Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
Can somebody give me a TLDR from the op?

Women wanting to visit the Australian parliament will be put in a aquarium. No shark or even water will be added for now, but maybe in the future…

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And if they were really that worried all they'd need is a female officer or two to check their ID in a more private room (and, IIRC, this was already done in some cases).

So, basically you support institutionalizing gender discrimination in order to respect those so-called “religious rights”?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.

Reference please? I would love to check this for myself, and I am always interested in learning more about the Quran. I did read it entirely a long time ago, but I do not remember that.

Well I am not an expert on the Koran at all, I was just recalling bits that I've read (I think mostly related to halal). However, Wikipedia has a page dedicated to Islam and animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_animals which you might find useful. One quote I like from there, which is attributed to the prophet Muhammad:

"There is no man who kills even a sparrow or anything smaller, without its deserving it, but God will question him about it on the judgment day ... Whoever is kind to the creatures of God is kind to himself."

This does not appear to be from the Koran, but from another text.

 Smacks wrote:
Well I am not an expert on the Koran at all, I was just recalling bits that I've read (I think mostly related to halal).

You do not need to be an expert, but if you make an assertion on the Quran, please be prepared to back it up with precise verses references. Else you might as well not say anything.

 Smacks wrote:
One quote I like from there, which is attributed to the prophet Muhammad:

"There is no man who kills even a sparrow or anything smaller, without its deserving it, but God will question him about it on the judgment day ... Whoever is kind to the creatures of God is kind to himself."

This does not appear to be from the Koran, but from another text.

Hadith are a completely different can of worm. Let us stick to the Quran, it is much more simpler and straightforward. No question of authenticity, level of trustfulness, all different between each religious communities and school of thought…

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, "multiculturalism" itself is a cultural notion. More specifically, it is an ideological and political notion. I think we should keep its actual historical origin in mind: the mutliculturalism we have in the US is an import from 1970s Canada. Specifically, it was a policy of Trudeau to undermine Quebecois separatists. In the US, multiculturalism has remained merely political in contrast to becoming actual policy. It has been criticized as a tool to justify status quo racism by cover up/misdirection. To be blunt, it has been variously employed in the US as a salve for white guilt and gasoline for the fire of righteous anger whites routinely demonstrate on behalf of non-whites. Whether it has made our society more just or free or inclusive to the extent it has been employed is a matter of controversy.

keep your white guilt where it belongs, Muslims are Caucasian. FFS
Yeah, you can keep your multiculturalism in the US reasoning, as far as the rest of the world it does not apply. In Australia we DO have freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution. Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.It's showing a lack of understanding to talk of women in Islam without understanding their social role.

Islam is welcome in western society,(most muslims i have met are way more moral than christians i have met)- i've read most of the koran- its a good book on how to live. ffs i have worked with 3 guys now and never knew they were islamic untill (fearfully) they told me, i think that says much more about our society than theirs. They were all turkish and quite secular, but the fact they did not feel comfortable revealing it to me speaks volumes.
assimilation happens no matter what policies a government has in place however if a govt does encourage assimilation it will usually happen faster than the 3 generations usually needed.

people are people, people move to a country to make money. that is it.

Not to nit-pick, but not all Muslims are Caucasian (there are loads and loads of sub-Saharan African and Southeast Asian Muslims). Islam is a religion and not an ethnicity.

But other than that, good post.

thanks, technically the majority of Muslims outside Asia are Caucasian. i missed the sub saharan reference , it makes sense.

 Bullockist wrote:
Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.

What the hell are you talking about? Like, seriously?

 Bullockist wrote:
i've read most of the koran- its a good book on how to live.

I have read all of it, and no, it is not. Do you want to quote specific part of it that are terrible on how to live?

 Bullockist wrote:
ffs i have worked with 3 guys now and never knew they were islamic untill (fearfully) they told me, i think that says much more about our society than theirs. They were all turkish and quite secular, but the fact they did not feel comfortable revealing it to me speaks volumes.

It does. Not on the way you believe it does, but it does speak volumes about how good people are embarrassed to be Muslims.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

It does. Not on the way you believe it does, but it does speak volumes about how good people are embarrassed to be Muslims.

Yes, I'm sure that's it, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they're afraid non-Muslims are going to discriminate against them for being Muslim.


Are you for fething real?

 RatBot wrote:
Are you for fething real?

I am for “fething real”. I also happen to have actually met “fething real” persons that were embarrassed to acknowledge they were Muslim… in Iran. Yep. Sure they were really afraid of being discriminated against .

 Bullockist wrote:
Muslims are Caucasian. FFS

0/10

 Bullockist wrote:
Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.It's showing a lack of understanding to talk of women in Islam without understanding their social role.

That is the worst apology for misogyny that I have ever heard/read.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
Are you for fething real?

I am for “fething real”. I also happen to have actually met “fething real” persons that were embarrassed to acknowledge they were Muslim… in Iran. Yep. Sure they were really afraid of being discriminated against .

It's safe to assume Bullockist meant in Australia, which, as you may be aware, has a slightly different socio-political situation than Iran. Context matters.

If you're a minority, admitting to belonging to a minority can elicit reactions of fear, anger, etc., ergo, it is likely that hesitance to admit to being Muslim in a non-Muslim, culturally Western country would likely stem from apprehension over potential persecution.


In Iran, though, for sure it would be over embarrassment over the Iranian government and their interpretation of Islam, but likely not embarrassment at being Muslim themselves. My Persian teacher was a very devout Muslim, and he once went on a little tirade about how he hates the current Iranian government (I quote "They're not Muslims. They're not Persians. They're not even Arabs!" by which he meant they don't behave in an Islamic or traditionally Persian way.

in islamic society traditionally women have been the agents of change, mostly due to the inabilty of non related men to touch them to "move them along" . look pre 1900 and you will see it. Do you not think that islamic society can change? like , seriously. They have changed more than us previously with a far superior effect.

In regard to terrrible on how to live? The Koran is all about submitting to god instead of choosing your own way. whether that be introspective or in guidance it's all ok by the koran. The Koran basically says "don't be a pride full witch because god doesn't like it" i think that's a law that any one can live by. A good book to read is the book on mohammed by Karen Armstrong - she gives a politico-socio commentary of life at that time, and whilst she is a nun, she isn't scared.

I'm not even going to answer point 3 ,point 3 is fethed and the fact you blame it on them speaks volumes








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Muslims are Caucasian. FFS

0/10

 Bullockist wrote:
Women in Islamic societies have traditionally had the role of protesters therebye being the agents of change.It's showing a lack of understanding to talk of women in Islam without understanding their social role.

That is the worst apology for misogyny that I have ever heard/read.

If you want to judge someone by the colour of their skin and nothing else.......

I learned this in year 7 science...yeah arabs are caucasian......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

they may be browner...but they are the same, so face palm yourself.

In regard to women in islam, i'm not talking mysogyny, i'm talking the women who took to the streets against opressive regimes ( mostly because they couldn't be independently touched by males ) - and that's what made them effective as a protest force. women in islam could own property and have rights decades before western europe

HERES THE THING- cultures are different, yours is not necessarily right or the best.or similar to another or have a base point you can judge off.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
it does speak volumes about how good people are embarrassed to be Muslims

 Bullockist wrote:
the fact you blame it on them speaks volumes

He's not blaming anything on them. He's saying that the awful behavior of co-religionists is embarrassing.

I was embarrassed when all those allegations of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church came out and am still embarrassed by it. Whenever my religion comes up, someone inevitably makes a joke about pedophile priests. Whether I like or not, priests are now seen as suspect. Should I blame that on "our society" or do you think the real reason might be because many priests betrayed the trust of the people and did awful things to kids? Should I just say, well that was just those priests or should maybe I try to think about what could be wrong with the Church itself that this happened so many times in so many places?

Why would it be any different for Islam?

 Bullockist wrote:
If you want to judge someone by the colour of their skin and nothing else.......

Is this supposed to be an argument or just a misguided insult?

 Bullockist wrote:
cultures are different, yours is not necessarily right or the best

A culture that oppresses women for being women less/not at all is superior as far as I am concerned.

lot of people in this thread seem to be doing that. Islam is a Huge religion with actually more sects than protestantism, to look on it as a monolith is ...well wrong and that is what I am trying to dissuade.

judging a culture by your own cultural ideals is problematic at best. How about we just look at a culture instead of judging it like we did in the 18-19-00's .

American i8ndians, aboriginals, eskimos, all had cultures we viewed as wrong. perhaps it's time to stop judging gak and seek to understand it...perhaps then people will be less scared.

It's why i read the koran as well as looking up history on it. I don't need to ride the hysteria wave because I actually get it.

I regard to the insult yes it is, arabs are caucasians. that is fact. if you judge them different to yourself youyu are judging them by the literal colour of their skins.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You do not need to be an expert, but if you make an assertion on the Quran, please be prepared to back it up with precise verses references. Else you might as well not say anything.

Well that's irksome nonsense. I was just being modest/polite because I thought you were interested, but now I feel you're just being contradictory. I looked at the wiki page before posting, The page flat out says 'The Quran strongly enjoins Muslims to treat animals with compassion and not to abuse them' , whether or not that is true is going to be mostly down to interpretation. Precise verses mean little. Clearly there are some Muslims who interpret the Quran that way, and that's good enough for me and the point I wanted to make.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hadith are a completely different can of worm. Let us stick to the Quran...

No, lets not. I explicitly stated the Quran and Islam, and I stated it that way for a reason. I don't want to 'omit' huge swathes of material just because it doesn't fit with the picture of barbarism and cruelty that some people want to project

smacks, islam s a beautiful religion with many less contradictions than christianity.ALL religion is due to interpretation.....that is the main problem with religion.

Islam is all about not being full of pride and submitting yourself to the will of god.when it comes to religion wiki does not mean gak.

 Bullockist wrote:
in islamic society traditionally women have been the agents of change, mostly due to the inabilty of non related men to touch them to "move them along" . look pre 1900 and you will see it.

Can you give a semblance of an example that I could look for?

 Bullockist wrote:
Do you not think that islamic society can change? like , seriously.

Lately, globally, the change were more for the worst than for the best.

 Bullockist wrote:
In regard to terrrible on how to live?

Inheritance rules, men/women relations, judicial system, slavery, for instance.

 Bullockist wrote:
The Koran basically says "don't be a pride full witch because god doesn't like it" i think that's a law that any one can live by.

You have not read it, right? You have just read on it, and small excerpt, but never the whole thing.

 Bullockist wrote:
I'm not even going to answer point 3 ,point 3 is fethed and the fact you blame it on them speaks volumes

I do not blame them. I understand them. I would feel the same.

 Bullockist wrote:
If you want to judge someone by the colour of their skin and nothing else.......

I learned this in year 7 science...yeah arabs are caucasian......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

He was giving you 0 because you were not able to distinguish race and religion, which is pretty idiotic.

 Bullockist wrote:
In regard to women in islam, i'm not talking mysogyny, i'm talking the women who took to the streets against opressive regimes ( mostly because they couldn't be independently touched by males ) - and that's what made them effective as a protest force.

And which regimes did those protested. Because I would like to learn about that regime that asked his troops not to touch female protesters. Please, name it.

 Bullockist wrote:
women in islam could own property and have rights decades before western europe

Actually, if we are to be honest, Khadija was rich and powerful before Islam was even conceived into Muhammad's brain. The situation of women before Islam in the Arabic peninsula varied greatly. I would advise you to give this video a listen:


Every thing here is interesting, but you can skip to 6:47 to learn more about this.

 Bullockist wrote:
HERES THE THING- cultures are different, yours is not necessarily right or the best.or similar to another or have a base point you can judge off.

Here is the thing: Islam is not a culture, and criticizing the bad aspects of your own and other cultures while praising the good aspects in your or foreign cultures is just the right thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RatBot wrote:
It's safe to assume Bullockist meant in Australia, which, as you may be aware, has a slightly different socio-political situation than Iran. Context matters.

So? Does that means they are less likely to be ashamed of being Muslim because they feel Muslims have been giving a terrible image of themselves?

 RatBot wrote:
In Iran, though, for sure it would be over embarrassment over the Iranian government and their interpretation of Islam, but likely not embarrassment at being Muslim themselves.

Did you met them, or what? Because I did. And it was not about their government.

 Bullockist wrote:
when it comes to religion wiki does not mean gak.

There are precise quotes on the page from the Quran, and some from other works, which support the idea of compassion towards animals. If you doubt their veracity then it should be fairly easy to check them for yourself. If you disagree with the interpretation, that would be beside the point.

 Bullockist wrote:
Islam is a Huge religion with actually more sects than protestantism, to look on it as a monolith is ...well wrong and that is what I am trying to dissuade.

 Bullockist wrote:
Islam is all about not being full of pride and submitting yourself to the will of god.

Yay! Contradiction is cool!


Do you know what basically defines Islam? The Quran is the literal word of God, unaltered, and Muhammad is the last prophet. Well, the Ahmadis do have someone who came later who is kind of a prophet, but that is why so many other Muslims do not consider Muslims, and why they are treated so badly.

 Smacks wrote:
I don't want to 'omit' huge swathes of material just because it doesn't fit with the picture of barbarism and cruelty that some people want to project

The hadith contains actually way, way more material to make the Muslims/Muhammad look barbaric and cruel than the Quran. By a long shot. That is not the problem. The problem here is related to Bullockist first quote: what every Muslim agrees on is the Quran. Hadiths will be considered canon by some Muslim and not by other, and the way tor rate their authenticity is very complex. Have you ever actually interested yourself in learning about them, and the principle of chains of transmissions, and all that? No? Then please refrain from making bold assumptions on subjects you do not master.

Trusting some sentence on Wikipedia that is explicitly marked as unsourced about the Quran on face value is delusional .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
There are precise quotes on the page from the Quran, and some from other works, which support the idea of compassion towards animals.

There is none from the Quran, and two hadith (do you even know what a hadith is? I doubt it) about not killing sparrows or being kind to God's creature. Now there are also a bunch of hadith on how you should kill dogs, and how they are impure. The end results is this. But keep your rose-tinted glasses.

 Smacks wrote:
If you doubt their veracity then it should be fairly easy to check them for yourself.

Checking the veracity of some quote of the Quran is damn easy. You would have to know what a hadith is to understand why it is not so easy with them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Islam is a Huge religion with actually more sects than protestantism, to look on it as a monolith is ...well wrong and that is what I am trying to dissuade.

 Bullockist wrote:
Islam is all about not being full of pride and submitting yourself to the will of god.

Yay! Contradiction is cool!


Do you know what basically defines Islam? The Quran is the literal word of God, unaltered, and Muhammad is the last prophet. Well, the Ahmadis do have someone who came later who is kind of a prophet, but that is why so many other Muslims do not consider Muslims, and why they are treated so badly.

 Smacks wrote:
I don't want to 'omit' huge swathes of material just because it doesn't fit with the picture of barbarism and cruelty that some people want to project

The hadith contains actually way, way more material to make the Muslims/Muhammad look barbaric and cruel than the Quran. By a long shot. That is not the problem. The problem here is related to Bullockist first quote: what every Muslim agrees on is the Quran. Hadiths will be considered canon by some Muslim and not by other, and the way tor rate their authenticity is very complex. Have you ever actually interested yourself in learning about them, and the principle of chains of transmissions, and all that? No? Then please refrain from making bold assumptions on subjects you do not master.

Trusting some sentence on Wikipedia that is explicitly marked as unsourced about the Quran on face value is delusional .

I'll definitely agree with you on that hybrid, religion is a personal experience, i myslelf as i discovered on dakka am believer in onimism. belief is \good and necessary to the human soul. (weird coz i came from a very secular family but believe in the necessary value of faith for all hu8mans )
for me the most important part of belief is the valuing of humans around you and islam most definitely does that.it creates a community , i don't see that as a negative...however when people manipulate the religious narrative is when we get the problems.

i was going to respond to your multiquote argument when i realised....they are fething pointless, and if you cannot communicate your view, you do multiquote arguments.... it's the home of the fundamentalist. look at all dakka mutiquote arguments

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Trusting some sentence on Wikipedia that is explicitly marked as unsourced about the Quran on face value is delusional .

No it isn't. The statement is supported by the quotes from which are on the same page, and the fact the someone has taken the time to write that page is proof enough that some people do interpret Islam that way. I do not need to have studied 'chains of transmissions' to make the 'assumption' that some Muslims do treat animals with compassion. It's really not that difficult a point.

If by belief, you mean blind belief in supernatural things, I wholeheartedly disagree. Especially when those beliefs comes with an extremely conservative baggage attached.
The problem is not that much people manipulating the religious narrative, the problem is the religious narrative. By hey, let us pretend we know what a religion is about without learning anything about it, based on wishful thinking. What could possibly go wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
I do not need to have studied 'chains of transmissions' to make the 'assumption' that some Muslims do treat animals with compassion.

You do not need anything for such an asinine statement. In other interesting news, some Muslim like the color yellow, some much Muslims are bald, and some Muslim dance better than some other Muslim. What does this tell us about Islam?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If by belief, you mean blind belief in supernatural things, I wholeheartedly disagree. Especially when those beliefs comes with an extremely conservative baggage attached.
The problem is not that much people manipulating the religious narrative, the problem is the religious narrative. By hey, let us pretend we know what a religion is about without learning anything about it, based on wishful thinking. What could possibly go wrong?

I actually mean the blind belief in doing better by the people around you.'
Ominism is awesome.

Take the good from a religion

E.G- i read the 4 gospel;s but nothing else - (no fething paul or peter coz thats where the hate comes in)
I read the koran
i tried the bagavad gita but it was too convoluted.

I look to help people around me through a personal circumspection of those around me. I am the judge who thinks about others and helps them. I am not the judge who thinks himself better than others.
Scripture is an interesting l view.

jesus was way cool, and he loved prostitutes.

 Bullockist wrote:
I actually mean the blind belief in doing better by the people around you.'

Then forgot religion, read about moral and ethic. Because religion is that… with added nonsense that will only lead to bad things. What you describe is basically you taking only the moral and ethics or religion and dismissing all the rest, and forgetting about all non-religious work on morals and ethic.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You do not need anything for such an asinine statement.

Well that's what I thought, but then you badgered me about it for half a page being hard of understanding.

What does this tell us about Islam?

It tells us that not all Muslims are cruel to animals and women. Which leads us to ask why some are? This is my original point, blaming Islam is a non-sequitur. It is down to the individual and their interpretation. Bastards would be bastards in any religion.

But keep your rose-tinted glasses.

I don't have rose-tinted glasses, I am aware that some people do evil things. My point is that many aren't evil, and choose to take good things from their religion.

There is none from the Quran.

Yes there is, Quran 6:38, it's easy to find under the heading 'Qur'an'

 Smacks wrote:
It tells us that not all Muslims are cruel to animals and women.

Damn obvious. Neither were nazis, or Ku Klux Klan members, for reference .

 Smacks wrote:
This is my original point, blaming Islam is a non-sequitur. It is down to the individual and their interpretation. Bastards would be bastards in any religion.

Your original point I was answering to:
“I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.”
It seems that was false.

 Smacks wrote:
My point is that many aren't evil, and choose to take good things from their religion.

This tells us things about people. Not about their religion. Good search things on the religion, and you will see that, unlike the people, it is pretty bad.

 Smacks wrote:
Yes there is, Quran 6:38, it's easy to find under the heading 'Qur'an'

This quote says nothing about being compassionate to animals, and the Wikipedia article does not pretend it says anything about that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
“I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.”
It seems that was false.

Why is it false? Are you saying there is nothing in the whole Quran that teaches goodness and compassion? Or that in every case that goodness and compassion must categorically not be directed toward animals?

I find that absurd.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This quote says nothing about being compassionate to animals, and the Wikipedia article does not pretend it says anything about that.

Well that would depend on how you wish to interpret the quote, and how you wish to interpret the Wikipedia article.

The writer clearly thinks the Quran enjoins Muslims to be compassionate to animals, as he wrote it in the paragraph immediately preceding the quote. If that isn't good enough for you then perhaps we should move on, as this is slightly off topic anyway.

Okay, if you are not discussing in good faith, there is no point going further, I guess. Just think about this: if when wondering whether you should let your pet to someone when going on vacation, what you consider to make your choice is what is written in their holy book, you are doing it wrong, so very wrong. I would not.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And if they were really that worried all they'd need is a female officer or two to check their ID in a more private room (and, IIRC, this was already done in some cases).

So, basically you support institutionalizing gender discrimination in order to respect those so-called “religious rights”?

Not really, no. But if they won't take off for cultural reasons (i.e. The male members in their family) it's better to check their ID that way than stick them behind the glass. I'd rather none of this and those women not having to wear a burka/niqab, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon (though I wouldn't put it past this government to outright ban them in public)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if the point of the Melting Pot is to pull the best of all cultures...

What may I ask does Islamic culture offer to the melting pot? Not much honestly. I really can't think of anything.

Some really nice architecture, and of course saffron rice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Well, it's not my fault you blew up all the nice parts and bribed the crazy parts.

What exactly did I blow up?

Before we answer that, we have to ask, have you ever had really good Mexican food? If so then you've definitely blown up something...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Coffee bean...they gave us the coffee bean

Incorrect. That was my Latin brothers and sisters.

Indeed it can be argued that, with chocolate, coffee, tomatoes, tobacco, and cocaine, Latin America is both the birthplace and ending of human society.

Aztecs, bringers of civilization to the world since 1540.