Female Pakistani minister = murdered...

[Grahame 10]

You don't exactly benefit from being in a cycling club, do you? Other than maybe in the saddle sores department

 

I imagined when I read this post that Zamo means associations such as Freemasons, Rotary Club, Lions, political parties - where there may be a perceived advantage to being a member but that when accusations of nepotism, favours, corruption are bandied about, everyone is somehow considered guilty by association?

 

I said a cycling club because I saw in Zamo's profile that he enjoys cycling. But even so if he chose to belong to say the Labour party and an MP acted corruptly then I don't think you could say all MP's are corrupt, although on second thoughts...........

 

But you see what I mean, you can't tar everyone with the same brush and I get the feeling everyone on here is condemning Islam and perhaps Christianity also but just because there is one bad egg in the basket it doesn't mean they are all rotten surly?

[max 13]

I didn't mean in the press, I meant on here. There always seems to be a preponderance of male voices finding reasons to excuse these acts and not enough wholehearted condemnation. There's too much excusing of oppression and misguided religious fervour and not enough of 'this is just plain wrong and we won't put up with it any longer' imo.

 

As a survivor of the years of fighting for women's equality, it disappoints me that it looks as though we have the battle still to fight in some arenas.

 

Like most do-gooders there are a whole list of axioms which I hold dear: slavery is wrong, rape is wrong, racism is wrong, etc., etc., but you get my drift. If, when answering a thread, we listed all of these then no-one would read past the first paragraph.

 

Oppression of women is one of those givens so, when a thread such as this one starts blaming a religion for the actions of individuals, you just have to accept that we disagree with the individual's action but also need to disagree with the generalisation that it's the religion at fault.

[cloudybay 17]

Oppression of women is one of those givens so, when a thread such as this one starts blaming a religion for the actions of individuals, you just have to accept that we disagree with the individual's action but also need to disagree with the generalisation that it's the religion at fault.

 

 

I think we need to start blaming individuals for the perpetuation of a religion that clearly still oppresses women. Perhaps it's time to understand a little less and condemn a little more. Making excuses for an historical text, and its followers, is not only a denial of responsibility, but a travesty of justice.

[Grahame 10]

I think we need to start blaming individuals for the perpetuation of a religion that clearly still opresses women. Perhaps it's time to understand a little less and condemn a little more. Making excuses for an historical text, and its followers, is not only a denial of responsibility, but a travesty of justice.

 

O dear! O dear me.

[rubydazzler 11]

you just have to accept that we disagree with the individual's action but also need to disagree with the generalisation that it's the religion at fault.

 

See, you're doing it again! Of course, the religion is at fault! It's what they teach. It's written down in black and white on the page ... individuals might say they don't believe it but I've yet to see any report of a wholesale walk out in a mosque in protest at the teaching. Fundamentalist Christianity was the same and there are still some people that would like us to live that way, JW and PB to name but two Christian cults but we've just ignored those tenets and implemented laws to make sure that women and minority rights are respected. If it's untrue that some Muslims are trying to get the Government to accept Sharia law in some parts of UK, just come straight out and tell us.

 

Even when they were caught redhanded in Birmingham, they still came up with excuses as to why these people were allowed to preach in their mosque. I really find it hard to understand why people are defending Islam, given that these things are a basic part of that religion.

[artisan 10]

http://www.alternet.org/story/11548/

 

Since 9/11 the name Osama as a name for young Muslim boys has soared.

 

It is nonsense to say that the majority of muslims do not agree with his aims.

They must even agree with his tactics, if they are naming their sons after him.

 

It is equivalent to naming your son Adolf during WW2.

It shows where your alliegance lays.

[tab1 10]

http://www.alternet.org/story/11548/

 

Since 9/11 the name Osama as a name for young Muslim boys has soared.

 

It is nonsense to say that the majority of muslims do not agree with his aims.

They must even agree with his tactics, if they are naming their sons after him.

 

It is equivalent to naming your son Adolf during WW2.

It shows where your alliegance lays.

NAAAH!, the two two compare at all, with Adolf the idol of one or two on here was in a legue of his own whereas Osama is a hyped up designer lable for the Americans to blame everything on. I would compare Osama Bin Laden to someone like Ian Smith of Rhodesia, a hate monger indeed of the first order, but that didn't stop people naming their kids Ian did it?

Bin Laden is a hero figure for those of your type on the other side who blame the Christians for all the troubles in the world because they see the the Americans and the British crusaders invading Muslim countries. They probably use Zamo's yardstick of reasoning to conclude all Christians are the enemy and therefore should be blamed for the suffering caused to their people, and therefore you have justifucation for attacking civillians as targets. What is the difference in reasoning between Zamo and the terrorsts for a wholesale blame for an entire people for actions of a few of it's members?

[tab1 10]

Just to get back on topic I quote from the article that,"Ms Usman, a married mother of two sons, joined the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League after being elected in 2002. A strong supporter of the President’s policy of “enlightened moderation” - designed to tackle extremism" But from some of the posts here it seems that she was some westerner gone there to help, and the ungreatful people murdered her. She was a Pakistani, and ellected by muslim pakistanis and became a victim of this extremist lunatic. I feel some on here should come off their high horses and get to grip with reality that even within Muslim society differences exist and more good people than bad. The second point to mention is it isn't up for debate wheather muslims should be muslims or not and they in turn don't feel they need to justify being muslims to people who know little about their religion other than their own tiny perceptions.

[nightwish 10]

Are all muslims the same ?

 

I never said it was all Muslims there are obviously some who are not oppressed. But on the whole Muslim women are considered 2nd class citizens and have to do what they are told. I fail to see how people can deny this.

I have nothing against any religion. I just do not like to see injustice and people treated badly just because of their sex.

[artisan 10]

How do muslim women reconcile their dual status in this country?

 

At home they are treat as second class, with no say or rights, when they meet in their daily round Englishmen who treat them as equal members of the community.

 

How do these women see us?

As we are decent and civil to them, presumably they consider us to weak and wimpish in comparasion to the swaggering, domineering males they see at home.

Their behaviour when they are out and about, dressed like the scrap dealers in Star Wars, certainly gives this impression.

 

I have seens posts from muslim men on here, but am not aware of any from the female section of that community.

It would be interesting to know their opinions.

[Zamo 10]

Bin Laden is a hero figure for those of your type on the other side who blame the Christians for all the troubles in the world because they see the the Americans and the British crusaders invading Muslim countries. They probably use Zamo's yardstick of reasoning to conclude all Christians are the enemy and therefore should be blamed for the suffering caused to their people, and therefore you have justifucation for attacking civillians as targets. What is the difference in reasoning between Zamo and the terrorsts for a wholesale blame for an entire people for actions of a few of it's members?

 

Collective responsibility is a fact of life the world over.

 

I don't agree with the war in Iraq but I can understand why people in the Middle East would apportion me with some collective blame as a British citizen. Rightly so, we need to get our house in order because we are out of order.

 

I've never been caught up in football violence but I understood why Uefa banned English supporters in the 80's. Rightly so, we needed to get our house in order because we were out of order.

 

It is the same at all levels. When a Labour PM takes us into an illegal and unpopular war, then local councillors pay the price at the next local elections. When a rogue trader brings down an entire bank, then everyone working for the bank loses their jobs.

 

It isn't always fair on an individual level but life isn't fair. The problem with extremist Islam is global and affects billions of people. How on earth do you expect to tackle it without making any generalisations or assigning any collective responsibilities?

 

"Yeah but... most Muslims are moderate." "Yeah but... most Muslims don't support extremism". "Yeah but... I didn't do it." Yeah, but so what?!?!? The rest of the neighbourhood doesn't care which one of you shat in your backyard. All we know is it's there and we don't like the smell. It might be unfair that you get lumbered with the job of cleaning up the mess but it is still your responsibility.

[tab1 10]

Collective responsibility is a fact of life the world over.

 

I don't agree with the war in Iraq but I can understand why people in the Middle East would apportion me with some collective blame as a British citizen. Rightly so, we need to get our house in order because we are out of order.

 

I've never been caught up in football violence but I understood why Uefa banned English supporters in the 80's. Rightly so, we needed to get our house in order because we were out of order.

 

It is the same at all levels. When a Labour PM takes us into an illegal and unpopular war, then local councillors pay the price at the next local elections. When a rogue trader brings down an entire bank, then everyone working for the bank loses their jobs.

 

It isn't always fair on an individual level but life isn't fair. The problem with extremist Islam is global and affects billions of people. How on earth do you expect to tackle it without making any generalisations or assigning any collective responsibilities?

 

"Yeah but... most Muslims are moderate." "Yeah but... most Muslims don't support extremism". "Yeah but... I didn't do it." Yeah, but so what?!?!? The rest of the neighbourhood doesn't care which one of you shat in your backyard. All we know is it's there and we don't like the smell. It might be unfair that you get lumbered with the job of cleaning up the mess but it is still your responsibility.

So would you accept the terrorist justification for 7/7 as a revenge attack for the Iraq invasion? They like your reasoning thought british s***ting in the Iraqi back yard was justification enough to murder 52 innocent people. Have you no intellect to distinguish at all between right and wrong? Those people on the trains and buses that day wern't responsible for the war but clearly the terrorist used your yardstick to apportion blame.