[marden]

There is a hope that the United States is too prickly for al Qaeda to try to take violently. If that is true they might use legal means to take over.

Introduction: The Threat of Lawful Islamism

http://www.meforum.org/islamist.php

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

There is a hope that the United States is too prickly for al Qaeda to try to take violently. If that is true they might use legal means to take over.

Oh god. While some of those things are good points, others are really dumb, like:

"Let students in public (i.e., taxpayer-funded) schools use empty classrooms for prayers in New Jersey."
"Permit public schools and public airwaves to be used to convert non-Muslims."

These two miss the points that these are already allowed for Christians to do the same things.

"Set aside women-only bathing at a municipal swimming pool in France or use taxpayer funds for Muslim women-only swimming times in Washington State."

If the taxpayers vote for it, they can do it. this is Democracy, right? Leave it up to the local government to deal with.

"Develop a special hijab for female Muslim employees of a leading home furnishing company, sporting the corporate logo."
"Establish panels, councils, or advisory boards uniquely for Muslims."

ZOMG Muslims are getting special treatment... just... like any other group in America.

"Prohibit families from sending pork or pork by-products or "Any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith" to U.S. military personnel serving in the Middle East."
"Require that female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear U.S. government-issued abayas."

I don't know if the writer of the article understands this, but the Middle East is not America, they have different rules than we do, and we really don't want to piss them off right now. This isn't "Let's do it in other people's countries because we can do it in America!"

While he's making several good points, the points he made above just ruin his argument.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't know if the writer of the article understands this, but the Middle East is not America, they have different rules than we do, and we really don't want to piss them off right now.

How can you even claim to care about human/civil rights when you spew this garbage?

Either that, or their tactics have influenced your thinking to the point where you accept crap like the near-complete oppression of women.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

How can you even claim to care about human/civil rights when you spew this garbage?

Either that, or their tactics have influenced your thinking to the point where you accept crap like the near-complete oppression of women.

You mean the women in those countries have to wear head coverings? Heavens no. Call in the UN. The US. SOMEBODY SAVE THESE PEOPLE.

There are far bigger human rights violations in the world to deal with. Let's take care of those first, then you can get back to me. People wearing things on their head is on my humans right violation list somewhere just above nuns being forced to wear habits.

Seriously. Worry about genocide in Africa where kids are being literally drugged and turned into soldiers and then murder their families.. Perhaps maybe even think about that some of these women might even want to wear these as it happens to be part of a religion they believe.

If this is your human rights priority, you need to reexamine things.

[goMac]

This is so weird.

Liberals get their panties in a wad over people dying.

Conservatives get their panties in a wad over people wearing head coverings.

Is it just me or is there a big difference in perspective?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

You mean the women in those countries have to wear head coverings? Heavens no. Call in the UN. The US. SOMEBODY SAVE THESE PEOPLE.

Fundamentalist restrictions on women are a lot more than just requiring head coverings. Here are some Talibanesque restrictions. Too bad we "pissed them off"...

Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals.

Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes.

Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses designated "males only" (or "females only").

Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

This was and remains the fundamentalist dream. It's crap that you support it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Fundamentalist restrictions on women are a lot more than just requiring head coverings. Here are some Talibanesque restrictions. Too bad we "pissed them off"

...

This was and remains the fundamentalist dream. It's crap that you support it.

Nono, I don't support the Taliban. I'm just wondering why you're so upset about women wearing things on their heads when there are many many bigger problems to worry about. There are a lot bigger, badder fundamentalists... you know... actually killing people for no reason, and you're worried about women wearing things on their heads.

I never said I supported everything Fundamentalists do. In fact, I said he had some good points. Even though it probably makes you warm and fuzzy inside to think I support a bunch of crazy ideals, that's not what I said. You're not really listening, it's more like you're talking to yourself.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

This is so weird.

Liberals get their panties in a wad over people dying.

Conservatives get their panties in a wad over people wearing head coverings.

Is it just me or is there a big difference in perspective?

There's a big difference in how we discuss issues. Like here, for instance. You're jumping all over the place. Now you're portraying liberals as the only ones concerned with people dying while conservatives worry about head coverings.

Back to my initial gripe with your prior statement: You think it's OK that people in other lands are oppressed. You fear their reaction to our liberalism, or "pissing them off" as you put it. I think that's a garbage attitude. i don't care if they don't like our liberalism. I don't care if it pisses them off. You feel your way. I disagree completely.

[goMac]

This just in, Americans required to wear CLOTHES in public. Those poor Americans, they're all being oppressed.

Seriously, if this were "women killed in the streets for talking", you might have a point. But this is, women in the US choosing to dress traditionally. So you're in favor of taking away that choice?

Seriously. I don't get it. These women want to wear traditional dress and their employer supplied it. And the conservatives get their panties in a wad, calling it a human rights violation.

Whatever.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac

Nono, I don't support the Taliban. I'm just wondering why you're so upset about women wearing things on their heads when there are many many bigger problems to worry about. There are a lot bigger, badder fundamentalists... you know... actually killing people for no reason, and you're worried about women wearing things on their heads.

I never said I supported everything Fundamentalists do. In fact, I said he had some good points. Even though it probably makes you warm and fuzzy inside to think I support a bunch of crazy ideals, that's not what I said. You're not really listening, it's more like you're talking to yourself.

Yeah, it's well past my bedtime. I'm probably not reading you as sharply as I should be. I just hate seeing the fear of "pissing them off", and then seeing something that resembles a willingness to ignore what I feel are some basic rights. If I misunderstood, my apology.

Gotta catch some Zs. I'll be working tomorrow, then traveling til next Tuesday. So if you don't hear back from me, it's not because I'm no longer willing to debate.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

There's a big difference in how we discuss issues. Like here, for instance. You're jumping all over the place. Now you're portraying liberals as the only ones concerned with people dying while conservatives worry about head coverings.

Back to my initial gripe with your prior statement: You think it's OK that people in other lands are oppressed. You fear their reaction to our liberalism, or "pissing them off" as you put it. I think that's a garbage attitude. i don't care if they don't like our liberalism. I don't care if it pisses them off.

That's how this discussion goes. No veering off onto tangents. No generalized statements. You feel your way. I disagree completely.

Putting aside international issues for moment, the author of the article is talking about women in this country wanting to wear traditional dress and their employers allowing it, and even helping them with it. And the author is upset about this. Do you understand why? Because I don't.

Then he's talking about us having to supply head scarves for women that we send over to the Middle East. This isn't exactly a cruel, inhumane act. In some places, these women, god forbid, might actually feel more comfortable wearing these head scarves.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Yeah, it's well past my bedtime. I just hate seeing the fear of "pissing them off", and them something that resembles a willingness to ignore what I feel are some basic rights.

I'm not sure you understand. In many Muslim countries, it's not required, but it is custom. These aren't necessarily fundamentalist countries, but it's still bad form. It's like wearing your outdoor shoes on someone else's carpet. Technically there is nothing wrong with it, but if you are working with people who aren't comfortable around women of different customs, you're going to cause friction.

If we want to really start a dialog with these people, we need to give a bit and adopt some of their customs. I'm not saying we need to aid in stoning women in the street. I'm saying... it's wearing cloth on your head, it's not a big deal.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Fundamentalist restrictions on women are a lot more than just requiring head coverings. Here are some Talibanesque restrictions. Too bad we "pissed them off"...

Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals.

Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes.

Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses designated "males only" (or "females only").

Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

This was and remains the fundamentalist dream. It's crap that you support it.

This made me laugh... This is classic Stephen Colbert at its best...

Because goMac doesn't publically denounce these acts or puts them at the top of his **** list, he absolutely most support this.

Do you watch the show?

[Mithras]

At American beaches, the custom is for women to keep their breasts covered. In many parts of the world, the custom is to permit such.

If French troops were posted in the U.S. (okay, bear with me here ), would it be disgraceful for them to ask their troops to keep covered when on holiday, so as not to offend local sensibilities?

The analogy is not perfect -- indeed, I'd rather like it if female U.S. troops were prominently *not* in hajib in Saudi Arabia, demonstrating to Saudi men and women alike that they could be treated as equal partners. But they notion of sometimes changing your own behavior a bit in order to achieve your larger goals is far from unreasonable.

[badidea]

Islam does NOT require women to wear head scarves! It's religious freedom for them!

The Taliban do though - as well as Iran!
Men should also cover their head!

In Turkey it is forbidden to wear headscarves in public institutions!

Some women even fight for their right to wear headscarves!

.............


Difficult discussion!

[Dr Reducto]

The whole military restrictions thing boils my blood.

Having friends in Iraq, you can't send them porn, bibles, alcohol, or anything contrary to the Islamic faith. It's ludicrious.

[D. S. Troyer]

I read an article somewhere that Denmark was a target of an Islamic takeover.

By immigration they would be a 50% by 2050. They have been told to run for seats on city councils and federal government seats.

I guess this would constitute a legal takeover.

Anyone from Denmark here who knows and can confirm this.

In fact a lot of Muslims seem to be migrating to Scandinavia.

Wonder why?

I think Holland was also a target but I'm not sure.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

In fact a lot of Muslims seem to be migrating to Scandinavia.
Wonder why?

Scandinavian chicks. Duh.

[marden]

Originally Posted by pooka

Scandinavian chicks. Duh.

At first I thought you were kidding.

But not after reading these.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/736142/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1695910/posts


A more in depth and serious look at the phenomenon is given by the Brussels Journal.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/920

It's a shocking snapshot.

[marden]

Jewish groups keep watchful eye as schools receive Saudi donations - Campus Watch

Jewish groups keep watchful eye as schools receive Saudi donations
by Chanan Tigay
JTA
December 15, 2005

JTA NEWS

NEW YORK, Dec. 15 — Harvard and Georgetown universities both say a Saudi prince attached no strings when he gave them $20 million gifts — but at a time that Arab influence in American classrooms is coming under scrutiny, some observers are taking a wait-and-see approach.

"We realize that this is a sensitive topic, but the purpose of this gift is to support the study of Islam as a religious and cultural tradition, which is a significant factor in today's world," Harvard spokeswoman Sarah Friedell said.

The schools announced earlier this week that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud had made the contributions to further Islamic studies at both institutions, which were planning to rename centers after the prince.

A recent JTA investigation linked bin Talal with a group producing teaching materials for American public school students. The materials contain content that is pro-Islamic, anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.

In 2001, the prince donated $10 million to a fund for the families of uniformed workers who died in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But then-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani refused the money after learning that al-Saud had tried to link the attacks to U.S. support for Israel.

Some observers of academia are wondering if the gifts to Harvard and Georgetown may be the latest in a series of attempts by the Saudis and other Arab countries to influence how the Middle East is taught in U.S. schools.

"Of course that's the concern, and it's not an unreal concern," said Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress. "But you can't assume that the universities improperly sold out for money. Because it comes from an Arab or Muslim source, you can't assume that there's something untoward about it."

[...]

But it's not the prince and his money per se that concern Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia think tank. The forum runs Campus Watch, which reviews and critiques Middle East studies on American campuses.

Pipes frets about the "virtual monopoly" that he says academics espousing anti-American and anti-Israel points of view hold on university positions.

The donations are "pushing an open door, because the academics who are dealing with Islamic studies are, in general, already quite willing to go along with the Saudi outlook," he said.

[...]

Harvard said it would create a new Islamic studies program, increasing faculty in areas such as the history of science and adding new area studies.

"For a university with global aspirations, it is critical that Harvard have a strong program on Islam that is worldwide and interdisciplinary in scope," said Harvard University Provost Steven Hyman, who will coordinate the program's implementation.

This is not the first time a Saudi Arabian has given money to an American university: Last year, for example, media reports had an unidentified Saudi giving Columbia University $250,000.

A Saudi Arabia-based foundation led by Prince Faisal bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud endowed a $5 million Arab studies program at the University of California at Berkeley. Harvard's program in contemporary Middle Eastern studies was the beneficiary of a grant of some $2 million from Saudi businessman Khaled al-Turki. The school has also donations from the bin Laden family (though not from the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden) for the study of Islamic law and architecture.

And the late Saudi King Fahd gave about $20 million to create a Middle East center in his name at the University of Arkansas.

In 2003, Rachel Fish, then a graduate student in Harvard's Divinity School, campaigned successfully for the school to return a $2.5-million donation from United Arab Emirates President Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, who had backed an Abu Dhabi-based think-tank that sponsored anti-Semitic and anti-American speakers.

As for bin Talal's gift, Fish, now director of campus strategy at Boston's David Project, hopes Harvard will select new faculty carefully.

"I think what would be a true test for both Harvard and Georgetown would be who they decide to hire for these professorships," she said. "Students deserve to learn about Islam, but they must allow objective scholarship and questioning within the tradition of Islam."

Bin Talal's is the second-largest single gift in Georgetown's history, and is among the 25 largest gifts made to Harvard.

The prince also recently agreed to fund a new Islamic wing at the Louvre and has previously given $5 million to establish the Center for American Studies at the American University in Beirut, $10 million to the American University in Cairo and more than $1 million to the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at England's University of Exeter.

As far back as 2003, Martin Kramer, now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, lamented the Saudi influence in American academia.

Saudi money "has already compromised the research agenda in Middle Eastern studies," he wrote on his Web site. "Prince Alwaleed's buying binge is liable to reduce the entire field to a cargo cult, with profs and center directors dancing the ‘ardha,' " a warriors' sword dance, "in the hope of attracting the flying prince.

"This is great for Saudi Arabia," Kramer wrote. "It's not at all great for the American public, which seeks objective assessments of the Saudi kingdom."

[marden]

Continued from above.

Harvard Gazette: Mohamed A. El-Erian named HMC president, CEO
October 20, 2005
Mohamed A. El-Erian named HMC president, CEO

PIMCO managing director, former IMF official to lead investment of endowment

9/12/06

Harvard fundraising reaches $595M in fiscal year '06

Among the many generous new commitments to Harvard announced in fiscal year 2006 were a $100 million gift from Eli and Edythe Broad to support the Broad Institute; $26 million in grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support work in global health; $20 million to create the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Program for Islamic Studies; a $15 million endowment from Sharmin and Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani MPA '82, GSAS '88 to the Kennedy School of Government's Center for Business and Government; $15 million from the Victor [Ph.D. '71] and William [M.B.A. '72] Fung Foundation to the Harvard University Asia Center; a $14 million contribution from H.H. Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum to support the Dubai Harvard Foundation for Medical Research; a $12 million bequest receipt from Horace Chapin A.B. 1871, LL.B. 1875 for the Harvard University Art Museums; a $12 million donation from Jerome Rappaport A.B. '47, LL.B. '49, M.P.A. '63 and the Jerome Lyle Rappaport Charitable Foundation to endow Harvard's Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston; a $10 million contribution from David Rockefeller A.B. '36, LL.D. '69 to support Harvard's Latin American Studies Center, bringing his total commitment to the center to $25 million; and $10 million from Jerry A.B. '61, M.B.A. '67 and Darlene Jordan to support the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and to enrich the Harvard College student experience. In addition, six generous alumni established a $50 million University Professorship Challenge - a matching fund intended to encourage alumni and friends to endow named professorships across the University and provide other critically needed faculty support.

[memento]

Originally Posted by marden

In 2001, the prince donated $10 million to a fund for the families of uniformed workers who died in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But then-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani refused the money after learning that al-Saud had tried to link the attacks to U.S. support for Israel.

Giuliani Rules. I'll never forget that.

[marden]

Originally Posted by memento

Giuliani Rules. I'll never forget that.

[Kerrigan]

Beat it, beat it
no one wants to be defeated
showin how funky or strong is your fight
it doesn't matter who's wrong or right
just beat it beat

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Beat it, beat it
no one wants to be defeated
showin how funky or strong is your fight
it doesn't matter who's wrong or right
just beat it beat

I like it.