Support NeoGAF

[Chairman Yang]

.

 

[castle007]

You're really not helping your case with this loony post. In the western world, said woman can be educated and get a well-paying job to support her children, and/or find another husband.

Frankly, I'm just floored by the odd logic you're employing.

Are you saying that you would rather support adultery than getting married??? That is what your post is suggesting. I find that logic quite puzzling too.

What's to stop your hypothetical muslim polygamist from leaving one or both of his wives, or cheating on them with yet a third or fourth woman?

He isn't cheating on them because if he is going to have a third or a fourth woman (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) he would be marrying them and he wouldn't be cheating on his other wives. He has the right to marry up to four if he can support all of his wives. But obviously, that doesn't mean that every millionare should go and marry four women just because he can.

and if he leaves one of his wives, he would be divorcing her and she would be entitled to her share of money and compensation.

How can you find adultery better than this situation?? I am stunned

 

[Chairman Yang]

Looks like there's a problem with every ideology then. Both Christianity and Judaism are used as inspiration for a lot of evil acts committed in this world and if you were to read their respective religious texts and interpret it how you want it to be interpreted, they would be condoning those acts as well.

I don't think every ideology is harmful in the same way--I think you'd have trouble showing that, say, environmentalism influences people to kill more--but Christianity certainly is problematic. Judaism probably is, too.

 

[Azih]

I don't think every ideology is harmful in the same way--I think you'd have trouble showing that, say, environmentalism influences people to kill more

Eco-terrorists.

 

[Karakand]

:lol :lol :lol That's definitely going to be a new meme.

It already is one in the NFL / MLB threads.

Mandark (typical PC pinko) is trying to be inclusive and involve all of GAF's other OT cliques in the party.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

The 'extremist' interview is extremely suspect in every way

You obviously didn't read the article very carefully. Hassan Butt was a fundamentalist Muslim, he isn't anymore.

and the drive by libel of CAIR has no basis at all.

CAIR's opposition to the Secular Islam Summit is well documented, as is the fact that its co-founder said that the Qur'an should replace the constitution as the highest authority in America.

 

[speculawyer]

That's the first one. We can deal with that one before moving to others.

So what is your point? Are there large numbers of Muslims that completely reject and condemn any violence against the cartoonists? I think Sam is right. And the problem is that
1) Islam does have lots of explicit rules with not much wiggle room. (such as not mocking the faith & idolatry, etc.)
2) The Quran is viewed as the literal word of God. This differs sharply from the Bible that is viewed as allegorical, historical, prophet interpretation, etc. by most Christians. So, where as the vast majority of Christians do outright disagree and ignore much of the Bible, Muslims are much more likely to take everything Quran says very seriously.

It's a difficult situation and it is hard to find a solution for it. There are Muslim moderates but even the term 'moderate' means pretty darn theocratic in the Islamic world. There are very very few true liberal Muslims.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Yes. Just becuase something is allowed doesn't mean it is regularly practiced. The fact that it's extremely common in Senegal has more to do with Senegal than Islam, I mean hell your own article treats Senegal as an extreme outlier, wouldn't far more muslim countries have similar rates if it iwas a Muslim thing? (please also see honor killings).

The rate seems to vary based on income, education level, etc, not based on how Islamic a country is. If you have other stats on polygamy rates that show polygamists are an insignificant fraction of the overall Muslim world I'd be happy to look at them.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Eco-terrorists.

Just saying that eco-terrorists exist isn't enough. You have to have some evidence that environmentalism influences people to kill. There are many ways of doing that. One way might be to show that the murder conviction rate of environmentalists is higher than the population as a whole.

 

[chaostrophy]

Personally, I don't know if we really need more criticism of Islam. I completely support free speech even when the speech in question is deemed "hateful" by those offended by it, and I don't think violence is an acceptable response to any speech. But still, this trend of "artists" making one unsubtle, "shocking" criticism of Islam after another (cartoons, short films, etc.) is getting tiring. They aren't interesting from an artistic perspective and they aren't making any fundamentalist Muslims more tolerant. So what real purpose do they serve, other than letting their creators show off how courageous they are?

If you are an artist that believes you're fighting a cultural war with fundamentalist Islam, I'd think the best thing to do would be to make art that shows why living under Enlightenment values is better than living under fundamentalism. Express the beauty of having freedom in your personal life, the ability to think rationally and question everything, and so forth. If the face of modern secular society that Muslims see consists of nothing but condemnation of their culture, it's not hard to see why they would reject such a society.

 

[plovie]

ISLAM = I SLAM



Think about it.


:\

ISLAMABAD = ISLAM IS BAD


totally. :/

 

[Ela Hadrun]

Yeah, what's almost tragic here is the number of people like this who have nearly dedicated their lives to shitstarting. I mean all this effort put into getting your country's most vilified demographic to yell at you?

This isn't having a "spine" to be un-PC. It's just a fucked up egocentric ordering of priorities.

Also, for the record, I don't really see the problem with polygamy. Polygyny isn't really culturally appropriate anymore, because we don't have a large percentage of our men dying in war all the time. But I don't think there's a moral issue with any one person having multiple legal partners.

Spoiler

I could say that "as a woman and a feminist" but good lord wouldn't THAT open up a different can of worms

 

[m0dus]

Wow, so this thread title lit up my computer screen like a burning cross on my lawn!

 

[speculawyer]

But Sam STATES that it is common. Which is my problem with the article.

I'll agree with you there. He definitely did write it in a manner that would be interepreted as "Muslims commonly practice . . . " "forced-marriage" and "wife-beating". That is unfair characterization since many would interpret 'commonly' as more than 50% of the time. I think he was wrong to state that especially since such a statement would cause many people that should read & think about the article to quickly dismiss it. Perhaps he's pouring it on extra thick against Islam in hopes of more book sales. Sam does piss off a lot of Christians too.

The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Extremist interpretations of the Quran and Hadith

They're not extremist interpretations, it's the literal interpretation. You know, reading the words of God as if He really meant what He said. A religious person doesn't need to be an extremist to read a holy book literally.

have nothing to do with this statement of Sam's

"Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating"

None of this is common by any stretch of the imagination. Hell this is like saying SLAVERY is commonly practiced by Muslims just because the Quran allows it.

Uh huh. According to wikipedia:
"Most majority Muslim countries (except Albania, Tunisia, Turkey, and former USSR republics) retain traditional Sharia which interpret the teachings of the Quran to permit polygyny up to four wives."

Of course that doesn't say how many people actually practice it, but the fact that it is legal should at least demonstrate that the status of polygyny isn't comparable to the status of slavery in the Muslim world.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I do not believe you or even most Muslims engage in such practices, but I think you are being very naive or over-protective if you just dismiss such comments.
Polygamy: That's just fact, you can't argue with that one.
Forced-marriage: Certainly not most marriages but definitely some. Usually in less advanced places like Afghnistan or in tribal areas. OT GAF had a story the other week about some 8 year old getting a divorce. WTF?
wife-beating: Again, a very small minority I'd assume. But with the very weak legal protections women are given, I am certain this happens far more in the Islamic world than it does in the west. Women's testimony is not worth the same as a man according the Quran. And women are not supposed to talk to strange men, so how can the report such problems?

Here's the root of the problem-- generalizing from Afghanistan, which has some horrible human-rights issues on its record, to all of Islam. Generalizing from the worst segment of any population to the entire population is a bad idea, and I don't think I have to explain why.

 

[gkryhewy]

Are you saying that you would rather support adultery than getting married??? That is what your post is suggesting. I find that logic quite puzzling too.

You are out of your mind. Nice work ignoring every substantive element of my post. I suppose the idea of the women in question actually being able to obtain high quality jobs and provide for their children might as well be from another planet.

The views you're expressing could not be more misogynist.

 

[Guileless]

:lol Never change Mandark. Of all the reasons for self-congratulation to object to, you have chosen one of the (thankfully) very few subjects where people are actually being prosecuted right now for thought crimes in oh-so-progressive Canada and France.

"Polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism." You can take your hypos about the travails of a serial philanderer and the bastards he sires, and I'll take the absence of stationary despotism.

 

[Karakand]

Also, for the record, I don't really see the problem with polygamy. Polygyny isn't really culturally appropriate anymore, because we don't have a large percentage of our men dying in war all the time. But I don't think there's a moral issue with any one person having multiple legal partners.

If you could skew demographics there would be nothing wrong with it but until we stop being around a 1:1 species, polygamy is probably not a very good idea. (For reasons speculawyer already laid out.)

 

[Mandark]

Look at the history of Muslim populations throughout the world, and you'll find a wide variety of cultures, including different social norms, economic systems, and governments.

If you can't say "Muslims do X" or "Muslim communities do X", then you can't blame X on Islam. If you have to qualify it with "Some Muslims do X", then why are you using that category at all?

Yes, some Muslims justify their behaviors based on scripture and yes, there is support in the text for some awful things. But the same is true of Christianity.

If we were debating this in 1808, we could easily conclude that the disenfranchisement of women was an intrinsic, non-negotiable aspect of the Christian faith. No Christian country gave women full rights, and it's easy to use the Bible to support the dominance of men.

These days? It's hard to find a Christian in the developed world who seriously wants to revoke women's suffrage, and that's not because a prophet brought new revelations.

With huge, pluralistic religions that span languages and ethnic groups, people will use their faith to justify different, sometimes contradictory beliefs. Blaming those religions for results that are obviously not deterministic is dumb and possibly bigoted.

 

[Sapiens]

What about all the civil, freedom-loving, moderate Muslims who are just as appalled by Muslim intolerance as I am? No doubt millions of men and women fit this description, but vocal moderates are very difficult to find. Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface. The subterfuge is rendered all but invisible to the general public by political correctness, wishful thinking, and "white guilt." This is where we find sinister people successfully posing as "moderates"--people like Tariq Ramadan who, while lionized by liberal Europeans as the epitome of cosmopolitan Islam, cannot bring himself to actually condemn honor killing in round terms (he recommends that the practice be suspended, pending further study). Moderation is also attributed to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby.

So true. This is the feeling I get from muslim posters on GAF whenever they try to defend their storybook.

 

[castle007]

You are out of your mind.

Is that all you can say??

That was the point of your other post. You were saying how the adulterer can basically get away with what she did and she doesn't need the father of her babies and can rely on the government. And basically your post was trying to show, although not explicitly, how adultery is a fine alternative to polygamy. Who is the one out of his mind?

 

[PhlegmMaster]

So violence towards other religious groups or sects has never happened in Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism? Read up on a little history or even the Old Testament.

It has, but not anymore, or at least not on a level that's even remotely comparable to Islam's.

"What makes you think I think that Islam is the only ideology that incites violence?"

Your posting history perhaps.

Find one single post of mine where I say, or even imply that Islam is the only ideology that incites violence, and I promise I'll refrain from making posts about Islam for the next decade.

 

[Ela Hadrun]

If you could skew demographics there would be nothing wrong with it but until we stop being around a 1:1 species, polygamy is probably not a very good idea. (For reasons speculawyer already laid out.)

Right, right, I should have said "moral problem." I don't see the moral problem with it. I understand the social issues. But those can also be solved.

 

[Kabouter]

These days? It's hard to find a Christian in the developed world who seriously wants to revoke women's suffrage, and that's not because a prophet brought new revelations.

Not it isn't. They have two representatives in our parliament .

 

[gkryhewy]

Is that all you can say??

That was the point of your other post. You were saying how the adulterer can basically get away with what she did and she doesn't need the father of her babies and can rely on the government. And basically your post was trying to show, although not explicitly, how adultery is a fine alternative to polygamy. Who is the one out of his mind?

I am going to do my best to interpret your oddly-written reply, which again ignores my entire most recent post.

No, what I am saying is that the woman is empowered to take care of herself and her children, by being educated and employable.

 

[castle007]

It has, but not anymore, or at least not on a level that's even remotely comparable to Islam's.

Find one single post of mine where I say, or even imply that Islam is the only ideology that incites violence, and I promise I'll refrain from making posts about Islam for the next decade.

You certainly make it seem like it is the only religion that does that. Most of your posts are about bashing Islam.

 

[Mandark]

I'm a free speech absolutist, and support the radical cleric Mark Steyn in his legal battles.

However, it's odd to worry about "thought police" and never say a peep about the hundreds of people who have been incarcerated without anything like due process in the name of anti-terrorism.

Though maybe rights can be suspended temporarily in the very extreme cases. After all, bearded Canadians aren't going to bring down Western Civ, while the Muslims are filling up Europe with their brown babies.

 

[castle007]

I am going to do my best to interpret your oddly-written reply, which again ignores my entire most recent post.
No, what I am saying is that the woman is empowered to take care of herself and her children.

sorry :lol :lol :lol It seems you editted your post. Your original post only contained that small phrase that I quoted.

 

[gkryhewy]

sorry :lol :lol :lol It seems you editted your post. Your original post only contained that small phrase that I quoted.

Excellent. Now that you've rediscovered it, I'll eagerly await your reply.

 

[SteveMeister]

Intolerance is the eighth deadly sin.

 

[Mandark]

Not it isn't. They have two representatives in our parliament .

In the words of Karl Popper, "the Dutch don't count."

 

[Sapiens]

I align myself with a religion that demands everyone in this thread be beheaded.

Our team is better than your team.

God is going to be so proud of us.

Now where did I put my little plastic key so I could get my sweet, sweet virgins in heaven?

 

[Kildace]

And oh god What is this shit? I'm not even glancing at this article anymore.

Just wanted to react on this. I don't claim to be an expert in Islam or anything, but I used to work with an Algerian woman who her family married to a 30 year old man when she was 13, and she told me that it was extremely common where she came from. Algeria is hardly Afghanistan.

All in all the author does himself a disservice by generalizing and painting Islam with broad strokes, however I agree with his main point : the West is so scared of Islam that it caves in to any show of outrage because extremist Muslims more than Jews or Christians have shown that they will answer any slight with brutal actions. It's a fact, I'm not denigrating Islam, I'm just saying that there is a double standard where there shouldn't be one.

I also find the poll numbers appalling at first glance but without any source or context I won't generalize them. It's easy to manipulate and cherry pick polls to advance your own agenda.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

You certainly make it seem like it is the only religion that does that.

I don't "make it seem" like anything. I mean what I say, and what I said is that here and now in the 21st century, Islam does more to motivate its believers to behave violently than all the other major religions.

Most of your posts are about bashing Islam.

No, most of my posts are about video games, anime, internet memes, etc. A big fraction of my posts are about faith and religion. Only a minority of those posts are about Islam.

 

[speculawyer]

Here's the root of the problem-- generalizing from Afghanistan, which has some horrible human-rights issues on its record, to all of Islam. Generalizing from the worst segment of any population to the entire population is a bad idea, and I don't think I have to explain why.

Point taken. And I think I addressed this to some degree in post #115 above.

However, even if a horrible crime happens very rarely, any religious rationalization for it should be exposed and publically criticized. It's like bringing up the killing of an doctor that performs abortions . . . very few Christians would do or endorse such behavior. But it is still worth bringing them up at times to show how faith can be abused and for the purpose of getting Christians to come out and comdemn such practices.

It would be really nice if many more Muslims stepped forward and condemned criminal acts committed in the name of Islam instead of so often denying they happen or just saying that they are not following the 'real teachings'.

And it would also be really nice if the west noticed such statements when they do occur and publicize them instead of ignoring them. Some people in the west will still say things like "Where are the imams who condemn 9/11?" Indeed there were many many that did. (More would be nice though.) And there was even a candle-light vigil in Tehran . . . the capital of Iran that is endlessly in the headlines as a possible site of another war. :-/

Edit: Your point actually goes well with how I think the war on terror should have been fought. We should have looked at Islam like a bell curve with Osama at one end and the very few 'liberal' muslims at the other end with most muslims falling in the middle between them. We sould have then picked some dividing line on the Osama side of the bell curve and said "If you fall on the Osama side of this line, then we will capture or kill you since you support killing & capturing of us." And then we should have just gone after those extremists. The Iraq war was a counter-productive disaster that destroyed a secular (albeit terrible dictatorship) country that wasn't an Islamist threat. Iraq only strengthened the arguments of Islamists and freed long-repressed Islamists within Iraq. Ugh.

 

[Mandark]

It would be really nice if many more Muslims stepped forward and condemned criminal acts committed in the name of Islam instead of so often denying they happen or just saying that they are not following the 'real teachings'.

No no no no no no no no no no no.

 

[castle007]

Excellent. Now that you've rediscovered it, I'll eagerly await your reply.

you are talking about this post right?? :

You are out of your mind. Nice work ignoring every substantive element of my post. I suppose the idea of the women in question actually being able to obtain high quality jobs and provide for their children might as well be from another planet.
The views you're expressing could not be more misogynist.

so, you want the woman to raise the kids by herself and then maybe marry someone else and leave the real dad off the hook??? How is that justice? That is not being independent, that is injustice. Leaving a woman alone working hard trying to get an education while the biological dad doesn't do anything about the baby and the mother hopes that the government gives her help. You call that being independent?

Not everyone has the opportunity to be born rich and able to get an education. Do you have any ideas how many single mothers there are on welfare?? They are living from check to check. They can't get any education because they can't afford it. The biological father of the baby either left her, died or stayed with his other wife and the poor woman can't prove that he is the father.

How is that independence??

 

[Guileless]

You forgot to demand I join the army before posting anymore. Keep up the good work promoting free speech!

 

[Kapsama]

This differs sharply from the Bible that is viewed as allegorical, historical, prophet interpretation, etc. by most Christians.

Completely unsupported claim especially in the case of America.

 

[Mandark]

Free speech doesn't protect you from ridicule. In fact, the opposite.

 

[speculawyer]

These days? It's hard to find a Christian in the developed world who seriously wants to revoke women's suffrage, and that's not because a prophet brought new revelations.

They exist . . . but they can never get anywhere close to 50% of the vote on anything.

 

[castle007]

They exist . . . but they can never get anywhere close to 50% of the vote on anything.

I know a student at UNC Chapel Hill and he believes women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[Xeke]

you are talking about this post right?? :



so, you want the woman to raise the kids by herself and then maybe marry someone else and leave the real dad off the hook??? How is that justice? That is not being independent, that is injustice. Leaving a woman alone working hard trying to get an education while the biological dad doesn't do anything about the baby and the mother hopes that the government gives her help. You call that being independent.

Not everyone has the opportunity to be born rich and able to get an education. Do you have any ideas how many single mothers there are on welfare?? They are living from check to check. They can't get any education because they can't afford it. The biological father of the baby either left her, died or stayed with his other wife and the poor woman can't prove that he is the father.

How is that independence??

How the fuck can you support polygamy and say gays choose to be gay in the same week.

 

[castle007]

How the fuck can you support polygamy and say gays choose to be gay in the same week.

two completely unrelated subjects. :lol

I don't see the problem. I am honestly baffled of how the west views ploygamy.

 

[Cooter]

Two civilizations are on a crash course and neither will compromise much. This century should be entertaining.

 

[Azih]

You obviously didn't read the article very carefully. Hassan Butt was a fundamentalist Muslim, he isn't anymore.

And fundamentalist rhetoric is obsessed with Israel, Western forces in Islamic countires and this is in fact their main recruiting tools. That this dude didn't even mention those as driving forces is weird.

CAIR's opposition to the Secular Islam Summit is well documented, as is the fact that its co-founder said that the Qur'an should replace the constitution as the highest authority in America.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53303

And none of that justifies the 'Islamist public relations firm' slur.

 

[Mandark]

speculawyer's 137 deserves more than a series of No's.

Short version of why it bugs me: It treats collective judgment and collective punishment as legitimate, and assumes that one culture (Muslim) depends on being in the good graces of another (mostly descended from Christian). Bad echoes of someone being considered a "credit to their race".

Not to accuse speculawyer of any particular bad sentiments, but the underlying assumptions of that post are really, really problematic.

 

[Matt]

two completely unrelated subjects. :lol

I don't see the problem. I am honestly baffled of how the west views ploygamy.

This is actually an honest question, in polygamy as practiced by Muslims, does the first wife have any say in whether or not her husband takes on another wife? Cause I'm guessing no, and therefore that's IS a problem.

 

[Azih]

Just saying that eco-terrorists exist isn't enough. You have to have some evidence that environmentalism influences people to kill.

Actually I was showing that any idealogy taken to an extreme leads to violence.