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

[SomaliPhilosopher]

thefuturenow;986096 wrote:

AS3

I waited for the random akhi to show up, but I guess . . . today I am him

 

Safferz,

You are right in many regards. Scholars in the vein of Edward Said serve an important role in the fight against imperialism. They have theorized about the means and methods used by Western imperialists to justify their continued infiltration of non-Western societies. They have correctly identified how Western scholarship, media tropes and political rhetoric are conjunctively used to pave the way for military action against an 'other.' The result is the aim all along--the economic and political domination of the 'other.'

 

But herein lies the rub. Any good imperialist (liberal) knows that physical domination is futile. The oppressed will rise in due time. They will reclaim their land and re-establish their political order. What a good imperialist desires is the cultural degradation of the other to the extent that members of that victimized group refuse to identify with their own culture and adopt the imperialist's mode of living. They see--above all--uniformity in thought, a shared faith.

 

What about the Cons?

 

The (Neo)-Conservatives is corrupt. They are the prototypical hypocrites in domestic politics. Yet, their foreign policies are achieved by brute force. When dealing with the other, they say what they think, do what they want and couldn't care less for the consequences. They are myopic and thus bad imperialists. The liberal is a useful enemy in domestic politics--he casts him as unpatriotic and stirs up nationalistic furor to gain votes. But they know full well that it’s all politics.

If Allah (SW) hadn’t checked them with the liberals in domestic politics, they would bomb and loot every country. See, GW Bush.

 

The Liberal Personified

 

The liberal is undisciplined. He suffers from a superiority complex because he is educated and can recite

Lolita

from memory. He decries the 'dark ages' and seeks enlightenment. The liberal is savvy. His own sense of superiority allows him to listen to other opinions diligently--because, after all, the liberal knows that this 'savage' only needs to be enlightened. He feels he can deconstruct any argument and win over the unenlightened savage because he has studied all the classics. The liberal, drunk of his own superiority, believes that he knows what humans want better than any other. He has one aim and one aim only--the creation of a society that operates within the parameters of liberal thought. He doesn't care for the color of your skin or the language of your ancestors. But the liberal demands political uniformity of which the cornerstone is individual freedom--his own formulation of individual freedom. See, the liberal is complex.

 

Higher education is the liberal's territory, his church. This is where the liberal liquors up youngsters and distills them of any and all principles. This is where he challenges the leaders of tomorrow to be unique in an environment that demands conformity. Note the echo-chamber that is the liberal classroom where a conservative student cannot voice his opinion.

 

There is only one concept that gives the liberals fits, i.e. the idea that there is a God and the imposition of limits on human behavior. This is source of the liberal's greatest ire. He believes that he can't defeat blind faith with rational reason. He knows that in order to implement his vision, he must confront this reality. The liberal has learned that beliefs are dear to humans and that they must be slowly changed. Thus, the liberal co-opts. The liberal is open to ideas as long as they further this aim by undermining the world's established cultures/religions. Thus, in this manner they corrupt with fancy theories and reformulations of Scripture. For the liberal, it is a long game and he understands that it may be a slow process. Whereas the conservative will bluntly call the other's scripture an invented work full of blasphemous statements, the liberal will take it to his library and deconstruct it. He will then write a paper in which he makes a mildly controversial 'eh' claim. Tomorrow, his liberal minions will cite him and expand that controversial claim. Finally, that controversial claim will become the defining concept of that Scripture. It will enter the mainstream media as a trope.

 

Muslims in higher education are especially susceptible to the liberal. Politically, he casts himself in contrast to the conservative. Thus, he becomes the friend defending against the bully.

More ominous to the Muslim is the liberal’s intentional fragmentation of education. History lies over there divorced from Political Science which barely touches upon Economics. This is a direct symptom to the 'secular' society--the division of the highest order, a false division, impractical and unimaginable to the Muslim mind. The idea is to constrain the student within the parameters of the system. Citations serve this purpose. PHD students are only allowed to sing the tune that doesn't disrupt the chorus. The result is a diversity of opinion but all of which is constrained within the liberal ideology. In other words, you may choose your words, but the liberal will choose the language.

 

Safferz, I believe what some of the brothers here are trying to say is that you are operating within this fragmentation. In the Islamic context, religion regulates political and economic life. Islam operates on a sphere entirely separate from any other ideology. It speaks a different language. To exercise dominion of Muslim political and economic interests is to exercise dominion of a part of their faith. Even with their economic and political aims accomplished, the good imperialist knows that he has not finished his work. He knows that it is only a matter of time before “blind faith” springs up and angry savages rid him of all that he has gained. To survive, the liberal needs clones within and without the lands that he desires to infiltrate.

Good post

[DoctorKenney]

Haatu;985925 wrote:

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.

Yeah exactly. In the 13th century, the European Christians also used to bash Islam, but they made all sorts of other claims against our religion that aren't used nowadays. The people in the 13th century weren't attacking Islam from a "feminist" standpoint, but they attacked our religion regardless.

 

Times might change, the types of criticisms might change, but the war is still the same. They might claim Islam is against women's justice in 2013, but in 200 years they'll claim something different.

[DoctorKenney]

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).

America had 4 major wars in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. ALL of those wars were started by Democrats (Liberals)

 

WW1 was started by Woodrow Wilson, a friggin Democrat.

WW2 was started by Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat.

The Korean War was started by Harry Truman, a DEMOCRAT.

The Vietnam War was started by Lyndon Johnson, again....ANOTHER Democrat.

 

That's 4/4. Yet people still believe that the Liberals are for peace. It's nothing but propaganda.

[DoctorKenney]

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.

Safferz, did you ever think that the reasons the Republicans oppose these legislations is because either they're 1, Ideologically opposed to it and 2. Because they think it to be ineffective and 3. Because it is unnecessary

 

What exactly is the point of the Violence Against Women Act of 1993? It's such a ****** law, as it defines "violence" against women as something subjective, depending on how the woman "feels". So if a man yell at his wife, annoys his wife or even simply ignores his wife (again, I don't recommend any of this type of behavior) he can be termed as being abusive and be kicked out of his own home, have his wages garnished, and be treated like a 2nd class citizen. Violence against ANYONE is illegal in America, so there's no point to this ****** and draconian law. I'd assume you would know better than that.

 

Equal pay legislation has been in force since the 1960's, and it's long been illegal for an Employer to pay a man more money simply because he's a man. Not only is it illegal, it makes little economic sense, since any company would want to maximize their profits (and paying a man more money goes against that objective)

 

And the entire abortion debate makes it look like Republicans are "against women's bodies", when the entire debate should be re-focused on the definition of LIFE itself. What is life? When is someone considered to be alive? Is it when a woman is 1 month pregnant or 9 months pregnant? Or is it after the baby is already born? Do not try and smear those who oppose you with the bigotry line, as this is a very valid disagreement and it's what this debate is actually about. The definition of life. And if that fetus is considered to "alive", then it would be murder to kill the fetus. Similar to how Scott Peterson was charged with a DOUBLE-homicide because he killed his pregnant wife, which is a little hypocritical since Liberals don't even consider the fetus to be truly "alive".

[Safferz]

DoctorKenney;986151 wrote:

America had 4 major wars in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. ALL of those wars were started by Democrats (Liberals)

 

WW1 was started by Woodrow Wilson, a friggin Democrat.

WW2 was started by Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat.

The Korean War was started by Harry Truman, a DEMOCRAT.

The Vietnam War was started by Lyndon Johnson, again....ANOTHER Democrat.

 

That's 4/4. Yet people still believe that the Liberals are for peace. It's nothing but propaganda.

Wrong on four counts, absurdly so (WWI and WWII being "started by" America in particular, lmao!). Go read a history book.

[Classified]

DoctorKenney;986150 wrote:

Yeah exactly. In the 13th century, the European Christians also used to bash Islam, but they made all sorts of other claims against our religion that aren't used nowadays. The people in the 13th century weren't attacking Islam from a "feminist" standpoint, but they attacked our religion regardless.

 

Times might change, the types of criticisms might change, but the war is still the same. They might claim Islam is against women's justice in 2013, but in 200 years they'll claim something different.

Exactly!

 

My God! It feels good to know that many people agree with your sentiment.

[DoctorKenney]

guleed_ali;986132 wrote:

That's all I need to know! May Allah guide you.... because at this point this is the only duaa' I can make for you as a non-believer! Fellow sol'ers take note Raam is the person you don't want to be!

Bro, he's not only an Atheist, he is an Islamophobe, and his arguments look like it was copied/pasted straight from Ayaan Hirsi or any other Islamophobe's mouth.

 

He doesn't reference anything he says, and he makes the silly claim that "Islam is as Muslims do", which is the type of statement which would get you laughed out of any mosque or Islamic Conference.

 

And BTW Raamsade, there was no "fatwa" against Mickey Mouse. To even claim such a thing proves that you bought into their crap, and to this day I still couldn't find any evidence of this fatwa even existing. You don't even know what a Fatwa is

[DoctorKenney]

Safferz;986154 wrote:

Wrong on four counts, absurdly so (WWI and WWII being "started by" America in particular, lmao!). Go read a history book.

Well, WW2 is debatable, and there's a lot of issue against Roosevelt for "provoking" the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor back in 1941. But that's a discussion for another day

 

But WW1 was clearly started by Wilson. America had no business in the conflict, the war looked like it would become a stalemate, but the War Commission of 1916 started a propaganda campaign to lure the American public into the war. And America did end up joining WW1 in 1917. And America lost over 100 000 men because of that decision. There are entire books written about this Safferz!

[Safferz]

DoctorKenney;986153 wrote:

Safferz, did you ever think that the reasons the Republicans oppose these legislations is because either they're 1, Ideologically opposed to it and 2. Because they think it to be ineffective and 3. Because it is unnecessary

Moot point. There were people who were "ideologically opposed" to ending slavery in the 19th century because they felt blacks were inferior, and thought abolition was ineffective and unnecessary because it underpinned the US economy. There were people who were "ideologically opposed" to giving women the right to vote and felt it was ineffective and unnecessary given women's "place" in society, outside the realm of politics. I can use a number of other analogies to make the point that with every rights-based advance in US history, there has been pushback from conservative forces (whose party affiliations have shifted btw, will elaborate on that below), women's rights and religion (Christianity) in public life have been two contentious areas in the last few decades. This is something well documented and studied (as are the systemic realities of violence against women and unequal pay for women), whether you think deny it or not.

 

Anyway, in my response to AfricaOwn, I said that this is off topic and I can already sense what this thread will spiral into if it continues to be derailed by these tangents.

 

DoctorKenney;986157 wrote:

Well, WW2 is debatable, and there's a lot of issue against Roosevelt for "provoking" the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor back in 1941. But that's a discussion for another day

 

But WW1 was clearly started by Wilson. America had no business in the conflict, the war looked like it would become a stalemate, but the War Commission of 1916 started a propaganda campaign to lure the American public into the war. And America did end up joining WW1 in 1917. And America lost over 100 000 men because of that decision. There are entire books written about this Safferz!

Every war you listed including WWI was well underway by the time the US decided to enter/intervene. There are entire books written about this, DoctorKenney.

 

To get back to the discussion -- I'm interested to hear how you and others define and differentiate between the terms liberal and liberalism, if at all? Who and what is a "liberal"? And how has that meaning shifted over time? If you look at the excerpt posted earlier from Niall Ferguson as an example, you can see how even neoconservatives identify with liberal political philosophy, it's a philosophical tradition of theories on politics, economics and society that come out of the European Enlightenment, and it is these same liberal thinkers whose ideas form the basis of conservatism. John Locke and his concepts of freedom that shaped the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Liberal. Adam Smith and laissez-faire capitalism? Liberal.

 

The meanings and politics of the Republican and Democratic parties have also shifted over the course of the 20th century. It was Republicans who ended slavery in the 19th century, and Democrats in the South who tried to maintain segregation and block equal rights legislation from becoming law in the 1960s, before switching to the Republican party after the campaigns of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. You can't simply assume the political positions of these parties have stayed consistent over time, as though the Republican and Democratic parties as you know them in 2013 were the same in 1913. You also can't use a fixed and imprecise understanding of liberalism and assume what that means either, as though that's also remained consistent historically.

[DoctorKenney]

Safferz, I'm aware of all this. But the Liberals I'm referring to are the same Liberals who are running the Obama Administration today, who opposed GW Bush in the 2000's, who were running Johnson's Administration in the 1960's, who were running Roosevelt's administration in the 1930's, and who were running Wilson's administration in the 1910's.

 

Yes, the Republicans and the Democrats "switched sides" in the 1960's with regards to civil rights, but the Democrats still didn't change their economic policies and much of their ideology. THAT'S who I was referring to. When I refer to "Liberals", I refer to the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, the same racist Roosevelt who opposed the anti-lynching legislation back in 1936. When I refer to Liberals, I refer to the likes of Woodrow Wilson, the same racist Wilson who re-segregated the Federal Government and set Blacks back by at least 50 years.

 

THAT'S who I'm talking about Safferz. And this is entirely ideological, as I easily just referenced the entire abortion debate revolving around the definition of "life" itself, and does a woman have a right to kill another human being even if that human is residing in her body. Don't dismiss the other side as being unworthy of having a discussion with, as this is something typical with Liberal Arrogance. They assume everyone who opposes them isn't worthy of being considered a decent human being, and this is easily evidenced by their attitude against anyone who opposes the "Violence Against Women Act of 1993". If you oppose that law, you're automatically asked the question "Oh so you support violence against women?"

 

Brothers, do not allow these Liberals to own the discussion. They're framing arguments in their own terms and labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a bigot. I've seen the way they treat men such as John Stossel, Thomas Sowell and others.

 

And lastly, the Korean War was a battle which the United States DID not have to participate in, but the arrogance of Truman and his General MacArthur resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The same can be said about Vietnam, Johnson had NO RIGHT to escalate American involvement in the war, and anyone who has even a LITTLE knowledge about the Vietnam War would conclude that the entire war was escalated by Johnson and his Defense Secretary McNamara. WW1 looked like it would end in a stalemate, and there was no real reason for the US to ever get involved in that conflict either

[DoctorKenney]

The definitions of the words might have changed, but the people still remain the same. When I mean Liberal, I'm referencing the Progressives. I'm referring to those Big-Government types who want to force their values on others through legislation.

 

John Locke's definition of what a "Liberal" is, is most definitely referring to the Libertarians that exist in America today. He was a "Liberal", but a Liberal in the 1700's and 1800's is not the same as a Liberal nowadays

[Safferz]

DoctorKenney;986167 wrote:

The definitions of the words might have changed, but the people still remain the same. When I mean Liberal, I'm referencing the Progressives. I'm referring to those Big-Government types who want to force their values on others through legislation.

 

John Locke's definition of what a "Liberal" is, is most definitely referring to the Libertarians that exist in America today.

He was a "Liberal", but a Liberal in the 1700's and 1800's is not the same as a Liberal nowadays

DoctorKenney;986166 wrote:

Safferz, I'm aware of all this. But

the Liberals I'm referring to are the same Liberals

who are running the Obama Administration today, who opposed GW Bush in the 2000's, who were running Johnson's Administration in the 1960's, who were running Roosevelt's administration in the 1930's, and who were running Wilson's administration in the 1910's.

 

Yes, the Republicans and the Democrats "switched sides" in the 1960's with regards to civil rights, but the Democrats still didn't change their economic policies and much of their ideology. THAT'S who I was referring to. When I refer to "Liberals", I refer to the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, the same racist Roosevelt who opposed the anti-lynching legislation back in 1936. When I refer to Liberals, I refer to the likes of Woodrow Wilson, the same racist Wilson who re-segregated the Federal Government and set Blacks back by at least 50 years.

lol, so what makes you think Wilsonian liberalism is the same as that of Johnson or Obama, and how are you able to reconcile the two points I've highlighted, despite being logically and historically inconsistent? Why do you allow for liberalism to change in meaning from that of Locke, but not within its various articulations in the 20th century, a period that saw more social and political upheaval and change than any other century in modern history?

 

Did you learn about liberalism from the same book that taught you the US started WWI and WWII?

[DoctorKenney]

We use the definitions available to us, to categorize politicians who lived 100 years ago. If for a second, I thought that Wilson shared the same ideologies of those like GW Bush, I would have said that. But Wilson was a Progressive and so was Roosevelt. They were very different than their small-government counterpart Calvin Coolidge. The difference is that the Democrats started to shore up their base by appealing to minorities after the 1960's, while the Republicans switched their rhetoric and started to appeal to the South.

 

But Wilson, Roosevelt, and especially Johnson have a lot more in common with today's Democrats than the Republicans.

[Safferz]

DoctorKenney;986173 wrote:

We use the definitions available to us, to categorize politicians who lived 100 years ago.

No, we don't, because that's bad history. We specify and define our terms, and we discuss the contexts in which they emerged and were used as they have changed and transformed over time. Terms like "liberal" cannot be thrown around divorced from their historical context because you'd prefer to make an ahistorical argument about "stuff liberals did" over the last century. This is a crucial point that you don't seem to be getting, and the discussion is getting tedious and repetitive at this point, so let's move on.

[DoctorKenney]

Okay, valid point. And if I'm wrong here on some of the points that I've made, then I'd hope you at least understand the principle I was pointing to here; That Liberals cannot claim a monopoly on pacifism and that they have just as much blood on their hands as their Conservative opponents.