is confronted with a remarkable countersolidarity of the whole society. Unlike most issues relting [sic] to immigration, they even lack the support of the coalition partners of the left, who often have even stronger resentments against Muslims, BEING NOURISHED BY A MIXTURE OF FEMINISM AND SECULARISM

(Emphasis added)

OK, the language is a bit convoluted as you would expect in a German report; but the meaning is clear. Feminism and secularism is depriving Muslims of much needed allies.

Ziauddin Sardar, New Statesman columnist, broadcaster and Visiting Professor at the School of Arts of City University of London quoted approvingly from the report in his New Statesman column of 22 May 2008.

Quote:

"…the report finds centre-left parties also using these racist sentiments to strategise. They may be liberal about immigration but, when it comes to Muslims, they fall prey to an Islamophobia that is "nourished by a mixture of feminism and secularism".**

There is only one solution. We must immediately abandon feminism and secularism. Online Opinion can do its bit by declining to accept any articles that defend secularism and advocate feminism.

*See: http://www.eumap.org/topics/minority/reports/eumuslims/background_reports/download/germany/germany.pdf

**See: http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/05/european-muslims-integration

Yes Steven by all means go for it.

Afterall feminists are just woman who hate and plot for the downfall of men, who make up stories about domestic violence and whose final aim is to rid of men altogether in favour of test tubes.

Secularists are just people who hate all religious people, atheists and agnostics.

Yes ban them all - that is the answer.

:)

Gosh Pelican, I hadn't realised you were so perceptive.

Very droll Steven.

However, I don't think that feminism and secularism are roots of Islamophobia - rather they are the sources from which Islam will become increasingly moderate in Western societies if given half a chance. Islamophobia derives from an unfortunate admixture of religious and xenophobic/racist ideologies that feeds, and in extreme cases actively fosters, hatred against Muslims.

I'm sure that there are many Islamophobes out there who are quite secular and/or feminist in their worldviews, but also harbour xenophobic or racist sentiments about those who are different from them culturally, ethnically or phenotypically. They are not mutually exclusive categories.

Of course, ultimately Islamists do have more to fear from feminist and secular ideologies than they do from other religions. Fundamentalism is simply a rearguard action by religions as they sink ultimately into their proper role as historical curiosities, like Greek, Roman and Norse myths, sagas and legends.

Up with feminism and secularism!

Up stevenlmeyer too!

:)

AAh CJ.. droll?

"amusing in a wry or odd way"

I didn't find anything "amusing" in any way, about Steven's post.

If was factually informative, and golly gosh.. God forbid we discuss things based on..FACTs eh :)

The initiatives Steven mentioned are but some of a multi pronged attack on the west by Salafists and Wahabists, (the flat bits of the bell curve)
while the dome of the Bell.... are those who just go with the flow.

Now..it is patently absurd and ludicrious not to fight against wahabist and salafist Islamism, out of fear that the dwellers in the 'dome' region might be hurt, offended, alienated or annoyed.

The process of uncovering the dark side of this 'force' should, if people are not intimidated by those at the extremes, result in the wholesale abandonment of Islam by the moderates.

So.. your efforts to 'brand' such exposures as 'Islamophobia' simply place you in the category of the 'gullible and easily used' by those dark forces.

They have even convinced you that ur on 'high moral ground' :).. such is your disconnection from the real world.

Here is Salafist/Wahabist intimidation of 'moderates'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZNx0xHe0p0

So.. it just stuns and amazes me that CJ would describe the legitimate attacks on such people as 'Islamophobia'.. I dare say he cannot find a single example of any atheist/or Christian 'mob' ranting quite like this bloke, or.. even demonstrating against Islam.

Here is how "Catholics" responded to the bullying Muslim demands that they condemn the Pope. One (Choudery) calls for capital punishment for those who insult Mohammad. (which of course, is like a red rag to an angry bull to anyone with any sense of Western Identity!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9xypqB5eo

Notice how 'violent' were these 'nutter Christians' :) see all their fists flying, the kicks.. the spitting... ?

For once CJ MORGAN we agree.

There are signs that what you forecast is already happening:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/25koran.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7265021.stm

No wonder Muslim religious leaders and their apologists so fear secularism and feminism

Of course the entire problem would simply go away, if we stopped teaching those pesky women to read and write. And don't get me started on those 'pussy-whipped' males who support them...

Keep 'em ignorant, I say.

Dear all...

I hope you read that link provided by Steven from the New York times about the woman translating the Quran.

If you wonder why I bring these issues to public notice, it is exemplified by that women.. 'she had never dwelled on the verse' and then..when finally confronted by its stark brutality, she went into shock almost.. "It can't be"

I note also, that she says "The prophet never beat his wives, so how can this be true".. but the secondary source of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hadith includes one which specifically states Mohammad thumped Ayesha....and she says "It hurt"

I could give chapter and verse if anyone is interested.. after all..I'm just a 'biased religious nutter' :)

But the portion in the link about the German judge says it all:

[In Germany last week, a judge citing the verse caused a public outcry after she rejected the request for a fast track divorce by a Moroccan-German woman because her husband beat her. The judge, removed from the case, had written that the Koran sanctioned physical abuse.]

Does this not represent an inversion of values as political correctness and multiculturalism gain momentum?

When western Judges make decisions based on Islamic law, we have a serious problem and a capitulation of values, culture and law.

You don't have to be a religious nutbag or a rampaging fundamentalist to know this, you just have to have the ability to read.

I hope I never hear another peep out of Pericles about 'adding to the problem'.. for goodness sake.. I rather think the NY times has significantly more impact than humble moi.

stevenlmeyer
"We need to abolish feminism and secularism.Because both are causes of Islamophobia"
What do you say stevenlmeyer? Are you joking? Islamophobia is caused by Cristian extremists, Cristian taliban, neoconservatives and right extremists.
Your joke is very good and pelican's joke even better!
Secularists and feminism promote the cooperation and understanding between people from different religious.
I understand that Muslim extremist leaders need the Cristian extremists to scare Muslims and keep their privileges as Cristian extremists need the Muslim extremists.
In the same way neoconservatives, right extremists need the Muslim extremists as the Muslim extremists need the neoconservatives and right extremists.
feminism and secularism is the most progressive, the most advance part of our civilization for a better future for all people on our planet.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

CJ,

I had never gone down the path this thread and your post opened up. But, as happens so often, you gave me pause for thought in an intriguing way. I mean yes, of course, one lives ones life hoping that the track one has taken will lead to outcomes that are beneficial and not obstructive. But to have some sort of public recognition of privately held convictions is heartening: however brief, disputed or tiny in The Great Scheme of Things that recognition is. It encourages one to believe that the leap from the theoretical to the empirical is not impossible.

I am immoderately cheered by this world-view but now I have to go away and think it all through in greater depth.

Well, it's true. Feminists tend to be a little sceptical of communities which insist that women must wear masks and deserve brutal execution for being sluttish enough to go and get gang-raped. And secularism isn't too tolerant of Koranic law as a replacement for legislature.

Up with balloons!

Down with gravity!

Racism is perhaps the worst evil known to the human race.
Feminism and Atheism is the opposite these are actually the most progressive. CJMorgan seems to be the most cluey participant in most of these posts and what ever he says always comes accross with what is right and just. Keep up the good work CJ perhaps you may influence or educate Boazy in the end.

"Perhaps you may_educate Boazy in the end" ... OUCH :)

No no no.. *smile*... it is vice versa..I'll educate young CJ and others..... but let me begin with brother Antonios...who said:

"Islamophobia is caused by Cristian extremists, Cristian taliban, neoconservatives and right extremists."

Antonios.. there is an element of truth in what you said.... but just an element..it needs to be unpacked and supplemented.

All those groups you mentioned, are very interested in exposing the real Islam. The reason is, they are fully aware of where it would take them.

For example, if you look closely at Surah 9:30, which by now most readers of my 'infequent' posts will realize is the one which condemns Christians (me) and Jews (Steven, Logic and others) by NAME.. and calls on 'Allah' to destroy us.

Now..Antonios.. in your limited understanding of Islam, you might view this as
-some obscure text,
-taken out of context,
-by someone who is not qualified to interpret it. (me)

Pericles and Keysar Trad would certainly take that view. CJ.. well I think he 'has hope' to see 'the truth' :) but I'm still a-workin on him.

But the danger of Islam is seen in Keysars own words in the other thread (his). "God said".. is the terminology he uses in reference to the Quran. It is not exactly a great leap of anything to realize that if 'God said' "may Allah destroy them" or.. "Allah himself fights against them" ( me, Runner, Gibo,Grey,David Palmer,Foxy, StevenLMeyer, logic etc.. Jews and Christians.. ) then..if ALLAH'S state is established, that the likes of 'us' will be relegated to some status of lower than low, or even executed if we spoke truth about Islam and Mohammad in such a state.

You see.. for a Christian or a Jew, the idea that "Mohammad was ANY kind of 'prophet' let alone the final one" is abhorrent, silly, unfounded, insulting, and most of all, a declaration of spiritual WAR against the God of Israel and Christians.

The German judge should have convinced you that a holy book which teaches the beating of wives is evil.

Glad to see everyone knew I was joking. After I clicked on Post Comment I had a small moment of dread wondering if I was asking for trouble after a similar attempt at humour on another thread some time ago. :)

I'm with CJ on this and his first post on this thread is one of the more perceptive I have seen on this issue on OLO.

Boazy I think you have as much change of converting CJ to religion as Howard apologising to the Stolen Generations.

Thanks pelican and others (and Steven, it's not the first time we've agreed on something!).

I don't suppose anybody saw the 'Cutting Edge' doco on SBS TV last night, entitled "Full Cover Girl"?

<< Synopsis

She is strong, smart and smiling. Jinan Al-Ubaidy, an elected member of the new Iraqi Parliament. She is also a devout Shia Muslim and fully covered in black. Her main priority: implementing Islamic law, which according to her opponents would turn back the clock on women’s rights. Her main weapon to achieve this: Democracy.

Abir Al-Sahlani opposes Jinan Al-Ubaidy. Abir returns to Iraq after years in exile to set up a secular political party. She hates the veil and everything it represents.

Over four years, international award winning producer and filmmaker Folke Rydén depicts, on site in Baghdad, Abir and Jinan at the centre of a tragedy rarely talked about.

Extreme political Islamism, which endorses female subordination, has become increasingly influential, both in politics and in everyday life. Kidnappings, murder, violence and harassment of women have risen to shocking levels. Something that could hardly have been the intended result of the new-found democracy. >>

[ http://www.fullcovergirl.com/documentry.html ]

It was quite fascinating, and addressed in part the tension between fundamentalist Islam, secularism and feminism in contemporary Iraq. Off topic, but the film also demonstrates clearly some ways in which Islamism has become far more influential in post-Saddam Iraq than it was prior to the invasion and ongoing occupation.

"the film also demonstrates clearly some ways in which Islamism has become far more influential in post-Saddam Iraq than it was prior to the invasion and ongoing occupation"

Quite. The neocons couldn't draw a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq because Bin Laden had made it abundantly clear that he despised Saddam Hussein for running a secular state, in defiance of Islamic law. Now that he's gone, the fundamentalists are happy to fill the power vacuum.

Do you recall that old story, Boaz, about Columbus' ships being "invisible" to the Arawak tribe, apparently because their brains were unable to process the signals from their eyes? I suspect you suffer the same problem when reading about Islam. Your brain will only process the bits that it has been accustomed to handling; anything out of phase with that gets ignored.

>>I hope I never hear another peep out of Pericles about 'adding to the problem'.. for goodness sake.. I rather think the NY times has significantly more impact than humble moi<<

But Boaz, the New York Times reports. You rabble-rouse.

"Her eureka moment came on roughly her 10th reading of the Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, a 3,064-page volume from the 19th century, she said. Among the six pages of definitions for 'daraba' was 'to go away.'... She thinks the 'beat' translation contradicts another verse, which states that if a woman wants a divorce, she should not be mistreated... There have been similar interpretations, but none have been incorporated into a translation."

"Sheik Ali Gomaa, the Islamic scholar who serves as Egypt’s grand mufti, said Koranic verses must be viewed through the prism of the era. The advice 'is always broad in order to be relevant to different cultures and in different times,' he said through a spokesman in an e-mail message. 'In our modern context, hitting one’s wife is totally inappropriate as society deems it hateful and it will only serve to sow more discord.'"

Did you not notice these paragraphs, Boaz?

>>I could give chapter and verse if anyone is interested.. after all..I'm just a 'biased religious nutter' :)<<

We know. We know.

No surprises, I think CJ, pelican, Sancho et al have the right idea.

Feminism, secularism and Islamism aren't separate concepts. They're all states of being that exist in varying degrees, and tend to overlap.

Boaz, almost all of your posts hinge on a simple chain of logic - you argue that extreme Islam will not tolerate secularism, and the textual evidence from their holy book is proof of this, as the fundamental basis of their religion has at its core, an attitude of conversion-or-death.

That about sums it up, right?

Technically, you're not wrong. On paper, this theory is sound. But for all your youtube links and anecdotes hinting at impending danger, the issue is not as simple as the proposition I put forward above. Issues of such magnitude rarely are.

Yes, you may have spent a great deal of time studying the textual foundations of Christianity and Islam. It is evident, you are the kind of individual who places much faith on both these textual foundations.

Here is the core, I think, of our disagreement. Whilst I can accept that there may indeed be much that we consider to be heinous in the Qu'ran, put simply, religious is fluid. What you consider to be fundamental in both religions, is only fundamental in the context of today.

Tomorrow is a different matter. For all the kindness in the new testament, the process by which Christianity rejected the barbarity in the old testament in favour of the more pleasant words of the new, was an evolution in itself.

Cont'd

So you think to yourself, that how can we ignore the fact that the Qu'ran does not come equipped with a more pleasant new testament?

This, is merely an issue of simplicity. Picking and choosing just the new testament as a way to life your life, is only a matter of a simpler separation of the enlightened versus the barbaric elements.

Something which feminism and secularism are likely to accelerate. This does not serve the cause of many who are satisfied with the status quo.

The end fact of the matter is, there is nothing stopping muslims from embracing the more pleasant aspects of their book - most moderate muslims in developed countries do just that, Fellow Human being a prime example.

The real problem, are the mullahs who seek to prevent this enlightenment - and the hostility of those who give these mullahs the ammunitition they need, to tell their flock that the west hates them. (Subtle hint here, DB).

Also consider the fact that regimes in areas that have been of low-socio economic stature for a long time, essentially create warlords who cling to power however they can. It's about survival. Yes, there is a great deal of oil money throughout the areas defined by Islamic rule, however the status quo in these countries has been defined by those in power, who wish to remain that way. Pretending this is just about religion ignores the many, many international aspects that affect this.

Simple scaremongering that Islam is evil helps no one, boaz, and only serves to persuade the most easily manipulated - people that traditionally, lack the depth required to consider the situation, and typically end up fostering a lynch-mob mentality. A mentality which is likely result in precisely the kind of reaction we don't want, which is then ascribed by the culprits as evidence they were right, when a great deal of it is in fact, their fault.

I don't often contribute to religious threads but there are times when the sheer absurdity of comments from different sides of the argument goad me into it. In this case BD:-

"But the danger of Islam is seen in Keysars own words in the other thread (his). "God said".. is the terminology he uses in reference to the Quran. It is not exactly a great leap of anything to realize that if 'God said' "may Allah destroy them" or.. "Allah himself fights against them" ... then..if ALLAH'S state is established, that the likes of 'us' will be relegated to some status of lower than low, ..."

I find it astounding, stupefying, amazing and unbelievable that anyone with the power of thought could, in all seriousness, imagine that this is a compelling argument against another religion when their entire raison d'etre themselves is based on "God said"!

BD, in these threads there are many intelligent, educated, and above all, contemplative people. CJ is one them. In order to change their ways of thinking - arrived at after years of thought, research, investigation, experience and life lessons, a person would ideally need to display an equal level of these qualities. However, at the least, they would need wisdom (nothing to do with intelligence)logic and coherence. In your prolific posts these qualities are conspicuously lacking.

ps - oh and btw, you asked a previous poster to provide you with "sources" for a premise they put forward...after they had already directed you to an entire book which elucidated these points! But hey, if it isn't on Youtube or Wiki I guess it just doesn't count, huh?

I agree with CJ when he states,"I don't think that feminism and secularism are roots of Islamophobia... Islamophobia derives from an unfortunate admixture of religious and xenophobic/racist idealogies that feeds and in extreme cases actively fosters hatred against Muslims."

I would just like to add that fundamentalist revivals, in whatever religion, take place in times when social changes have led to turmoil, uncertainty, and the erosion of familiar values. When people find themselves confused, threatened, or even appalled at changing conditions, they may see a "return to basics" as a solution.

It is not surprising therefore that in some small rural communities in
Australia, (e.g. Camden), Muslims are seen as a threat. Nor is it surprising that Islamic fundamentalism has surged in societies like Iran, which have experienced wrenching social change as a result of their oil wealth.

When newcomers behave in a variety of ways that are different from the local communities, they are often viewed as a threat. They fear the impact of the different culture and political interference in their societies.

Education is the key to solving the problem. However this may not work
with fundamentalists who are concerned mainly with conditions in their own countries.

It was quite fascinating, and addressed in part the tension between fundamentalist Islam, secularism and feminism in contemporary Iraq. Off topic, but the film also demonstrates clearly some ways in which Islamism has become far more influential in post-Saddam Iraq than it was prior to the invasion and ongoing occupation.
Never a truer word I am not sure I know anybody that actually supported that invasion apart from those that were blinded by their faith who likened themselves to King Richard the Lionheart and his St George Crusaders. Messrs Blair, Bush and Howard. Feminism is about rightful equality of the sexes which until recently never was because the Macho man would not allow it. Islam has now replaced the Soviets or Marxism as the bogeyman because it sees capitalism for what it is greed, heartless and selfish. Secular or Atheism also see all religioun as part and parcel of capitalism they go hand in hand because it clouds politics and strives for wealth to control the masses. Mark was spot on when he quoted it that Religioun is the Opium of the people. Marx was an economist not a Philosipher