[Closed] Muslim Folks: help me defeat this xenophobic nonsense

Do we have a list of acceptable "good reasons"*?

Feel free to draw one up. I was suggesting a degree of common-sense and judgement may be employed by the airport security folk.

Someone wearing a niqab: probably religious reasons.

Someone wearing a facemask: probably cultural and hygiene reasons.

Someone wearing a balaclava: probably worth a little chat to at the very least.

I don't think that is unreasonable in the slightest. The balaclava is out of place. Aren't security personnel are [i]supposed[/i] to look for stuff that is out of place as part of their job?

Criticism of religion eg "niqabs are a tool of power in the oppression of women" is not xenophobic or islamophobic

Rather depends on how it is stated I think.
Stated simply like that then I'd agree.

Stated as in the OP, with a picture strongly implying an equivalence with terrorists/robbers and using divisive phrases like [i]"Another example of one law for [b]them[/b] and another law for [b]us[/b]"[/i] - then yes it certainly is xenophobic.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7431640.stm ]common sense you say?[/url]
😉

Whilst I agree with what you say, Tom, I fail to see how a state in which the monarch/head of state is also the head of the church can be viewed as secular.

Well... it's pretty easy to find victims of male genital mutilation who seem quite happy about it.

Holy shit, are you utterly intellectually bankrupt? Circumcision is a whole different physiological ball game carried out for very different reasons. Male circumcision is done 1) In a religious setting...because...well that's what you do and it's not overly harmful and 2) For health reasons.

FGM is carried out with the specific goal of not allowing women to enjoy sex. By making this kind of remark you highlight yourself as a traitor to western liberal values and out yourself as the worst kind of left wing apologist.

Whilst I agree with what you say, Tom, I fail to see how a state in which the monarch/head of state is also the head of the church can be viewed as secular.

Britains an odd one isn't it. We never quite go all the way, I mean we're bordering on being secularist....just like we're almost a proper democracy if it wasn't for the monarchy and the lords.

Whilst I agree with what you say, Tom, I fail to see how a state in which the monarch/head of state is also the head of the church can be viewed as secular.

QE2 does not impose on her subjects the requirement to adhere to any specific religious rulings.

Thats one of the reasons we are so lucky to live in such a green and pleasant land.

Male Circumcision and FGM both amount to genital mutilation for (in the majorty of cases) no medical reason they are comparable in that respect, particularly as the individual is rarely given the choice to agree or disagree to the procedure.

Whilst the pros and cons of male circumcision are debatable peyote, male circumcision doesn't effect sexual functioning to the same extent as female circumcision and does at least have some uses. For example lowering HIV transmission rates.

The point is, they really aren't carried out for the same reason.

1) In a religious setting...because...[b]well that's what you do[/b] and it's not overly harmful

Getting a bit OT tho

For example lowering HIV transmission rates.

I would agree with you donk but it's still not done for the same reason as FGM, FGM is about controlling womens sexuality. It's as simple as that.

how about they are both wrong, as simple as that?

You can argue about which is worse if you want but I take issue with "well that's what you do"

Circumcision is a whole different physiological ball game

Yes of course it is - but you're still talking about chopping a bit off the end off your genitalia for religious reasons.

So [u][b]in context[/b][/u], as an answer to surfers question ([i]"Would we find female genital mutilation acceptable if we found victims of it who did?"[/i]) I was making the point that we already accept men who chop bits off themselves and their baby sons because their God/scripture/culture told them to.

a traitor to western liberal values and out yourself as the worst kind of left wing apologist

I see you've read my CV then. 😆

So what reasons do you think circumcision of males is carried out for?

So you do not see any difference between that and type III FGM which is effectively the destruction of a womans entire genitalia. It involves removing the clitoris, the inner and outer labia and then the wound is closed leaving a small hole.

To understand the reasons why any operation like this is carried out you have to look at it's long term effects. So looking at the long term effects this has on women, why is it carried out? Male circumcision causes comparatively few long term problems, so why is this carried out? If you think there is equivalence between FGM and male circumcision in terms of physiological effect and the reasons as to why it is carried out then, as I have mentioned before, you are intellectually bankrupt.

British law is "common law" rather than "civil law", cheeky boy. Common law is based on rulings which are based on the customs of the country. In the case of the UK, the customs of a society based on the Christian ethics found in the New Testament. Whilst the influence of the protestant church on the judicial system is declining it should not be underestimated. Cases where the church view does not prevail make headlines.

This thread is worse than my car one.

how about they are both wrong, as simple as that?

In much the same way that shoplifting a Mars bar and stabbing someone in the face are both wrong, yes.

Speaking as a fairly vocal opponent against ritual male circumcision, comparing male to female "circumcision" is idiotic. They're both "wrong" but they're [i]vastly[/i] different degrees of wrong.

Precisely cougar, for those that really fail to get it... FGM is the equivalent to someone chopping your entire cock off.

They're both "wrong" but they're vastly different degrees of wrong.

So you do not see any difference between that and type III FGM

Of course I do, as indicated by the bit where I said [i]"Yes of course it is"[/i]

Really if you can't understand my point in the context that it was made and insist on trying to persuade me that I somehow support FGM then you are ineffectually bankrupt and a traitor to something-or-other. 😆

The whole male circumcision = mutilation is a bit odd IMO. The practice was relatively common in many societies and it's relatively recent the the health profession stopped discussing it as on option for male babies on perceived health rather than religious grounds in the UK. But I do not recall circumcised blokes being up-in-arms about it and have certainly never heard anyone screaming, "I've been mutilated"! Your either a Roundhead or a Cavalier - well that's all it was in my schooldays!

Really if you can't understand my point in the context

You were defending FGM in the context of western male circumcision. Which I find abhorrent - as I said, it's intellectually bankrupt. You would rather make a postmodern and culturally sensitive statement than actually deal with the real elephant in the room eg the oppression of women.

FGM is OK because they're foreign? Don't know any better? That kind of thing?

It's very hard to tell an extreme racist from an extreme not racist on here.

Roundhead or a Cavalier - well that's all it was in my schooldays!

But I do not recall circumcised blokes being up-in-arms about it and have certainly never heard anyone screaming, "I've been mutilated"!

*thinking about it I've no idea when or whether it was for medical reasons or just someone thought it was a good idea at the time.

just someone thought it was a good idea at the time.

You were defending FGM in the context of western male circumcision. Which I find abhorrent

No, no I wasn't, I think I've made that quite clear and no matter how many times you say that it won't be true!

But do feel free to keep finding my entirely fictitious defence abhorrent as it clearly amuses you for some reason.

You would rather make a postmodern and culturally sensitive statement than actually deal with the real elephant in the room eg the oppression of women.

Would I? Blimey. There was me thinking we were talking about the ability to freely choose what to wear on your head.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make the conversation about mutilating genitals. It's a bit worrying to be honest. Perhaps you should seek some kind of help?

So why respond to the comment about FGM in the way you did?

I find the big beards as offensive as the burka

[img] [/img]

It's one religious group being provocative towards another.

Your either a Roundhead or a Cavalier - well that's all it was in my schooldays!

You were defending FGM in the context of western male circumcision

Cougars example is correct they are both wrong though one is clearerly more wrong

So child genital mutilation is ok as log as you only do it a little bit, on males.

It's either wrong or it isn't - you can't have one rule for women and one rule for men. 😉

Broadly speaking cultural sensitivity towards Muslims is a good thing, as there are lots of bigoted arseholes out there who would love to make an issue of things like this for no good reason.

Ahem....due...I'm sure.. to the influence of multiculturalism...many of the posters on here remind me of this. "We are feminists. We are incredibly right-on. We read the Guardian. We disapprove of women's breasts getting a public airing and we strongly object to the fact that boards of directors are not 50% female. We will go absolutely ballistic if anyone dare understate how vile domestic violence is, or attempt in any way to justify it. We are feminists you see. Oh, but only when it comes to white women – did we mention that?"

So why respond to the comment about FGM in the way you did?

You mean [b]in the context[/b], as an answer to surfers question: [i]"Would we find female genital mutilation acceptable if we found victims of it who did?"[/i]

As I said:

I was making the point that we already accept men who chop bits off themselves and their baby sons because their God/scripture/culture told them to.

An observation. Simple as that.

I didn't state if I agreed or disagreed with circumcision. I [i]definitely[/i] didn't say that I agreed with FGM (and in case it's still not clear, I don't).

surfer made an interesting point, which does (did) have some relevance to my whole "veil != oppression" argument. And I commented on it. That is all.

We are feminists you see. Oh, but only when it comes to white women – did we mention that?"

I guess you didn't read the bit where I said that the burka/niqab makes me feel deeply uncomfortable and how I suspect it is used as a means of controlling women.

Or did it just not fit into your Richard Littlejohn-esque 'point'?

Google "shiite Iraq emo" or similar, Junkyard, for examples of where the absence of religious symbolic conformisme can lead. I've never said anything about being atheist on this forum.

As I said:

I was making the point that we already accept men who chop bits off themselves and their baby sons because their God/scripture/culture told them to.

But why make that point, when clearly FGM is a whole other ball game? Shouldn't you instead have voiced your opposition to FGM and ALSO your opposition to male circumcision?

Grum, that post wasn't really aimed at you really, I had read what you mentioned.

But why make that point, when clearly FGM is a whole other ball game?

Trying to claim there is no relation between the two is just as big a fallacy as claiming they are the same (which no-one here has actually done).

FGM is OK because they're foreign? Don't know any better? That kind of thing?

It's very hard to tell an extreme racist from an extreme not racist on here.

They're different you see. They come from funny countries where people are a bit strange and where women don't seem to mind a punch in the mouth quite as much our women would. We can't possibly be expected to stand up with women against violence and oppression. Violence is in their culture. People like Edukator and Surfer should stop being such racists and accept it.

Your straw man trolling is getting a bit tedious. No-one here has argued in favour of FGM, wife-beating, or even the wearing of the burqa/niqab. Saying the burqa shouldn't be banned is a completely different thing.

But why make that point, when clearly FGM is a whole other ball game?

Okay clearly I do need to spell this one out:

I made that point precisely [i]BECAUSE[/i] it is a whole other ball game!

surfer challenged my argument (that the veil is not oppression if a woman makes an open and free choice to wear it) by raising the notion of hypothetical women that make an open and free choice to suffer FGM.

Now I'm not sure if such women exist in reality (you'd think not but there's a lot of people in the world so who knows) - but to my mind that is a [i]"whole other ball game"[/i] compared to wearing a veil.

There are, however, a very large number of men who make an [i]"open and free choice"[/i] to cut off part of their genitals and those of their baby sons. A (very minor by comparison) form of "male genital mutilation".

That action seems to me to be more on a par with the wearing of a veil or niqab.

Yet when we see a circumcised man we don't immediately decide he has been oppressed and needs to be rescued.

With me?

Tom you are having an argument with people who also agree the FGM is incorrect and you are mocking them as well
How many times does someone have to say they dont agree with FGM before you can move on?

but only when it comes to white women

I think you should start a thread on this- I dont think anyone will say it is anything other than wrong but you may find someone to debate it with.
Edukator it was a largely flippant post which i assumed the santa would have shown

What you trying to do here look stupid by suggesting we are all racist?

More that you don't have the guts to condemn what is the real problem, the oppression of women instead of what some random cockwomble posted on facebook.

So people being bigots isn't a real problem, because some other bad stuff happens somewhere else? 'Whattaboutery' at its finest.

I must remember in future if I criticise/discuss anything I must simultaneously criticise [i]everything else that's wrong in the world.[/i]

So people being bigots isn't a real problem, because some other bad stuff happens somewhere else? 'Whattaboutery' at its finest.

It's a problem because the left and many feminists routinely condemn what happens in our own country and routinely fail to help liberate women from oppression in other countries because of "cultural sensitivities". In other words, condemnation of other cultures by the left clashes with their own multicultural instincts even if those cultures are utterly despicable. "It's in their culture" becomes an excuse for violent and repressive behavior.

urfer challenged my argument (that the veil is not oppression if a woman makes an open and free choice to wear it) by raising the notion of hypothetical women that make an open and free choice to suffer FGM.

Now I'm not sure if such women exist in reality (you'd think not but there's a lot of people in the world so who knows) - but to my mind that is a "whole other ball game" compared to wearing a veil.

There are, however, a very large number of men who make an "open and free choice" to cut off part of their genitals and those of their baby sons. A (very minor by comparison) form of "male genital mutilation".

That action seems to me to be more on a par with the wearing of a veil or niqab.

Yet when we see a circumcised man we don't immediately decide he has been oppressed and needs to be rescued.

When are women expected to start wearing the veil? I'd only agree with male circumcision if done after the age of consent.

I am not sure where you think anyone has said its ok to oppress women could you highlight this?

Y'know when you said the other day:

Tom_W1987:
I'm going to have a lot of fun with this thread when I get round to having the time to do so.

I didn't think that "fun" would involve trolling a quite interesting thread to death by essentially making up random points and accusing people of supporting FGM and the oppression of women 🙄

(not to mention "a traitor to western liberal values" and "the worst kind of left wing apologist" which I like so much I now have it as the About Me on facebook)

I am not sure where you think anyone has said its ok to oppress women could you highlight this?

I'll just go ahead and save myself time by quoting this. Note the bit relevant to the bikini argument.

It’s time for feminists (male or female) to bring some clarity to the debate about the burqa. The discussion at the moment is dominated by two arguments that defend the burqa from criticism, both coming mainly from female Muslim academics who work and publish from comfortable posts in prominent universities in the United States or Europe, who do not live under the constraints of Sharia law.

The first of these arguments treats the rise of voluntary veiling in the West as a rejection of colonial influence. On this view, visible or externalised changes in Muslim women’s dress codes are interpreted as concessions to the coloniser or as attempts to assimilate to “superior” Western influences. Accordingly the veil functions primarily as a symbol of resistance to the colonising narrative of the quintessential “otherness” and inferiority of Islam. To dispute this argument is to reinforce a form of colonial domination.

The second argument is that the veil is a form of resistance to the West’s sexualisation and objectification of women. The assertion is that Western societies, no less than Islamic ones, pressure women into adopting forms of dress (and undress) that are intended to gratify the “male gaze” and turn women into sex objects. From this perspective, it is a bit rich for Western women (who “voluntarily” wear high heels, short skirts and make-up) to criticise Muslim women for choosing to wear coverings that liberate them from this sexist gaze. To dispute this argument is to suggest, implicitly or not, that Western freedom trumps Muslim puritanism.

In response to the first argument, it should be obvious that to oppose aspects of Islam that have institutionalised a gender hierarchy (or even apartheid) and silenced voices of equity for women is not to (mis)represent Islam per se as “inferior”. Western liberals and feminists have had their own battle with Christian sexism, and it is far from over. To think that criticising Islamic sexism is the same as saying that Islam is inferior implies that any critique of Islamic sexism excludes similar critiques of Christian or Jewish sexism, and is tantamount to a blanket rejection of Islam. It also implies that such a critique cannot be shared by Muslims themselves, or always represents a refusal to acknowledge Islam’s complexity. All but the most obtuse Westerners recognise that there are divergent beliefs within Islam about the practice of veiling and that many Muslims have argued for its abolition. Moreover, many Western critics of Islamic sexism think that Western patriarchal religious traditions (or even secular ones) are equally if not more oppressive and irrational than Islamic ones. Critiquing one does not imply condoning the other.

The desire to engage with Islam in critical argument and debate is not a form of disrespect but of esteem. Westerners who refuse to do so patronise Muslims and hypocritically oppose sexist practices and beliefs only where it is “politically correct” or expedient to do so. Not only are they fair-weather feminists, they also treat Islam with a special sensitivity that they do not grant to other religions, not because they really respect Islamic sexism, but because they are reluctant to be labelled “Islamophobic” or “racist” (since any criticism of Islamic sexism is likely to be misrepresented as such). Concern for, rather than indifference to, the plight of women living under Sharia law in sexist theocracies is anything but racism. In expressing human solidarity with these women, Westerners are not assuming their culture’s superiority over Islamic culture, but feminism’s superiority over sexism – a view that is exclusive to no particular culture and is certainly not absent from Islamic culture and religion. Western indifference to the fate of women from other cultural or religious backgrounds is far more racist than demonstrating interest in their struggle for human rights. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. There are plenty of non-white people, men and women, who disagree with Islamic misogyny and homophobia.

The second argument, concerning sexist objection in Western cultures, rests on two problematic assumptions. First, that Western feminist critics of the burqa do not oppose the sexualisation of the female body within their own culture and so have no right to talk about it in other cultures. This is flatly contradicted by the fact that Western feminists maintain a trenchant critique of sexual objectification “at home”. This defensive argument also rests on the assumption that you cannot be a “good” feminist if you regard the (shame-free) sexualisation of the female body as potentially empowering for women as autonomous sexual subjects.

This argument trades on the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy, or, in plain English, the “and that goes double for you” fallacy. The issue is not whether Western women are guilty of a similar form of capitulation to that of Muslim women, but whether the pressure on females to acquiesce to “feminine” dress codes (in either culture) amounts to sexist oppression. And even if Western women are not fully liberated, this has no bearing on their ability to oppose forms of sexism in other cultures as well as in their own. But the assertion that women who are sexualised (or not ashamed of their own sexual desires) are “oppressed” needs to be addressed and discussed too. If female sexual agency is somehow shameful while male sexual agency isn’t, then this needs to be argued for with good reasons. Male and female feminists should welcome a discussion of these double standards.

In Islamic cultures the predominant theological reasoning for veiling seems to be that the female body is such a powerful sexual object that nothing short of covering it can prevent men from molesting it. According to Islamic Hadith (or poor interpretations of it) the female body is so powerfully sexual that it is literally irresistible to the opposite sex. I refer those who argue that this is a misinterpretation of Islam to this statement by Australia’s influential senior Islamic cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin as-Hilali:

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside. . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it. . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

Some Westernised Muslim academics deny the primary theological significance of the burqa and instead claim that it is imbued with powerful symbolism by Western colonialism. Westerners, they argue, see the burqa as a symbol of the irrevocable “otherness” of Muslims. Accordingly the “hysterical” reactions to veiling are just a Western contrivance (a pretext for racist attitudes towards Muslims following 9/11). Yet the discourse vacillates between this claim and the contradictory claim that the veil has no special significance other than what the wearer intends it to mean, and so is no more than a form of personal expression – a symbol of Muslim women’s freedom to “be themselves”.

Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 “honour” attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a “choice”.

The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.

The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.

Blimey if that briefly summarises your thoughts on the matter then no wonder you're confused. 😆