Islamic Positive Thread

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 25/07/2020 at 15:41, SasaS said:

"Although the motivation for wearing the face covering is different, the outcome is the same: a nation now being mandated to wear the same garment that a minority (it is not known exactly how many women wear the niqab, although there have been some reports statistics have been inflated) has historically been scrutinised, and mocked, for choosing to adopt."
 

Here's the quote you picked out. You never explained what you find so objectionable about this paragraph  (which is, basically, just a collection of facts).

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Here's the quote you picked out. You never explained what you find so objectionable about this paragraph  (which is, basically, just a collection of facts).

I did explain it in my other posts, it glosses over the flaw in the main point, which is a key here, "although the motivation is different" which makes the main premise of the article ridiculous. Plus, they are not "mandated to wear the same garment". The garment in question has a religious and ideological meaning, the mask is there to protect you and others from the spread of infection. The reason why they were "historically scrutinised, and mocked" is not (just) because they have something on their face, it is because of a variety of reasons, some of which i Already listed elsewhere. None of these reasons, except up to a point covering your mouth and nose  in public while interacting with others, will fundamentally change with the temporary adoption of face masks. 

 

It would be like saying in an article about a power outage or a temporary energy crisis that people who "historically scrutinised, and mocked" the Amish or conservative Mennonites for rejection of all modern technology will now be mandated to act the same. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Firstly, I'm not aware of any Amish being routinely demonised by national newspapers and leading politicians. 

 

Secondly, the main point of the article - other than getting a chance to read the views of women who choose to wear a veil, rather than just make assumptions about what's going on in their heads - is that the usual "not racist, but..." reasons for opposing face coverings  (because you can't tell who is a criminal; it stops people from interacting properly; etc) fall away when everyone is wearing one.  There's really nothing at all "ridiculous" about that argument. 

 

After Covid, we should be able to have more honest and better informed conversations about the reasons why some people call for face coverings to be banned. I think honesty and information are good things. 

[SasaS]

55 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Firstly, I'm not aware of any Amish being routinely demonised by national newspapers and leading politicians. 

 

Secondly, the main point of the article - other than getting a chance to read the views of women who choose to wear a veil, rather than just make assumptions about what's going on in their heads - is that the usual "not racist, but..." reasons for opposing face coverings  (because you can't tell who is a criminal; it stops people from interacting properly; etc) fall away when everyone is wearing one.  There's really nothing at all "ridiculous" about that argument. 

 

After Covid, we should be able to have more honest and better informed conversations about the reasons why some people call for face coverings to be banned. I think honesty and information are good things. 

Well, I am not privy to how much demonisation of (I guess) full veil Muslim wearers is going on by the leading politicians and national newspapers and how routine it is.

Covering your face in public is frowned upon or rejected in most if not all Western cultures, you don't need a practical reason for it, "Westerners" are uncomfortable when dealing with people hiding their face. They are not "I am not racist but" reasons, they are cultural reasons, you are allowed to reject something which clashes with values of your culture.

 

Should it be banned in public, I don't know. Personally, I'm leaning towards the French approach of radical secularism, separation of religion, state and public sphere (I'd stop short of chasing women in burkinis away from the beaches by the police though) but I am at the same time not unaware of the advantages of the British pragmatically liberal approach of trying to solve issues by accommodating various religious prescriptive practices.

Out of curiosity, why do you think women choose to wear a full veil? What is the significance of it for you and how does it relate to women's rights and general view of society of the wearers? Do you have any expectations (would you detect any prejudices on your part) with respect to ideas you might hear from them?

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

https://mobile.twitter.com/miqdaad/status/1338801400852131841

 

The Home Office have released their report on Child Sexual Exploitation. While it acknowledges that there are some high profile cases of CSE involving gangs of Pakistani men, it concludes that links between ethnicity and this form of offending” could not be proven and that “Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) offenders are most commonly white."

 

It also says that certain previous "studies" may have misused data and there was a potential for bias and inaccuracies - (Quilliam study?). 

 

I've seen an important point raised - the government tried to prevent publication of this report, why if the issue of CSE caused much racism and bigotry towards Muslims and this report provides a more accurate picture? 

 

[SasaS]

3 hours ago, Nelly-Torres said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/miqdaad/status/1338801400852131841

 

The Home Office have released their report on Child Sexual Exploitation. While it acknowledges that there are some high profile cases of CSE involving gangs of Pakistani men, it concludes that links between ethnicity and this form of offending” could not be proven and that “Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) offenders are most commonly white."

 

It also says that certain previous "studies" may have misused data and there was a potential for bias and inaccuracies - (Quilliam study?). 

 

I've seen an important point raised - the government tried to prevent publication of this report, why if the issue of CSE caused much racism and bigotry towards Muslims and this report provides a more accurate picture? 

 

From what I read about it in the Independent article, they complained that data generally isn't reliable, so all conclusions may be tentative. And I think it says there is overrepresentation of minorities among the perpetrators in the data they had, who are overall most commonly white (as is, I guess the general population). It's hardly a document proving Pakistani and similar grooming gangs don't / didn't exist (so the government tried to suppress it in order to perpetuate their invention), it says the members are often linked by ethnicity, which overall isn't a factor in deciding to go into the business of grooming young girls and children for sexual pleasure.

[Strontium]

[TheHowieLama]

On 03/09/2016 at 05:32, dennis tooth said:

 

 

The former imam of Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mosque in Mecca corroborates this: “We have the same beliefs as ISIS (IS). We share their ideology, but we express it in a more refined way.”

In fact, when IS was looking for textbooks for its schools in Raqqa, it printed copies of official Saudi textbooks found online.

As such, Muslims in Asia who have been Wahhabized are naturally drawn to IS, similar to Muslims in Europe, Kosovo and elsewhere who have allowed Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas to take root. Molenbeek, the epicenter of ISIS terrorism in Belgium, is one such example.

Wahhabi-inspired extremism is also changing the character of Asian states with large Muslim population. As President Barack Obama explained to Malcolm Turnbull during an APEC summit, Saudi-funded Wahhabism has changed Indonesia from a relaxed, syncretistic Islam to a fundamentalist, unforgiving interpretation that is foreign and more Arab in orientation than it was when he lived there as a child. Indonesia is now experiencing a surge in al-Qaeda and IS-related terrorist attacks.

asian-coalition/

 

No Indonesia thread?!

 

 

Big day in Indonesia - also able to bump a post by the inimitable Dennis Truth.

 

Gruniad's take:

 

Indonesia election: minister dogged by rights abuse claims ‘takes early lead’

Unofficial polling based on sample counts shows Prabowo Subianto taking 59% of vote in world’s largest Muslim-majority nation

 

This year’s election has been marked by concerns that democratic processes have been undermined in the run-up to the vote. Widodo, also known as Jokowi, has reached the end of his term limit after a decade in power and has been accused of manoeuvring to boost Prabowo’s campaign as part of efforts to form a dynasty and protect his legacy.

Widodo has not explicitly endorsed any of the three candidates, but his son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, is running as a vice-presidential candidate in tandem with the defence minister. This partnership was only possible after a court, headed by Widodo’s brother-in-law, tweaked the eligibility criteria for candidates, outraging many people.

 

Prabowo, a former son-in-law of Suharto, is strongly opposed by human rights activists, who point to allegations relating to his time in the military. A longtime commander in the Kopassus special forces, he was dishonourably discharged in 1998 after Kopassus soldiers kidnapped and tortured opponents of Suharto, his then-father-in-law.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/minister-linked-to-indonesias-former-dictatorship-ahead-in-pre-election-polls