Starting at 4:00 in the video, he makes this lucid argument against the public wearing of the burqa:
- - - - - - - - -
The whole point of female concealment in Islamic society is that men are not expected to take responsibility for their sexual urges. So any woman who is not covered up from head to toe is asking to be raped.
The burqa, therefore, legitimizes rape. It apologizes for rape; it justifies rape.
Are you listening, feminists?
And this makes it, in my opinion, as offensive a public statement as a Ku Klux Klan uniform or a Nazi swastika, and I think it should be treated with exactly the same revulsion and contempt.
Thanks to Zenster for the transcript.
42 comments:
For all his talk about Freedom it's people like Condell will be the ones who try to... coerce the Muslims into abandoning the Burka and what not. It's entirely his idea that freedom is gods gift to all/a universal human right that imperils us in the first place.
And this makes it, in my opinion, as offensive a public statement as a Ku Klux Klan uniform or a Nazi swastika, and I think it should be treated with exactly the same revulsion and contempt.
Agreed. Obama should not have called opposition to the burka "hostility".
However is Condell aware that the Ku Klax Klan have the constitutionally protected right to wear their uniforms in the U.S? Also, here is footage of a Nazi rally that was held in Madison Square Garden in 1939.
If the burka is to be banned in France or the U.K. how can this position be reconciled with Geert Wilders' proposal for First Amendment-type laws for Europe?
Sarkozy says he thinks the burka should be banned but he also told Phillippe de Villiers: "The Islamization of Europe is inevitable." I think Sarkozy's proposal is intended to serve as a deception.
While my blog links to Condell’s videos, I must say that he is totally wrong about BNP.
How could the most legitimate nostalgia for the UK’s 1950s, before the massive immigration, be labeled “fascist” and “racist”, as Condell does? Until he became aware of the evils of Islam, Condell was a self-proclaimed lefty and he voted for the Labour party. This reminds me the case of the late Oriana Fallaci, a lefty until she had the insight of what Islamization means.
It should be clear for GoV readers that the few leftists who have realized the dangers of Islamization—Christopher Hitchens, Fallaci, Condell to name a few—didn’t purge their minds from all the traps of the Left worldview. As I tried to explain recently in another Gov thread (see here), ethnic identity is intertwined with national identity. You get most Brits browner in the next generations and a whole culture will be gone—forever! BNP is a conservative party, not a “fascist” party. The fact that both Condell and our notable Muslim commenter Solkhar use the word “fascist” to label conservatives speaks volumes about the extent in which PC MC dogma has been accepted throughout society, even among Islam critics.
Since I support BNP I am tempted to remove the Condell video from my blog. But I won’t do it... As Conservative Swede said a couple of days ago in another thread talking about Geert Wilders, the cultural milieu is such that people like Wilders, despite his limitations, are precisely the kind of politicians we need at present. I would say something similar about Condell. However, if the West ever awakens from its catatonic stupor a more realistic worldview, one that touches the thorny issue of massive immigration from non-Caucasian countries, will have to be dealt with brutal honesty.
Sean --
The KKK robe, like the burqa, would obviously not be something to wear onto a bus or into a bank. But unless I misunderstand Condell, he doesn't advocate legal bans per se on such things. He says the burqa should be treated with "revulsion and contempt", which is a nice start, and doesn't require the force of law.
Grassroots efforts to disapprove of things can have a profound effect. Look what has happened to cigarette smoking since I was a kid.
Unfortunately, such movements require decades make their effects felt.
"The burqa legitimises rape". It's one of those ideas you wouldn't have been able to express yourself, but which become obvious once someone else has stated them.
I must admit that for all my opposition to burqa, and to islam more generally, I would have been at a loss to explain it as simply as Pat Condell did.
Such is the weight of leftist cultural brainwashing. And the importance of counter-jihad.
Pat Condell talks straight only to a point, "...my argument is with religion and has nothing to do with race" Religion is a facet of culture which itself is a function of race; a culture is the manifestation of a people's interaction with nature, it is how a people solves the problems of life according to its own interaction with and interpretation of life. What else can it be?
Condell's commitment to 'freedom' (and thus to 'equality) gets in the way of his analysis.
Thll : granted.
But the importance of arguing against Islam is precisely that one becomes free to think about why some people cannot mix with other people, without having to deal with the political third rail of race.
Once you've been convinced of that, it's a natural step to extend your thinking to race.
Doing it the other way is more difficult.
I think I won't be misrepresenting Gates of Vienna's thinking if I say that it's precisely the intellectual path they have followed. I've done the same, and I'm not the only one.
We've been so brainwashed about racism that the argument "I have the right to argue against Islam, because Islam is not a race", is a very powerful one.
Once that door is busted open, the rest will follow.
If only the average Lefty Liberal had the common sense Pat Condell demonstrates the world would be a much better place. He's one of the few I've seen who at least is consistent with his ideals and not afraid to speak out on the insanity of PC Multiculturalism and it's strange support of Islamic intolerance. That people who claim to believe in "social justice" and "equality" can spend so much of their time making excuses for that most fascist religion is beyond me.
* "We've been so brainwashed about racism that the argument 'I have the right to argue against Islam, because Islam is not a race', is a very powerful one." - Robert Marchenoir
Which is why I believe that, while Condell is dead wrong about BNP, the rhetoric he uses is precisely the one we need at this point in our efforts to crack of the PC MC wall.
I do not have an opinion or great knowledge about British or American politics and will stay out of it but I will make a comment about the burqa.
It is a cultral-tribal Arab thing, nothing Islamic about it and is an icon of tribal-sexism in the Arab world. Of course the Arab radical extremists will insist because it was in their culture that it is Islamic and simply it is not in a verse of the Qur'an and it comes out only in the third-generation books. In fact Mohammed insisted in trying to take way sexism and oppression out of the Muslim community and it failed after the first generation of his followers died after him.
French President Sarkozy was absolutely correct when he said that the Burqa is something that should be banned as it is not Islamic, it is an instrument of suppression.
Note, this is the burqa and should not be confused with the Hijab and the Viel. The Hijab is an item of modesty that most Muslim women 'chose' to wear (those that have been given the choice have chosen) whilst the Viel is again cultural and should be, like the burqa, eliminated but with care due to its strong cultral affinity.
"I have the right to argue against Islam as it is not a race".
I think that is correct. But having said that, are you arguing against the religious principles, the Qur'an or the behavior of Muslims? Everyone has a right to an opinion, I have my own on many subjects, but when you put them in a public domain or you are part of a collective group - then it has to be controlled and monitored to not become bigotry, racism or insightment to hatred.
Then you have to have evidence, not conjecture or just gossip. Quotes of the Qur'an as being evil but read out of context is the best example, confusing what is the acts of culture and tribalism and confusing them as being Islamic is another one.
So saying you dislike and arguing against the core religous principles is very hard and can turn into bigotry if not carefully done. I make comments in defence of Islamic principles on this blog because the facts are incorrect, you will not see me defending the henious acts of bad Muslims.
You would also find me defending the core principles of Christianity and Judaism for the same reasons, minding you that as there is also a Jewish race, that it becomes even more a careful stepping stone activity.
Have your opinions, but make it clear taht in public, you have to be correct and prove it beyond more than reasonable doubt or face being found the fool.
Robert Marchenoir: "The burqa legitimises rape". It's one of those ideas you wouldn't have been able to express yourself, but which become obvious once someone else has stated them.
I must admit that for all my opposition to burqa, and to islam more generally, I would have been at a loss to explain it as simply as Pat Condell did.
Such is the weight of leftist cultural brainwashing. And the importance of counter-jihad. [emphasis added]
An excellent point and another proof of why the Internet is so important. I, myself, felt exactly the same way upon hearing Condell's reasoning and thought it was so compelling that I transcribed the above passage on the spot.
Just a few decades ago, Pat Condell would have endured unnoticed by all with a slight reputation among his neighbors for ranting a bit, although rather eloquently.
Instead Condell is able to transmit globally a vital meme of tremendous use in fighting Islamization.
The burqa is a political statement. Its use in Western lands, where going uncovered is not an invitation to rape, can only be contstrued as a flagrant political statement.
For the nonce we will disregard how some of the most heinous rape cases in recent Western history are due to Muslim males and that they usually do not involve Muslim women. Instead, Muslim women are typically murdered and not sexually assaulted for going uncovered. A minor distinction to Muslims, I'm sure, but one that in Western minds should generate even more hostility to all things Islamic.
Finally, as to "the importance of counter-jihad": None of us, save perhaps Dymphna, can thank The Baron enough for all of his dedicated efforts at making sure counter-jihad is brought to the masses. We may one day owe Dymphna and The Baron our very lives for having mobilized American opinion in enough time to repulse Islam's assualt upon modern civilization.
Solkhar: It is a cultral-tribal Arab thing, nothing Islamic about it and is an icon of tribal-sexism in the Arab world.
Save that it manifests almost exclusively in the Islamic world and literally nowhere else. Other than that, of course, it's a "tribal thing".
"...then it has to be controlled and monitored to not become bigotry, racism or incitement to hatred."
You'll have to try harder, Solkhar. I don't know what bigotry is, and I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, it's not an indictment.
And about "incitement to hatred", I call it self defence. Hatred is on the other side. We have every right to hate he who has first started to hate us, and has acted upon it. Indeed, it's a virtue and a necessity.
Solkhar: ... are you arguing against the religious principles, the Qur'an or the behavior of Muslims?
Let's stop right there and obtain clarification about one elemental thing.
It would seem that Solkhar is arguing that Islam is a "religion".
Let's not conflate Islamic interpretations of what constitutes a "religion" from how religion is practiced in the West.
Western religion is distinctly separated from the state in many of the most vital ways. Europe's ornamental preservation of "state religion" easily can be shown to be the total governmental and legal trainwreck that it is at present.
Proper Western practice of religion involves a near-total Separation Of Church And State (SOCAS). Especially so in the application of law. While many Western laws devolve from early Judeo-Christian Mosaic lawgiving, they are administered by the state irrspective of the church's position regarding them. Capital punishment is an example of this.
Nothing of the sort exists in almost every single Islamic nation. Shari'a law is used as a codification of legal precedence and it is implemented with the same vigor as Muslim worship itself.
There is no way of separating Islam from shari'a or vice versa. They are inextricable, regardless of any variations of interpretation with respect to shari'a itself. There are few, if any, Muslim countries that do not incorporate direct mention and transliteration of shari'a law into their legal frameworks.
This leaves one very unpleasant conclusion. That there is no Separation of Church and State in Islamic countries. Nor is there any possibility of separating church and state in Islamic countries.
When there is no Separation of Church and State, the church is no longer solely a spiritual organ but become, de facto an apparatus of the state. Claiming that the state is merely an apparatus of the church makes no difference save to reinforce this argument.
Without any distinction between church and state, they become indistinguishable and therefore political. It is for this reason that, by Western standards, Islam is not a "religion" but a Political Ideology and needs to treated as such.
Solkhar: Everyone has a right to an opinion, I have my own on many subjects, but when you put them in a public domain or you are part of a collective group - then it has to be controlled and monitored to not become bigotry, racism or insightment to hatred.
Unless we're talking about that little manual of extreme Hate Speech known as the Qur'an, and then it's "hands off", right?
Solkhar: I make comments in defence of Islamic principles on this blog because the facts are incorrect, you will not see me defending the henious acts of bad Muslims.
Perhaps not, but nowhere have you responded to repeated requests that you provide proof of your active opposition to radical Islam in such ways as confronting extremist Muslims at Islamist web sites or physically in legal cases and taking them on in the courtroom of public opinion.
Instead, its seems that you tend to reside almost entirely at Western web sites lulling us Infidels into a false sense of security with regard to the core Qur'anic principals of Islam.
"That people who claim to believe in "social justice" and "equality" can spend so much of their time making excuses for that most fascist religion is beyond me."
------------
Totalitarian calls to totalitarian in what David Horowitz calls an "Unholy Alliance".
Their differences are less important to them at this stage than the mutual slavering over domination of others. The two control freaks appear to admire each other's handiwork and even copy it occasionally as bin Laden's latter lectures to the West hitting all the Democrats' talking points demonstrate.
If the Left actually succeeded in marginalizing conservatives, the only mitigating force to their monumental stupidity, they would soon be as disappointed in their alliance as Stalin was with Hitler.
Just as before, each thief thinks to use the other to enlarge his sphere of influence at the expense of the West's freedoms and treasure. However, their cupidity means this pact (Molotov-Ribbentrop coming up to its 70th anniversary and the present more informal pact between Muslim invaders and leftist enablers) is meant to be temporary. Each thug calculates that he will turn on the other after achieving a position of strength. Hitler smelled Stalin's weakness and struck at his "ally"s" neck first.
In the new alliance,leftists and their magical thinking are the weak ones (weak in mind, not determination). They are determinedly attacking conservatives and sapping the institutions of capitalist democracy "using" Muslims and other poor fit immigration to do so. They apparently think, if they think that far ahead at all, that Arabs/Muslims are a mere tool and will obligingly fold their tents after the grand Socialist victory over the West and leave entirely or become quiescent in their mosques as Christians were beaten out of the public squares into their churches.
What a surprise when Leftists focused on what THEY insanely treat as a lethal enemy, their own countrymen who think differently, turn from routing them to toast their partner in crime who now coolly offers either a slit throat or demands that they live life opposite to their inclinations: powerless, barred from higher education, the women mummified, sex restricted to marriage, abortion unknown, gays eliminated, serf standard of living, immersed in religion 24/7 and most painfully of all,unable to shoot their big mouths off everywhere all the time.
Ouch!
Well, at least the environut battalion will get their much wished for human die-offs and a return to the pristine but barbaric Nature they crave. However, they'll be too busy bumping their heads to the brothel owner god 5 times a day to to worship Gaia. He's a jealous god.
Islamisation on STEROIDS - Non Muslim Female British Police Issued Veils
In an outrageous step that should cause blood to shoot out of your eyes comes the news that what is touted as "political correctness" finds Great Britain's Somerset and Avon police services permanently issuing color coordinated veils to NON MUSLIM female police officers and community support officers.
Supposedly the veils are to be worn when entering a mosque but one has to wonder just how often non-muslim female police actually have to go inside a mosque or is this a more likely step in a dhimmified police facilitating the Islamisation of Great Britain?
The bragging, dhimwitted Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts swoons over the (not mandated by the Qur'an) veil and states:
"'Producing head coverings for our officers and staff to wear in places of worship is part of our commitment to engage with all our communities. 'It recognises and respects the cultural and religious practices of our communities. This is a very positive addition to the Avon and Somerset uniform and one which I'm sure will be a welcome item for many of our officers.'
Link
I suppose the next step will be to issue female British policepersons with dildos (so as to blend with the surrounding cultural sensitivities when trying to "engage" with the "community" of practicing lesbians), and to encourage them to shed their clothes off when "engaging" with some suspects within the nudist "community".
Zenster,
"nowhere have you responded to repeated requests that you provide proof of your active opposition to radical Islam in such ways as confronting extremist Muslims at Islamist web sites or physically in legal cases and taking them on in the courtroom of public opinion"
I do not have to provide anything to you at all and the presumption that I do rather smacks of self-importance on your part. You have no idea of my life, my work and what efforts I provide. My work in the tracking of financial processes by terrorism groups itself should point out that I work at the sharp-end of the stick and on the real issues of terrorism rather than on the bigoted side of blaming an entire religous faith. Speaking of that, your references and assumption that it is not a religion is rather embarrassing considering the world and its bodies all do.
Your continous comments that the Qur'an is hate-speech is just a side-line to avoid the point that the demands of Wilders and in fact yourself is in most parts of the world a crime. Carefully avoided of course and pushed as a mear liberal-west mistake.... laughable.
Always extraordinary commentary here. On a personal level, I see the burqa as repressive and a symbol much like the Star of David the Nazis forced the Jewish folks to wear - it screams oppression and servitude. On the other hand, Muslim women in Western nations may "like" wearing the burqa because it sets them apart as belonging to the "better" / "saved" class as followers, not infidels. It is a very confusing issue as the burqa is used to control or enslave Muslim women and to show the power of men.
The burqa, and Islam generally, are totally incompatible in Western society. We stopped branding slaves and indentured servants a long time ago.
The "feminists", Baron, are exactly where they have always been - leaving Juanita Broderick to find her own ice. For all we know, they might welcome the burqa; it's hard being on your own and standing up for your rights. Look what the "feminists" have helped do to Sarah Palin. Stigmatize her. The far-left "feminists" defend their own causes and duck for cover or are MIA when the going gets rough for other women.
Solkhar: I do not have to provide anything to you at all and the presumption that I do rather smacks of self-importance on your part.
Ummmm ... please try to pay attention instead of bloviating as usual.
NO ONE has demanded anything of you. Henrik requested that you provide some sort of tangible evidence to back your assertion of being active in the fight against Muslim extremism.
Perhaps you are confusing how Muslims so often make "requests" at swordpoint with the way things are done in polite society.
My work in the tracking of financial processes by terrorism groups itself should point out that I work at the sharp-end of the stick and on the real issues of terrorism rather than on the bigoted side of blaming an entire religous faith.
All we have to validate your claim of "tracking of financial processes by terrorism groups" is your own word. That is something which, due to repeated acts of bad faith on your part, no longer carries a lot of weight at this web site. The Baron's conspicuous refusal to engage you any further is a glaring indicator of your stock at Gates of Vienna.
What's more, NO ONE was asking you to detail your financial work against terrorim. As I recall, there was merely curiosity as to whether you actually participated as a moderating force at extremist Muslim web sites or made any other substantial form of contribution to confronting jihadists with the error of their ways. I'm sure Henrik will be happy to supply the exact quote.
Still, perish the thought that you, a Muslim, might have to answer up with specifics and not just personal assurances when it comes to the important task of actually fighting terrorism.
Speaking of that, your references and assumption that it is not a religion is rather embarrassing considering the world and its bodies all do.
Again, please try to pay closer attention. My point was that Islam is misconstrued as a religion when, in fact, its inextricable theocratic component makes it a political ideology and not just a "religion".
Just because a thousand lemmings are casting themselves over the precipice doesn't mean that I am obliged to as well.
It is also conspicuous that you do not attempt to refute my observation that Islam is a political ideology. Why not do some heavy lifting for a change and demonstrate for those at Gates of Vienna how Islamic doctrine is free from theocratic aspirations.
Your continous comments that the Qur'an is hate-speech is just a side-line to avoid the point that the demands of Wilders and in fact yourself is in most parts of the world a crime.
Again, another fallacious argument. Just because apostasy is a capital crime in the majority of Muslim countries does not in fact make it an actual criminal offence in civilized society. Just because it is illegal for women to drive cars in Saudi Arabia does not make the issuing of drivers licenses to women in the West into a crime.
Your yardstick of what is criminal makes a corkscrew look like a machinist's straightedge.
The "WestBusters' Alliance"
Laine, you got it about the situation of the Leftists and Islamists. The problem is that Leftists are consumed by terminal levels of delusion, and believe the Master Race Management Theory
[MRMT] (Western Culture will always be dominant, and the obstacle to utopia is "Western Imperialism/ Western Hegemony"). The "Secular Progressives" view of the world is STUCK in the 1920's, and they can't see how the world has changed. They either think that Western culture can't be destroyed, or that if it is, a Secular Utopia will inevitably follow it. After all, if we gave the Taliban EVERYTHING they wanted, wouldn't they set up a SECULAR UTOPIA? Such is the depth of delusion on the Left today.
So you have the Irrational, "secular", native 'westbusters' (the Leftists) who are clueless dupes. On the other hand, you have the RATIONAL, theocratic, foreign 'westbusters' (the Islamists) who are using a remodulated Al-Hijra (shariah-compliant of course)plan of migration to gain power and influence in the West.
The battle cry for those who believe in MRMT is "Who you gonna call? Call Westbusters!!"
But the point is that Leftists are going to gradually turn into shills for implementing Shariah (in the name of "diversity"), as more 'migrants' enter the West, and more money flows to the Leftist politicians. The Left's 'vote aliens' will start taking the Left captive (into implementing Shariah) without the Left realizing it. I predict that another 10-15 years of this will see the main social issue of the Leftist parties being how to implement shariah-compliant this and that (other Leftist causes will go to the margins). Wilders didn't call his opponents "Shariah Socialists" for nothing. Of course, at some point the Islamists will get tired of the game and liquidate the "Leftist governing class".
What the Leftists are doing makes no sense, for they are now in power, and can do what they want. I used to think the Left simply hated Christianity, but now I see them cannabalizing their own purported ideals.
A combination of miserable mismanagement and Muslims stopping crazy leftist scemes (in the name of "diversity") will build legitimacy for a Caliphate in the eyes of the non-muslim natives. If we want a free society, we must defeat the Left in time.
The police hijab article is a good illustration of all this.
I read another article that shows the leftist madness in Europe.
alarabiya.net/articles/2009/07/16/78914.html#003
It seems a Norweigan Muslim convert wanted to wear a burkini in Egypt to the swimming pool (a burkini is an aquatic jilbab designed with high-tech fabrics that looks like a power ranger suit with a miniskirt over it) and she was prevented from using the pool because "she was not allowed to be in the pool with a veil" (in Egypt). Well, the Muslim woman filed a complaint with the embassy, since she was insulted and disrespected.
Egypt can stop Islamists better than the West can.
In fact Mohammed insisted in trying to take way sexism and oppression out of the Muslim community
If you're going to lie, you'd best do it with a less obviously false statement than this.
"Your continous comments that the Qur'an is hate-speech is just a side-line to avoid the point that the demands of Wilders and in fact yourself is in most parts of the world a crime."
Hahaha, I was waiting for that. No more need to engage with Solkhar. Just let him speak, and watch him crash into his own contradictions.
One of the widely-used Solkharesque weapons to deflect undue attention from Islam's crimes, a short while ago, was to accuse Westerners of having been too hospitable to fundamentalists.
The story went thus : the Islamic world is hostile to fundamentalists (a disputable statement at best), the West was hospitable to them (ditto), so Islam is not to blame for Islamic fundamentalism (how convenient).
Now let's remember that Solkhar, if we are to believe his self-description (which I do not necessarily do), is Dutch.
Therefore, this is a self-indictment. According to him, Solkhar was a diplomat. So not only he is a Dutchman, he used to wield a certain amount of power in his own country.
What did he do, hismelf, to prevent the entry of fundamentalist Muslims in Holland ? He does not say. He certainly had ample time to do so, being now retired.
As a Westerner, he should certainly, at least, say "we" made a mistake, "we" were fools to let them in, and so on.
But that's not what he says. He says "you" shouldn't have let them in. It's "your" fault. Now "you" deal with it, and don't you blame Islam.
And of course, barring himself having done anything specific to prevent Muslim fundamentalists from entering the West, the least we can expect of him is to support those fellow Western citizens of his that are now working to that effect.
Meaning Geert Wilders, since Solkhar is (supposedly) Dutch.
Geert Wilders wants to expel Muslim double nationals who commit crimes. This would be a very effective way of getting rid of Muslim fundamentalists in Holland.
We know that Western prisons are breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalism. We know there are deep links between Islamic fundamentalists and organised crime (especially drug trafficking), which helps to finance da'wa and terrorism.
And, of course, most Western countries, by now, have those wonderful "racism" and "hate speech" laws, who could obviously be actioned against "Islamic fundamentalists", provided there was the political will to do so.
So, of course, Solkhar supports Geert Wilders ? Wrong ! He wants hate speech laws used against him, not against Muslim fundamentalists !
One more proof of what's been obvious since the beginning : either Solkhar is a liar (and that persona of the retired Dutch diplomat studying the finances of Islamic terrorism is a fake), or he is a traitor, to his country and to the West.
Robert you can attempt to interpret to suit your own views as much as you like but it is better to return to realism.
If you think one upper-middle level diplomat can stop politicians and government policy in any country then you read to much fiction. The period of foolish easy immigration was in the 1970s - I am not that old.
I agree with strong, careful and selective immigration that is all, I certainly agree with nothing of Wilders and his bigoted one-subject platform and who says what he says so at least the sensationalism can give him some votes.
The biggest load of BS from your playing with words Robert is that I certainly condemn and do condemn radical Islam and hate-speech should be targetting them AS MUCH as Wilders. I have said that many, many times.
Your attack and assumptions direct on me is what I consider stubborness and pigheadedness on your part because you follow a political agenda and cannot accept that someone disagrees with you and especially that he is a Muslim. That he points out the factual and moral errors in your words really must be bitting you.
The sum still is that you can attack the acts of muslims anytime, the dangers of those wacko radical militant supporters in the west deserves to be battled, immigration needs to be rethought to prevent them from expanding and terrorism is real and needs to be a battle won decisevly. Also the Muslim world is sitting on their backsides doing nothing and it is shameful and for me living in it frustrating in embarassing as a Muslim. BUT, it is not the faith of Islam that is responsible nomatter how much radicals will say so.
Randian, no.
Remembering the era being 7th century, women were sold and bought, had no inheritance, were not even shown as faces.
Now add that his words were to these tribes not to 21st century western women he told them that women have rights, that they were as human as men, that they had respnsibilities as men do. He added that the most important person in anyone's life was that of the mother whom daughters and sons should be kissing their hands in thanks for their entire lives.
Then as part of the Qur'an discussed that though women and men are not the same, they both have equal responsibities and women first to families and if they cannot or it is completed, to society. Men to ensure the family is protected, fed and to collective protection for the community. That is all and that is for me not sexist and clear.
Tribalims is the problem here and culture is very, very hard to remove from society and especially when radicals use it to their advantage.
Remembering the era being 7th century, women were sold and bought, had no inheritance, were not even shown as faces.
I can't see much has changed.
Besides which, that may have been true in 7th century arabia but in the west women were rather more free than women are in most Muslim countries today. In fact the Berbers who once inhabited North Africa, including you're living in right now, were lead by a woman until Islam came along and sent them back into ignorance and slavery.
How do you square your argument that men and women in the quran are the same - equal but different, if you will - when it states very clearly that a woman is worth only half a man?
Including the country you're living in, I should have said.
Robert Marchenoir said: "But the importance of arguing against Islam is precisely that one becomes free to think about why some people cannot mix with other people, without having to deal with the political third rail of race."
A good point and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've never been very subtle - I put it down to my ancestry (;O)), North Britons can be blunt to the point of self destruction!
Btw, I do applaud Pat Condell.
"How do you square your argument that men and women in the quran are the same - equal but different, if you will - when it states very clearly that a woman is worth only half a man?"
If you take discussion and instructions to a tribe in the 7th century as instructions for today you are then either a radical fundamentalist ensuring backwardness, or you did not understand the context.
Why it was half, most who discuss and debate it - historians - consider it based on the needs of a semi nomadic tribal society.
Like the Berber, you mean? Equal rights for men and women, common female rulers etc ad nauseum... the context argument only works if the context mitigates the circumstance. Islamic law was a step back for every society it was introduced to outside of Arabia. This isn't an attempt to fit the thing to the modern day but a historical fact; islam destroyed the legal rights of women in every society it entered and in many cases those rights have never been restored even by so-called moderates.
Solkhar: If you take discussion and instructions to a tribe in the 7th century as instructions for today you are then either a radical fundamentalist ensuring backwardness, or you did not understand the context. [emphasis added]
AHA! That'th it! Context trouble ... [/Daffy Duck]
From everything I've ever read, understood and learned about the Qur'an, there is no such thing as taking its contents in "context".
To do so would be a form of ijtihad and THAT PRACTICE WAS DECLARED HARAM ALMOST TEN CENTURIES AGO.
Among many others, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has declared that "There is no moderate Islam". In a similar fashion, I have never heard of a single Islamic authority proclaiming that there is any "context" to the Qur'an. The word "context" would imply variation and, despite supposedly different interpretations, one of the paramount efforts within Islam is a unity of definition. The incessant Sunni - Shi'ite bloodshed is testimony to this demand for uniform doctrinal interpretation.
So, either Solkhar is a self-declared member of the ulema or a heretic. I leave it to him to reveal which.
I just love the capitalizations and the sincerity in Zensters writing and how it falls flat in such a rediculous notion, but well since it is clear that from his armchair he imagines the Muslim world in a particular world that is not even closely like the reality.
I have made no comments at all about misquoting or interpretation of the Qur'an, each and every contextual reference is about Hadiths. Add to that what you think is haram or not is also debatable depending on which part of the Muslim world you live in - which again you still have not even responded to that I have pointed out time and time again.
Like the word Sharia - which sharia are you talking about Zenster? Do you still rediculously think that a Shi'ite in Iran is following and respecting the Sharia tennants here in Morocco? Actually the Iranian Ambassador was told to leave earlier this year and there has been no replacement because he actually told the press that Islam here is not serious. The council of Imams here told him where he can go jump...
But of course Zenster thinks that there is one great Caliphate even though 56 plus nations do not, including Iran, Sudan and the other hard-liners. Zenster thinks that if you live in the Muslim world and you are woman that you are repressed no matter were you are - he should ask the female ministers here, the television presenters and the ladies at the beach.
I do not give even one iota of a damn what he or others on this site think regarding if you like Muslims or not, if you are panicing over some imaginary Caliphate - that is your problem and I have no right to condemn you for your views. But I certainly will point out factual errors, when your thoughts become published collective bigotry and of course, I have my opinions as well. If anything, it would be good for you all to understand the realities so that you can focus your opinons correctly and not on rumours, myths and garbage.
If you condemn radical, stupid or violent muslims - I will joined you if you like, I have tonnes of the most stupid and rediculous behavior.
But to get back to the point that there are very different views and practices, in Rabat there is a small but vocal community still supporting Salafism. One of them is a Saudi married to a Moroccan. They interupted the Friday prayers and shouted at the Imam for reading from a Haddith they think is not real - then they were shouted down by the larger locals and the Imam contacted the police because Salafism is outlawed here, not to mention linked to violence and terrorism. They were charged and said they only recognized a Sharia court - there is only secular here as in most Muslim countries and they are now imprisoned and the Saudi is on the way back home to face other charges.
This is the real Muslim world - radicalism is a minority and does not represent Islam.
Hi Solkhar,
This story appeared in yesterday's Guardian newspaper:
US sets up task force to stem flow of foreign funds to Taliban - "The money is coming in from sympathisers from all over the world with the bulk of it appearing to come from the Gulf, not any money we know of coming from governments," Holbrooke said. "Money is probably coming from sympathisers in western Europe as well. This is a huge problem."
As you are someone who works tracking terrorism financing can you give me more information? How is the money collected i.e. is it given by individuals to the leaders of radical mosques? Is the money raised through illicit activities etc.? Which Gulf states (I don't mean governments) contribute the most money towards terrorism? Or could you point me to a helpful source? Thanks.
Solkhar: Like the word Sharia - which sharia are you talking about Zenster? Do you still rediculously think that a Shi'ite in Iran is following and respecting the Sharia tennants here in Morocco?.
Please allow me to be of assistance. It is "ridiculously", deriving from the root word "ridicule" and Latin origins of ridiculus ("laughable") or French rīdeō ("to laugh; mock").
As to shari'a: It really does not matter which flavor of shari'a is being followed, as all of them are a vast abuse of human rights and only vary in the degree of vile treatment imposed upon those societies that practice it.
But of course Zenster thinks that there is one great Caliphate even though 56 plus nations do not, including Iran, Sudan and the other hard-liners.
You continue to violate the rules of conduct here at Gates of Vienna. Unless you are psychotic, ... I mean, psychic, there is no possible way for you to know what I think. That you pretend to do so only exposes the usual Muslim arrogance that so many of us here at this web site are heartily sick of.
Zenster thinks that if you live in the Muslim world and you are woman that you are repressed no matter where you are - he should ask the female ministers here, the television presenters and the ladies at the beach.
Keep violating the rules and see where it gets you. Unlike you, I can only speculate as to what Iranian television presenter, Rania al-Baz, thinks of shari'a. From the linked article:
"It is considered a husband's rights that his wife should obey him," Abeer Mishkhas, of the Saudi English-language newspaper Arab News, told BBC News Online.
Little is said by the Saudi authorities about women's rights.
I do not give even one iota of a damn what he or others on this site think regarding if you like Muslims or not, if you are panicing over some imaginary Caliphate - that is your problem and I have no right to condemn you for your views.
I am not "panicking over some imaginary Caliphate", I am merely noting that Islam's continued pursuit of a global caliphate will likely precipitate an otherwise avoidable Muslim holocaust.
Untold millions of Muslims are likely to die for Islam's sin of intolerance. Worst of all:
ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY!
Solkhar: I have tonnes of the most stupid and rediculous behavior.
Finally, something we can agree upon.
Zenster, it is not the first time that you have accused me of breaching this blog's rules by making personal assumptions and interpretations of what you are thinking, thus I wonder why just in this blog that you said the following:
"....The Baron's conspicuous refusal to engage you any further is a glaring indicator stinction to Muslims..." (psychic/otic about what BB thinks....)
"....its seems that you tend to reside almost entirely at Western web sites lulling us Infidels into a false sense of security ...."
(you do not know what websites/blogs I am attached to...my plans not to mention use of the word Infidel)
"...perish the thought that you, a Muslim, might have to ..." (I might what Zenster?)
"...either Solkhar is a self-declared member of the ulema or a heretic....." Since you are presuming you know my intentions or my beliefs, and from that of a non-Muslim...)
Jus another point, Islam is not pursuing a global Caliphate , I pointed out that the religion is not seeking it let alone that it is not possible. That is why you appear to be panicking or spreading false panic.
Sean, thank you for the question.
The Guardian is basically correct in its reporting though not providing more specifics which are common knowledge.
Western Muslim radical communities that support militancy raise money by direct cash injections outside the Mosques and the Fitr/Zakat funding - though antiIslamic groups accuse that. That cannot happen because they are the most monitored by authorities.
What is done is third party quasi-business investment. Thus investment funds are created outside the West in losely controlled or privacy protected states. Thus Switzerland, Monaco, Lichtenstein in the West but mostly in Qatar, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and still in Saudi Arabia. A so-called business investment fund that should be giving returns but claim losses each year and of course all involved know the money is going elsewhere.
The third major source of funding though - and the one I track mostly - is the selling of counterfeit products in Africa and the Middle East. Basically middle-men representing an organisation that is a front for the terrorist group purchase counterfeits in China send them to packaging plants in Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia and then distributed to sympathetic sellers in various countries. Interestingly, most distributors are Lebanese in origin.
Though it is being battled by people like myself, brand protection agencies representing the victim companies and the customs - there is much to go when there are countries that still have a "black" sector in the market (ie no documentation). I give advice to the Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) directly and now lecture to their regional directors, the last time in Cairo.
It is more than likely that Syria and Iran still pay direct funds those terrorist/military forces that represent them and thus it is correct to say that they have a different funding source - but Hezbollah is certainly involved in counterfeiting more than others.
Palestinian groups are slightly different in their funding processes - the Arab/Muslim support for Palestinian causes results in a multitude of funds and programs and it is a fair accussation to say that providing aid programs to them does not cut down on illicit criminal funding, in fact it helps because then they can concentrate their purchasing on areas not provided by through aid.
Sean - just to add, the Interpol website has some info, there are a number of US private groups and monitoring groups that provide details but unfortunately the databases I have access are restricted work-login details.
Thanks Solkhar.
Sean,
you may wish to read the following JMLSG item (Joint Money Laundering Steering Group) item on the types and differing financing (Click Here)
WashingtonInstitute.org also have good references and explains pretty accurately the situation now regarding the direct Saudi Arabian money source for Al Qaeda and LET. It explains how things have changed since the Maurice Greenburg findings in late 2002.
The direct link to that WashingtonInstitute item is here
The Greenburg findings are in book form under the name of "Terrorist Financing" by the National Council on Foreign Relations Press. There website and link for that report here.
That should give you a good perspective on the issues and works related to that sector, I will find some material on counterfeiting.
Cheers
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.