Do you, a free person, see Muslim females as slaves?

Do you, a free person, see Muslim females as slaves?

In the more right wing of Islam, females are what I would call slaves. I am prompted to think in that term because if I were a Muslim man living under Sharia, I can buy myself a few child brides. There is also little stopping me from doing the same, --- where Muslims live under Sharia law, --- in new adopted countries in the free world. Slavery returns to the West.

Fraternité, if I may remind the English speakers, means a fiduciary relationship to all other people. Slave is appropriate here. Fraternité and honesty also forces that I must look at Muslim females as slaves.

Do I, as a free man, have any responsibility to free these Muslim women, who inadvertently help propagate slavery by their lack of revolt against it?

The West also helps propagate slavery by allowing it into the West.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtY5bv-oxLE

If I, as a free man hold a responsibility, as a free person, do you?

How much tolerance should tolerant nations give to a huge slave trading religion and government system?

Regards
DL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I sure don't have the right or the responsibility to go into their country and tell them how to live. Or even tell them how to live while sitting at my computer.

If they come and live here in the US, then they come under US laws. And even then, as long as the husband doesn't abuse his wife or children (mentally or physically) how they live is none of my business.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought that for a long time too.

A wise person put me on to the idea that, if Basic Human Rights are to have any meaning at all, then those Rights can't just be waived just because 'it's their country and we have to respect their ways'.


I started to realize that this is not an issue of 'You stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours'; it's a global, humanitarian issue.
A person's rights - any person on the planet - cannot have their Basic Human Rights be subject to the approval of the oppression of others.

Yes: we do have a responsibility to free those who are oppressed.

That doesn't necessarily mean use of guns and jingoism, it simply means the problem is still our burden to deal with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah . . . "regime change". Sounds familiar. Sounds like what the Repubs claim after they've invaded a foreign country under false pretenses.

So, when are you getting your militia together and invading N. Korea?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Slave" has the resonance of belonging to an atavistic bourgeoisie language, before its offensive terms and vulgar relics were eliminated or mellowed-out by Millennial Speak and Verbal Correctitude.

As far as the Sane Political Polarity goes (this title affords it a proper respect which often seems desired in SciForums), there's at least a growing undercurrent of tolerating and even celebrating some of the patriarchal system's (i.e., historic Islam's) emblems, styles, and practices. Of interpreting them in a different way.

But before touching a toe into that pool of water, let's first glimpse an old, stodgy view and its misrepresented disparaging of the Sane Political Polarity's open-minded tendencies as gullible:

Despite such narrow-minded banter as above, and via recognition of the arrogance of ignoring the opinions of Muslim women themselves, and in respect to the holy ideological quest of bending over to accommodate cultural relativism and the shift from individualism to group identity... The Sane Political Polarity (and Western feminism) have been assured that some of the traditional oppressive equipment of Islam -- like the hijab and burka -- can instead be sociopolitical symbols of diversity, female empowerment, cross-cultural heritage, fashion, and genuflection to a generalized identity (or the solidarity of a collective's stereotypes).

Mariam Gomaa: [...] While hijab has historically had a reputation of being a number of things to “the West,” rebellion has rarely been one of them. Certainly among many Muslims and in many Muslim nations it is often considered a sign of piety, or at the very least culture and respect. Yet rebellion, or perhaps a better word is resistance, is one of the many reasons many Muslims wear hijab.

In fact, in the 1970s and ’80s, after a period of secularism, many Muslim majority countries were undergoing an Islamic revival [...] It was a reversal of the Westernisation approach, undermining the belief of my grandparents' generation that the West was strengthening Muslim nations. My mother describes choosing the hijab in college during the ’80s, a little after this revival. Her parents, the previous generation, rejected her decision; theirs was an era where few women wore hijab [...]

Many American Muslims wear hijab much like the women of the Islamic revival, as a response to the changing times and a rejection of Western influence. While it seems counter-intuitive to wear hijab in a world that increasingly has a negative perception of Muslims [...] there is a significant presence of American Muslim women wearing the hijab as a strong sense of identity. As one of these women, I know and have insight to a representation of hijab that is rarely portrayed [...] the antithesis and retaliation to whiteness and the American media, and a nod of solidarity to other people of color.

In this sense, hijab, rather than strictly being a religious decision, is also a sociopolitical choice and representation. [...] a piece of cloth that declares their identity as Muslims while simultaneously expressing their individual identity as smart, driven, successful, and independent. A simple yet powerful message. A way in which Muslim women can reclaim their narrative.

In choosing to wear the hijab, American Muslim women [...] define American Islam and celebrate its rich cultural treasures [...] This American Islam has blossomed in many forms: the Mipsters (Muslim hipsters), Muppies (Muslim Urban Professionals), IMAN (Inner-city Muslim Action Network), and many more coalitions of young Muslim Americans who bring together their cross-cultural heritage -- their America and their Islam -- and share it with the world on a daily basis, through creative productions, concerts, health clinics and activist movements. While each coalition and organization has its own goals, they share a young, vibrant population of men and women alike with a common religious ideology, but also a sociopolitical identity.

In the same vein, American Muslim women have created communities for hijabi fashion [...] of the American hijab as an intricate sociopolitical identity. [...] In their defiance of social convention, American Muslim women wearing hijab have paved the way for others and developed a sense of social consciousness and social justice among themselves. [...] when I have fears about continuing to represent my faith without trepidation, I remember that I wear my hijab for the empowerment it grants me in declaring where I stand in a world that -- more often than not -- is in opposition to all that I am. --American Hijab: Why My Scarf Is A Sociopolitical Statement, Not A Symbol Of My Religiosity

 

No. Please don't put words into my mouth.

While I grant that it is practically highly problematic to bring human rights to people in countries where they are being oppressed, that is not the same thing as saying 'not my country, not my problem.'

 

Wow. Nothing quite like doing unto others.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Regards
DL

 

Regime change is not what I would suggest nor is it what our friend suggested.

An ideological change to one that excludes slavery might be nice. Right?

Regards
DL

 

Interesting but sniped for brevity.

The veils is mostly seen by Muslim women as a compulsion to Islam that is forced upon them by Muslim men.

That is off topic to this thread. I prefer to speak to the slavery aspect of Islam, of which the forced wearing of various garments is just one of many issues. Child brides who are bought and sold will generally be of one of the tribes that demands that women go veiled.

Regards
DL

 

At one time the U.S. spoke of tying human rights to trade but that laudable position was a problem to trade with Saudi Arabia and seems to have been dumped along with U.S. morals.

Regards
DL

 

Which Muslims?

 

Yep. They're similar to women in the US circa 1800.

You can buy yourself a few child brides without being under any religious theory.

I'll let John Quincy Adams speak for me in this case:
==============================================
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

America's glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
========================

 

Westerners can agree within their own standards that some practices in other societies are unethical, but to what effect, when such beliefs collide with non-intervention policies which render those opinions impotent in terms of action? The latter "membrane buffers" between differing moral standards don't even have to rest in cultural relativism directly. But can fall out of pragmatic negotiations between countries (a mutable discourse which long preceded any guidance from the philosophical offspring of Left ideologies).

In many cases, the custom-based abuses transpiring in certain Islamic regions are traditions belonging to the sub-cultures of affluent neighborhoods and powerful elite males (military / police included). Rather than such necessarily being endorsed by the complaining inhabitants of poorer Muslim populations when their youth are the ones being preyed upon and sex-enslaved.

• JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN: [...] “At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”
  
  Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.
  
  The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.
  
  “The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave [Quinn was disciplined and career ruined for breaching the non-interference policy]. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”
  
  [...] The American policy of nonintervention is intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflects a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status.
  
  [...] In September 2011, an Afghan woman, visibly bruised, showed up at an American base with her son, who was limping. One of the Afghan police commanders in the area, Abdul Rahman, had abducted the boy and forced him to become a sex slave, chained to his bed, the woman explained. When she sought her son’s return, she herself was beaten. Her son had eventually been released, but she was afraid it would happen again, she told the Americans on the base.
  
  [...] So Captain Quinn summoned Abdul Rahman and confronted him about what he had done. The police commander acknowledged that it was true, but brushed it off. When the American officer began to lecture about “how you are held to a higher standard if you are working with U.S. forces, and people expect more of you,” the commander began to laugh.... --U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies ... New York Times, September 20, 2015

 

They were quite long winded in those days.

That does not really speak to our duty to the rest of the world and especially the world that is slaved to Muslim men.

Do you see us as having a duty to female Muslim slaves of should we just leave them inUS circa 1800?

Regards
DL

 

Yours was a good post. Thanks.

If I recall correctly, the U.S. was to ties trade to human rights and in a real sense, that is intervention into the policies of other nations. I think the focus was more against child labor than against visible slavery of the type I am seeing in Islam.

But if we are to be against what can be seen as child slavery, I think we should be able to include the type of slavery that Muslim women suffer.

Regards
DL

 

And people were more literate in general.

It actually does; that's the point of the speech. I know it's long, but it is worth reading.

We have a duty to promote freedom and independence for all people. We are the champions and vindicators of our own people. We lead the way and help other people follow - but we use words and deeds, not swords and knives, to help them find their own way. Indeed, were we to slaughter men, women and children to "fulfill our duty" we would be no better than they are. (hopefully that will be short enough.)

 

Just what I wanted. Thanks.

I am all in for not using violence against slave owners.

I do think all other restrictions to trade or association should include talks of or inclusion of human rights.

I also think a Trump-ish look at immigration should include a look to see who carries the Sharia baggage and who does not to give priority to either slaved Muslim women and Muslim men who denounce Sharia as immoral, since it is.

Regards
DL

 

Possibly something worth considering is that every Muslim male considers himself to be a slave of Allah. In fact some ( Sunni sects(*) ) even go as far as to believe that they have no freedom of choice at all and that their bodies and minds are merely vessels for Allah to command.
The women being morally enslaved by men being enslaved by Allah...allows responsibility for all decisions made, to be Allah's and Allah's alone.

 

An aside, I read once how ISIS' recruitment page on the deep web got hacked and replaced with viagra advertisements.

 

free nations should block all immigration from muslim countries, certainly not give them citizenship.
in france and england and elsewhere in the white world the savages and their progeny are a full-blown voting block/constituency by now, and they vote in cynical extremist politicians (e.g. George Galloway) or even their own 5th column hijabis and Holocaust deniers, vote in special privilege laws for themselves, whip up opinions and split up local populations over what should be done with them, agitating some to start thinking of extreme measures like shutting down free speech, forming a surveillance state, or taking extreme anti-civil-rights measures (gov't side), or domestic terrorism (lone-wolf attackers like Breivik), none of which would have been happening had the savages not come with their mentality and customs and savagery.
this is specifically about muslims, not brown or black people.

>inb4 some are really good tho
true, and i am personally friendly with a few normal or almost-normal muslims.
i'd rather not be enriched by the few good apples if it means they come with all the rest of the garbage.
plenty of other good apples in other countries without said baggage.

it's irrelevant to me what muslim females are or want to be - i know of many who choose and love to wear the hijab/niqab for instance.
i just don't want to see it on our streets. go home and be all you want to be, i respect your choice, and the choice of your society to encourage you or force it down your throat, whatever.
but not here.
====

p.s.
good to be back after a long exile. let's see if the SJW still ban people for impolite opinions.