And then some people wonder, why we don’t want Muslims in Europe. It’s not because we hate them for their religion (for the saner part of Europeans it’s the same bullshit as Christianity), we just don’t want their bullshit and raping and executions and misogyny and all the other nice things here.
See, the thing about religion, that no religious person wants to come to terms with, is that no religion is a monolith. What does that mean?
Even if you claim to be a fully practicing Christian, Muslim, Hindi, etc, there will always be descrepencies. Furthermore, no one believes exactly the same thing as someone else. The nature and limitations of the human mind does not permit it, so thinking that if you identify with a religion that suddenly your behaviour is dictated by dogma is nonsensical.
This also means that Christians today are not responsible for the crusades or the persecution as well as eradication of European pagans, and that Islam is not to blame for what’s going on in Iran, largely because they were irrelevant to the actual goals, which was for certain people to gain more power and wealth.
The Iranian government doesn’t give a shit about the 5 columns of Islam. Not even close. But they absolutely love having morals police, executions and an authoritarian system that seeks to subjugate and suppress any kind of democratic movement.
The Iranian regime knows the Iranian people, and if they could they would turn liberal democracy in a heartbeat, and they are still mostly Muslim. That’s why the boot has to stomp and fists have to bang on doors, like all the time.
I think people easily forget how fucked you can be if the state has so much power they can effectively curb any dissent. At that point the religion used just becomes a nice decorative mask to put on, both to keep power, but also to keep using fear via “us vs them”. This is also signified by the secular Muslim empires.
Just a little bit of history is enough to dispell all fears about religion and to squarely focus on corruption and authoritarianism instead, which is where our focus should be - and that’s coming from an atheist.
I’m sure she was Muslim till the very last cause I’d sure as hell find religion when I’m facing the end. I’d like to think I’d remain rational but it’s daunting AF. But she’s not one of the bad ones is she?
If she still considered herself a Muslim, then what happened to her was perfectly in line with her claimed worldview. She can only ever see herself as a victim by rejecting her religion. She probably wasn't conscious of it but at this point I'd say she was already an ex-muslim, it's a matter of a therapist making her aware of it (assuming she'd be rescued in time!).
I would propose that perhaps linking religion with the religious leadership is linking Christianity with “the church”. And using that logic all Christians condone pedaphilia which isn’t the case. Islam the religion isn’t about cruelty anymore than Christianity is about white supremacy.
Yes, linking the religious leadership of the inherently strongly hierarchical belief systems with these belief systems sounds very reasonable to me.
I have an impression we agree on the reasoning, just not on the details and the conclusions from these details. At this point we're arguing the semantics of whether the religious people rejecting their religious leadership still belong to the same religion or rather they invented their own religion distinct from the original one. In other words, whether the leadership is an inherent part of their religion.
Do I have that right that apart from the above we're pretty much on the same page?
I think the trouble with the conclusion you’re drawing is that it enables one to make sweeping statements about Muslims on the whole while maintaining plausible deniability in claiming that they’re only referring to “the bad ones.” In other words, sort of an inverse “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Furthermore, I would wager that most people you’re referring to as “ex-Muslim” would still very much consider themselves to be Muslim, and even though you’re explicitly not addressing them in your claims, it’s not a huge leap that someone acting in worse faith would use your rationale as an excuse to generalize the entire demographic (including the so-called “ex-Muslims”).
Also by that logic and if as you say you feel Islam is as whacked as Christianity you should just ban religious people. While being more exclusive I could get on board with that doctrine.
No, it’s not the same thing. When most Christians, or governments in countries with majority Christian population, hear about priests raping kids, they are disgusted by it and are 100% ok with punishing the offender.
When Muslim countries hear about the above, they think justice has been done. Obviously the girl should have just been a good little child sex slave and went along with whatever her husband wanted. The see shit like this as A-OK.
It’s a false equivalence to say these two views are the same.
No, it’s not the same thing. When most Christians, or governments in countries with majority Christian population, hear about priests raping kids, they are disgusted by it and are 100% ok with punishing the offender.
ignoring that this is severely debatable, “which religion is more fine with sexual abuse” is an embarrassing pissing contest to have and one that we’re not interested in having on this website.
I don’t understand… she has the right in islamic law to ask for divorce which she would have been granted by a judge seeing the abuse.
I think it is not possible in Christian law for a woman to ask for divorce except in the case of adultry, but Islamic law is clear about cases where the husband is abusive or doesn’t take his responsibilities. I just don’t get how people still consider Iran as a country that upholds Islamic law, unless they don’t know said law.
It’s not because we hate them for their religion (for the saner part of Europeans it’s the same bullshit as Christianity)
Yes, I am firmly convinced that religion (and ideology) is used as a pretext for suppresssing people. One of Iran’s major partner countries is China, for example, but Iran says nothing about Beijing’s oppression of the Muslim Uyghur minority in China. They don’t care.
It’s all about power, and we see similar things all around the globe across all cultures and ages, including here in Europe.
Holy shit that's horrendous. And not such a propaganda win as they might think.
Tiktok also has millions of young people who support Palestine. You can't search directly but they pop up all over the place, often with a watermelon filter.
If the IDF are flooding TikTok with war-crime-adjacent content it's no wonder the majority of Gen Z is so opposed to Israel.
They’re literally going to destroy or damage all buildings large enough to house any significant number of people, and certainly all care centers, to try to force Palestinians to accept resettlement elsewhere, or to ensure they all die of lack of resources.
It’s illegal to attack hospitals, regardless of whether you “give them notice” of the attack or not. Fucking criminals.
A leaked document from Israel’s Intelligence Ministry dated less than one week after the October 7 Hamas attack proposes the permanent transfer of Gaza’s residents to Egypt. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the document’s authenticity but dismissed it as a mere “concept paper,” […]
And then there is the trauma. When the fighting stops, the cost to children and their communities will be borne out for generations to come. Before this latest escalation, more than 800,000 children in Gaza – three quarters of its entire child population – were identified as needing mental health and psychosocial support. That’s before this latest nightmare.
1,000,000 children are being denied a livable present and future. The clock is ticking. Please call your local representatives.
The criticism of this news is needlessly toxic. Maybe Hamas won’t accept the offer, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a genuine attempt to save some children’s lives.
Iran is officially the Islamic Republic of Iran too, though. Most countries are like that. Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federal Republic of Germany, Russian Federation etc.
This is a really good article, and I like that they made their data public and put a link to it right in the article.
Also, I knew it was bad, but looking at these numbers it’s even worse than I thought. I recommend reading this one.
Like, this part:
Asymmetry in how children are covered is qualitative as well as quantitative. On October 13, the Los Angeles Times ran an Associated Press report Opens in a new tabthat said, “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women. Hamas’s assault last Saturday killed more than 1,300 people in Israel, including women, children and young music festivalgoers.” Notice that young Israelis are referred to as children while young Palestinians are described as people under 18.
During discussions around the prisoner exchanges, this frequent refusal to refer to Palestinians as children was even more stark, with the New York Times referring in one case to “Israeli women and children” being exchanged for “Palestinian women and minors.” (Palestinian children are referred to as “children” later in the report, when summarizing a human rights groups’ findings.)
A Washington Post report from November 21 announcing the truce deal erased Palestinian women and children altogether: “President Biden said in a statement Tuesday night that a deal to release 50 women and children held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.” The brief did not mention Palestinian women and children at all.
That is so fucked up. And there are a bunch of other examples like it re. the disparity in the language these newspapers use.
Tangentially, and though this is a whole can of worms and rather beside the point we should be focusing on at the moment: I am also disturbed that it’s apparently still common practice to bundle women together with children like this - if they just mean “noncombatants” or “caregivers” then they should say that, just saying “women and children” like this demeans female combatants and male caregivers alike. I can sort of understand an argument for it in certain contexts where women are subjugated and denied a lot of rights, but this language is used regardless of social contexts.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.