I thought Islam was smart. What were they thinking?

[Greatest I Am]

I thought Islam was smart. What were they thinking?

I always thought Islam a smart religion and I see I was wrong in this once instance. Please do not view this as a critique of any other of your views, I do not know them well enough. I did follow one of your leaders through this medium at one time and respect Islam as a religion. Allah as represented is to be respected.



The issue in question is that of the death of Theo van Gogh.

I cannot view his film Submission with your eyes and mindset and will offer mine from my side.

My overall impression of the message of this film, from a religious point of view, was that if all males, of any religion, that were of spiritual heart, would learn wrong conduct and would gain a further respect for their women.

To me this is a positive for any religion.

The only shame I see is that Islam, a progressive religion, did not come up with it yourselves.

To your fundamentals I ask, what were you thinking? To much of the old pipe perhaps? Please note that I say this as a joke. No Holy anything please.

I hope you will forgive my bluntness in speech. In other places where I discuss religion it is often insinuated that I and Satan are close and so my intrusion on your thoughts may be an insult. I hope you do not take it as such.

In my definition of debate I love all I speak to but, respect they have to earn.

When I first learned of your God, He began without blemish. That of course is only in my eyes for I speak only for one. He now has a small one. Please help me regain that small part of the respect I lost to add to that which I still hold for your God.

I do recognize that the presentation of the young lady in what Islam would view as risqué but would have thought that the benefits of the universal message of right action, would
have cause the leadership to not honor Van Gogh with martyrdom and therefore putting a thorn in Islam’s rump forever.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

catalist
and all others

What do you see as the message to us in this film. You have critiqued all but the moral message. What is it telling the world?

Regards
DL

[catalyst]

catalist
and all others

What do you see as the message to us in this film. You have critiqued all but the moral message. What is it telling the world?

Regards
DL

Well that is the thing DL, I believe by critiquing the film, I have also critiqued Kirsi Ali's intended "moral" message, which in HER own words is, "behind the beauty, there is always cruelty" which to me, is an amoral and incorrect message to send to the world, because that is not always the case.

As it is her "baby" I go with what her intent was, not what you personally garner from it DL. Perhaps though you did not realise her actual intent?

Hence your comment of :

I believe I indicated that the message of the film should be universally accepted as good advice for all peoples. If not I do so now.

and my wanting to know how you came to that conclusion and asked:

MY QUOTE

Could you elaborate as to why please DL?

So again, just what is this " should be universally accepted good advice" you speak of?


If her message perhaps was: "don't feel obliged to submit to anyone, or anything other than self", I MAY see some positive message there, but that is not the direction she chose to go, nor in any way the direction she showed and if anything, she just went to show woman as a symbolic vehicle, to pimp her own personal agenda. That is hardly a

universal message of right action

, now is it? If anything her "vision" lends more to an exploitation of women itself within her "symolism" which again within itself is hardly a right action.

[Greatest I Am]

catalist
and all others

What do you see as the message to us in this film. You have critiqued all but the moral message. What is it telling the world?

Regards
DL

Well that is the thing DL, I believe by critiquing the film, I have also critiqued Kirsi Ali's intended "moral" message, which in HER own words is, "behind the beauty, there is always cruelty" which to me, is an amoral and incorrect message to send to the world, because that is not always the case.

As it is her "baby" I go with what her intent was, not what you personally garner from it DL. Perhaps though you did not realise her actual intent?

Hence your comment of :

I believe I indicated that the message of the film should be universally accepted as good advice for all peoples. If not I do so now.

and my wanting to know how you came to that conclusion and asked:

MY QUOTE

Could you elaborate as to why please DL?

So again, just what is this " should be universally accepted good advice" you speak of?


If her message perhaps was: "don't feel obliged to submit to anyone, or anything other than self", I MAY see some positive message there, but that is not the direction she chose to go, nor in any way the direction she showed and if anything, she just went to show woman as a symbolic vehicle, to pimp her own personal agenda. That is hardly a

universal message of right action

, now is it? If anything her "vision" lends more to an exploitation of women itself within her "symolism" which again within itself is hardly a right action.

Thanks for this.-now as promised.

To me this film is a classic example of the male world subjugating women.
It portrays a case of sexual and physical abuse for a woman that allows her no way out of her situation. A complaint to parents not only fails to ease her burden but brings further scorn and mental abuse from those who are there to guide her and protect her.

I recognize that Islam was perhaps the main target for Van Gogh but that, because this type of situation transcends all religious and secular lines, become a good universal message for all of us.

The message is clear for all peoples where the males can institutionally subjugate their women as well as all others in secular societies where people, both men and women, tolerate or turn a blind eye to the suffering and abuse of women in order to save face. Van Gogh does not stoop to only chastising men but also shows the actress as perhaps deserving some scorn for following her heart but focuses as he should on the male inappropriate conduct as well as inappropriate action from parents.

In short the moral messages are clear.

For women.
Do not follow your heart to inappropriate sexual conduct with anyone other than your husband.
Do not allow yourself to be abused in any mental, physical or sexual by anyone, be they husbands, relatives or outsiders.

For mothers and fathers.
Do not tolerate the abuse of your children by anyone regardless of your religious or social circumstances.
By tolerating such action, you become as evil as the perpetrator of the action.

For men.
Do not abuse your wife or any female physically, mentally or sexually. Do not use even a willing party in a sexual liaison even in a loving way if her social position is such that it can bring abuse by her peers.

If one would forget that Islam were Van Gogh’s target and dress the production in secular colors then all would focus better on the universal moral message and not let religious thoughts cloud the ideas that he tries to express. The fact that most here could not set religion aside says much about us. Lets all try to do better.

Regards
DL

[catalyst]

DL

I think what you are failing to understand is it was never Van Gogh's vision, but that of Aaryan Hirsi Ali herself ,and that is WHY any positivity which could be gleened has, failed as she in her OWN vision. HELLO? AGAIN A WOMAN WAS SUBJAGATING WOMEN FOR HER OWN GAIN! again HELLO?

I see that as a woman, hence my failing to see ANY right action or "positive message" behind it.

Frankly DL all I am seeing from your reply is that you tend to think that subjugating of women is a "good" thing and a positive lesson to be learned by all! your quote:

become a good universal message for all of us.

and it is a 'right action" if a woman is doing it to other women.

As a woman, all I have to say is :PPPHHHHHBBTT!!!

WTF??

[Greatest I Am]

DL

I think what you are failing to understand is it was never Van Gogh's vision, but that of Aaryan Hirsi Ali herself ,and that is WHY any positivity which could be gleened has, failed as she in her OWN vision. HELLO? AGAIN A WOMAN WAS SUBJAGATING WOMEN FOR HER OWN GAIN! again HELLO?

I see that as a woman, hence my failing to see ANY right action or "positive message" behind it.

Frankly DL all I am seeing from your reply is that you tend to think that subjugating of women is a "good" thing and a positive lesson to be learned by all! your quote:

become a good universal message for all of us.

and it is a 'right action" if a woman is doing it to other women.

As a woman, all I have to say is :PPPHHHHHBBTT!!!

WTF??

I really don't know how you get that from what I wrote. I even had my wife check it with me and revue my response???

Could you point to my wording as to where I indicate this notion because it was the furthest from my mind. I believe in full equality and would not want anything I wrote to be misconstrued. Please do so for the sake of the women that I do not want to insult.
If you are right, my wife would have slapped me and I would have deserved it.

Regards
DL

[catalyst]

DL,

The simple fact that you have ignored several mentions that it was actually a WOMAN'S vision and NOT that of Van Gogh is telling. Seriously, how many times does it have to be pointed out for you to asborb it?

Also, you trumpet about your claimed own "vision" of "equality", however in your own moral codes have conjured up different codes for men and women to supposedly follow. IF you truly believed in an equal playing field, you would NOT have separated your "moral messages" into the categories you did, which are:

For women.
Do not follow your heart to inappropriate sexual conduct with anyone other than your husband.
Do not allow yourself to be abused in any mental, physical or sexual by anyone, be they husbands, relatives or outsiders

1. WHO are you to deem whether a woman can follow her heart or not no matter WHAT reason?

2. You however seem to have no issue with the subjacaton of women when it is done in what YOU deem, and in YOUR words DL "right action".

For mothers and fathers.
Do not tolerate the abuse of your children by anyone regardless of your religious or social circumstances.
By tolerating such action, you become as evil as the perpetrator of the action.

1. The rules according to DL cast a very broad net, and perhaps is from one who does not have kids. What do you deem as "abuse" DL? I have put my kids in the past in childcare facility where the "thinking chair" was a mode of punishment and they had to sit there for 5 minutes and "think" about their actions. I personally thought that was OK, however some parents didn't. That being the case, am I by allowing my child to think of the consequences of their actions, "evil" and is too, the child care provider?

For men.
Do not abuse your wife or any female physically, mentally or sexually. Do not use even a willing party in a sexual liaison even in a loving way if her social position is such that it can bring abuse by her peers

Here you are condoning sneaky sexual liason for men, but have made a specific rule that women cannot "follow their heart" in such a way.


I personally believe in fidelity in relationships and think that that any "rules" are by JOINT and equal. Your rules as to men/vs/women scream of mysogonistic intent DL and if your wife actually read what was on the screen, I truly doubt you would have "let her" read the entire thread or even just the interactions between you and I to get the full gist.

FYI DL, your soothe-sayer bollocks may fool some. Not me though honey!

[msmcneal]

I can only go by my own personal observations as to Islam. With my work I spent 18 months in Iraq and observed Islam as it "IS" to a Muslim, without the western propagandic "spin" attached and my own observations are as follows. I realise it was only a glimpse, but at least I had one.

Women are NOT treated as lesser human beings and if anything from what I witnessed, although there being mutual respect in households, the women actually hold the trump card. Women are seen as the bearers of life hence holding a dignified respect, rather than an assumed one. The Burkha is not to an Islamic woman is not a BAD thing as they accept themselves for who they are and what gifts they bring to the world as a WOMAN and feel no need to SHOW their worth as a women by parading their goods.

It is a shame that the western view sees this as some type of oppression, where if anything it is the complete opposite.

All I can suggest to others is, stop believing the face value "hype" as it never gives anything even close to the the "reality".

I found this to be true, as well, after I left Christianity. Once I did that, I got over my preconceived notions and assumptions about other religions, and found that I actually agree with a good bit of Islamic philosophy, moreso than I ever did with Chistianity. However, I don't really see myself joining the religion, as I don't really know whether there is even a god that exists, much less accept a specific philosophy about him/her/it/them. But I did realize that Islam is much demonized in the west, and unnecessarily so, as far as I'm concerned.

[Greatest I Am]

DL,

The simple fact that you have ignored several mentions that it was actually a WOMAN'S vision and NOT that of Van Gogh is telling. Seriously, how many times does it have to be pointed out for you to asborb it?

Also, you trumpet about your claimed own "vision" of "equality", however in your own moral codes have conjured up different codes for men and women to supposedly follow. IF you truly believed in an equal playing field, you would NOT have separated your "moral messages" into the categories you did, which are:

For women.
Do not follow your heart to inappropriate sexual conduct with anyone other than your husband.
Do not allow yourself to be abused in any mental, physical or sexual by anyone, be they husbands, relatives or outsiders

1. WHO are you to deem whether a woman can follow her heart or not no matter WHAT reason?

2. You however seem to have no issue with the subjacaton of women when it is done in what YOU deem, and in YOUR words DL "right action".

For mothers and fathers.
Do not tolerate the abuse of your children by anyone regardless of your religious or social circumstances.
By tolerating such action, you become as evil as the perpetrator of the action.

1. The rules according to DL cast a very broad net, and perhaps is from one who does not have kids. What do you deem as "abuse" DL? I have put my kids in the past in childcare facility where the "thinking chair" was a mode of punishment and they had to sit there for 5 minutes and "think" about their actions. I personally thought that was OK, however some parents didn't. That being the case, am I by allowing my child to think of the consequences of their actions, "evil" and is too, the child care provider?

For men.
Do not abuse your wife or any female physically, mentally or sexually. Do not use even a willing party in a sexual liaison even in a loving way if her social position is such that it can bring abuse by her peers

Here you are condoning sneaky sexual liason for men, but have made a specific rule that women cannot "follow their heart" in such a way.


I personally believe in fidelity in relationships and think that that any "rules" are by JOINT and equal. Your rules as to men/vs/women scream of mysogonistic intent DL and if your wife actually read what was on the screen, I truly doubt you would have "let her" read the entire thread or even just the interactions between you and I to get the full gist.

FYI DL, your soothe-sayer bollocks may fool some. Not me though honey!

Thanks for this.

You do not know how to read. Try your thinking chair.

Regards
DL

[catalyst]

DL,

The simple fact that you have ignored several mentions that it was actually a WOMAN'S vision and NOT that of Van Gogh is telling. Seriously, how many times does it have to be pointed out for you to asborb it?

Also, you trumpet about your claimed own "vision" of "equality", however in your own moral codes have conjured up different codes for men and women to supposedly follow. IF you truly believed in an equal playing field, you would NOT have separated your "moral messages" into the categories you did, which are:

For women.
Do not follow your heart to inappropriate sexual conduct with anyone other than your husband.
Do not allow yourself to be abused in any mental, physical or sexual by anyone, be they husbands, relatives or outsiders

1. WHO are you to deem whether a woman can follow her heart or not no matter WHAT reason?

2. You however seem to have no issue with the subjacaton of women when it is done in what YOU deem, and in YOUR words DL "right action".

For mothers and fathers.
Do not tolerate the abuse of your children by anyone regardless of your religious or social circumstances.
By tolerating such action, you become as evil as the perpetrator of the action.

1. The rules according to DL cast a very broad net, and perhaps is from one who does not have kids. What do you deem as "abuse" DL? I have put my kids in the past in childcare facility where the "thinking chair" was a mode of punishment and they had to sit there for 5 minutes and "think" about their actions. I personally thought that was OK, however some parents didn't. That being the case, am I by allowing my child to think of the consequences of their actions, "evil" and is too, the child care provider?

For men.
Do not abuse your wife or any female physically, mentally or sexually. Do not use even a willing party in a sexual liaison even in a loving way if her social position is such that it can bring abuse by her peers

Here you are condoning sneaky sexual liason for men, but have made a specific rule that women cannot "follow their heart" in such a way.


I personally believe in fidelity in relationships and think that that any "rules" are by JOINT and equal. Your rules as to men/vs/women scream of mysogonistic intent DL and if your wife actually read what was on the screen, I truly doubt you would have "let her" read the entire thread or even just the interactions between you and I to get the full gist.

FYI DL, your soothe-sayer bollocks may fool some. Not me though honey!

Thanks for this.

You do not know how to read. Try your thinking chair.

Regards
DL

If you personally believe I read you incorrectly DL, then please point out the assumed misinterpretations.

1. You were the one who originally set out the specific sets of rules for women vs men, which negates your claimed concept of "equal" standard.

2. Submission was Hirsi's vision and not that of Van Gogh and all you have to do is read the transcripts of the cited sources on this link to see that.

3. Van Goghs murder was more than likely due to a compelation of things PRIOR to Submission ever being released as he was pretty much an A%hole without that on on his CV anyway.

So, if as you reckon I have misread anything cite these alleged errors of reading on my part.

Tah

[Goat]

3. Van Goghs murder was more than likely due to a compelation of things PRIOR to Submission ever being released as he was pretty much an A%hole without that on on his CV anyway.

So, if as you reckon I have misread anything cite these alleged errors of reading on my part.

Tah

While I am sure Van Goghs murder had things to do with more than just Submission, he was rude, crude and socially unacceptable, the fact that the murder left a note threatening Aaryan Hirsi Ali on Van Gogh's body shows that Submission was a contributing cause.