The Problem with Muslims

the place on the chorlton bulletin board for vegetable-spread related chatter and other matters...it's the first, the best and it's currently hack free.
User avatar
annie
Posts: 4816
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 am
Location: Chorlton

Postby annie » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:42 pm

Slight problem with keeping my attention there mymanchester...

It's organised religion you see.

Which is bollox.

Here's a question:

Why is is that people who come from different countries, cultures and races seem to feel the need to band themselves together as "Christians", or "Muslims", placing THAT self-identified label upon themselves in the face of their own country's culture? ie. placing thier religious identity over their human, cultural identity.

Kita Mura
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Chorlton-cum-Hardy

Postby Kita Mura » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:44 am

my manchester wrote:
For those serious about learning about Islam, they would travel further than the 47 bus can take you and look more towards the Middle East, where the religion actually comes from, in a region where churches and mosques pre-date most countries history.


Those serious about learning about Islam could just as well do so right here. Why not?

Your question about British Christians - I wouldn't know I'm not one and as far as I can see on this thread not another soul has claimed to be one either so I'm not sure what your question refers to. Could you clarify?
Tear Down the Walls of Fortress Europe

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:20 pm
Location: chorlton
Contact:

Postby admin » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:27 pm

I'm sorted then; I've got a degree in Middle Eastern Studies, have lived in Egypt and Israel/Palestine and have also visited Syria and Jordan. I also speak Arabic and Hebrew.
And here's the skinny according to admin/mark/jew: there is no single group on earth whose individuals should be persecuted simply because of this group membership. Or criticised. Or accused. N-o-t a s-i-n-g-l-e o-n-e. We can look at ideologies and traditions and say - never ever ever ever forgetting that our opinions are the result of our own cultural upbringing - this seems wierd/amazing/bonkers to me, but that's it.
Because the gap between treating people as representatives of their group and racism is tiny. It's surely possible, I imagine, to do one without the other but very very tough.
B'Shalom
B'Salaam
In Peace
m/a/j

User avatar
annie
Posts: 4816
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 am
Location: Chorlton

Postby annie » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:07 pm

there is no single group on earth whose individuals should be persecuted simply because of this group membership. Or criticised. Or accused. N-o-t a s-i-n-g-l-e o-n-e.


Persecution, absolutely not... accusation... depends... criticism... disagree entirely.

To deny criticism would be to sanction the bad behaviour of groups of people within these organisations, and to stifle debate.

our opinions are the result of our own cultural upbringing


Are you suggesting that informed opinions, achieved through study are invalid, and that everything we believe is purely a knee-jerk reaction as a result of our upbringing?? Surely not. That negates intellectual debate entirely.

User avatar
Louise
Posts: 3350
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:58 pm

Postby Louise » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:36 am

Perhaps we should criticise the individuals rather than the religion itself. I don't think people should be criticised for following a religion, just because you don't understand why they do it doesn't make it wrong.

I think its hard to form opionions in a vacuum, we are bound to look to our background and upbringing in order to make life choices, even if you make those choices in defiance of your background you are still bringing it into play.

Kita Mura
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Chorlton-cum-Hardy

Postby Kita Mura » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:30 pm

Mark. You're bang on the money. Dead simple, dead right. You can question the existance of God without doing any of those things. That's what I would call a humanist perspective.
Tear Down the Walls of Fortress Europe

User avatar
annie
Posts: 4816
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:08 am
Location: Chorlton

Postby annie » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:04 pm

... which gets you nowhere when your beef is with the negative and anti-human characteristics of organised religions themselves... God (whatever that means) has little to do with all that guff.

User avatar
manley
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:50 pm

Postby manley » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:19 pm

We are no longer a christian nation. We are a secular nation whose inhabitants worship a variety of religions. The main religion just happens to be protestant christian.
I do think Jack Straw does make a valid point though, but it's a tricky one, as people are free to wear what they want! The analogy of motorcycle helmets in banks doesn't really hold up.
I think the type of headwear they wear depends on what particular region/culture they come from, not as some sort've 'affront'.

User avatar
Local Celebrity
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Chorlton

Postby Local Celebrity » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:28 pm

Coming to work on the tram, I am frequently enraged by my inability to see the breasts of attractive female fellow passengers.

Breasts are meant to wibble. It is unnatural to keep them strapped up in "brassieres". If the breasts themselves could speak, they would doubtless demand freedom from these highly unnatural constraints.

I'm sure most red-blooded males would agree with me. And since men still have the social and economic upper-hand in this country, I see no reason why women should not be forced to accede to our preferences.

Women - you have a choice: strip to the waist in public, or else leave the country!

User avatar
fiz67
Posts: 1516
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 2:19 pm
Location: Chorlton cum Hardy

Postby fiz67 » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:13 pm

:lol: :lol: local celebrity this is a fair point - these vails/headwear are in deed to stop men oggling women, in all female situations these vails are not required so in that respect i say "all men are perverts" :wink: and men must agree as its men who want their woman not to be looked at, shame on you!! would a woman need to wear a vail in vanilla (lesbian bar) in the gay village i wonder

User avatar
elliej
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Chorlton
Contact:

Postby elliej » Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:33 pm

local celebrity that's not a fair point. There is almost worldwide consensus that some parts of the body are associated with sex and some are not. Anyone who thinks looking at a woman's face will drive men into a lustful frenzy is insane.
Pete has a better point, about indentification - it's not OK to wear a bike helmet in a bank or a hoody and cap in a pub or shopping centre so why is it OK to wear a full-face veil in these places? We cannot have one rule for one and one rule for another. This is not to say that veiled women are trouble-causers or criminals, probably far from it, it's just the principle.

This is not, as Pete said, a Muslim rule. Most Muslim women I've met just cover their hair. Full-body burkha stems from fundamentalist, male-ruled oppressive societies. It is WRONG that men and women should have to dress differently and I will not be persuaded otherwise, BUT I accept that Muslim women make that choice.
However by choosing to live in a society which has rules as mentioned above, they should be prepared to abide by them, not change the rules. I went to a muslim country and had to wear a head-scarf. Not a problem, though I didn't take it home with me.

And fiz67 Vanilla girls are much worse than men! :wink:
You can have it all

boldaslove
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:45 pm
Location: chorltonania
Contact:

Postby boldaslove » Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:39 am

1. 'hoodies' (now a term for scallies i suppose) were banned mainly because the owners of shops associated the item of clothing with anti social behavior. the whole 'you have to keep your hood down for identification' argument was brought in just to back it up and make it justifiable.
2. crash helmets are banned in banks, shops and so forth i imagine because they're quite useful for dodging bullets! if a woman in a burqa robbed a bank i reckon that she'd fine it a little difficult to make a fast getaway in such a garmet and also easily indentifiable.
3. when we live in a society where it's acceptable to treat women as objects, leer at them when they wear skirts up to their arses and egg them on when they're pissed and starting fights i can kinda understand why someone religious would want to disassociate themselves with this culture. this isn't our time held tradition, it's sexism, it's tacky, slutty, and british women do it in countries across the world so the argument "when in rome..." is invalid to me. british people on the whole do not respect the local culture when they go abroad. we're renowned for it worldwide.
4. the only people i see causing divisions and strife in the community are the people who are kicking off about traditional modes of dress. yet again it's this typical british "WE'RE not changing, WE'RE not the problem, it's YOU". when a nun wears a veil it's considered honourable, and it's fairly similar reasons for wearing one as there is to a burqa, a sign of modesty and of dedication to their religion and beliefs.
5. we're not a christian country, and we haven't been for a long time. we're a multi cultural/religious society and many people these days have chosen not to follow a religion. the fact that people have codswalloped religion for so long and are now choosing to use it as an argument against muslims is laughable.
6. whether or not this is the result of media fanaticism or jack straw's comments i don't know, but if you look on bbc news today there is an article about a woman having her veil ripped off in public. so congrats to the media/government/gulliable public, you're all doing a great job of making it harder and harder to get along with other people in the community, which i remember, was straw's justification for his comments in the first place.
7. if british people can wear whatever they want, when they want, where they want, then who are we to tell other people how to dress in our 'free' country? since when did the public make themselves the clothes police?!

User avatar
sammy
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:06 am
Location: Chorlton
Contact:

Postby sammy » Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:55 am

crash helmets are banned in banks, shops and so forth i imagine because they're quite useful for dodging bullets!
Bollocks you can't wear helmets in banks etc for identification purposes nothing to do with dodging bullets!
when a nun wears a veil it's considered honourable
I am pretty sure nun's don't wear veils, or at least not ones that cover thier faces! which I thought was the only probelm.N one is bothered about head scarfs!

I don't care if some-one is muslim,catholic,shikh,jewish or any other RELIGION we are not talking about if someone is british as you seem to switch to in your last post,(or I might of read it wrong) but I feel intimadated by someone who has their face covered, may that be by a hoddie,scarf,veil,motorcycle helmet or balaclava....but hey maybe that's just me.
() ()
( '.' )
(")_(")

Kita Mura
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Chorlton-cum-Hardy

Postby Kita Mura » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:25 pm

I can't say I've ever felt intimidated by someone in a burqa. It does seem an extreme thing to wear but if people choose to wear it, fine. I think now, in Britain anyway, that observence of the hijab is more a political decision on the part of the women rather than for reasons of modesty. The more people feel under attack for their beliefs/practices, the more they adhere to them and the more likely they are to follow rigid dogma. I am not a fan of the philosophy that all men are potentail rapists and women temptresses who need to cover up for fear of bringing the downfall of society. It is a horribly unhealthy way to think, and incidentally, we (Europeans) still have a hangover from that philosophy which was prevalent in our not so distant past - see Boldaslove's comment re: "slutty", but I don't think many muslims actually do that think that way. Like I say, it has become more of a political decision to wear the garments signalling your faith.
It seems to me that it is the very people (men usually) who most bemoan the treatment of women in Muslim society, who are the worst offenders in the oppression (yes it still goes on!) of women in western society. Just an observation. Double standards do my head in!
On the Jack Straw statement, I think it came out of a genuine desire for a more united/integrated Britain and so a good thing to bring up.

Are there no muslims on this board? It would be good to hear your perspective (if you've not been put off by the ridiculous title of this thread)
Tear Down the Walls of Fortress Europe

User avatar
elliej
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Chorlton
Contact:

Postby elliej » Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:45 pm

I think hoodies/caps were banned not only because 'scallies' wear them but to make faces visible on cctv which is usually positioned high up.

I might disagree with hijab but would never impose my opinion on someone who's chosen to wear it. However if the rule is 'No headwear' everyone has to obey it. Religious choices cannot override rules put in place for safety.
To emphasise again - we are only talking about full-face veils, not headscarfs or clothing.

Quote from Muslim lady interviewed by BBC "I would like to ask women who wear the veil why they do so. I don't think it says anywhere in the Koran that women should cover their faces."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/5413352.stm

Jack Straw's comment was just an excuse for a vile man to attack someone, probably not for the first time. It didn't incite me to go out and assault a stranger.

Boldaslove this isn't about being clothes police, people communicate more visually than verbally.

I don't understand point 3 at all? Is it acceptable in this country to treat women as objects? I don't think so. Who accepts this?
Men have leered at women for ever, all over the world. Women in every single country get raped or sexually or verbally attacked regardless of how they dress or behave, and in some countries even get ostracised or killed just for being a victim.
To read a word like 'slutty' used to describe a woman bothers me, especially as you are female. Where's your tolerance now? I agree getting pissed and being an idiot is not a good look for men or women, but being sexually aware, provocative even is not something that should be celebrated in men yet frowned upon in women.

Will this become the longest chorltonweb thread ever... :roll:
Kita I think you sum things up nicely.
You can have it all


Return to “Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests