It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.
Mark Twain
A South Dakota perspective on New York mosque debate
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.
Mark Twain
dieseldiva
Veteran Expediter
Did you miss the word CURRENT in my post or are you just picking out the parts that "you are only interested in, looking for things that confirm what you already believe to be true or that you want to be true."
Typically, as shown in the quote in bold above, you do the things that you accuse the rest of us of.
I post quotes from a couple of sites and you come back like those are the ONLY places that I go to read. It leads one to think that you're mostly here to belittle others rather than to have any kind of dialog. You'd like those of us that disagree with this mosque or Islam in general, or with you for that matter, to think that we're in some kind of hillbilly hick minority that can't think for ourselves.
What's wrong with a man that must attempt to make others look small in order for him to feel good about himself??
No, I didn't miss the CURRENT in your post at all. Just because YOU say there are CURRENT Muslims at FormerMuslimsUnited.com doesn't mean there are very many of them, if any. The site doesn't cater to, nor is about CURRENT Muslims, it's for and about former Muslims. That's why it's called FormerMuslimsUnited.com.
And, typically, you're wrong, again.
Not at all. I come back like you you tend to only go to sites that already espouse the views you agree with. Those two sites are merely two of those. You're real quick to find something that supports your position, because you're looking for just that. You ignore sites that disagree with you, because they are irrelevant and wrong, at least in your own mind.
I posed a simple question above, one that you quoted, as part of a dialog, and rather than have any kind of dialog, you turn it all back onto to me. Awesome. You are seemingly incapable of engaging in a dialog, as you routinely ignore the issues in favor of a personal attack. Perhaps that's why you must use links to speak for you, as you cannot speak for yourself.
The fact that you and others who disagree with this mosque, or Islam in general, or with me for that matter, doesn't have anything to do you being a hillbilly hick minority who can't think for yourselves.
Probably a lot. Fortunately, I don't have to do that, as your words speak for themselves.
Questions For Imam Rauf From an American Muslim
by M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD
From the article, a CURRENT MUSLIM makes a few good points:
"Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.
There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero."
M. Zuhdi Jasser: Questions for Imam Rauf from an American Muslim - WSJ.com
by M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD
From the article, a CURRENT MUSLIM makes a few good points:
"Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.
There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero."
M. Zuhdi Jasser: Questions for Imam Rauf from an American Muslim - WSJ.com
You probably should have picked a more obscure "current" Muslim than a famous one that is far more in alignment with the former Muslims who want to be able to convert to other religions without repercussions and have a separation of mosque and state. He's famous for being a so-called a non-Muslim Muslim," a borderline anti-Muslim in the eyes of many. He calls himself a "devout moderate Muslim".
He also got kicked out of his own mosque in Phoenix last year for being too moderate, and for founding the AIFD (American Islamic Forum for Democracy) which "seeks to make a small contribution to the body of thought which articulates an understanding of Islam which separates religion and state and is in complete harmony with the U.S. Constitution and our citizenship pledge."
I'm sure glad he said that, and not Imam Rauf, otherwise you might not believe it.
Ironically, he's very much like many American Muslims, who want a separation of religion and state. But many Americans, Christians in particular, don't think that such a Muslim exists, that even those who say such nonsense are just saying it as a tactic, and they don't really mean it, since the basic tenets of the religion is incompatible with such a statement.
Someone said this, and a lot of people believe it:
"First of all, there are basic principles of this religion that are incompatible with a democratic society and our form of government. Secondly, the radicals or Islamo-fascists that are supposedly the source of all our terrorist problems are being passively aided and abetted by the vast majority of other so-called "moderate" Muslims."
Thus the "so-called" moderate Muslims aren't really moderates at all, and should not be trusted. Even though he says what you want to hear, don't be fooled. You should have a field day with this guy. Debbie Schlussel routinely does, where she nails this "Faux Moderate Muslim" for what he is: "The “M.” stands for Mohammed (which, like everything else about himself, he’s trying to obscure), and I've discussed, at length on this site, what a fraud Jasser is and how he’s attacked Israel, embraced a terrorist Imam who recruited young Somalians to become homicide bombers in Africa, and otherwise lied about Islam."
The Sad Truth About Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser–Star, Narrator, & Producer of “The Third Jihad” | Debbie Schlussel
In "The Third Jihad", Jasser produced and narrated the film, where he begins the film's narration with, "This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them.” And then the film goes on to explore the existence of radical Islam in America and the emerging risk that this “homegrown jihad” poses to national security, western liberties and the “American way of life.”
Synopsis: It reveals that radical Islamists driven by a religiously motivated rejection of western values, cultures, and religion are engaging in a multifaceted strategy to overcome the western world. In contrast to the use of “violent jihad” and terror to instill fear in “non-believers,” The Third Jihad introduces the concept of “cultural jihad” as a means to infiltrate and undermine our society from within.
But, what if Schlussel, who is often spot-on in nailing hidden radical Islam, but is also obviously biased, is wrong about Jasser, and he's exactly what he says he is, that of a moderate American Muslim that wants to live his life and his religion within the scope of the American way of Life? What if Jasser is wrong about Imam Rauf and Rauf is exactly what he says he is?
This only works if Schlussel is right, and both Jasser and Raulf are lying and are not what they are pretending to be. Otherwise, we'd have to admit that not all Muslims view and interpret the Qur'an the same way as radical Muslims do, that Islam in and of itself isn't, in fact, incompatible with our way of life, and that the "Ground Zero Mosque" may just very well be exactly what Imam Rauf claims it to be.
Most Muslims came to the US to escape the Islamo-fascists who have hijacked the Islamic religion for their own purposes of "exploiting the religion of Islam for a nihilistic, anti-American anti-Western war," not to mention the heavy-handed application of Sharia Law in some places that so many Muslims around the world just hate. They want to live their lives in the manner described by Jasser as, "that many Muslims believe that they are able to practice their faith more freely and more Islamically (in a personal and secular fashion which is most suited to preserve one's faith) in America than in any other place in the world." But we're not even willing to give them a chance to do that, not even Imam Raul who has been an Imam at a mosque 12 blocks from Ground Zero for many years without any problems. I can understand why Jasser isn't too keen on the idea of a "Ground Zero Mosque", since his beliefs are generally in direct opposition with nearly all Imams, Rauf included. He has a history with Rauf, as well. They don't get along and play well together. He's naturally biased against all-thinks Rauf, and especially against this mosque. As are a lot of other American Muslims.
Jasser is indeed a Muslim, and is like most Muslims, especially American Muslims. But he's a far different kind of Muslim than most Americans have been introduced to or even think exists, or can exist. Whether you agree with him on the mosque issue or not, he is a Muslim that many Americans should acquaint themselves with, since he's far from a niche minority in the American Muslim world. He's not your typical Muslim, however, as he really and truly does believe in separation of church and state, absolutely, and in free will, something that goes against the very core of Islam. But there are far more Muslims in America like him that people realize.
Here's some interesting and insightful reading for those who are interested, from Jasser.
M. Zuhdi Jasser on Cartoon Jihad on National Review Online
Mosque Unbecoming :: M. Zuhdi Jasser
Quite a long hit piece on the author of the article I used to point out a few good points about the Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero Mosque, Cordoba Mosque, Park 51 Community Center or whatever the nom ju jour is at present. Schlussel obviously doesn't like Mr. Jasser and seems to throw derogatory opinion pieces at him on a regular basis. She doesn't like Sean Hannity either, and has tossed similar bombs at him such as the one described in the following article that points out her Hannity accusations were - to put it mildly - false or misleading,
Stinging Rebuke for Hannity Critic
It's probably fair to say that if I wanted to take the time (which I don't have), to research Ms. Schlussel's writings, similar inaccuracies against Mr. Jasser would also become evident. But that really doesn't matter, because all these attacks on Mr. Jasser's WSJ Opinion Piece of Sept. 10 are an attempt to provide DISTRACTIONS AWAY FROM THE POINTS BEING MADE. The idea that anything M. Zuhdi Jasser or Sean Hannity says is to be disregarded as unreliable or invalid because Debbi Schlussel disagrees with them simply doesn't hold water. Most thinking people can read a body of work and decide for themselves if it makes sense and is worthy of consideration.
That being said, in addition to the previous quotes here are some of the main points in the Jasser article that seem to make a lot of sense:
Considering the Imam's obvious intransigence regarding any compromise on the location of his mosque and his disregard for the overwhelming public attitude AGAINST that particular location, it's obvious what his primary concern is - what's best for Islam.
PS - I notice the above link doesn't provide the complete article, claiming subscription to WSJ Online required. However, if you Google Jasser's name you can find the complete article.
Stinging Rebuke for Hannity Critic
It's probably fair to say that if I wanted to take the time (which I don't have), to research Ms. Schlussel's writings, similar inaccuracies against Mr. Jasser would also become evident. But that really doesn't matter, because all these attacks on Mr. Jasser's WSJ Opinion Piece of Sept. 10 are an attempt to provide DISTRACTIONS AWAY FROM THE POINTS BEING MADE. The idea that anything M. Zuhdi Jasser or Sean Hannity says is to be disregarded as unreliable or invalid because Debbi Schlussel disagrees with them simply doesn't hold water. Most thinking people can read a body of work and decide for themselves if it makes sense and is worthy of consideration.
That being said, in addition to the previous quotes here are some of the main points in the Jasser article that seem to make a lot of sense:
- "I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam?"
- "You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
- "Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, he shows his true allegiance."
Considering the Imam's obvious intransigence regarding any compromise on the location of his mosque and his disregard for the overwhelming public attitude AGAINST that particular location, it's obvious what his primary concern is - what's best for Islam.
PS - I notice the above link doesn't provide the complete article, claiming subscription to WSJ Online required. However, if you Google Jasser's name you can find the complete article.
Last edited:
D Team Brothers
Expert Expediter
I repeat again - because it is not being denied, this mosque should not be built at this site by this Iman and his group because it's sole purpose is to put up a monument to those muslims who successfully attacked America. It will become a source of pride for jihardist and a constant reminder to those who lost family and friend on 911 that it was Muslims who did the killing.
Here's yet another informative article about the Holy Man of Allah - Imam Rauf - who is so concerned with the welfare of his community:
Union City mayor heaps scorn on imam for being 'slumlord'
- The Jersy Journal
This obvious disregard for the living conditions of his tenants might give us an insight into what his attitude would be toward the homosexuals, women and various infidels that might want to avail themselves of his "community center" should it be built at his preferred location or any other, for that matter.
Union City mayor heaps scorn on imam for being 'slumlord'
- The Jersy Journal
Union City mayor heaps scorn on imam for being 'slumlord' | NJ.com
This obvious disregard for the living conditions of his tenants might give us an insight into what his attitude would be toward the homosexuals, women and various infidels that might want to avail themselves of his "community center" should it be built at his preferred location or any other, for that matter.
Just so ya know...Muslims in history have built great mosque's celebrating conquering or taking over something...So this is all about location so THEY can show victory of the twin towers an show praise to the Terrorists...Its fact...Look it up...
greg334
Veteran Expediter
"... you know these people are saying that this is a monument to a crime, but in fact it is not. The true monument is the division between people who only 9 years ago were united, they are complaining about a small group of people who is strange to them and fighting about the same thing that they preach to the world that they can only do but can't find within themselves to come to grips with the problem that is surrounded the issue by the mis-information and lies - that is the true monument to the Jihadist of the world, that is the accomplishment that many set out to gain." - Fakha al Din at the WTC site - 9/11/10
The true shame about the Ground Zero area is that the local politicians, Port Authority, etc have become entangled in squabbling about petty political issues and have lost sight of the big picture. Perhaps instead of bickering about what the shape should be or how many different groups should be placated, just rebuild the Twin Towers. Show the barbarians the only thing they did was estinguish thousands of innocent lives and reinforce the resolve of the United States for victory.
One other thing this conflict has done is remind the entire citizenry that the musliim propensity for outrage is wearing a bit thin; it's time for these people to understand that if they really do want to intermingle peacably with other cultures, they need to learn the art of compromise rather than demand that everyone else cave to their way of doing things. The muslims shouldn't be surprised by the unfavorable opinion held of them by so many people, considering that they seem to riot over the least thing that they deem to inslut Islam. Michelle Malkin has a very good article that reminds us of these uprisings over the past few years:
Townhall - The Eternal Flame of Muslim Outrage
Since the MSM conveniently disregards these manufactured outrages, we tend to forget the riots over such things as cartoons, Nike logos, the Miss World Pageant, Unilever Ice Cream logos, an imprint on one of Claudia Schiffer's dresses, etc. But doesn't it seem a bit incongruous that these people so easily inflamed aren't motivated to riot or protest their own radicals that defile their so-called "religion of peace"? It would seem to any thinking person that if they were so concerned about the integrity of their religion and their beloved prophet they would be outraged about the blasphemy shown by the jihadists such as Al Qaeda and Hamas to the extent there would be hundreds of thousands of peace-loving muslims in the streets denouncing the cowards that kill other innocent muslims at marketplaces, wedding receptions and funeral processions. Instead we get tepid lip service and calls for "moderation" - whatever that means. In the final analysis these so call peace loving muslims aid and abet their radical brothers with their silence and their acquiescience. This is not to say that "all muslims are terrorists" like some on this forum might claim; but the peaceable muslims could - and should - do a lot more to denounce their radical elements and deny them funding and safe havens.
One other thing this conflict has done is remind the entire citizenry that the musliim propensity for outrage is wearing a bit thin; it's time for these people to understand that if they really do want to intermingle peacably with other cultures, they need to learn the art of compromise rather than demand that everyone else cave to their way of doing things. The muslims shouldn't be surprised by the unfavorable opinion held of them by so many people, considering that they seem to riot over the least thing that they deem to inslut Islam. Michelle Malkin has a very good article that reminds us of these uprisings over the past few years:
Townhall - The Eternal Flame of Muslim Outrage
Since the MSM conveniently disregards these manufactured outrages, we tend to forget the riots over such things as cartoons, Nike logos, the Miss World Pageant, Unilever Ice Cream logos, an imprint on one of Claudia Schiffer's dresses, etc. But doesn't it seem a bit incongruous that these people so easily inflamed aren't motivated to riot or protest their own radicals that defile their so-called "religion of peace"? It would seem to any thinking person that if they were so concerned about the integrity of their religion and their beloved prophet they would be outraged about the blasphemy shown by the jihadists such as Al Qaeda and Hamas to the extent there would be hundreds of thousands of peace-loving muslims in the streets denouncing the cowards that kill other innocent muslims at marketplaces, wedding receptions and funeral processions. Instead we get tepid lip service and calls for "moderation" - whatever that means. In the final analysis these so call peace loving muslims aid and abet their radical brothers with their silence and their acquiescience. This is not to say that "all muslims are terrorists" like some on this forum might claim; but the peaceable muslims could - and should - do a lot more to denounce their radical elements and deny them funding and safe havens.
Just so you know, Muslims take a back seat to Catholics on the same issues. Look it up.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Hmmmm .... with respect to this conflict (GZ Mosque) I wasn't aware that there was any outrage ..... at least on the part of any Muslims (yes, I do actually know how to spell it correctly ....)
Now Boobus Americanus however is very thoroughly outraged .... more concerned about how the proximity of a house of worship/community center will desecrate the sanctity of a site (which is actually blocks away) .... more than they even are the neighboring teety bars and adult entertainment establishments .....
If this were coming from the "my-country-right-or-wrong/America-love-it-or-leave" crowd, it would be the epitome of irony (and the height of hypocrisy .....
)IOW: learn how to be bullied ...... and like it ....
When the story broke about Lt. William Calley and the slaughter at My Lai, tell me, as one who wore the uniform, what did you do ?
.... anything at all ?
The above statement on your part is a real chuckle - aren't you the guy who advocated genocide against those living in Palestine (irrespective of religious affliation) .... simply because they lived there ?
The fact is, the type of conduct that you and your type are currently engaged in is making it less likely that moderate, peaceful Muslims will speak out ....
But hey, some folks are fans of self-fufilling prophecy ......
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Most people don't have your expertise in web research when it comes to looking up these things. Maybe you could provide a link or two supporting the Catholics' front seat position regarding victory monuments.
From Dictionary.com
Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
I don't see a parallel there. Granted, propaganda as well as other information is more easily spread worldwide now as opposed to dropping leaflets out of open-****pit airplanes.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume that there is a propoganda campaign about muslim radicals going on, as opposed to accurate information that's being distributed almost instantly over the web and 24-Hr cable news organizations. In spite of the negative connotation it carries in today's lexicon, propaganda can refer to truth as well as rumors or lies. Is this a situation of those who disagree with the muslim sympathizers being labeled as "haters"? Sure sounds like it, just as anyone who disagrees with a liberal position is often described as being "hate-filled". Malkin's article is accurate, and reflects an attitude that's probably shared with a great many people around the world that are fed up with people that riot, kill and plunder over insignificant occurances that they deem to be offensive to their religion. This type of violence and intolerance on such a large scale is seen in no other religion in modern culture.
The muslim radicals themselves have established a pretty effective propaganda machine in place, and have been using it to good effect for quite some time now. But it escapes me why anyone would feel sympathy for a faction of religious fanatics who kidnap and behead innocents on the internet and send teenaged bombers to blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace. But perhaps this is offset by the recent good news that the muslim adultress in Iran has been temporarily granted a reprive from being stoned to death - how's that for moderation being demonstrated by one of Islam's mainstream theocracies?
Final point: the above response does not in any way support the false assertion from a couple of the forum's contributors that I'm claiming all muslims are terrorists - no one is saying or insuating that, and that hasn't been the case in the past. My gripe is that their vast, peace-loving, silent majority needs to stand up and be more vocal in their opposition to their radical elements.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Good, keep it in mind.
Back in 1917, the United States Government under Wilson started to step up their hate campaign of all things German. It was for the most part to punish the German Immigrant who settled here because of their homeland. Even England got into the act, not being a Democracy helped a lot and the royals changed their names to Windsor to show unity against the Kaiser.
The point is that this is not in any way shape or form a campaign against Muslim radicals, but rather against Muslims and Islam. The ignorance is what we should be fighting right now, by eliminating the ignorance of what the religion is not.
One blaring example is that even smart people have overcome by their emotions and propagate ignorance is from many of the so called conservative writers and pundits. Gingrich of all people, professor of history and so on said that the name Cordoba House was "a deliberately insulting term" which symbolizes the Muslim conquerors' victory over Christian Spaniards, and noted that the Muslims had converted a Cordoba church into the third largest mosque in the world. That was from Wikipedia because I didn't want to hunt for the quote.
D*mn you can't make anything so asinine up if you tried.
A little bit of fact …
The Muslims conquered the Iberian peninsular in 711, they took it from the Visigoths and Vandals, among others, most of which came from Germany because of the vacuum left by that small group of people called the Romans. There were no victory over Christian Spanish because there were no Christian Spanish in 711. The site of the Cordoba Mosque as it was called was a Visigoth Church, which was bought, not taken over.
The conquest was the same power play for control of the Iberian Peninsular which was going on across the entire Mediterranean – battles for for Sicily and Malta and Corsica and so on were being fought.
The Cordoba Mosque is a symbol of their defeat, if anything but it truly is a symbol of how a few religions can get together.
Converted into a Mosque from a Church?
I think Newt needs to retire.
But the one thing that many seem to miss about the “Spanish conquest” is that the Church in Europe started to suppress the people before this time (about 400 years before) which meant no more freedoms and a scattered existence which was hard to defend lands, like Iberia. Unlike the Europeans, the Muslims flourished, grew strong and even made great BIG contributions to our present day world all because they were allowed to learn and prosper. They are the reason we have the "classics" not the Church. Thank them for the Renaissance, not the Church.
JUST imagine if the Church wasn't trying to get as much power as they could, didn't destroy libraries, places of higher learning and didn't keep the people uneducated, just how different this world would have been - but then I don't think Jesus said "keep the people down and accumulate as much wealth as you can", did he?
I would sort of agree with that but here is the issue, it isn't about those who disagree with the planners of the Mosque. It seems those who are using this as a spring board are only using it to generate hate against Muslims in general, some of it could be because of the lack of “vocal” concern from their communities about this issue of so-called sacred ground being desecrated by a religion.
When you look at the players, those of the Stop Islamisation of X groups, then you can see where this is really coming from. From there it is the usual groups trying to leverage the issues to their financial and power advantages.
So little miss Internment girl seems to forget a lot of other things that have happened too on the other side of the fence, like the Balkans. Her using these examples without filling in the blanks on a few of them seems to be atypical of what is a matter with journalism – Nigeria is a lot more complex than what she is saying. Regardless, I wasn't really pointing to her article about the issue or the religion.
On the other hand, a great many people are also fed up with religion in general, especially when people are told Jesus saves and then have to face some sort of conversion. Let's not forget that just less than 70 years ago, even when we knew Jews were being murdered, this country still took it as a sign that they were not welcomed and still 45 years we had still segregation based on religion. So whether the world is fed up or the US is, is one question that still has to be answered.
We must also set ourselves apart from other countries, specifically countries that belong to the European Union. See maybe you know the history of colonialism, so I don't have to detail this but countries like France, England and Germany are pretty much a monolithic society and have treated immigrants from their colonies as second class citizens. I won't touch the Dutch, they are on a different level altogether. Not to get into the social-economic world of the poor or the oppressed but look at these countries as one of the problems of this whole mess – ones that we can't follow but are. One blaring example is the France and the Roma question, their solution is to deport them and the EU is all up in arms about it. France hates gypsies, they deported them under Vichy and even before that that made their lives h*ll that only France's treatment of the Vietnamese surpasses the treatment of the Roma population. When everyone wants to be like France and has a thousand reasons for it, you can come up with 10 times the amount of reasons not to be like France.
Yea I can't blame them. If you were screwed with since 1917, wouldn't you get smart and also have outlets. They are not stupid people, which seems to be the theme of many of the articles written in the US about them.
Remember that our great leader, our messiah said something about being ignorant of the world while clinging to our guns and religion?
Many don't have sympathy, a lot understand why and what drives these people to do what they do but religion fanatics within one religion doesn't make it alright to only focus on the entire religion, if that was the case, Christianity has a serious problem.
Also take some of these issues out of the discussion like what happens in Iran will not happen here. It may be one of those things that Iran is troubled by a lack of Woman’s rights and so on but then should we complain about their legal process or help change it by supporting the people?
When we b*tch about Muslims in general, then we can't go and support those who are actually trying to change a lot of this, like the woman’s rights groups in Iran. Iran has some serious problems, like Iraq and what their people actually see as progress.
Part of one problem is this backward thinking that we have capitulated and now compromise out principles to accommodate them, who ever them is. Every issue has a reason behind it and more than what people are willing to talk about, foot baths at U of M dearborn was not to accomidate some Muslim students, even though a lot of them are Muslims, it was rather to make it equal, seeing that all religions are represented there or at the main campus.
NOW the one thing I have to add is this, a lot of women don't see a lot of this stuff as repressive but a duty to God. They are not stupid, a lot of them are smart but they seem to have a grip on some of power that many assume only exists with the men. This is the case in a lot of cultures which the women actually hold a lot of power behind the scenes. The cultures we hear about and see, seem to be the ones where there isn't much progress made, Iran has tried but the government has lost a lot of power.
But see when you are expecting them to speak up in opposition, you are lumping them all into the same mold. The issue isn't whether they speak up but if they are feeling that it is wrong and believe me a lot of them do. BUT speaking up is not their way, and to expect it is just as you would expect the Amish to electrify their homes just because the rest of the country is, you should understand that their way to operate isn't the Get in Your Face and protest but to do a lot behind closed doors.
Last edited: