Religion

[crazydil]

There have been a few threads in regards to religion and without exception there are always a few posters who cannot help themselves from being disrespectful.

Is it difficult to get a point across without a slight dig? Criticism is part of a healthy discussion but to be so rude about something that is very important to some. ..is it really needed?
I've never felt the need to be rude about anyones belief no matter how strange I find it to be.

So basically aibu in expecting respect in any conversation

"true Islam" exists as much as "true Christianity" or "true Scientology" does!

So, not at all then?!

pretty much

So in your ideal state, women would always be covered - so that they can't be seen by men?

Yes

Well thank goodness there are very few of your "ideal states" and long may it stay that way.

Didnt she say that she didnt know anyone that was oppressed in Saudi? So it would kinda be like saying I don't know anyone oppressed in the UK. Which is true. But there's plenty that are.

If there was any such thing as a 'true' version of a religion, who would decide what it was, where would they get their information from , what interpretation would they use and how would anyone check they were correct?

And where does Islamic culture come from?

Some laws/attitudes can be traced to colonization, ie Moroccan rape law. I think it may happen in Tunisia too. Where women are made to marry their rapist, which is something based on the bible.

Didnt she say that she didnt know anyone that was oppressed in Saudi? So it would kinda be like saying I don't know anyone oppressed in the UK

No. Because ALL women are oppressed in Saudi, and she knows women in Saudi. Therefore, she knows people who are oppressed. But she lied because it doesn't suit her narrative.

Either that or she truly believes being forced to wear what you are told, not be allowed to leave the house without a male relative, nothave any rights to your children or legal decisions, and to be forced to burn rather than show an arm to a man is not being oppressed. Which I refuse to believe.

From what you've just said the only thing that is true, yet severely exaggerated is being told to cover. If anyone was to step outside, the heat will get to them whatever they are wearing. But yes. They are told to cover which is something she clearly has no issues with. So..perhaps she wasn't lying when she said she didnt know anyone personally that is oppressed in Saudi.

Are you insane? I could list a thousand reasons why women in Saudi are oppressed, but if you are just going to pretend they are not true what is the point?

How can anyone with half a brain cell argue they are not?

How can anyone with half a brain cell argue they are not?
Well if you brainwashed in a culture or religion you can easily believe something. The truth of it is secondary.

So in your ideal state, women would always be covered - so that they can't be seen by men?

Yes.

And not being allowed to drive is ok because you are permitted to get around it? How about having some autonomy? (Which is pretty much not allowed in KSA)

Not driving wasn't a problem for me or any of the women I know there as we were in a large city and had drivers and/or access to taxis. I can imagine for women who don't, or who live in more rural areas it must be really inconvenient. I completely agree that Saudi is an awful place for gay people to live in and so is the Muslim world in general unfortunately, I would dearly love to see that change.

it sounds like you don't know what oppression is then. that you personally weren't inconvenienced by this law isn't relevant. The fact the law is there preventing you from doing what half the population can do makes women oppressed.

that gay marriage is illegal (or rights in general are diminished) in certain countries doesn't personally affect me as I am not gay. But of course such laws do oppress many other people (and I'd argue they oppress me as well, despite not being gay). so that you personally would not partake in a freedom is not relevant to the question of whether the lack of that freedom is oppressive.

No I am not insane. Personally I think everyone in Saudi is oppressed with the exception of the elite. But I dont think it's right to accuse someone of lying. In particular stateless. She's respectful in the way she addresses others and I think she deserves to also be respected. I have known many women from Saudi and they don't feel Saudi is a horribly oppressive place to live. They have issues with some laws ie driving. But they seem to love their country. They agree with the dress code. The ones that I have known are well educated as are most women there. They work and they leave the house without their husbands. Saudi is oppressive mainly to women and people of colour. But not everyone will see it that way.

*So in your ideal state, women would always be covered - so that they can't be seen by men?

Yes.

shock*

You're way is not the only way. I don't understand what is do shocking about that. She's a muslim
She wears the hijab because she believes its a good thing. She agrees with it. In the same sense that you disagree with it and would most probably hate to see the prevalence of it. she never said it should be forced....

Well if you brainwashed in a culture or religion you can easily believe something. The truth of it is secondary.

I don't think they're 'brainwashed'. Women can think for themselves too. I hate it when people say brainwashed..and usually in reference to women.

Saudi women tend to be well travelled, highly educated and very articulate. They do disagree with some laws yet totally and fully agree with others.

I don't think we should be too surprised. Until recently Saudi wasn't a built up country. There were lots of Bedouins and they were very very tribal. It has always been a conservative and deeply religious society. People there agree with the hijab. Well the overwhelming majority anyway, so how could that be oppressive to them?

I'm not saying its not sn oppressive society. But what a white woman in the UK finds oppressive a Saudi woman may not.

These countries are changing. But it takes time. So I don't really believe the whole 'poor women are brainwashed'. I think they agree with that lifstyle. And if they agree with most aspects of that lifestyle why can we not let them be.

Saudi and the other Gulf countries of OPEC got ensured American safety from Israel in the early 1970s by guaranteeing to set the world oil price in dollars. this helped prop up the american economy because countries that had rejected the dollar to buy gold system now needed dollars to buy oil. this continues today, and on top of that many of the Gulf countries were to keep their surplus oil profits in american government debt securities. for this they get the 'protection' of american military bases, weapons, and guaranteed protection from Israel. america gets world demand for the dollar, can print dollars itself to buy oil, and also has a market for its government debt securities.

www.financialsense.com/contributors/jerry-robinson/the-rise-of-the-petrodollar-system-dollars-for-oil

the gulf monarchies keep this cheap oil going through to the US and spread some of that money out by investing in the UK. they also with the support of the west destroy any chance of representative government forming not only in their own countries but also other middle eastern countries to hold their own power. 'we' have historically prefer a corrupt man who is 'ours' than a virtuous man who is not ours. secular arab governments in the middle east are not ideal because they tend to be socialist. (the original arab culture pre islam is communal not individualistic). these secular governments have also tended to be protectionist and anti capitalist.

laws in saudi and the gulf against gay people or women are to offset the claims and anger of their own citizens calling them corrupt for making deals against their own nations interests with the west. so these wahhabi governments seek to pacify and VIRTUE SIGNAL by making such laws to try and make themselves as the upholders of the nation's culture and religion.
and some people fall for that as you get the type who vote brexit or trump in every society. then with others that realise repressive laws dont fill their bellies or get hospitals built the gulf states then try to bribe them with amazing tax breaks and concessions - free housing, schooling, jobs for life etc... bany others that dont fall in line they just do brutal violent repression of any movements that threaten their power.

atheists in saudi are also repressed, just as threatening as muslim brotherhood types because the royals only keep their power because of their (fake) religiousity. if a large movement of people stop believing in religion, where would their right to lead come from?

the democratic open tolerant life we life here in the west is at the cost of other people losing their liberty to autocratic government in the rest of the world. our stability for our own economies is at the cost of instability in the middle east and beyond, because we cant afford a movement opening up there that would want open fair trade on oil. we cannot have any alternative that threatens cheap oil to the west or the dollar hegemony.

look how batshit everything went because sadaam was going to sell oil in euros. or that ghaddafi was going to create a gold backed currency. they were secular practically atheist leaders but they were socialist. we prefer fundamentalists to secularists in the arab world.

But I dont think it's right to accuse someone of lying. In particular stateless. She's respectful in the way she addresses others and I think she deserves to also be respected

But she did lie, so why isn't it ok to say so? Is it respectful to lie? Is it respectful to call someone names in order to avoid answering their questions about your lies?
I don't call that respectful, just the opposite.

existential I am not a liar and I think it's atrocious that you keeping calling me one. I have a different perspective and opinion to you and other posters based on my beliefs and experiences, which are also obviously extremely different.
I also did not call you names, I believe I said you were rude and aggressive, and that was after you had said I was talking shit. You came across as just looking for someone to be insulting to, which is why I ignored your questions.

crazydil thanks for sticking up for me

If you are telling us that women in Saudi are not oppressed there is nothing else to call you than a liar. Because that is what you are.

This is Stateless post.

The only countries where hijab is mandatory are Saudi and Iran

I can't see how it is possible to argue that being forced to wear a hijab whether you want to or not is anything other than oppression.

and a significant proportion of those countries women wear it through choice anyway
How can this possibly be known given there is no choice?

What you have said is a ridiculous exaggeration. Women are not stoned to death for disobeying men, It is a punishment for adultery in some countries and not often carried out these days

This point has lost me entirely- of course it is about disobeying men. The rule is being taken up and enforced by men. The distinction she makes is beyond pointless. Aside from the apparently unthinking acceptance that there should be a criminal sanction for adultery , whether the rule is "man made" or whatever "god or prophet" Stateless adheres to "made up".

Muslims in the Middle East make up about 20% of the world's Muslim population and oppressed women are a minority
A minority , like gay people and poor women who can't afford a driver. Stateless doesn't know any of these groups and as they are a minority and it doesn't affect her she seems largely unconcerned about how her religion imposes itself on and adversely affects them.

It isn't even logical to assume that most of us are oppressed. Telling women who are educated, happy and free that they actually aren't is not only incredibly rude and annoying but it completely minimises real abuse and oppression, which affects women from all cultures

The "haven't you got bigger things to fret about" argument? And completely ignoring the point that if a woman is told she has to cover up and can't drive it is hardly a free choice or being free is it.

All that is coming through as far as I'm concerned is Stateless is a well-off, religiously inclined, heterosexual woman who would be more than happy to see the restrictions she apparently willingly embraces imposed on others given her description of an "ideal" state.

Telling women who are educated, happy and free that they actually aren't is not only incredibly rude and annoying but it completely minimises real abuse and oppression, which affects women from all cultures

You may be educated and you may be happy, but if you are a woman in Saudi Arabia you are by no means free. And Stateless knows that, she just doesn't mind it. And she doesn't care about the people who do mind.

Re Saudi, oil, dollar etc, has everyone seen this? Bitter Lake:

Women are not stoned to death for disobeying men, It is a punishment for adultery in some countries and not often carried out these days

Phew, thank goodness for that. Otherwise it might be a problem.

Don't forget you can also be executed in Saudi Arabia for witchcraft and sorcery! And being rich and educated won't save you either, a Saudi princess was publicly shot in the head for adultery.

And you can go to prison, after getting 200 lashes, when you get raped.

And your testimony is only worth half what a mans is, and you must send a male relative to speak for you since you are not allowed to address a court.

But, no, women are not oppressed in Saudi Arabia. It's all good