Do Muslim Women Need Saving? The Western crusade to rescue Muslim women has reduced them to a simpl

[Gheelle.T]

The liberal lefties' hostility towards the Muslim that I have seen is the Woman Rights and Gays issues. Here in the South, the only groups that stand with us when things get tough are the liberal college kids and Jewish groups.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Safferz;985874 wrote:

Did you mean to say the left? I said it's often the ones associated with the right who are hostile towards Muslims, though that's not to say liberals/leftists can't be racist as well. But they do not build xenophobia and islamophobia into their political platforms, as so often seen with right-leaning political parties and governments in Europe as well as in the United States.

freudian slip? lol I should've studied psychology, would've been much more useful among Somalis

[YoniZ]

Gheelle.T;985877 wrote:

The liberal lefties' hostility towards the Muslim that I have seen is the Woman Rights and Gays issues. Here in the South, the only groups that stand with us when things get tough are the liberal college kids and Jewish groups.

The pattern is repeated in UK when the going get tough.

 

You will always get and ***** telling you if you want liberal lefties to support your cause you should adore for example, the Gay issues.

 

Anyone who regularly watch BBC's Question Time will be familiar with that tone.

[Classified]

ElPunto;985837 wrote:

Granted this is not where the OP was going. But the verse has relevance to this topic. This 'crusade' re women in Islam is part and parcel of what the verse is talking about. That Western aka American imperialism is affecting other places or that certain non-Muslim scholars stick up for Muslims or that there is more to 'it' doesn't negate this fact.

 

Ever since the Islamic revival of the 1970's there has been a concerted effort to attack Muslims and Islam on all fronts. And this topic is part of the continuing salvos against the religion.

Exactly! But, of course, the individual whom you responded to, deliberately avoided to give a reply to your post as expected.

 

Apophis;985892 wrote:

Same coin, different sides. Their end goals are the same. The difference is,

the liberals mask their attacks behind “human rights" and "humanitarian" nonsense

( didn't the thousands of poor Libyan soldiers killed by liberal inspired war have human Rights??).

 

In fact, the liberals are much more dangerous than the neocons because they're insidious and underhanded.

Indeed.

[guleed_ali]

Liberals/Lefties: Welcome you with open arms if you accept their social norms and change to accept their values.

 

Neocons/Righties: Don't want you, don't want anything to do with you, and don't want you in their countries'.

 

 

Both Groups ain't down with Islam so one group rejects it totally and the other wants to change it up "to fit" with today's world (the latter being the far more dangerous one IMHO). Sometimes you need to cut through all the rhetoric and break it down in simple everyday English!

[Haatu]

The ayah that was posted was very clear. These groups whatever they may call themselves have problems with the religion itself and will do everything they can to destroy it. "Women rights" and other nonsence are simply ploys used.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

all lot of people here are under the ah, missguided, view that advocating human rights is somehow anti-Islam. That is very disturbing, lets hope for all your sakes that you are not people are not among these people.

[Safferz]

Naxar Nugaaleed;985876 wrote:

I could be wrong but I think the ideological affinity between one radical here (Neoconservatives) and another there from the muslim world leads to cognitive dissonance where they know the source of their frustration but must blame liberals/leftest/atheist/feminist, anyone really, but the true source of their ire.

 

Another useful term: willful ignorance.

Agreed. There's just little thought being put into the questions raised at the beginning of the thread, and I suspect a number of people participating here did not read the Lila Abu Lughod article that Ibtisam shared. Anyone with some familiarity with the arguments raised by Abu Lughod, Leila Ahmed, Janice Boddy, Edward Said and others would know that the language of human/women's rights is often deployed rhetorically by the right and those with little investment in human rights, it becomes a convenient idiom to mask what are ultimately attempts to intervene and exploit foreign countries economically and politically. Thus you can have someone like George W. Bush talk about "liberating" Afghan women from the Taliban while being a member of a party that actively campaigns to curtail women's rights in the United States. Or to take an example from Egypt that comes up in the Ahmed chapter I plan to scan and post here, one of the British colonial administrators who often described the "backwardness" of Arabs by citing their treatment of women and their lack of education was one of the loudest voices opposing women getting the right to vote back home in Britain.

 

These folks are not liberals because they use and co-opt the language of "rights," one has to probe deeper to figure these things out, which is why historical and political analysis is critical.

 

Gheelle.T;985877 wrote:

The liberal lefties' hostility towards the Muslim that I have seen is the Woman Rights and Gays issues. Here in the South, the only groups that stand with us when things get tough are the liberal college kids and Jewish groups.

To add to my point above, I agree and I think you're absolutely right -- but this is more a Western orientation than "left" or "right," regardless of position on the political spectrum, many Westerners are still caught within their own ethnocentrism and racism. There are a number of writings from women of the Global South, women of colour, Muslim women (the Abu-Lughod article posted is one example), etc that critique Western/white feminism for their complicity in colonialism/neocolonialism, and there are also writings from those same vantage points that critique the implicit Westernness/whiteness of "gay rights" discourse (ie. Joseph Massad's "Desiring Arabs"). I hesitate to say "liberals" or "lefties" say this or that or see Muslims any one way because it's a broad category and obviously much contention within it by different people who identify as leftists.

[AfricaOwn]

Safferz;985964 wrote:

Thus you can have someone like George W. Bush talk about "liberating" Afghan women from the Taliban while being a member of a party that actively campaigns to curtail women's rights in the United States..

Can you give us an example of how they curtail women's rights in the US?

[Hawdian]

^ markaas diinta Islamika iyo wadada haq kuso noqoytey so maha.

[Wadani]

Apophis;985971 wrote:

Also let's hear of Obama, the liberal hypocrite, who attacked Libya, almost attacked Syria, was behind the Egyptian coup and whose drones hover the globe like vultures ( something which has expanded under the democrats).

 

Yes, the liberals are indeed responsible for as much death and destruction, if not more, as the right. But your inability to admit this plain fact is understandable, you're among them and have imbibed the ideology fully (something I, too, was guilty of until a few months ago; the cure is critical thinking and an open mind).

Rageedi! So I take it you no longer idolize Stalin. And what about your views on religion...any change there too?

[Safferz]

AfricaOwn;985970 wrote:

Can you give us an example of how they curtail women's rights in the US?

Sure -- cutting/eliminating funding to women's organizations/health/rape crisis centers, opposing reproductive rights such as birth control and abortion even for rape victims and women who will die without it, attempting to redefine rape (also this), opposing violence against women litigation, opposing equal pay legislation, among other things. And those are just a few of the more obvious instances, I didn't even mention things like attempts to cut a number of low income food programs and aid as well as employment services, senior care, Head Start, etc, all of which would have the indirect effect of hitting women and children the hardest.

 

But let's stay on topic, I'm sure you're already well aware of this.

[Safferz]

Apophis;985971 wrote:

Also let's hear of Obama, the liberal hypocrite, who attacked Libya, almost attacked Syria, was behind the Egyptian coup and whose drones hover the globe like vultures ( something which has expanded under the democrats).

 

Yes, the liberals are indeed responsible for as much death and destruction, if not more, as the right. But your inability to admit this plain fact is understandable, you're among them and have imbibed the ideology fully (something I, too, was guilty of until a few months ago; the cure is critical thinking and an open mind).

So this entire comment relies on two assumptions: first, that I identify with and like Obama, and see his politics and policies as beyond critique; and second, that I identify with an American centrist-democratic vision of liberalism and have "imbibed the ideology fully." Both are false, overlook the politics you may be able to deduce from my posts in this thread, and do not engage with any of the comments I've made here. Try again.

[AfricaOwn]

Safferz;985975 wrote:

Sure -- cutting/eliminating funding to

women's organizations/health/rape crisis centers

, opposing reproductive rights such as

birth control

and abortion even for

rape victims

and

women who will die without it

, attempting to

redefine rape

(

also this

), opposing

violence against women litigation

, opposing

equal pay legislation

, among other things. And those are just a few of the more obvious instances, I didn't even mention things like attempts to cut a number of low income food programs and aid as well as employment services, senior care, Head Start, etc, all of which would have the indirect effect of hitting women and children the hardest.

 

But let's stay on topic, I'm sure you're already well aware of this.

I read all the links you provided, I'll say most of are just politically motivated

 

"Republicans, fearful that Democrats were trying to portray them as insensitive to women, argued that they oppose pay discrimination but disagree with the Democrats' bill"

 

 

But it wouldn't matter anyways, people views don't change.

 

 

Thanks

[Safferz]

Cool story bro.