The Porn Dude

Arab Spring nations don't yet grasp freedom of dissent (CNN)

W

westcoast555

1) In Islamic states there is NO separation of church and state. True of False?

Some countries do have separation of church and state, some do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

2) Blasphemy laws are enforced vigorously. True of False?

Blasphemy laws exist in some countries, (not just Muslim ones), not all. Some of these countries enforce them vigorously, others, not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism

3) Rape is endemic in Islamic countries and in most of them the woman is blamed regardless of the circumstances. True of False?

Have no idea on the stats on rape in the Muslim world. Don't imagine it's any better or worse than here.

4) In Islamic countries women are systemically deprived of educational opportunities or personal autonomy. True of False?

Definitely false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_education

5) Marriages are arranged in most Islamic countries with no choice on the part of the woman. True of False?

Definitely false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_marital_practices

6) The testimony of a man is given absolute weight over that of a woman in Islam. True of False?

False.

It is not an absolute, only in financial transactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

7) The Koran is considered absolute authority and inviolate even over scientific inquiry in many Islamic countries. True of False?

False. Islam encourages scientific inquiry. In fact, I believe the concept of Empirical Evidence in science is a product of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_science

8) Islam was spread by conquest and colonialism for centuries. True of False?

This is false. According to Bernard Lewis, this is one of the most enduring myths about Islam. The country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia. No Muslim army ever invaded Indonesia. Muslims did invade and occupy Spain. But the Spanish population is still Catholic. The Ottomans occupied Eastern Europe for centuries. But the people there are still Orthodox Christian. The majority of India is still Hindu. A study of Islamic conquest shows they went to great lengths to not have the population convert. Higher taxes from non-Muslim subjects. Conquest was about material wealth, not religion. Having said that, there were some really brutal rulers from time to time, so we can't be naive and pretend they were all benevolent rulers.
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
Anita, earlier you argued that you are only looking at countries that have the word Islamic in their country's name. By your wonderful logic, it's barabaric that we oppose democracy and secularism to these countries. The Peoplpe's Republic of China, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, People's REpublic of Bangledesh, Republic of Cameroon, The Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, The Republic of Haiti, Republic of Guatemala, Republic of India, are examples of Republics that are major violators of human rights. Let us also not forget the fact democracy voted Hitler in and the evil USSR was also a Republic. Of course, such groups like the (Christian) Lord Resitance Army would never, ever do anything wrong, right?

There's Anita going to that Saudi well again. The hilarious part in that video you post is that not only does that cleric get his ass handed to him, people here actually think that women aren't on Saudi TV. By the way, wanna see what has gotten regular play on Saudi tv?



Look at how oppressed Haifa Wehbe is!

We won't even get into all the belly dancing channels Middle Eastern countries have or the the marry a young bride channel, which features gorgeous Arabic Women who could make a killing pooning here, charging over $40000 to marry some rich dude.

Of course Anita, you want to post religious fanatics on TV? Well I never! That would never happen in the Civilized Western World!

*Insert clip of Pat Robertson saying Haiti Earthquake was a blessing in disguise because they made a pack with the Devil, or where Pat Robertson says that Nazis and homosexuals are the same thing.*


Thank god we live in such a "secular" state society where we'd never have people telling women that they don't have a right to choose, which is very much in jepordy. Yes, we live in such a scientific society that has proven that a woman cannot get pregnant if she's been legitimately raped.

Thank God we don't live in a country like Islamic Canada where Half of Canadian women (51%) have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16.

Yup. Wouldn't want to live in that world where "One to two women are murdered by a current or former partner each week in Canada."
RinTin that's not Saudi TV that's a satellite music channel.


Here's a good one for you Anita
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0

Notice the age of the brides! They're fucking children! Literally!
 

Unpossible

A.C.A.B.
Dec 26, 2008
908
13
0
Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html
 

Unpossible

A.C.A.B.
Dec 26, 2008
908
13
0
Arkansas Legislator, Says Slavery May 'Have Been A Blessing' In New Book

Arkansas state Rep. Jon Hubbard has written a new book.
Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has written a new book in which he says slavery was "a blessing" for African-Americans, among other questionable statements.

Hubbard, a first term Republican from Jonesboro, Ark., makes a series of racially charged statements in the self-published book, including saying that integration of schools is hurting white students, that African slaves had better lives under slavery than in Africa, that blacks are not contributing to society, and that a situation is developing the United States which is similar to that of Nazi Germany.

The questionable statements in Hubbard's book, "Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative," were first reported by Arkansas Times and TalkBusiness.net.

Regarding slavery, Hubbard wrote:

“… the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.” (Pages 183-89)
On the subject of school integration, Hubbard described black students as having a "a lack of discipline and ambition," which he said has hurt the entire educational system.

Hubbard also tackled immigration and said that Christians in America are in a similar position to that of Germans during Hitler's rise to power.

... the immigration issue, both legal and illegal ... will lead to planned wars or extermination. Although now this seems to be barbaric and uncivilized, it will at some point become as necessary as eating and breathing." (Page 9)
Hubbard declined to comment on the book when contacted by The Huffington Post, saying that he did not have time.


An Air Force veteran, Hubbard sells insurance in Arkansas and Missouri. He serves on several legislative committees, including ones dealing with issues related to aging, insurance, telecommunications, and waterways and aeronautics policy.

On his campaign website, Hubbard says he will defend Christianity as a state lawmaker.

"And perhaps the most important pledge I can make to the people of District 58, the citizens of Arkansas, and to myself, is to do whatever I can to defend, protect, and preserve our Christian heritage," Hubbard says on his website. "Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, if we as a nation continue to turn away from those Christian principles and values upon which this great nation was founded, we will have truly lost everything worth saving!"

Hubbard has a history of taking conservative stances in the legislature. In June, he called for the University of Arkansas to be audited to see if tax money had been spent on a panel discussion about undocumented immigrants. In February, he asked the state Department of Health to implement a policy that would require birth certificates be produced by anyone seeking non-emergency medical care in a hospital in order to prove their citizenship.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/jon-hubbard-arkansas-slavery-book_n_1943661.html
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
http://www.meforum.org/3352/muslim-persecution-of-christians-august-2012

Muslim Persecution of Christians: August, 2012

by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute
October 7, 2012
Print Send RSS
Share


While many people are regularly persecuted by Islam's blasphemy law, one particular case made August headlines: a 14-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan, Rimsha Masih, was arrested, accused of burning pages of a Quran. Rioting Muslims destroyed Christian homes and churches, tore Bibles to pieces and broke crosses, while calling for the death penalty against her. Because this story made it to the mainstream media, widespread international condemnation caused Pakistani authorities to release her recently, not by annulling Pakistan's blasphemy law, but by finding loopholes, from characterizing the girl as retarded—Islamic law does not mandate punishment for blasphemers if they are retarded—to the unprecedented exposure of a Muslim cleric who framed her.

Because this incident prompted a widespread rampage against Pakistan's Christians, thousands have deserted their homes and are dispossessed. The Christians from Rimsha's neighborhood, including women and children, fled into the woods in fear of Muslim retribution, while others were evicted by their Muslim landlords. A few Christians sleeping overnight on the ground just miles away from Pakistani government buildings decided to build a church there and make it their permanent dwelling place. "Here it is not anybody's home, nobody's land. Let us live here in safety," said one. Another said: "We have cleared this place with our hands, and we have laid the first foundation of a small church here. Although this is a mere skeleton made of tree branches, this is the holy home of God. This should be respected."

Categorized by theme, August's batch of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed by theme and in country alphabetical order, not necessarily according to severity.

To be continued......
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
Jihad Killings and Christian Displacement

Iraq: What Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors, characterized as "religicide," continues unabated in the nation that was liberated by U.S. forces a decade ago: "Christians in cities like Baghdad and Mosul are gripped by terrorism. They are fleeing in droves. Today [August 16] it was reported that at least 20 people died in blasts and shootings across the country." Before the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Mosul was home to some 75,000 Christians, but now the number has dropped to around 25,000. Christian homes are set on fire, bombs placed in their cars; other Christian families are receiving letters threatening them to leave Iraq or be kidnapped or killed.

Ivory Coast: As part of the civil war, Muslim rebels "massacred hundreds and displaced tens of thousands" of predominantly Christian supporters of Laurent Gbagbo. Since the attack, when their homes were taken by rebels, some 5,000 predominantly Christian ethnic Guere have been forced to flee into the ungoverned, inhospitable bush, or to the Catholic mission in Duekoue. The priest there reported that the mission has also been threatened by "crowds of angry youths."

Mali: As many as 200,000 Christians are fleeing to Algeria and Mauritania, where they are seeking a safe haven from Islamic terrorists linked to al-Qaeda, who have become increasingly active in the northern regions of the nation.

Nigeria: The Islamic terrorist organization Boko Haram [Western Education is a Sin] continued its jihad [holy war] to purge north Nigeria of all Christians. In one instance, gunmen murdered a 57-year-old evangelist of a Pentecostal church. When he was threatened earlier, he had said "I leave everything in the hands of God."

Syria: Some 12,000 people were blockaded in the predominantly Christian town of Rableh by anti-government forces; they killed several people trying to leave and refused the entry of food and medical supplies. Government forces had reportedly driven out the opposition by August 24. Christians were also given an ultimatum to leave the nearby cities of Qusayr and Homs, which has been almost entirely cleansed of its 50,000-60,000 Christian population. The predominantly Christian part of Aleppo was also hit by heavy fighting earlier this month; and a car bomb was detonated in the predominantly Christian area of Jaramana, a suburb of Damascus, as "a crowd of faithful, families, elderly people, women and children, were heading to the cemetery to bury two young people who had died a day earlier, on August 27, also victims of an IED. Twelve died (other sources say as many as 27), including five children, and injuring more than 50 people." Further, "a family of Armenian Christians was found murdered, and all members of the family horribly decapitated."
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
Church Attacks

Azerbaijan: The highest appeals court upheld the decision to close Greater Grace Church, "the first religious community to be liquidated by a court since the country's harsh new religion law came into force in 2009." The church, registered since 1993, had provided a place for Christian worship and teaching for almost 20 years; and with a congregation of nearly 500, was one of the larger Protestant churches in the country.

Indonesia: Two churches were the latest to be forcibly closed in West Java: First, a "large tent" used for services by St. Johannes Baptista Church in Bogor was sealed off by authorities on August 7. The congregation had been using the tent since 2006 as a temporary location while they awaited a permit for a proper building, for which it had applied in 2000. Police threatened to "tear down" the tent if the Christians continued to use it; the church leader suspects the hostility is linked to the growth of the congregation, which now numbers around 500. Second, Batak Karo Protestant Church in Bandung was sealed off by protesters who claimed that the congregation had earlier agreed not to use the building, even though it now has all necessary permits to hold service.

Kenya: After a fight ensued between the supporters of a Muslim cleric who had died and the police, a church near the mosque where the funeral was being held was set on fire, and another church was attacked. Separately, another church was attacked and looted "by an armed mob," believed to be sympathizers of the al-Shabaab terrorist organization. In the words of the pastor who witnessed the pillage, "attackers armed with guns stormed the compound and immediately began pulling down one iron sheet after another, and soon 60 iron sheets were gone. It was a terrible sight to watch the walls of the church come down, [but] I could not shout for help because the attackers could gun me down. Shocked and dismayed, the church's 60 congregants arrived for worship the next day to find their church building in ruins." Police were told that there were threats of an attack and that local Muslims were saying things such as "we do not want infidels in this area," but did nothing. These latest attacks "came only one week after al-Shabab militants hurled grenades into the African Inland Church of Garissa, in eastern Kenya, and opened fire on congregants, killing 17 people, including 15 worshippers. Grenades were also thrown at the local Catholic church." More than 14 churches have been attacked in Kenya since April.

Nigeria: Gunmen, probably connected with the jihadi organization Boko Haram, "stormed the Deeper Life Church, where Christian worshippers were gathered in prayer, and surrounded the church in the middle of a worship service and opened fire with AK-47 assault rifles on the worshippers." At least 19 of them were killed, including the pastor. The following day, an unexploded bomb was discovered at Revival Church.

Syria: Gunmen attacked the Catholic monastery of Mar Musa, which dates from the 4th century, and is located north of Damascus. None of the monks was hurt, although the monastery was, in the words of Father Dall'Oglio, "sacked," and "gunmen stole everything they could steal," including tractors and other agricultural tools.
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
Apostasy, Blasphemy, Proselytism

Egypt: A Christian man accused of defaming Islam was arrested after a complaint in which he was accused of posting opinions in Facebook which insulted Muhammad. Insults to Islam and the prophet are considered crimes in Egypt under Article 98(f) of the Penal Code, which states: "Confinement for a period of not less than six months and not exceeding five years… shall be the penalty inflicted on whoever makes use of religion in propagating, either by words, in writing, or in any other means, extreme ideas for the purpose of inciting strife, ridiculing or insulting a heavenly religion or a sect following it, or damaging national unity."

Pakistan: After a Pakistani flag with the name of "Allah" on it accidentally blew from a Christian's property to a Muslim's, the Muslim accused the Christian of deliberately trying to blaspheme the name of Allah. This accusation was advertised in the local mosques, and prompted enraged Muslims to threaten to burn down the homes of the 15 Christian families in the area. Also, a Christian pastor, who had preached among Muslims, some of whom showed interest in converting, was threatened and subsequently kidnapped.

Tanzania: A 17-year-old girl, Eva Abdullah, who had abandoned Islam three years ago to convert to Christianity, was sentenced to two years in prison after being accused of desecrating the Quran. Her parents had disowned her and "a group of radicals" tried to "persuade" her to renounce her Christian faith. When she refused, they falsely accused her of desecrating a Quran.

Tunisia: The nation's ruling Islamist party filed a bill to criminalize offenses against "sacred values." "Crimes" would mandate prison terms and fines for broadly worded offenses, such as insulting or mocking the "sanctity of religion." Among other things, the bill also codifies the levels of offense to religious feelings, including "insults, profanity, derision and representation of Allah and Mohammed.
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
Dhimmitude

[General Abuse, Debasement, and Suppression of Non-Muslims as "Tolerated" Citizens]

Egypt: The nation's jihad organizations dropped leaflets calling on Muslims to kill Christians wherever they found them. Coptic shop owners who sell Christian icons and statues received threatening letters. Muslim "gangs" plundered and kidnapped for ransom Christians. Islamists in the Constituent Assembly demanded that the Coptic Church's funds be placed under state financial control, a measure categorically rejected by Copts: the state in no way funds the Church, even though mosques are funded by taxpayers, including Christians. Condemning the proposal, the acting Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church said the demand has only one meaning: "that Copts are clearly persecuted." Despite promising greater representation for Egypt's Copts, President Morsi broke his word and allowed only one Copt, a female, to represent the nation's 10-14% Christians in the newly formed Cabinet: "We had expected an increase in the representation of Copts especially after the number of ministries increased to 35. But the formation ignored all the known rights and concepts of citizenship," said the acting Patriarch: "It is not right that Copts get treated in this way." When Egypt's Constituent Assembly proposed a law to criminalize "forced labor, slavery, the trafficking of women and children, human organs, and the sex trade," from which Christians, especially females, would benefit, the Islamist party complained.

Iran: According to Mohabat News, authorities "raise[d] unsubstantiated charges" against five arrested converts to Christianity to "pressure" and "intimidate" them, including by falsely accusing them of desecrating the Quran, and holding them for indefinite periods. "Although their situation is still unclear six months after their arrest, there is no doubt that the Christians' only crime is related to their faith in Jesus Christ."

Pakistan: Eleven Christian student nurses were poisoned with mercury in their tea. It is believed that the Christian women were targeted as punishment for drinking tea while their Muslim colleagues were fasting during the month of Ramadan. And a 56-year-old Christian woman at the Karachi Press Club recounted how she and her family were enslaved and forced to work without pay, and tortured and beaten. Muslim "feudal lords" are threatening her and her extended family, with, among other charges, accusations of blasphemy: "Please protect us," they said. "We don't want to go back."

Saudi Arabia: The last of the 35 Ethiopian Christians held in detention since December after being arrested for holding a prayer meeting in a private home was deported home: "We have arrived home safe," one of the released said: "We believe that we are released as the result of the pressure exerted by ICC and others. The Saudi officials do not tolerate any religions other than Islam. They consider non-Muslims unbelievers. They are full of hatred towards non-Muslims."

Syria: A number of Melchite Greek Catholic priests, including the archbishop, fled to Lebanon after their offices were ransacked. According to Fides, "unidentified groups who want to feed a religious war and drag the Syrian population into sectarian conflicts" attacked the Christian area in the old quarter of Aleppo. A Byzantine Christian museum and an office of the Maronite Christian faith were also damaged.

Turkey: The chairman of Parliament's education committee is accusing the French government of "planting seeds of hate" with its move to include the Armenian genocide in history and geography books used in French secondary schools. Armenia, backed by many historians, says that about 1.5 million Armenians were killed in what is now eastern Turkey during World War I in a deliberate policy of genocide ordered by the Ottoman government.

Uzbekistan: A 26-year-old Christian woman, paralyzed from youth, and her mother were violently attacked by six men with sticks who broke into their home at 4 a.m. The men ransacked the home, confiscating icons, bibles, religious calendars and prayer books. When the paralyzed woman furtively tried to phone for help, she was beaten again. They were all taken to the police department, where the woman was "offered to convert to Islam." She refused, and the judge eventually "decided that the women had resisted police and had stored the banned religious literature at home and conducted missionary activities. He fined them 20 minimum monthly wages each."
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,136
44
48
Montréal
http://www.meforum.org/3352/muslim-persecution-of-christians-august-2012

Muslim Persecution of Christians

by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute

I see this thread is still going.. Glad to see youre all still busy proving nothing with more bullshit islmamophobic propaganda being regurgitated as "facts". You guys are so seriously lame.


Let's have a look at your "sources":



The Middle East Forum (MEF) is a controversial Philadelphia-based policy institute founded by Daniel Pipes that is notorious for attacking academics in the United States who disagree with its hardline view of Israeli security and Middle East politics.


MEF’s attack on “lawful Islamism” has secured it a place alongside other prominent U.S. advocacy groups in what the Center for American Progress (CAP) calls “the Islamophobia network”—a patchwork of prominent U.S. foundations, opinion makers, and media personalities who spread negative impressions about Islam and Muslims in the United States. In a widely noted 2011 report about the network, CAP listed MEF as one of “five key think tanks led by scholars who are primarily responsible for orchestrating the majority of anti-Islam messages polluting our national discourse today.” The report argued that Pipes, who has a doctorate in medieval Islamic history, “has parlayed his prestigious academic credentials to great effect,” but has “become increasingly out of touch with the realities of the Muslim world at home and abroad, making more extreme and unfounded observations about Islam in the United States.” The report noted that Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist who in July 2011 murdered 77 people in a protest against “cultural Marxism,” cited the work of Pipes and MEF 18 times in his xenophobic manifesto.


Pipes, son of the anti-Soviet crusader Richard Pipes (who was both a Team B and Committee on the Present Danger member in the 1970s), frequently lambasts Arab politics, urges militarist polices aimed at overthrowing Mideast regimes, and pushes a hawkish “pro-Israel” agenda. He has stirred controversy in the past with seemingly anti-Arab remarks that have bordered on racism, once referring to Muslim immigrants to Europe as "brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene." He has also expressed support for anti-Islamic politicians like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and served a controversial term at the U.S. Institute for Peace under President George W. Bush, which was marked by his friction with the administration over its supposed “legitimization” of U.S.-based Arab and Islamic groups.


Some commentators have noted that the entire organization acts as a vehicle for Pipes and his diatribes against those with whom he disagrees. In 2002, Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor whose criticism of one-sided U.S. support for Israel and other U.S. “war on terror” policies has made him a target of MEF’s “Campus Watch” project, argued that the “Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set [Pipes] up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director. … They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There’s no scholarship. It’s a put-up job. As for Pipes himself, let’s just say that he’s not a full professor at a major university.”


Financing

A non-exhaustive Right Web investigation of MEF’s Form 990 tax records from 2000-2009 shows that the organization’s coffers have been replete with funds from foundations identified by CAP as top funders of the Islamophobia network. During this period, MEF received at least $325,000 from the Russell Berrie Foundation, $240,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, $200,000 from the Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust, and over $2 million from both the Donors Capital Fund and the William Rosenwald Family Fund. All told, Right Web identified at least $8,801,450 raised by MEF in this period, primarily coming from “pro-Israel” organizations and other right-wing outfits.


Between 1996 and 2005, according to Media Transparency, the Middle East Forum received nearly $300,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, one of the top right-wing foundations. Much of the Bradley money was to support Campus Watch.[7] According to its 2004 Form 990, MEF received $1,800,000 in 2003 in the form of gifts, grants, and contributions. In 2001 Norman Hascoe's Hascoe Family Foundation gave MEF $20,000, and in 2003 the Hascoe Charitable Foundation gave MEF $10,000.[8] Hascoe served as president of JINSA.


Origins


Although Pipes and the Middle East Forum have long been considered hostile to Islam, Pipes has since drawn a slight distinction between himself and a more recent crop of prominent Islamophobes like Pamela Geller. “This anti-Islamic agitation has been growing over time, and it’s much stronger than in 2001,” he told Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog in 2010. “Pipes,” Boorstein wrote, “says while he shares a concern about radical Islam with today's crop of bloggers, he considers them ‘anti-Islam’ because in his view they see the faith and it scripture as fundamentally problematic for a pluralistic, democratic society like the United States and unchangeable."

Still, Pipes told Boorstein that he shares “the same enemies” with the latest generation of agitators. "We're in the same trench but we have different views of what the problem is. We both see an attempt to impose Islamic law, sharia, in the West. We are both against it, and want to maintain Western civilization. But [we] understand the nature of the problem differently,” he said. This led Boorstein to wonder whether or not this was an “important distinction.”


Campus watch

MEF’s most controversial program has been Campus Watch, an initiative aimed at monitoring what MEF claims are the "often erroneous and biased teachings and writings of U.S. professors specializing in the Middle East." Joel Benin, a former professor of Middle East studies at Stanford University, said of the program: "Campus Watch ... compiles dossiers on professors and universities that do not meet its standard of uncritical support for the policies of George Bush and Ariel Sharon. ... The efforts to stifle public debate about U.S. Middle East policy and criticism of Israel are being promoted by a network of neoconservative true believers with strong links to the Israeli far right. They are enthusiastic supporters of the Bush administration's hands off approach to Ariel Sharon's suppression of the Palestinian uprising. And they are aggressive proponents of a preemptive U.S. strike against Iraq."


The international relations scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in their controversial 2006 critique of the influence of the “pro-Israel lobby” on U.S. foreign policy that Campus Watch was founded by "passionately pro-Israel neoconservatives” with the intention of "encourag[ing] students to report comments or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel" in a "transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars."


Since 2006, MEF has also run a project called “Islamist Watch,” which bills itself as an outfit to combat “the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries.” A 2008 press release on MEF’s website explained that “nonviolent radical Islam is more likely to alter the makeup of Western society over time than is terrorism,” and quotes Daniel Pipes: "Quietly, lawfully, peacefully, Islamists do their work throughout the West to impose aspects of Islamic law, win special privileges for themselves, shut down criticism of Islam, create Muslim-only zones, and deprive women and non-Muslims of their full civil rights."

Noting accordingly that its interest is not in “counterterrorism” but rather the “political, educational, cultural, and legal activities of Islamists” in the West, the Islamist Watch website chronicles articles in a database called “Creeping Dhimmitude,” which attempts to show the “special accommodations” made for Muslims in non-Muslim countries.



More here:

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/middle_east_forum


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Forum






Follow the Money: From Islamophobia to Israel Right or Wrong

The people bankrolling illegal Israeli expansionism in the occupied West Bank are the same people fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S.


http://www.alternet.org/world/follow-money-islamophobia-israel-right-or-wrong


Fear inc
The rising tide of Islamophobia in the United States is not a natural or spontaneous outgrowth of popular fear of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism, nor is it the product of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Rather, it is the design of “a small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts guiding an effort that reaches millions of Americans through effective advocates, media partners, and grassroots organizing,”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/report/2011/08/26/10165/fear-inc


Entitled “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” the 130-page report asserts that five “experts” are primarily responsible for the dissemination of false facts and materials used by political leaders, grassroots groups and the media to generate unreasonable fears about Muslims and Islam. Since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, seven foundations have provided over $42 million in support for this focused campaign, the report determined.

“This small network of people is driving the national and global debates that have real consequences on the public dialogue and on American Muslims,” the report said. “Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America.”

The five key misinformation experts identified by the report: Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy (see also here); David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence (see also here); Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum; Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America (see also here), and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key “grassroots” activists, particularly Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! for America, Pamela Geller of Stop Islamization of America (see also here and here), and David Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center; and a small group of “validators” of Middle Eastern extraction, including Nonie Darwish, Zuhdi Jasser, Walid Phares and Walid Shoebat, the report said.

The report reaffirms and amplifies several earlier analyses, including this one (see also here) by the Southern Poverty Law Center, regarding the roles of these key players in inflaming public animosity against Muslims. In meticulous detail, the report debunks many of the central tenets put forth by the “experts” of Islamophobia, and tracks how their flawed assertions metastasize through the right-wing media and political echo chamber.


From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/...nding-sources-behind-anti-muslim-fearmongers/


Pipes has written, "It’s a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution." Pipes believes that moderate Muslims "constitute a very small movement", but a "brave" [citation needed] one, which the U.S. government should "give priority to locating, meeting with, funding, forwarding, empowering, and celebrating".

Pipes has praised Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and the Sudanese thinker Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. In a September 2008 interview by Peter Robinson, Pipes stated that Muslims can be divided into three categories: "traditional Islam", which he sees as pragmatic and non-violent, "Islamism", which he sees as dangerous and militant, and "moderate Islam", which he sees as underground and not yet codified into a popular movement. He elaborated that he did not have the "theological background" to determine what group follows the Koran the closest and is truest to its intent.

(But luckily for us we have our very own theological experts on perb :rolleyes: )


Through his Middle East Forum, Pipes fund-raised for the Dutch politician Geert Wilders during his trial, according to NRC Handelsblad. [30] Pipes himself praised Wilders in January 2010 as "the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic [European] identity.".

In an article entitled "Japanese Internment: Why It Was a Good Idea--And the Lessons It Offers Today", Pipes endorsed a defense of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and linked the Japanese-American wartime situation to that of Muslim Americans today.


The New York Times cited Pipes as helping to lead the charge against Debbie Almontaser, a woman with a "longstanding reputation as a Muslim moderate" whom Pipes viewed as a representative of a pernicious new movement of "lawful Islamists." Almontaser resigned under pressure as principal of Khalil Gibran International Academy, an Arabic-language high school in New York City named after the famed Christian Arab-American poet. Pipes initially described the school as a "madrassa", which means school in Arabic but, in the West, carries the implication of Islamist teaching, though he later admitted that his use of the term had been "a bit of a stretch". Pipes explained his opposition: "It is hard to see how violence, how terrorism will lead to the implementation of sharia. It is much easier to see how, working through the system — the school system, the media, the religious organizations, the government, businesses and the like — you can promote radical Islam." Pipes had also stated that “Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with Pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage.”

Pipes has criticized the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which he says is an "apologist" for Hezbollah and Hamas, and has a "roster of employees and board members connected to terrorism". CAIR, in turn, has written of Pipes that his "agenda-driven polemic... only serves to fan the flames of ignorance and prejudice. But perhaps that is his intent."


In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose." James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans". Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, has also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursues an intolerant agenda, "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity."

In addition, Pipes sparked a controversy when he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005. A letter from professors, staff and students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990." [44]


In addition, Pipes sparked a controversy when he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005. A letter from professors, staff and students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990."


Professor John L. Esposito of Georgetown University has called Pipes "a bright, well-trained expert with considerable experience", but accuses Pipes of "selectivity and distortion" when asserting that "10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims are militants". Esposito writes that Pipes' methodology "is as legitimate as equating all American Jews who have emigrated to Israel with Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the American physician who emigrated to Israel and later slaughtered some 25 Muslims at prayer in the Hebron mosque. Pipes knows much better."


On his own website and in articles for The Jerusalem Post, Pipes claimed that Barack Obama was a former Muslim. He alleged that Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim, and that "the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque."

Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam." According to Pipes, "this matters" because Democratic presidential candidate Obama "is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed", and as president this would have "large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world." The progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America described Pipes' article as promoting a "falsehood". Ben Smith, in an article on The Politico responded to these accusations claiming that they amounted to a "template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama's religion" and that Daniel Pipes' work "is pretty stunning in the twists of its logic".

On a program on the Fox News Network, Pipes claimed that scholar Rashid Khalidi was an employee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, at the time when the United States government designated the PLO as a 'terrorist organization', and that Barack Obama had alleged "financial ties" with Khalidi and that Khalidi hosted a fundraiser for Obama.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes#




The report, entitled “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques” and published last week by the anti-Muslim website Middle East Forum, dons a shawl of academic respectability – but even a cursory review of its logic and methodology reveals it as a blatant exercise in propaganda. It was written by hard-core anti-Muslim activist David Yerushalmi and radically pro-Israel academic Mordechai Kedar.

The Middle East Forum survey found that 51% of the mosques surveyed had texts on site that, by the surveyors’ interpretation, endorse the violent pursuit of Shariah domination, while another 30% had texts “moderately supportive of violence.” That, Middle East Forum insisted, means that “[m]ore than 80 percent of U.S. mosques advocate or otherwise promote violence” – a very long leap in logic. Nonetheless, that figure has been the plum most eagerly served up by the right-wing echo chamber since the report’s release.

The report’s conclusion, incidentally, directly contradicts that of a 2008 survey conducted by two scholars, which showed that affiliation with a mosque actually increases American Muslims’ level of civic engagement.


Yerushalmi is a key member of a tiny, organized cadre of American anti-Muslim activists that is almost singlehandedly responsible for engineering an artificial national panic – at least, among the gullible – over the supposed threat of Islamic jihadists bent on dislodging the Constitution and imposing Shariah law on America. (A detailed look at this group of activists will be published in the Summer 2011 issue of SPLC’s Intelligence Report magazine, due out next week.) Nearly the entire roster of that core group had a hand in promoting this latest sham study: Yerushalmi co-wrote it. Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Quarterly published it. Robert Spencer quickly reposted it on his JihadWatch blog, as did Brigitte Gabriel on her ACT! for America site. Pamela Geller (see also here and here), executive director of the hate group Stop Islamization of America, talked it up on Fox News. David Horowitz’ website, FrontPageMag, published an interview with Yerushalmi. Frank Gaffney praised the report in a Washington Times op-ed piece.

“In short,” Gaffney concluded, “such findings strongly suggest that shariah-adherence is a useful predictor of sympathy for – and, in some cases at least, action on behalf of – jihad, to include both the Islamists’ violent or stealthy forms of warfare aimed at supplanting the U.S. Constitution and government.”

No, the “findings” suggest nothing of the sort, unless one believes the Brothers Grimm’s findings prove that old women who live in candy houses are threats to children. The report’s long leaps in logic, the shaky methodology it employs, and the clear anti-Muslim bias of its principal author make any conclusion it reaches worse than dubious.


http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/...lects-anti-muslim-bias-of-co-autho/#more-6818
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,136
44
48
Montréal
As for the Gatestone Institute, I already posted about them a few months ago but I'll repeat since you apparently missed it:


Max Blumenthal reports:

At the April event, Wilders's seamless fusion of anti-Muslim bombast and pro-Israel cant was gratefully received by the Gatestone Institute’s founder and director, Nina Rosenwald, whom he acknowledged at the top of his jeremiad as another of his good friends. An heiress to the Sears Roebuck fortune, Rosenwald spreads her millions through the William Rosenwald Family Fund, a nonprofit foundation named for her father, a famed Jewish philanthropist who created the United Jewish Appeal in 1939. His daughter’s focus is more explicitly political. According to a report by the Center for American Progress titled “Fear Inc.,” Rosenwald and her sister Elizabeth Varet, who also directs the family foundation, have donated more than $2.8 million since 2000 to “organizations that fan the flames of Islamophobia.” Besides funding a Who’s Who of anti-Muslim outfits, Rosenwald has served on the board of AIPAC, the central arm of America’s Israel lobby, and holds leadership roles in a host of mainstream pro-Israel organizations. As groups like AIPAC lead the charge for a US military strike on the Islamic Republic of Iran, threatening to turn apocalyptic visions of civilizational warfare into catastrophic reality, Rosenwald's wealth has fueled a rapidly emerging alliance between the pro-Israel mainstream and the Islamophobic fringe. (In 2003 alone the Rosenwald Family Fund donated well over half of its $1.6 million in total contributions to pro-Israel and Islamophobic organizations.) This alliance serves to sanitize and legitimize professional anti-Muslim bigots like Wilders, allowing their ideas to mingle easily with those of neoconservative foreign policy heavyweights intent on promoting the appearance of a convergence between US and Israeli interests by invoking the specter of a common “Islamofascist” enemy. With Gatestone—which publicizes the writings of figures ranging from pro-Israel super-lawyer Alan Dershowitz to “counter-jihad” propagandist Robert Spencer, and boasts Harold Rhode, a neoconservative former Pentagon official credited, as a senior fellow, with helping to try to push the Bush administration to invade Iraq—Rosenwald has attempted to shift the alliance into overdrive.


http://www.thenation.com/print/article/168374/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate


The Sodomy for Jihad hoax is making rounds all across the looniverse, on hate sites like Jihad Watch, Frontpage Magazine, and Winds of Jihad. Canada’s right wing Sun News also published the story and featured commentary from the ubiquitous native informant, Tarek Fatah.

The story even made its way onto an well-known U.S. based national gay and lesbian news magazine before it was debunked...


Origins of a Hoax

This claim reported by The Advocate is pure nonsense. It is a hoax purveyed by someone affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an extreme right-wing organization whose founder and namesake is well-known for uncivil and racist attacks on liberal, progressive and leftist political groups.

The Advocate’s source is Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow at the Horowitz Center and at the Middle East Forum, who claimed that the religious directive was contained in a “2010 Arabic news video that aired on Fadak TV” and was advice given to Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, who blew himself up in an attempt to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayif in 2009. Some press reports stated that al-Asiri had carried explosives in his rectum.

In his post on the Gatestone Institute, Ibrahim elaborates:

"Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed al-Asiri and other jihadis of an “innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives.”"

To a non-Arabic speaker, it would be reasonable to believe that the person speaking in the video is “Abu al-Dema al-Qasab” because Ibrahim does not give any context to the video. Apparently The Advocate believed this...

However, the person in the video is Abdallah al-Khallaf, host of “The morals of the Prophets, Peace Be Upon Them,” a show broadcast on UK-based satellite channel Fadak TV whose target audience is Shia Muslims.

In the video, al-Khallaf tells the audience that he is going to read an item from a website called “Muntadayat Usud al-Sunna” (Lions of the Sunnah forums).

Al-Khallaf reads the item from the website as if it is real. He also characterizes the alleged protagonists as “Wahhabis.” It appears his intention is to incite his audience’s disgust at the supposed thinking and behavior of Wahhabi Sunni Muslims who, he suggests, will justify anything in pursuit of their goals.

The text appears to be at best an extremely vulgar joke and at worst sectarian defamation. It is written in a style commonly used for stories in which both the teller and listener know it is a joke or fiction.

The Electronic Intifada has translated this text into English.

.....


Several features identify this story as a tasteless joke, especially the name “Sheikh Abu al-Dema al-Qasab.” It translates to Sheikh Bloody Butcher. This is not a real person. The post is peppered with phrases like “it is said” and “only God knows” which indicate storytelling.


http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/gatestone-institute/





I may as well comment on an earlier link, to a website that doesnt even attempt to present its content as academic, that was posted by westcoast.


The "Barenaked Islam" website is quite obviously dedicated to spreading virulent islamophobia while vehemently denying it.

If the subtitle of the website, "It isn't islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you!", isn't enough to give you a clue, just take 5 minutes to read through the comments on the very same page linked in the post, and that should eliminate any doubts you might have.

It's unquestionably vicious islamophobic hateful propaganda for aspiring or engaged bigots. Period. Its disgusting, absolutely disgusting.


Obviously I could keep going for a long time about the sources you and other islamophobes uncritically rely on to try to justify anti-muslim bigotry but I'll stop here.

Reading, buying into and quoting.websites or "experts" who specialize in (and profit from) spreading anti-muslim hate propaganda and fear, doesn't suddenly make you an impartial expert yourself. It just exposes you for using such vile propaganda to form beliefs and confirm your xenophobia. Nothing particularly impressive or convincing about that.



http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...sues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle


http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...se-all-issues/2011/summer/jihad-against-islam



--—----------------------






This is what I meant when I said they start the brainwashing early :)



Right. Must be proof. And, of course, uniquely Muslim.

On the subject Brainwashing kids………



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LACyLTsH4ac?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




I recomment watching the full movie:


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SUkXvWn1m7Q?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>











The "Summer camp of destruction": Israeli high scholars assist the razing of a Bedouin town
By Max Blumenthal

....

One of the most troubling aspects of the destruction of al-Arakib was a report by CNN that the hundreds of Israeli riot police who stormed the village were accompanied by “busloads of cheering civilians.” Who were these civilians and why didn’t CNN or any outlet investigate further?

I traveled to al-Arakib yesterday with a delegation from Ta’ayush, an Israeli group that promotes a joint Arab-Jewish struggle against the occupation. The activists spent the day preparing games and activities for the village’s traumatized children, helping the villagers replace their uprooted olive groves, and assisting in the reconstruction of their demolished homes. In a massive makeshift tent where many of al-Arakib’s residents now sleep, I interviewed village leaders about the identity of the cheering civilians. Each one confirmed the presence of the civilians, describing how they celebrated the demolitions. As I compiled details, the story grew increasingly horrific. After interviewing more than a half dozen elders of the village, I was able to finally identify the civilians in question. What I discovered was more disturbing than I had imagined.

Arab Negev News publisher Ata Abu Madyam supplied me with a series of photos he took of the civilians in action. They depicted Israeli high school students who appeared to have volunteered as members of the Israeli police civilian guard (I am working on identifying some participants by name). Prior to the demolitions, the student volunteers were sent into the villagers’ homes to extract their furniture and belongings. A number of villagers including Abu Madyam told me the volunteers smashed windows and mirrors in their homes and defaced family photographs with crude drawings. Then they lounged around on the furniture of al-Arakib residents in plain site of the owners. Finally, according to Abu Matyam, the volunteers celebrated while bulldozers destroyed the homes.


The Israeli civilian guard, which incorporates 70,000 citizens including youth as young as 15 (about 15% of Israeli police volunteers are teenagers), is one of many programs designed to incorporate Israeli children into the state’s military apparatus. It is not hard to imagine what lessons the high school students who participated in the leveling of al-Arakib took from their experience, nor is it especially difficult to predict what sort of citizens they will become once they reach adulthood. Not only are they being indoctrinated to swear blind allegiance to the military, they are learning to treat the Arab outclass as less than human. The volunteers’ behavior toward Bedouins, who are citizens of Israel and serve loyally in Israeli army combat units despite widespread racism, was strikingly reminiscent of the behavior of settler youth in Hebron who pelt Palestinian shopkeepers in the old city with eggs, rocks and human waste. If there is a distinction between the two cases, it is that the Hebron settlers act as vigilantes while the teenagers of Israeli civilian guard vandalize Arab property as agents of the state.

The spectacle of Israeli youth helping destroy al-Arakib helps explain why 56% of Jewish Israeli high school students do not believe Arabs should be allowed to serve in the Knesset – why the next generation wants apartheid. Indeed, the widespread indoctrination of Israeli youth by the military apparatus is a central factor in Israel’s authoritarian trend. It would be difficult for any adolescent boy to escape from an experience like al-Arakib, where adults in heroic warrior garb encourage him to participate in and gloat over acts of massive destruction, with even a trace of democratic values.

As for the present condition of Israeli democracy, it is essential to consider the way in which the state pits its own citizens against one another, enlisting the Jewish majority as conquerers while targeting the Arab others as, in the words of Zionist founding father Chaim Weizmann, “obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path.” Historically, only failing states have encouraged such corrosive dynamics to take hold. That is why the scenes from al-Arakib, from the demolished homes to the uprooted gardens to the grinning teens who joined the mayhem, can be viewed as much more than the destruction of a village. They are snapshots of the phenomenon that is laying Israeli society as a whole to waste.


http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/07/th...rs-join-in-the-destruction-of-a-bedouin-town/





--—----------------------




He's on the record both denying the holocaust ever happened and as for calling for Israel's destruction. Look it up

No, he did not call for Israel's destruction (although Israel has called for attacks on Iran in no uncertain terms - and has been doing so for years). How convenient that his speeches are not made in English and require translation. Anyone can decide to make him say just about anything they want! Look it up....


Lost in translation:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4556



I reccommend reading the entire interview but If not, then at least the relevant portion about the holocaust. Then you can stop believing and repeating falsehoods and propaganda. ;)


http://www.salon.com/2006/05/30/ahmadinejad_interview_2/?mobile.html
 
W

westcoast555

As for the Gatestone Institute, I already posted about them a few months ago but I'll repeat since you apparently missed it:













I may as well comment on an earlier link, to a website that doesnt even attempt to present its content as academic, that was posted by westcoast.


The "Barenaked Islam" website is quite obviously dedicated to spreading virulent islamophobia while vehemently denying it.

If the subtitle of the website, "It isn't islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you!", isn't enough to give you a clue, just take 5 minutes to read through the comments on the very same page linked in the post, and that should eliminate any doubts you might have.

It's unquestionably vicious islamophobic hateful propaganda for aspiring or engaged bigots. Period. Its disgusting, absolutely disgusting.


Obviously I could keep going for a long time about the sources you and other islamophobes uncritically rely on to try to justify anti-muslim bigotry but I'll stop here.

Reading, buying into and quoting.websites or "experts" who specialize in (and profit from) spreading anti-muslim hate propaganda and fear, doesn't suddenly make you an impartial expert yourself. It just exposes you for using such vile propaganda to form beliefs and confirm your xenophobia. Nothing particularly impressive or convincing about that.



http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...sues/2011/summer/the-anti-muslim-inner-circle


http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...se-all-issues/2011/summer/jihad-against-islam



--—----------------------








Right. Must be proof. And, of course, uniquely Muslim.

On the subject Brainwashing kids………



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LACyLTsH4ac?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>




I recomment watching the full movie:


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SUkXvWn1m7Q?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>









No, he did not call for Israel's destruction (although Israel has called for attacks on Iran in no uncertain terms - and has been doing so for years). How convenient that his speeches are not made in English and require translation. Anyone can decide to make him say just about anything they want! Look it up....


Lost in translation:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4556



I reccommend reading the entire interview but If not, then at least the relevant portion about the holocaust. Then you can stop believing and repeating falsehoods and propaganda. ;)


http://www.salon.com/2006/05/30/ahmadinejad_interview_2/?mobile.html
You clearly don't understand English if you read that interview and you can't see that he's casting doubt on the holocaust. He's a slippery bastard and I saw him on Piers Morgan two days ago and he REFUSED to endorse a two state solution or confirm that Israel has a right to exist. It's common knowledge that Muslims generally want Israel to be destroyed. They've tried to do it 4 times already. You can play word games as much as you like but it's clear to anyone who watches Ahmadinejad that he won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist. He won't even use the name.

You're arguing from a position of attachment and nothing will change your mind.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,136
44
48
Montréal
You clearly don't understand English if you read that interview and you can't see that he's casting doubt on the holocaust. He's a slippery bastard and I saw him on Piers Morgan two days ago and he REFUSED to endorse a two state solution or confirm that Israel has a right to exist. It's common knowledge that Muslims generally want Israel to be destroyed. They've tried to do it 4 times already. You can play word games as much as you like but it's clear to anyone who watches Ahmadinejad that he won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist. He won't even use the name.

You're arguing from a position of attachment and nothing will change your mind.

I can read English fine. Stick your insults where the sun don't shine and stick to the topic. I'm not arguing from a position of attachment and unless you can back that up with any evidence, please just stick to the facts. I realize you're short on arguments so it's tempting to resort to insults but try to control your emotions a little because desperation doesn't make you look any more convincing.

You are absolutely right that I am not going to change my mind and NOR SHOULD I when not one of you has even tried to show that any of the random propaganda you can find on YouTube or anti-muslim website is representative of and truly unique to Islam. Why would I change my mind when not one of you has given me any valid reason to change my mind?

It might instead be you guys who should reconsider your position given the fact that you can't support it very well and can't refute anything (and there has been A LOT!) that has challenged your "position". Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath. Your "position" doesn't really put much importance on facts, as you've shown.


Obviously I can read English well enough to show your claim about "being on record" calling for Israel's destruction was wrong.

Who cares if he wouldn't acknowledge Israel's right to exist? How the hell is that in any way important or required? He's not threatening to attack or anything - unlike Israel's PM who is relentless in his pressure to attack Iran. I honestly fail to see how that matters. And who cares If he wouldn't endorse a two state solution? Is there some sort of law or rule somewhere that says he or anyone has to? Wtf?

That question is completely useless anyway to begin with; there is never going to be a two state solution, Israel has never wanted one and doesn't want one now.

Even If they somehow wanted it (which they don't or they certainly wouldn't still be building more settlements, would they), there are now around 500 000 Israeli citizens (aka settlers) living in the hundreds of ILLEGAL settlements built on "confiscated" (aka STOLEN) Palestinian lands IN the occupied territories. The settlements/villages/cities along with the network of roads that connect them to one another and to Israel proper, effectively break up what would have been a Palestinian state into disconnected enclaves. There is no "state" left for a continuous Palestinian state. (AKA "facts on the ground"). The MSM may not have acknowledged the obvious yet and may still be pretending it's going to happen but the reality is it is not and was not ever going to either.


This is what is left of Palestine:










<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rcPO9j4Nqj8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





So, really, who cares if he won't play along with the "west"s delusions and wishful thinking? Seriously..




As for the interview... Your claim was that he was on record denying the Holocaust. As the interview showed, he doesn't deny the Holocaust (he explicitly says so), which would make your claim wrong. All the hissy fits you want to have aren't going to change this.

Bottom line, both your claims were inaccurate and I have convincingly demonstrated that. PERIOD.

"He's a slippery bastard", you say. Yah, big fucking deal, what's your point? Show me a politician who isn't! Do I think he's borderline Holocaust denier, yah, i think he's dangerously close to stepping over the line - for sure. But I think that interview shows he's trying to make a point. If the Holocaust did happen, it follows that Europe was responsible and Europe should have given some of ITS land for Jews. Why did Europe give them Arab land to establish Israel If the Arabs were not responsible for the Holocaust and had no responsibility to offer retribution to Jews for the Holocaust? Of course, his point is obvious and there really isn't much to say to argue against. And of course, it's not as simple because we can recognize it now but back then, when Palestine was under British mandate, colonialism was acceptable (not that it isnt at all anymore but now it just has to be more discreet lol ), the British decided to give Arab land and they didn't care whether the Arabs were opposed or that it was wrong. So it means that almost 100 years later, we can't reasonably justify it but it doesn't change the fact that it was done and we live with the consequences.

But If we're all honest here, the initial decision to do that, was morally, legally, logically and ethically wrong. To fault anyone for saying so and questioning the fairness of making the Palestinians pay the price for Europe's crimes as we stand by, support a bully and turn a blind eye to crimes for over 60 years, would be disingenuous (and that's being generous). You'd be saying the exact same and don't even try to convince me you would have no problem with it. Bull!

That's what (part of) the interview says.


There's nothing wrong with reviewing historical events. That's what historians do. Nothing ever becomes fixed. To flat out deny it happened is reprehensible, I fully agree. But there is not anything wrong or unusual about leaving room to continue studying and questioning events from the past. Even If you or I don't feel the need to do so, others have every right to. So while I do believe he's dangerously close to going over the line, he hasn't denied anything and is entitled to question some of th'e historical facts.

(To be clear, I'm not claiming the guy is all peaches and cream but im saying hes not the devil incarnate either. A lot of what is claimed is propaganda and spin and that is not helpful. Those quotes are not accurate, yet still repeated over and over because, among other things, our media sucks ass. It is lazy and it pathetically just repeats things without ever bothering to verify or challenge it. It wouldnt be as bad if the majority of people who read/watch it didnt believe that whatever makes it on the news can always be trusted to be accurate or balanced. Unfortunately that is a sad joke. )

Thats mainly why im posting about the inaccuracies, though i know its not surprising that you would believe he said this on record because most of our media is still too stupid or incompetent to have stopped claiming so - and probably never will.


All this, of course, doesnt really have to do with the topic of this thread so I'm not going to get into it the last thing im bringing up but I'm still going to call you on more of your inaccurate claims.

Please name those "4 times Muslims attacked and tried to destroy Israel". First of all, even if that was true -which it's not- Iran had nothing to do with any of those wars and the fact that it is a muslim country doesn't make it responsible because other "Muslim countries" were. That is absurd. But like I said, it isn't even true and you're pushing more myths, falsehood and propaganda. It's getting tiresome, either get the facts or don't say anything!



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2_3I-9kuWow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sIWvcBzbqVc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





1. Menachem Begin:

"Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence of the state. Thus we went off to the Sinai campaign. At that time we conquered most of the Sinai Peninsula and reached Sharm el Sheikh. Actually, we accepted and submitted to an American dictate, mainly regarding the Gaza Strip (which Ben-Gurion called 'the liberated portion of the homeland'). John Foster Dulles, the then-secretary of state, promised Ben-Gurion that an Egyptian army would not return to Gaza. The Egyptian army did enter Gaza .... After 1957, Israel had to wait 10 full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland. "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

(New York Times, August 21, 1982)



2. General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."
(Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )



3. General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General's Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."
(Le Monde, June 3, 1972)



4. General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."
(Ha' aretz, March 29, 1972)



5. General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General Southern Command:

"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war."
(Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, p. 558)



6. General Mordechai Hod, Commanding General, Israeli Air Force:

"Sixteen years planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it."
(New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, pp. 558-559)



7. General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israeli Defence Forces:

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."
(Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972)


8. General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Govemor, Israeli Occupied West Bank:

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger. "
(Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972)



9. Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing:

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."
(Al-Hamishmar, April 14, 1971)



10. Yigal Allon, Minister of Labor and Member of Prime Minister Eshkol's Military Advisory Committee:

"Begin and I want Jerusalem."
(Eitan Haber, Menahem Begin: The Legend and the Man, New York: Delacorte Press, 1978 , p. 271)



11. General Meir Amit, the former head of Military Intelligence who was head of Mossad in 1967:

"There is going to be a war. Our army is now fully mobilized. But we cannot remain in that condition for long. Because we have a civilian army our economy is shuddering to a stop. We don't have the manpower right now even to bring in the crops. Sugar beets are rotting in the earth. We have to make quick decisions... If we can get the first blow in our casualties will be comparatively light..."

(Dennis Eisenberg, Uri Dan and Eli Landau, The Mossad: Israel's Secret Intelligence Service, New York: New American Library, 1978 , pp. 160-161



“The tragedy of people of Palestine is that their country was ‘given’ by a foreign power to another people for creation of a new state. The result was that hundreds’ of thousands of innocent people were made homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that refugees have every right to homeland from which they were driven, & denial of this right is at heart of continuing conflict.”
(Bertrand Russell, February 1970)





One down......ugh.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,136
44
48
Montréal
DEFINITION OF ISLAMOPHOBIA by The Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project at the Center for Race and Gender:


The term “Islamophobia” was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as “unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.” The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common “xenophobia” framework.


The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:

•Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
•Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
•Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
•Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
•Islam is a violent political ideology.


For the purposes of anchoring the current research and documentation project, we provide the following working definition: Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve “civilizational rehab” of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.


Sounds pretty much exactly what we've read in this thread, doesn't it - almost word for word! If anyone ever wants to know what islamophobia looks like, just send them over to this thread to see numerous instances of it, in all it's ugliness.



Lots of great, very interesting info here (BTW, Daniel Pipes, the MEC and the Gatestone Institute are on the list and Barenaked Islam also gets a mention on the page):


http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...he_anti-muslimanti-arabislamophobia_industry/



A who's who of the anti-muslim/anti-arab/islamophobia industry


......

There is a reason that these individuals are featured in just about every legitimate report on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred

These people consistently promote the what everyone “knows” lies about Islam and Muslims. They generalize specific incidents to reflect on all Muslims or all of Islam. When they are caught in the act of making up or distorting claims they engage in devious methods to attempt to conceal the evidence.

The claim that “truth tellers” are being accused of Islamophobia for no reason other than their legitimate concerns about real issues and that in fact there is not even such a thing as Islamophobia is nonsense. The further claim that the fact that there are fewer hate crimes against Muslims than against Jews also proves that Islamophobia doesn’t exist is more nonsense.

The reason that this is so obvious to so many is that rational people can tell the difference between legitimate concerns and bigoted stereotypes. The Islamophobia of these folks is very real, and it is also strikingly similar to a previous generations’ anti-Semitism.




 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,136
44
48
Montréal
So, if I understand you right, just because some priests are pedophiles, it makes it right for everybody to abuse children.

The difference is that HERE the pedophiles go to jail, over there Islam not only allows pedophilia, but ENCOURAGES it.

Here they are fighting against it and the law is behind the victims, over there THIS IS LAW AND THEY CAN'T BE PUNISHED.

Let me know if you STILL don't understand the difference.

Where exactly is "over there"?? A country in the middle east? One in Africa? All of the middle east? And all of Africa? All of the Muslim majority countries in the world? "Over there" is kind of vague...


JORDAN:

" The minimum marriage age is 16 for men and 15 for women (all ages in the personal status law are calculated by the lunar calendar) and the Penal Code provides penalties for all those involved in carrying out underage marriages. An underage marriage can nevertheless be recognised as valid if the wife has fallen pregnant or given birth by the time of a suit to dissolve their marriage coming to court, or if both spouses have by that time reached the minimum age. In the event of a contract between a woman aged under 18 and a man 20 years or more her senior, the qadi is required to ascertain that the bride has freely given her consent to the marriage and that it is in her interest."

And.....


"According to a recent study conducted by the society, the average age at marriage in Jordan is 29.5 years for men and 26.5 years for women. Twenty years ago the average age was 20 for men and 18 for women."


Now you let me know if you STILL don't understand that obviously this isn't about Islam. OK? :rolleyes:

I don't have time or desire to go through all the different Muslim countries to show just how clueless your post but here's an example that makes it clear that Islam, like any religion, has evolves and continues to change with times.



In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.

-------------------------------

The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."

-------------------------------

In the USA in the 1890s, most states had an age of consent of 10–12. In 1895, the age of consent in Delaware was only 7, according to an article in The New York Times. However, feminists and children's rights activists began advocating raising the age of consent to 16 wanting to ultimately raise it to 18 and by 1920 almost all states had raised their age of consent to 16 or 18.

-------------------------------


Iraq

The age of consent in Iraq is 18. "Any person who sexually assaults a boy or girl under the age of 18 without the use of force, menaces or deception is punishable by detention..."



Lebanon

Article 505 of the Penal Code

Approximate translation: " Whoever commits a sexual act with a minor of less than fifteen (15) years, shall be punished with hard labor of up to fifteen (15) years. This penalty shall be for a minimum of five (5) years, if the victim has not attained the age of twelve (12) years. And whoever commits a sexual act with a minor aged more than fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period varying between 2 months and 2 years ".



Oman

Sexual activity outside marriage is illegal in Oman. The legal age for marriage is 18 for both men and women.




Pakistan

Sexual activity outside marriage is illegal in Pakistan. The legal age of marriage is 18 for males and 16 for females




Saudi Arabia

Any kind of sexual activity outside marriage is illegal in Saudi Arabia, but there is no restriction on the age of marriage. For instance, in 2008 a Saudi court refused to annul a marriage between an 8 year old girl and a 58 year old man. A prohibition on marriage under the age of 14 was being considered by the Ministry of Justice in late 2008. According to cleric Ahmad Al-Mu’bi, the appropriate minimum age for sex "varies according to environment and traditions."




Turkey

The age of consent in Turkey is 18. According to article 104, if the child is 15, 16 or 17 and the age gap is less than 5 years, the acts may be prosecuted only upon a complaint.

ARTICLE 104 – (1) Any person who is in sexual intercourse with a child who completed the age of fifteen without using force, threat and fraud, is sentenced to imprisonment from six months to two years upon filing of a complaint.

(2) If the offender is older than the victim more than five years, the punishment to be imposed is doubled without seeking raise of a complaint.

Article 103 provides for a harsher penalty for sex with persons under 15, or over 15 but lack ability to understand the act.




Yemen

Any kind of sexual activity outside marriage is illegal in Yemen. Until recently, Yemeni law set the age of consent at 15. But tribal customs often trump the law. In practice, "Yemeni law allows girls of any age to wed, but it forbids sex with them until the indefinite time they’re 'suitable for sexual intercourse.'" In 1999, the minimum marriage age of fifteen for women, rarely enforced, was abolished; the onset of puberty, interpreted by conservatives to be at the age of nine, was set as a requirement for consummation of marriage.

In April 2008, the case of Nujood Ali, a 10 year-old girl who successfully obtained a divorce, sparked headlines around the world, and prompted calls to raise the legal age for marriage to 18. Later in 2008, the Supreme Council for Motherhood and Childhood proposed to define the minimum age for marriage at 18 years. The law was passed in April 2009, but dropped the following day following maneuvers by opposing parliamentarians. Negotiations to pass the legislation continue.



Just a quick look through the differences between Muslim countries (above) makes it quite obvious it's about more than religion. If you want to keep oversimplifying, knock yourself out but that's pretty lame and totally meaningless.







Different cultures, different childhoods



Even in a relatively short period of time, I can see the enormous transformations that have taken place in children’s lives and in the ways they are thought about and treated.

Looking further back I can see vast differences between contemporary and historical childhoods. Today, children have few responsibilities, their lives are characterised by play not work, school not paid labour, family rather than public life and consumption instead of production.

Yet this is all relatively recent. A hundred years ago, a twelve-year-old working in a factory would have been perfectly acceptable. Now, it would cause social services' intervention and the prosecution of both parents and factory owner.


American colonial families: Industrious girls treated with respect

The differences between the expectations placed on children today and those placed on them in the past are neatly summed up by two American writers, Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English. Comparing childhoods in America today with those of the American Colonial period (1600-1775), they have written:

‘Today, a four year-old who can tie his or her shoes is impressive. In colonial times, four-year-old girls knitted stockings and mittens and could produce intricate embroidery: at age six they spun wool. A good, industrious little girl was called 'Mrs.' instead of 'Miss' in appreciation of her contribution to the family economy: she was not, strictly speaking, a child’.


Childhood: A social construction?

These changing ideas about children have led many social scientists to claim that childhood is a ‘social construction’. They use this term to mean that understandings of childhood are not the same everywhere and that while all societies acknowledge that children are different from adults, how they are different and what expectations are placed on them, change according to the society in which they live.

Social anthropologists have shown this in their studies of peoples with very different understandings of the world to Western ones.


Canadian Arctic: Acquiring understanding

Jean Briggs has worked with the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic and has described how, within these communities, growing up is largely seen as a process of acquiring thought, reason and understanding (known in Inuit as ihuma).

Young children don’t possess these qualities and are easily angered, cry frequently and are incapable of understanding the external difficulties facing the community, such as shortages of food.

Because they can’t be reasoned with, and don’t understand, parents treat them with a great deal of tolerance and leniency. It’s only when they are older and begin to acquire thought that parents attempt to teach them or discipline them.


Tonga: Closer to insanity than adulthood

In contrast, children on the Pacific island of Tonga, studied by Helen Morton, are regularly beaten by their parents and older siblings.

They are seen as being closer to 'mad' people than adults because they lack the highly prized quality of social competence (or poto as the Tongans call it).

They are regularly told off for being clumsy and a child who falls over may be laughed at, shouted at, or beaten. Children are thought of as mischievous; they cry or want to feed simply because they are naughty, and beatings are at their most severe between the ages of three and five when children are seen as particularly wilful.

Parents believe that social competence can only be achieved through discipline and physical punishment, and treat their children in ways that have seemed very harsh to outsiders.


The Beng: Arrivals from a spirit world

In other cases, ideas about children are radically different. For example, the Beng, a small ethnic group in West Africa, assume that very young children know and understand everything that is said to them, in whatever language they are addressed.

The Beng, who’ve been extensively studied by another anthropologist, Alma Gottleib, believe in a spirit world where children live before they are born and where they know all human languages and understand all cultures.

Life in the spirit world is very pleasant and the children have many friends there and are often very reluctant to leave it for an earthly family (a fictional account of a spirit child’s journey between the spirit and the earthly world is given in Ben Okri’s novel, The Famished Road).

When they are born, they remain in contact with this other world for several years, and may decide to return there if they are not properly looked after. So parents treat young children with great care so that they’re not tempted to return, and also with some reverence, because they’re in contact with the spirit world in a way that adults aren’t.


The UK: Dependency

There’s a tendency to view children in the UK, and in the Western world in general, as incompetent and dependent. But this isn’t the case throughout the world. In many societies children work and contribute to the family in whatever way that can from a very early age.

A good example of this is child care. In the UK, it is illegal for a child under the age of fourteen to look after another child unsupervised, because they’re deemed incompetent and irresponsible.


The Fulani: Working by the age of four

In other cultures, this is not the case. Michelle Johnson has written about the Fulani of West Africa describing how by the age of four, girls are expected to be able to care for their younger siblings, fetch water and firewood and by the age of six will be pounding grain, producing milk and butter and selling these alongside their mothers in the market.


The Yanamamö: Girls marry earlier than boys

Across the world, among the Yanamamö of the Amazonian rainforest, another anthropologist, Napoleon Chagnon, has shown how different these children’s childhoods are from Western ones, and also how differently boys and girls grow up in comparison with other parts of the world.

He has written how a Yanamamö girl is expected to help her mother from a young age and by the age of ten will be running a house. By the age of twelve or thirteen she is probably married and will have started to have babies.

Boys on the other hand, have far fewer responsibilities. They don’t marry until later than girls and are allowed to play well into their teens. Western notions of childhood simply do not ‘fit’ in these cases, where children’s competence and responsibilities are understood very differently.

Studying very different communities Social anthropologists ask questions about how childhood, and the role of children, is seen within the communities they study, rather than how it fits into Western ideas about childhood.

By doing this they seek to avoid imposing outside ideas onto people with very different understandings of the world or of making value judgments on other people’s ways of raising their children.

While Westerners might take exception to eight-year-old girls working or to twelve-year-old girls marrying, within their own communities such activities are seen as a normal and positive part of childhood. Indeed, seen through the eyes of non-Westerners, many ‘normal’ Western childcare practices are seen as extremely bizarre and possibly harmful to children.

Placing children in rooms of their own, refusing to feed them on demand, or letting them cry rather than immediately tending to them, are viewed very negatively in many societies and lead some to think that Westerners don’t know how to look after children properly.

A changing phenomenon Childhood is a changing social phenomenon, of continual fascination and concern. Looking at it from a cross-cultural perspective shows the wide variety of childhoods that exist across the world and warns against interfering in or criticising people whose lives, and understandings of the world, are very different to our own.


http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/different-cultures-different-childhoods


"Historians, sociologists, and anthropologists have suggested that there is no single and universal experience or understanding of what childhood is and where it begins and ends but that this has altered according to time and place. Social-constructionist theory seeks to illustrate that there are many possible answers to the questions "What is a child?" or "What is childhood?" While factors such as body weight might be measured scientifically, producing the same answer in any time or place, childhood itself, the social and cultural expectations of the child, and its roles and responsibilities or stages of legitimacy can be understood very differently according to any contextual worldview."


-------------------------------


"By the end of the nineteenth century, there was a growing concern among the newly formed middle classes with the moral condition of childhood and the domestic responsibility of parents. Accompanying this was a notion of childhood innocence and vulnerability which was employed to argue for a new definition of childhood–one which associated it less with the world of industry and more with the world of education. Notions of protection and welfare developed strongly in parts of the world which were experiencing for the first time reductions in infant and child mortality.

The social historian Viviana Zelizer has described what she terms a "sacralization" (investing objects with religious or sentimental meaning) of childhood that occurred at this time, creating a transition in the way children were regarded, from a position of economic value to one of emotional price-lessness. Thus, the notion of the economically useful child began to be replaced by the notion of the incalculable emotional value of each child. Such a theoretical development was essential for the generation of a consensus around legally sanctioned compulsory education."


-------------------------------


"Since the eighteenth century, the dominant paradigm in Western cultures has viewed childhood as a stage of life characterized by dependency, learning, growth, and development. The notion that in the medieval world there was no concept of childhood was first introduced by the French scholar PHILIPPE ARIÈS in his Centuries of Childhood (1962), which focused mainly on France. Ariès believed that the evidence drawn from European paintings and texts of the time revealed that children seemed to be viewed as miniature adults. They had no special clothing, food, social space, or time which amounted to a childhood culture. It was only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that the demarcation between the adult world and the world of childhood slowly began to be drawn. In other words, the social and cultural world of childhood was instituted as a key part of the institution of a new kind of adult, the adult of the bourgeoisie. In spite of regional, cultural, and social differences in the experience of being a child and in how childhood is understood, the social-constructionist view of childhood has become the dominant conceptual model."



It's absurd to look at it in a totally eurocentric way and to completely ignore the how tribal customs and regional cultures are important. These are also things that are changing. All things considered, it wasn't that long ago that "Western" society and culture had a very different view of th's concept of "childhood". If you consider how long we were around before that happened, it's actually really recent. But regardless, it's ignorant to only see the world by comparison to ourselves and based on the belief that we are superior and should be imitated.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,136
44
48
Montréal
Miss Bijou, would you mind asking your brother if he minds condemning the Jews and Christians every time he is praying?
Because if he is praying, this is what he is doing as it is included in the prayers automatically.
He might not be aware of it becuase the prayers are in Arabic. But just in case he is curious about WHAT those words mean....

Actually, it helps when people KNOW what their religions are all about. :)


You're such an idiot. Seriously.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts