/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Inquiry launched after Islamic group holds segregated lecture



سيف الله
04-15-2013, 09:47 AM
Salaam

Leicester student society accused of seating segregation, in wake of UCL row that led to banning of an Islamic group



The University of Leicester has launched an investigation into gender segregation at a public lecture held by its student Islamic society.

The talk, entitled Does God Exist?, featured a guest speaker Hamza Tzortzis as part of an Islamic Awareness week. Seating at the event was segregated, with different entrances into the lecture theatre for men and women. It follows news that a London university, UCL, has banned an Islamic organisation from campus after concluding that it attempted to impose segregation at a debate which also featured Tzortzis. In Leicester, more than 100 students attended the segregated event, which took place last month. A photograph passed to the Guardian shows signs put up in a university building, directing the segregation.

A message on the group's website says: "In all our events, [the society] operate a strict policy of segregated seating between males and females." The statement was removed after the Guardian contacted the society.

A spokesman for Leicester said: "The University of Leicester does not permit enforced segregation at public events. The university will investigate whether entrances to the hall for this event were segregated by the society and will ensure there is no recurrence of this.

"The University will not interfere with people's right to choose where to sit. If some people choose to sit in a segregated manner because of their religious convictions then they are free to do so. By the same token, if people attending do not wish to sit in a segregated manner, they are free to do so."

He added: "To our knowledge, no-one was forced to sit in any particular seat. If there is evidence of enforced segregation, that would be a matter the university and students' union would investigate." But a Leicester student told the Guardian he believed segregation was common practice at the society's events to avoid offending those with strong religious beliefs.

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: "Gender segregated seating contravenes the equal opportunities and anti-discrimination policies of universities and student unions. Students and staff should not be subjected to sexist segregationist policies.

"Universities are supposed to be places of enlightenment, tolerance, liberalism and human rights. It is shocking the way some student Islamist societies are being allowed to force women to sit apart from men, sometimes with the connivance of the university authorities, who take a hands-off approach. Some universities are doing very little to ensure that the campus is a safe and equal place for all students."

Dan Flatt, an officer for Leicester Students' Union, said: "The Students' Union does not believe in enforced segregation. We trust in our societies' ability to conduct their events in accordance with the principles of the union."

But Rupert Sutton, from the campus watchdog Student Rights, has claimed there is "consistent use of segregation by student Islamic societies across the country".

He wrote: "While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated."

The issue made the headlines recently after Prof Lawrence Krauss, an eminent atheist, walked out of a segregated event at University College London (UCL). He returned after organisers said segregation would be abandoned. Richard Dawkins later described the attempted segregation as a "sexual apartheid".

The University of East London also recently blocked an Islamist meeting which was also set to have segregated seating.

Dawkins wrote on his website: "Isn't it really about time we decent, nice, liberal people stopped being so pusillanimously terrified of being thought 'Islamophobic' and stood up for decent, nice, liberal values?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Pygoscelis
04-16-2013, 12:37 PM
Interesting. It is one thing if this is an Islamic group catering solely or primarily to Muslim students (in which case Muslim tradition should be followed, and I'd hope no public funding pays for the event). It is quite another thing if this is an event put on by a group for all and directed at all and there just happens to be a Muslim on the panel of speakers (in which case I will sit where I please).
Reply

KenPruitt
04-19-2013, 11:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Interesting. It is one thing if this is an Islamic group catering solely or primarily to Muslim students (in which case Muslim tradition should be followed, and I'd hope no public funding pays for the event).
Your hope is in vain. Public funding almost always pay for events like this.
Reply

جوري
04-20-2013, 12:01 AM
your so down on people's hopes & dreams today Pruitt.. why don't you go frequent the bar and drown your woes there instead of our forum debbie downer!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
KenPruitt
04-20-2013, 12:06 AM
I'm a realist, among other things.
Reply

جوري
04-26-2013, 03:25 PM
Does Gender Segregation Oppose Liberal Values?

Adam Belaon

Last Updated on Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:52 Please help us run Islam21c and its' projects for the next 12 months. Donate to our Just Giving page.

In a recent incident, a London university banned its own student Islamic society from conducting any further events in conjunction with a well-established international Muslim organisation (IERA), on the grounds that enforced gender segregation had taken place at an event on university premises.
In a recent incident, a London university banned its own student Islamic society from conducting any further events in conjunction with a well-established international Muslim organisation (IERA), on the grounds that enforced gender segregation had taken place at an event on university premises.

For the record the above mentioned Muslim organisation has evidence to the contrary with video footage demonstrating that the seats in the lecture theatre were filled by individuals without enforcement or over-stewarding. The natural end being that most attendees, many of whom were Muslims chose to sit in gender segregated areas, and a minority chose not to, and did so for the duration. However it appears that the university had made up its mind. Last week another UK university said it was investigating similar claims about the way their Islamic society conducted its own events.

What is the point of principle that has so evidently exercised them? The infamous gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who felt it his place to comment on the situation is quoted in a piece in the ‘Guardian’:
"Gender segregated seating contravenes the equal opportunities and anti-discrimination policies of universities and student unions. Students and staff should not be subjected to sexist segregationist policies. Universities are supposed to be places of enlightenment, tolerance, liberalism and human rights. It is shocking the way some student Islamist societies are being allowed to force women to sit apart from men, sometimes with the connivance of the university authorities, who take a hands-off approach. Some universities are doing very little to ensure that the campus is a safe and equal place for all students."
Peter Tatchell says he wants equality for all. If that is true then presumably that would include religious Muslims as well. Yet it appears to have gone right over his head that equal opportunities and anti-discrimination are the precise reason that gender segregated areas should exist as an option for those who want it. Some people, mainly Muslims (but guess what Muslims are people) want to sit amongst their own gender for reasons of adherence to religious conviction and some don't. Secularism, Liberalism, equal opportunities should accommodate both. Dear Peter should understand better than most - Some people are just Muslim - get over it - and then we can live in a more tolerant society.

In the same way Peter Tatchell chose to patronise women so too did Rupert Sutton, from the self-appointed campus watchdog Student Rights, who wrote: "While this may be portrayed as voluntary by those who enforce it, the pressure put on female students to conform and obey these rules that encourage subjugation should not be underestimated."

They choose to tap into the overplayed narrative that all Muslim women are subjugated and down-trodden. Mysterious it must be for them to learn that the majority of converts to Islam in the west are women. Being the dogmatic ideologues they are; they clearly don’t quite know how to process the information. Their internal conflict requires them to believe in the inherent weak-mindedness of the women who make such choices. This results in them patronising women who see Islam as a value-rich faith with enduring principles. I would strongly suggest Tatchell and Sutton have fallen into a rather misogynistic reasoning process!

Richard Dawkins also weighed into the debate by describing segregation as a "sexual apartheid". I wonder if Dawkins would describe separate wards in hospitals as being sexual apartheid. Interestingly enough it was something that many people, particularly elderly felt so strongly about that the last Labour government pledged to end mixed wards completely. What would Dawkins think about single sex schools, or ladies only time at the gym – a violation of human rights no doubt. Or would he perhaps consider female only swimming sessions at the local baths or separate toilets for men and women as a subversion of liberal values? I’m sure Tatchell and Dawkins cry themselves to sleep at night thinking about the poor women forced to use a separate WC. Surely they have a right not to have forced upon them these cleaner facilities.

Their reasoning is clear folly. If pushed in a corner, Dawkins would have to argue that privacy here is required or desirable, where as in a university lecture theatre it is not. To which we could respond, well why? Why do you deem it to be required or desirable? The only answer is that the cultural sensitivities of our society tell us it is desirable. The point being is that Liberal values in and of themselves do not indicate that progressive societies should have separate hospital wards or toilets. Rather, liberal values tell us to be accommodating of people’s cultural sensitivities, but do not dictate what those sensitivities should be. Thus the cultural sensitivities pertaining to gender mixing cannot be trumped by liberalism. If religious Muslims wish to live a life consistent with the teachings of their faith then to be frank what business is that of Dawkins, Tatchell or anyone else. If some Muslims wish to respect the values of Islam pertaining to minimising gender mixing then a tolerant society should be able to accommodate that.

Secularism and Liberalism were intended to accommodate difference not homogenise us all and make moral judgements on people's chosen religious practices. It is nothing less than an oxymoron that a university that claims to uphold the tradition of democracy violates the advice of John Stuart Mill, who stated,
‘Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.’
Pointing this fact out does not make us hypocrites. One can still mention this and yet be clear that they are not a liberal but rather a conservative Muslim who holds orthodox Muslim opinions sourced from scripture. Yet it seems clear that denying an organisation the right to speak (in this case IERA) purely because it holds a minority voice that doesn’t fit the paradigm dominant discourse, seems to violate what a University that promotes freedom of thought is all about. Universities should not allow themselves to be brow-beaten and in the spirit intellectual rigour investigate the facts for themselves rather than believing verbatim what they are told be these pressure groups. Sadly crass pragmatism has overtaken integrity, fairness and seeking the truth of the matter. More disconcertingly a new neo liberal bigotry is being aggressively pursued by these groups, which few seem to realise actually conflicts with more traditional liberalism.

Symbolic politics theory contends that hostility to minorities is ultimately motivated by perceived differences in values between the dominant and minority groups. Undoubtedly people with different backgrounds and perspectives on what life is about will have differing values. Most of us will accept this as a fact of life and in the general spirit of good-will and accommodation we all get along. However, it is becoming ever more apparent that some are hell-bent on over-exaggerating the case of difference as a way of whipping up animosity with the aim of marginalising orthodox Muslims as social outcasts. They do so by falsely claiming to act in the interests of preserving the integrity of liberal values.

This false perception is being driven by right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organisations and some right-wing nationalist groups use as propaganda for their followers. This is definitely an area wherein more needs to be done to offer an explicit expose'.


Notes:
Source: www.islam21c.com
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-26-2013, 04:36 PM
I have no points of disagreement with this article. It speaks the truth and takes a live and let live, each do things our own way so long as we don't hurt each other sort of approach I'd endorse. If muslims want to enter the place, they can sit in whatever order they want to, so long as my group can do the same. I will only object should they cross the line into demanding we all do it their way, or if they ask for special treatment the rest of us are denied, or put us in danger.
Reply

جوري
04-26-2013, 04:42 PM
Islam doesn't impose upon people, people impose upon it!
Reply

M.I.A.
04-26-2013, 07:14 PM
sounds like a case of missing common sense again.


i take it that the university has separate praying facilities for males and females?

how bout setting up some loud speakers in each room and being done with it?


it depends on what time the talk was held but i guess they could never have thought that far ahead, somebodies always got the loudest voice.. which is just as bad as red tape.


or am i just being patronizing and arrogant again? dont answer that, the last time i said that they took it at face value.. and said yes i was.


allah swt's will is always done.

i will keep apologizing.


...public lecture, might need three rooms.



the important thing to remember is that not everybody is at the same stage of belief/practice/knowledge in islam and it is important to not put of people who are not at the same stage as you.

...or not


i dont get the picture of the signs?
Reply

سيف الله
04-27-2013, 11:14 PM
Salaam

Thanks to the brothers and sisters who replied.

Point of posting was to show how all enveloping the ideology of secular liberalism has become in UK and the dangers it poses particularly to those who practice there faith. In fact several Christian societies have been forced off campus because they don't submit to the equality and diversity agenda.

No doubt more Islamic societies will be targeted in the future. Rough times ahead methinks :hmm:.
Reply

Karl
04-28-2013, 01:19 AM
It would be best to conduct these lectures in a madras or mosque so there would not be any lefty liberal trouble makers. "Universities are supposed to be places of enlightenment, tolerance, liberalism and human rights" In classical times only males were allowed to attend and after the Dark Ages the first university was built in Cracow Poland under Christiandom and females would still not be allowed to attend. So what is this guy talking about?
Reply

M.I.A.
04-28-2013, 05:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Thanks to the brothers and sisters who replied.

Point of posting was to show how all enveloping the ideology of secular liberalism has become in UK and the dangers it poses particularly to those who practice there faith. In fact several Christian societies have been forced off campus because they don't submit to the equality and diversity agenda.

No doubt more Islamic societies will be targeted in the future. Rough times ahead methinks :hmm:.

not really, its just a badly worded article.

the jumps in logic and comparison and the wanting to be pigeon holed together.. leads me to think how little the information actually is.


i mean the answer to opposition is literally an expression of belief.


so what happens when somebody asks you?



we get what we send forward really. and in a modern society, civil answers and debate should count for more. dont know what god thinks about that though.


every article has an agenda.


and wanting a faculty to teach you and then saying they are not on your side is a bit of a paradox.


...the critical student always learns the most imo.. and is always a pain in the @ss
Reply

titus
04-29-2013, 01:33 AM
Islam doesn't impose upon people, people impose upon it!
Nice bumper sticker. Kind of reminds me of Malcom X.
Reply

Logikon
04-29-2013, 02:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
Islam doesn't impose upon people, people impose upon it!
If the rules of Islam stopped me from sitting with my friends in a lecture room then it is imposing on me.
Reply

faithandpeace
04-29-2013, 07:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Nice bumper sticker. Kind of reminds me of Malcom X.
The sister here who posted the line you are responding to in the quote above was not talking about Malcom X or bumper stickers. Your comment appeared to me to be a mockery and an attempt at trolling. I really don't understand why in a thread on Islamic gender-based seating arrangements for Muslims we have atheists coming on here and mocking us or otherwise dictating what it is that Muslim brothers and sisters need for ourselves.

And that is part of the problem with the university that this article is about. Non-Muslims dictating seating arrangements for Muslim students. Does the university ever consider the fact that maybe Muslim women want to sit with other women? That Muslim sisters want our own space and to give our Muslim brothers their own space and that the brothers feel the same way and that this is done out of respect for each other? Yet apparently women choosing to sit with other women and men with men is somehow culturally backwards and discriminatory yet student drunkenness and sexual fondling in public is fine. Maybe not at this university but I've been to one here in the U.S. and seen these things promoted. Liberalism? That's part of the problem too. This "anything goes" attitude is destructive. When nobody is allowed to have values, faith, or convictions in life then you soon have moral bankruptcy.
Reply

faithandpeace
04-29-2013, 08:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
I see no irony.. in fact just an adequate assessment of how you approach most topics. Your comment was neither merited, necessary or even in concert with the topic and if you were slightly honest with yourself you'd have come outright and admitted to the fact that you've made the comment to bait and be abusive. You've actually taken every opportunity on each of the threads where I'd participated to make a direct personal comment about me rather than focus and address the topic and then you throw your tantrums when the reaction you receive mirrors your behavior? Please do grow up!
best,
Sister, please do the best you can at avoiding these emotional-button-pushers! I know you've been on this forum much longer than I have and undoubtedly are much much stronger in your imaan and practice of Islam than I am. That is probably why you are more targeted. If Shaytan cannot beat your faith he can try to distract you from it! There are people in this world who hate Allah and hate his devotees. They try to destroy other people's faith and if that doesn't work then they do other things such as become professional time-wasters. They likely succeed better in that. They can get us to waste an hour arguing with them instead of spending that hour growing in faith. That is how they win.

Insha'Allah things don't get worse at these universities. Insha'Allah they don't start actually doing "assigned seating" thereby forcing Muslim sisters and brothers to sit together all in the name of "equality" and "liberalism." I had to put a stop to a "group hug" at my employer a long time ago that a training coach was trying to push for team bonding. It is really getting scary sometimes. :omg:
Reply

Trumble
04-29-2013, 10:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace

And that is part of the problem with the university that this article is about. Non-Muslims dictating seating arrangements for Muslim students. Does the university ever consider the fact that maybe Muslim women want to sit with other women? That Muslim sisters want our own space and to give our Muslim brothers their own space and that the brothers feel the same way and that this is done out of respect for each other? Yet apparently women choosing to sit with other women and men with men is somehow culturally backwards and discriminatory yet student drunkenness and sexual fondling in public is fine. Maybe not at this university but I've been to one here in the U.S. and seen these things promoted. Liberalism? That's part of the problem too. This "anything goes" attitude is destructive. When nobody is allowed to have values, faith, or convictions in life then you soon have moral bankruptcy.
Are we reading the same story here? The issue is not non-Muslims attempting to dictate seating arrangements for Muslim students, but the other way around. As Pygoscelis pointed out earlier this was a PUBLIC lecture open to all. Had admission been limited to members of the Islamic society there would have been no problem.
The whole thing reeks of 'mountain out of a molehill' to me anyway. I suspect what actually happened is that whoever was doing the organizing forgot it wasn't a closed event (or was reasonably confident only muslims would be attending) and just didn't think enough to change what was usual practice for private meets.

The University, though, had no choice to respond as it did. There was no reason to consider whether 'maybe Muslim women want to sit with other women' as nothing they did prevented any muslim attending, woman or man, from sitting wherever they liked. The point of the action was to preserve the same freedom for everyone who chose to attend.
Reply

جوري
04-29-2013, 04:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Logikon
If the rules of Islam stopped me from sitting with my friends in a lecture room then it is imposing on me.
Have you actually read the article?
Regardless that it does state those who wished to sit with the opposite gender are in fact allowed to do so, if you're attending an Islamic lecture, it stands to reason that you're there to actually attend the lecture and learn something not socialize with either genders which is something that can be done in your own private time.
This is simple hostility, and audacity to speak on behalf of women. I don't personally desire for any kaffir to tell me what it is I feel or don't feel, where I'd like to sit, and what I'd like to learn!

best,
Reply

titus
04-29-2013, 04:25 PM
The sister here who posted the line you are responding to in the quote above was not talking about Malcom X or bumper stickers.
I realize that and I am sorry if you did not understand the meaning of the comment. It was not to troll.

And that is part of the problem with the university that this article is about. Non-Muslims dictating seating arrangements for Muslim students. Does the university ever consider the fact that maybe Muslim women want to sit with other women?
The problem would only come if the Muslim students forced segregation on the non-Muslim students since this was a public lecture on public grounds. Reading the article I do not see that that occurred.
Reply

faithandpeace
04-29-2013, 10:17 PM
Apparently those who aren't Muslim seem to know what Muslim sisters need to wear, how our marriages should operate, and that we somehow need to be "liberated" from our "oppressive" religion. How is separate seating oppressive? I don't get it.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-01-2013, 05:17 PM
If a group of muslim women walk into an auditorium and decide to all sit together, as their husbands all sit together in a separate group, are there really any secular people who are going to prevent them from doing so? A group of western women may decide to sit together for a girls night out too... this doesn't seem like much of a religious or cultural issue if that's all it is.

If, on the other hand, signs are posted and people are told where to sit, the men and women away from one another, that is a different story. I think at the core of it is the question of who is telling who where they must sit based on gender? If anybody is doing that, they are in the wrong here.
Reply

Karl
05-01-2013, 11:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
If a group of muslim women walk into an auditorium and decide to all sit together, as their husbands all sit together in a separate group, are there really any secular people who are going to prevent them from doing so? A group of western women may decide to sit together for a girls night out too... this doesn't seem like much of a religious or cultural issue if that's all it is.

If, on the other hand, signs are posted and people are told where to sit, the men and women away from one another, that is a different story. I think at the core of it is the question of who is telling who where they must sit based on gender? If anybody is doing that, they are in the wrong here.
Not when it comes to Muslims, gender segregation is normal. Non Muslim Westerners segregate people by how old they are not gender. Everything is restricted and regulated on how old you are. We have a photo ID with a date of birth on it. Race, sex, class does not matter just your age. We are defined and regulated by our age from cradle to grave. You are either too young or too old. So we have hypocracy from the non Muslims as usual.
Reply

faithandpeace
05-02-2013, 02:06 AM
I generally feel that there is a lack of respect for privacy in Western culture. For instance, even if an Islam lecture at a secular university open to the public permitted people to sit wherever, Muslim men would tend to congregate in one area, and Muslim women in another area. However, if there are a few empty seats here and there you would probably have cases where non-Muslims take seats next to Muslims of the opposite sex when they could have just as easily sat next to Muslims of the same sex or sat in an area with more space as to give people of the opposite sex privacy. I see it even at my workplace. There will be tons of empty seats yet someone of the opposite sex has to sit at the chair directly next to me. The attack on separate seating is done for the same reason as the attack on hijab-wearing women--Western culture does not value women's privacy but just the opposite--women are to continually have their bodies, personalities, and lives forcibly made public against our will. It happens to me all the time at my job. People say I must be shy. I'm not shy at all! I just reserve the right to choose not to publicize details about myself to others when not relevant. Why are people especially men entitled to know anything about me or my life? Back to the topic of the university lecture, it isn't about equality or non-discrimination, it's about invading women's space.
Reply

titus
05-02-2013, 03:46 PM
Non Muslim Westerners segregate people by how old they are not gender.
Really? I don't ever recall attending a lecture and being segregated by age. Or on a bus. Or in a theater. Or in church. I actually cannot think of a single example in my life of seating based on age.
Reply

titus
05-02-2013, 03:57 PM
Back to the topic of the university lecture, it isn't about equality or non-discrimination, it's about invading women's space
If you feel they are invading your space you have the freedom to move to another chair or politely ask the gentleman to sit somewhere else.

You are proposing that society bend over to accommodate you and that should not be how it works, especially when there are ideas that are in conflict. What about the people wanting to attend the lecture with friends of the opposite sex? Why should they be forced to sit apart simply because you don't like it? What if the person giving the lecture is uncomfortable around Muslims, should he be allowed to ban Muslims from attending? It's a slippery slope.

Now if this was a private building I would have no problem with the owner setting his own rules. If they wanted to require segregated sitting and require everyone to wear a beanie and sing "I'm a little teapot" that would be fine with me. But in a publicly funded venue there are different expectations.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-02-2013, 06:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
I see it even at my workplace. There will be tons of empty seats yet someone of the opposite sex has to sit at the chair directly next to me.
There are other people that would find it cold and distant (if not quite rude) to enter a room and sit far away from the other person who is already there, especially if they avoid eye contact. These people probably see you that way, and are trying to be friendly and bridge the gap.

It happens to me all the time at my job. People say I must be shy.
Yes, they may see you as shy, or cold and distant, or that you don't like them for some reason. And they may feel just as uncomfortable as you do if you give them what they perceive to be the cold shoulder and refuse to interact with them.

I'm not shy at all!
They won't see that. They will read you with the culture they grew up with. The same way you are reading them with the culture you grew up with (or adopted when you became Muslim). They are misjudging you and you are misjudging them.

I just reserve the right to choose not to publicize details about myself to others when not relevant.
You certainly have that right. They can ask you questions. You don't have to answer.

Back to the topic of the university lecture, it isn't about equality or non-discrimination, it's about invading women's space.
We'd need more facts to know for sure what was going on.

It looks like a culture clash to me, which is bound to invite a ton of misconceptions in both directions.

I've always thought it would be interesting to see a strict Muslim (one extreme) debate a nudist (another extreme). There would be so many misconceptions running in both directions. Both would be completely misunderstood and misjudged (muslim women are not oppressed, and nudist women are not hyper-sexualized). I have friends who are one and friends who are the other, but I've never seen them speak to one another.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-02-2013, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
There are other people that would find it cold and distant (if not quite rude) to enter a room and sit far away from the other person who is already there, especially if they avoid eye contact. These people probably see you that way, and are trying to be friendly and bridge the gap.
That's just not very common. There are plenty of people who have social anxiety disorders and would probably fret over the slightest physical contact they come across even if it was accidental. It has nothing to do with being rude. It has everything to do with cherishing one's privacy. Some people are just not that touchy feely type so why is there concern being raised when it's a case of a muslim and not a non-muslim. And the eye contact thing is ultimately cultural there are many existing cultures today that discourage eye contact because it is considered rude and challenging especially if it's directed at elders. Don't you see how japanese people make the slightest eye contact possible (the one's who don't live in western counteries for the most part) that's because it's considered impolite and not acceptable behavior.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I've always thought it would be interesting to see a strict Muslim (one extreme) debate a nudist (another extreme). There would be so many misconceptions running in both directions. I have friends who are one and friends who are the other, but I've never seen them speak to one another.
I wouldn't be too thrilled about that if I were you. There are obvious no misconceptions just very differring positions of disclosing privacy. No wonder your friends don't speak to each other what would be there to speak of. Infact it's probably because your muslim friends don't want to torture their eyes everyday since a nudist doesn't have any problem giving it all out.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-02-2013, 07:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
The sister here who posted the line you are responding to in the quote above was not talking about Malcom X or bumper stickers.

I realize that and I am sorry if you did not understand the meaning of the comment. It was not to troll.

Thought I'd clear it up. The remark he made about the bumber sticker was to compare the muslims state to that of the times of segragation between whites and blacks in the US. He said it on purpose and obviously sarcasticly to subtly denote that we muslims are playing victim against non-muslims. I suppose it was a hint of a hidden audacious and unscurpulous expression, wasn't it titus?. Nice try better luck next time though.
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 07:51 PM
I wonder did they give same lecture to both males and females? If yes, then who cares if there were just one gender at the same time listening it?

^o)
Reply

titus
05-02-2013, 08:09 PM
You pretty much got it right Berries, although I would dispute the unscrupulous part. Probably too subtle or esoteric for most here though.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-02-2013, 08:26 PM
I wonder did they give same lecture to both males and females? If yes, then who cares if there were just one gender at the same time listening it?

^o)
It wouldn't have ended up like that had it not been because of the irrational fear they have of Islam. What possible harm could ever come out from people choosing to sit with people of their own gender?. Is it really about emancipating , liberating and breaking the "shackles" on women's hands and feet or are we getting at something else here as it's been hinted (out of all the other synanmous concepts surprisingly nudism is the one mentioned, and my oh I wonder why). If there should be any serious measures taken they should be made to ensure decreasing the amount of teen pregnancies transpiring out of unregulated public schools. Give up the facade it's already known that not even the most extreme off the wing lefty women are as 'liberalised' as they seem to be depicted though they only seem to be portaryed as body adverts for the most part. Liberalism= Nudity+invasion of privacy. It's pretty proportionate too since the more you show of your body the more respect and irresistable flowery platitudes a woman is showered by the community in which she resides. They're only enraged when she refuses to give them what they want. Unfortunate but true. I remember three years back reading a news report where a european female candidate running for office of MP had to expose all of her body parts in attempt to excite her supporters and gain more votes; and in public. Wow!. Yet she never made any remark about feeling enslaved or dehumanized despite the fact knowing that there would be no other way for her to gain popularity to win a political position besides appealing the sick tastes of the crowds by coming out completely bare. We've never witnessed a case where a man had to through these measures to gain votes , just a long speech with a dominating attitude what's really required. Yeah and they were saying?. There was also a study that was made by a radical feminist instituition I think either very early on this year or late 2012 that said the more sucess a woman acheives academically and professionally the less likable she becomes amongst both her male and female counterparts. While men on the other hand the more successfull they were the more they are adored and celebrated and this is all happening in yours truly liberal America where men and women like to deceive themselves into thinking that they are equal but ofcourse with varying positions. It would be easier if they just came out and said it instead of hiding behind faulty allegations. It seems women are more encouraged to work for VS rather than run for office or any other position of empowerment lest if she does otherwise she will be taunted by state funded newspapers and magazines hyping about her hairstyle or what she was wearing for the congress metting she had attended.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-02-2013, 08:59 PM
I could easily go off on some equally aggressive tirade against conservatism, full of misconceptions and references to radial organizations, but I'd know it for what it was. I consider myself lucky to be able to see both sides of these issues and not to be overly polarized. I am well to the left of centre (a far right atheist, or christian, would probably not be here talking to muslims), but I can see where the right comes from and they often make some good arguments that most on the left fail to understand. Jonathan Heidt's book "The Righteous Mind" is a very good look at this, if anybody is interested.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-.../dp/0307455777
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 09:09 PM
I wonder if people who wanted to make inquiry just over reacted about the situation? Was that so important of they minds?

^o)
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-02-2013, 09:39 PM
I agree. It really does look like over reaction.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-02-2013, 09:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I could easily go off on some equally aggressive tirade against conservatism, full of misconceptions and references to radial organizations, but I'd know it for what it was. I consider myself lucky to be able to see both sides of these issues and not to be overly polarized. I am well to the left of centre (a far right muslim, or christian, would probably not be here talking to muslims), but I can see where the right comes from and they often make some good arguments that most on the left fail to understand. Jonathan Heidt's book "The Righteous Mind" is a very good look at this, if anybody is interested.
I wasn't aiming it directly at you. I was just exposing the real disillusionment of western countries being praised as saviors of women rights and liberties. Eventhough issues like these are gathered as collective they really aren't most are revolving around it's centre. The the perimeter surrounding it is very very broad. No harm done though, hopefully.
Reply

titus
05-02-2013, 10:30 PM
It wouldn't have ended up like that had it not been because of the irrational fear they have of Islam. What possible harm could ever come out from people choosing to sit with their people of their own gender?
I don't think it was about not giving people the choice to sit with people of their own gender. It was the fear they were telling people that they had to.
Reply

Karl
05-02-2013, 10:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Really? I don't ever recall attending a lecture and being segregated by age. Or on a bus. Or in a theater. Or in church. I actually cannot think of a single example in my life of seating based on age.
Some of the airlines segregate by age and gender. Men can not sit next to a child unless he is a relative or minder.
This was a cause of complaint in the news.
Reply

titus
05-02-2013, 10:33 PM
Yes, I remember reading about that a while ago that for unattended minors they prefer that women sit next to the children. That is much different than segregation of the population based on age or gender.
Reply

Karl
05-02-2013, 10:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Yes, I remember reading about that a while ago that for unattended minors they prefer that women sit next to the children. That is much different than segregation of the population based on age or gender.
Things have to start somewhere, this is just the beginning. I would not be suprised going by current trends in the West that majors and minors will be segregated. As the feminist mindset is that all majors (especially men) are "sexual predators" and all minors are all butter wouldn't melt in their mouth innocents.
It is very similer to the "white people are pure and good and the black people are dirty and evil" mindset that proliferated in the past. But the bigotry has shifted to age and gender instead.
Reply

faithandpeace
05-02-2013, 11:20 PM
The fact is that I have a right to privacy and freedom of association. I do not have to socialize with certain people on my lunch break or here on this forum. I reserve the right to my own personal space, time, and privacy and to only associate with those whom I choose to such as people with similar values and interests. Western liberalism aims to destroy this by creating a culture with absolutely no standards thereby expecting all people to associate with everyone at the lowest common denominator and making everything public. Schools and workplaces constantly pry into people's private lives and force social interactions that aren't even relevant to the educational experience or work environmemt. I'm sick of being asked to publically declare to my team at work what my music, movie, and book choices are along with answering questions about my family and personal philosophy. Why? I don't owe anyone my personal and private life and don't have to socialize with those whom I choose not to! That is my right as a female, as a Muslimah, and as a human being!
Reply

titus
05-02-2013, 11:24 PM
I'm pretty sure that the United States has learned quite well from its history that "separate but equal" does not work, and I don't see any kind of trend starting to reverse that, whether it be in regards to color, gender or age.

not have to socialize with certain people on my lunch break or here on this forum.
And society give you that right. I am not aware of any laws in my country forcing anyone to socialize with anyone they don't want to. Where do you live and are there laws that force you to socialize with people on your lunch break?
Reply

sister herb
05-02-2013, 11:25 PM
No need to put here again accusations against the western world and against feminism (or hate against females) but in general females are caring for children - also for those whose are not theirs, not their race or culture.

:D

Little kids are just so cute to us... I mean to sisters.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-03-2013, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
I'm sick of being asked to publically declare to my team at work what my music, movie, and book choices are along with answering questions about my family and personal philosophy.
Where do you work that you are being forced to answer these questions? Or are you merely being asked them? People have a right to ask. You don't have to answer. If they are forcing you to answer such questions then they are doing you wrong and invading your privacy.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-03-2013, 10:56 AM
It was a religious gathering. Every religion has its customs and norms. If someone wants to attend an Islamic lecture they should respect the way it is organised. Would you approve of a guest who wants to follow his own rules inside your home?. It was exclusively designed for people who tolerate Islamic teachings and are willing to actually immerse themselves into Islamic arrangement. Why make such a magnify something so trivial. Reply to titus since I can't qoute at the moment.
Reply

titus
05-06-2013, 10:54 PM
It was a religious gathering. Every religion has its customs and norms. If someone wants to attend an Islamic lecture they should respect the way it is organised.
From what I gather it was a lecture geared towards non-Muslims since it took place during "Islamic Awareness Week". My assumption from the title is that part of the purpose is to help educate non-Muslims about Islam.

This was also a lecture, not a sermon.

And it was at a University, not at a Masjid.

University policy is that people are not segregated according to race, religion or sex. If that is a problem with any organization that wants to have a meeting that is open to the public then I believe that organization should hold the meeting at a place more hospitable to them.
Reply

titus
05-06-2013, 11:01 PM
Would you approve of a guest who wants to follow his own rules inside your home?
No, and this Islamic group went into a University expecting just that.
Reply

جوري
05-06-2013, 11:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
Thought I'd clear it up. The remark he made about the bumber sticker was to compare the muslims state to that of the times of segragation between whites and blacks in the US. He said it on purpose and obviously sarcasticly to subtly denote that we muslims are playing victim against non-muslims. I suppose it was a hint of a hidden audacious and unscurpulous expression, wasn't it titus?. Nice try better luck next time though.
You don't need a week to see through this charade =)

:welcome: aboard and don't let it deter you..

:w:
Reply

M.I.A.
05-06-2013, 11:49 PM
the irony is that most attendees would sit in a non segregated lecture hall five days a week.

within there own circles,

and it does not normally lead to any intolerance.



the rules are only as good as the people and nobodies perfect.
Reply

faithandpeace
05-07-2013, 03:02 AM
I don't want to take this thread off topic so I will not be responding to questions regarding my workplace, etc. even though I did bring up the subject in relation to this topic. What I see as part of the problem with Western liberalism such as in the university setting is that while it promotes non-discrimination on an institutional level (i.e. students must be treated equally regardless of race, religion, sex, etc.) which in my opinion is good, it also pushes non-discrimination on an individual level (dictating how individuals may choose to associate with other individuals) which in my opinion is bad.

The university for instance on an institutional level should permit both men and women to enroll in school and take whatever classes they need. Same with Muslim students and non-Muslim students. That is institutional non-discrimination. Western liberalism takes it further attempting to govern how every human should interact with every other human. For instance, in a lunch room or social hall let's say only men want to sit together at a table and ask women to sit elsewhere at their own table or Muslim women want to sit together and not have non-Muslims (male or female) at their table. This is the choice of individuals choosing who they want to socialize/associate with. Western liberalism tries to violate this right as well. So back at the lecture hall, Muslim men and women may try to segregate themselves yet when non-Muslims or misguided Muslims sit next to the opposite gender then those already seated have to ask them to sit elsewhere and if they refuse then they have to re-seat themselves because the other people would not be considerate of spacing.

What ends up happening is what I like to call forced interactions or forced association. People have the right to associate or not associate with those they choose. In my own experience and observation, people who attempt to live by a stricter set of standards and values in their own lives take their association with others more seriously because their time, space, and consciousness is being taken increasingly more seriously by them and therefore they will become more selective in who they associate with and who they don't. It would be reasonable for instance to expect that observant Muslims who abstain from eating pork and drinking alcohol and take their relationship with Allah (swt) seriously would not want to hang out with friends who drink and drug regularly to the level of intoxication, and who live a lifestyle and hold beliefs that have viritually nothing in common with them.

Western liberalism in my opinion such as this university incident uses the concept of "equality" to actually create "sameness" which is done by reducing people to the lowest common denominator so that all people are essentially the same. That lowest common denominator is basically to lack any kind of self-chosen values and standards. If a person has no values or standards, they can be easily molded or controlled by the university's or company's standards and values as they are essentially an empty vessel waiting to be filled by the institution's cup of values and standards. Anytime someone makes a decision about their lives that is based on a conscious choice of personal values and standards such as not drinking, not eating certain foods, not sitting with and socializing with the opposite sex, etc. then they are seen as setting themselves apart (i.e. discriminating against) from others who do not hold or act on those values.

And that is what this university situation is all about. Nobody is allowed to act upon any personal values or standards they hold even amongst themselves if they go against the "university values." The same goes for workplaces. The same corporations that love to throw around how "multi-cultural" they are in reality are opposed to any cultures that don't neatly fit into the "company culture." So at the end of the day, universities and workplaces love to have on their books that they have students/workers who are Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh as long as they are "token" Muslims, Jews, or Sikhs who practice a watered-down version of their religion enough so that they "fit into" the university/company "culture." When someone is an observant Muslim, Orthodox Jew, or serious Sikh who just wants to get an education/get a paycheck without giving up his or her identity and culture or being molded/assimilated into the Western liberal system, they are now considered to be a problem by the powers of that institution.

Proof of my points can be seen in the any number of cases of discrimination against Muslims by universities and workplaces often having to do with personal decisions those Muslims make such as wearing hijab or not shaking hands with the opposite sex yet those personal decisions never had any affect on their ability to do their job or study in the first place! I can sum it all up by saying that these schools and workplaces that do this do not want truly independent students or workers who are self-driven and self-governing, they want robots who can be easily manipulated and controlled for the purpose of making a profit.

Astaghfirullah for making such a long post but insha'Allah my point comes across clearly.
Reply

titus
05-07-2013, 03:46 AM
The university you went to must have been very different than the one I went to. During lunch at my university there were many self-segregated tables, and my university had no rules saying that people had to mix even if they didn't want to. In fact such a rule would have been seen as inhibiting freedom of choice and extremely unpopular.
Reply

M.I.A.
05-07-2013, 01:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
I don't want to take this thread off topic so I will not be responding to questions regarding my workplace, etc. even though I did bring up the subject in relation to this topic. What I see as part of the problem with Western liberalism such as in the university setting is that while it promotes non-discrimination on an institutional level (i.e. students must be treated equally regardless of race, religion, sex, etc.) which in my opinion is good, it also pushes non-discrimination on an individual level (dictating how individuals may choose to associate with other individuals) which in my opinion is bad.

The university for instance on an institutional level should permit both men and women to enroll in school and take whatever classes they need. Same with Muslim students and non-Muslim students. That is institutional non-discrimination. Western liberalism takes it further attempting to govern how every human should interact with every other human. For instance, in a lunch room or social hall let's say only men want to sit together at a table and ask women to sit elsewhere at their own table or Muslim women want to sit together and not have non-Muslims (male or female) at their table. This is the choice of individuals choosing who they want to socialize/associate with. Western liberalism tries to violate this right as well. So back at the lecture hall, Muslim men and women may try to segregate themselves yet when non-Muslims or misguided Muslims sit next to the opposite gender then those already seated have to ask them to sit elsewhere and if they refuse then they have to re-seat themselves because the other people would not be considerate of spacing.

What ends up happening is what I like to call forced interactions or forced association. People have the right to associate or not associate with those they choose. In my own experience and observation, people who attempt to live by a stricter set of standards and values in their own lives take their association with others more seriously because their time, space, and consciousness is being taken increasingly more seriously by them and therefore they will become more selective in who they associate with and who they don't. It would be reasonable for instance to expect that observant Muslims who abstain from eating pork and drinking alcohol and take their relationship with Allah (swt) seriously would not want to hang out with friends who drink and drug regularly to the level of intoxication, and who live a lifestyle and hold beliefs that have viritually nothing in common with them.

Western liberalism in my opinion such as this university incident uses the concept of "equality" to actually create "sameness" which is done by reducing people to the lowest common denominator so that all people are essentially the same. That lowest common denominator is basically to lack any kind of self-chosen values and standards. If a person has no values or standards, they can be easily molded or controlled by the university's or company's standards and values as they are essentially an empty vessel waiting to be filled by the institution's cup of values and standards. Anytime someone makes a decision about their lives that is based on a conscious choice of personal values and standards such as not drinking, not eating certain foods, not sitting with and socializing with the opposite sex, etc. then they are seen as setting themselves apart (i.e. discriminating against) from others who do not hold or act on those values.

And that is what this university situation is all about. Nobody is allowed to act upon any personal values or standards they hold even amongst themselves if they go against the "university values." The same goes for workplaces. The same corporations that love to throw around how "multi-cultural" they are in reality are opposed to any cultures that don't neatly fit into the "company culture." So at the end of the day, universities and workplaces love to have on their books that they have students/workers who are Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh as long as they are "token" Muslims, Jews, or Sikhs who practice a watered-down version of their religion enough so that they "fit into" the university/company "culture." When someone is an observant Muslim, Orthodox Jew, or serious Sikh who just wants to get an education/get a paycheck without giving up his or her identity and culture or being molded/assimilated into the Western liberal system, they are now considered to be a problem by the powers of that institution.

Proof of my points can be seen in the any number of cases of discrimination against Muslims by universities and workplaces often having to do with personal decisions those Muslims make such as wearing hijab or not shaking hands with the opposite sex yet those personal decisions never had any affect on their ability to do their job or study in the first place! I can sum it all up by saying that these schools and workplaces that do this do not want truly independent students or workers who are self-driven and self-governing, they want robots who can be easily manipulated and controlled for the purpose of making a profit.

Astaghfirullah for making such a long post but insha'Allah my point comes across clearly.

?

and who is it that controls the robots?


if you look at the quran, there is something along the lines of..

they will ask you about alcohol and gambling.

the rest of that verse shows the answer and the approach to the answer.


history changes gradually and so do the laws.


im sorry if you think its not relevant to the thread.


as for discrimination, as long as they dont change your heart.. so that it feels like your asked the same questions each day.

that is the trick of the shaytaan.


people are still people.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-07-2013, 04:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
For instance, in a lunch room or social hall let's say only men want to sit together at a table and ask women to sit elsewhere at their own table or Muslim women want to sit together and not have non-Muslims (male or female) at their table. This is the choice of individuals choosing who they want to socialize/associate with. Western liberalism tries to violate this right as well. So back at the lecture hall, Muslim men and women may try to segregate themselves yet when non-Muslims or misguided Muslims sit next to the opposite gender then those already seated have to ask them to sit elsewhere and if they refuse then they have to re-seat themselves because the other people would not be considerate of spacing.
This reminds me of white people asking black people to sit at the back of the bus.

You should have your rights to privacy and to your cultural practices, but only so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. You cross the line if you demand special treatment or if you ask to do things others would not be allowed to do for good reason. Refusing to shake hands or wearing a head covering should be fine, for muslims, for germaphobes, for anybody. Wearing a mask may not be ok, if there are valid security concerns, and no exception should be made just because somebody says it is part of their religion.
Reply

Berries'forest
05-07-2013, 04:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
No, and this Islamic group went into a University expecting just that.
As for your first post sure I guess. Do you slways do that?. You know taking texts and teisting them into your side of the arguement?. I see your point but still they should be allowed to demonstrate their religion without having to forsake some of it's corner stone tenets. What's the point of goinv to an Islamic lecture that is seized and regulated by non islamic system. You only get half of what you want to know and never get to experience it in an empirical way.
Reply

faithandpeace
05-07-2013, 07:58 PM
If there are plenty of empty seats then it is rude to take the seat directly next to someone without asking if it is ok to sit there. Your point about wearing masks seems to be a reference to niqab. Our clothing choices are not "masks" or "costumes." Sisters have a right to wear niqab if they choose to and can remove it temporarily in front of a female security guard if they need to be identified. I will defend sisters' rights to personal privacy and to personal space in a university setting.
Reply

جوري
05-07-2013, 08:57 PM
you're speaking to someone who makes sodomy akin to religion, and dignity akin to indignation.
Some things are neither worth explaining nor indulging!

:w:
Reply

Pen
05-07-2013, 09:24 PM
It is not as if the organization running the event was forcing other events to follow their beliefs and customs. It is like allowing Chinese folk to have a banquet in your buidling and then being outraged for them serving Chinese food instead of all-American food. If the Universey truly stood for protecting people's rights and freedoms and diversity, then they should expect and respect that some events may be run differently according to the differences of those that organize and run them as well as many attending them. To force every event to conform to the same customs is not respecting the diversty of customs and diversty of people sharing them and letting others experience them. It is not opening the door to more tolerance and diversity but closing the door on them.
Reply

faithandpeace
05-07-2013, 10:09 PM
The problem is that it is diversity in name only. It goes only as far as labels go. A person can "identify" as whatever minority group and they are less likely to run into issues. It is when their customs based on that identity fail to assimilate that the trouble starts. They say it is diversity yet everyone is essentially supposed to think and act the same. It wouldn't surprise me if universities start using homosexuality to discriminate against Muslims by saying that Islam is "intolerant" and that Muslim Student Associations are promoting "bigotry" and therefore are not in line with "university values." The real goal of course is to ban Islam or any other spirituality/religion/tradition/path outside of a watered down secularized assimilated version of it. Secularism and consumerism have become the new religion.
Reply

Crimson
05-07-2013, 11:22 PM
Couldn't they just work something out like the Males of one side and the females on the other? Or females behind and males it the front? I think not so long ago a lecture took place at UCL and the same problem happened, now that specific group is other religious groups are banned from hosting anymore events there.

We really need to work around these things.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-08-2013, 04:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
If there are plenty of empty seats then it is rude to take the seat directly next to someone without asking if it is ok to sit there.
I agree... to a point. It depends on the situation. If you walk into an auditorium and there is a group of strangers sitting there and there is a ton of other seats, I would agree it is rude to go sit directly next to them. On the other hand should a man and his wife (or a brother and sister, or opposite gender friends) have to split up and sit apart from each other just because you don't want to sit next to men and your muslim brothers don't want to sit next to women? That would be both rude and unfair. Perhaps a better solution would be a muslim section (within which the men and women can voluntarily split) and a non-muslim section (where couples can sit together).

Your point about wearing masks seems to be a reference to niqab. Our clothing choices are not "masks" or "costumes."
A face covering is a mask, no matter how you want to label it or what motivation you have for wearing it. Surgical masks, ski masks, entertainment masks, are all masks.

Sisters have a right to wear niqab if they choose to and can remove it temporarily in front of a female security guard if they need to be identified.
They should have no more right than anybody else to cover their face. I agree that people should be allowed to wear masks where they want to, so long as they are not in security sensitive places. That applies to all. There should not be special rules for religious people.

And if we are to pay security guards (and engage in some discrimination rules requiring female ones to be available at all times despite how many female applicants are available for the jobs in proportion to male ones) to look under the masks that is a decision to be made by business owners or whoever is running the venue. It may make good business sense, but it should never be required of them, and they certainly shouldn't be required to pay any added costs for doing it.

I will defend sisters' rights to personal privacy and to personal space in a university setting.
I will defend everyone's rights. You have a right to privacy, but it needs to be weighed against the rights of others, be those rights regarding security, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, etc. I will be your ally in terms of fighting islamophobia, but I will stand against you should you seek to curtail the rights of others solely for your own religious reasons.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-08-2013, 04:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by faithandpeace
It wouldn't surprise me if universities start using homosexuality to discriminate against Muslims by saying that Islam is "intolerant" and that Muslim Student Associations are promoting "bigotry" and therefore are not in line with "university values."
I haven't heard of any Muslim Student Associations promoting bigotry or attacking homosexuals. Does this happen? I have heard of some Christian groups doing this. The muslim groups over here seem much better behaved. Perhaps it is because they lack the power the Christian groups have. Or perhaps it is because they can relate to the homosexual groups in terms of having hate directed at them. Muslims and homosexuals in America strangely sometimes wind up as reluctant allies, as radical Christian groups take aim at both of them.
Reply

Pygoscelis
05-08-2013, 04:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
you're speaking to someone who makes sodomy akin to religion
You visualize people worshiping anal sex? What twisted imagination you have. A little bit of projection maybe?
Reply

جوري
05-08-2013, 01:28 PM
No I don't! I am not the one making deranged similes - in fact you're I was merely alerting her so she wouldn't be discouraged or confused as to where you draw the line or find tangible similarities!

Best,
Reply

GodIsAll
05-08-2013, 04:35 PM
It seems simple.

If a non-Muslim decides to attend a lecture on Islam, they should expect things to be conducted according to the tenets of Islam.

If being segregated by gender is oh-so-offensive: Don't go!
Reply

جوري
05-08-2013, 04:40 PM
fact is no such demands were made from Non-Muslims. This is purely for the comfort and decorousness of Muslim attendees.
And they should be able to argue on behalf of themselves whether or not such an arrangement bothers them. Nothing infuriates me personally more than a Non-Muslim speaking on my behalf!
Reply

M.I.A.
05-08-2013, 09:58 PM
im not sure it does,

i went off on a tangent at praying to sodomy.


if you want back on topic then you can read my other posts in the thread..

the idea of segregation based on perceived superiority, does not allow for muslims to show they are muslims.

the best side of them imo.

and the university setting is one where most interaction can take place before entering the real world.


so those drinking clubbers by night and shunned in the morning really do need more than prodding with a long stick to move further away.

but you have to be on your religion to have that sort of...confidence.

although what people define as confidence is a reflection of character.



if you can place sentences between mine it might make sense.
Reply

جوري
05-08-2013, 09:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
the idea of segregation based on perceived superiority, does not allow for muslims to show they are muslims.
Where did you come up with this? segregation based on 'superiority'? who the heck came up with that?
Reply

M.I.A.
05-08-2013, 10:12 PM
it was probably me adding it up wrong again.

i mean the topic has had some varied posts,

the gist of what i got was that it went from sexual discrimination to not wanting to sit together.

in both cases,

it was in an environment where there was a supervising faculty who ultimately (as has been proved) takes into consideration the complaints made to them.


so what danger was there in not sitting together?

other than lust.

any other problem and knowledgeable muslim men and women would have been able to provide answers.


this post has been utter rubbish. but nothing is as simple as just spending time in the company of people to find out who they are.

i mean sometimes i feel as though islam is not all literal or worldly.


why?

because saying your a muslim makes you a muslim.
Reply

جوري
05-08-2013, 10:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
the gist of what i got was that it went from sexual discrimination to not wanting to sit together.
Neither is accurate!
It is a lecture not a brothel. People should be there to concentrate on the material not the opposite gender. especially when there's ample time to socialize outside of lectured setting in a society that is already allowing as is. Those who want to sit together aren't kept apart, I doubt very much that Muslims want to socialize inside a lecture hall. Probably deranged perverts the likes of Doggins who wishes to impose his lecherous needs upon people who otherwise just wish to attend for learning purposes!
Reply

M.I.A.
05-08-2013, 10:26 PM
with the utmost respect i can honestly tell you a story of our islamic society co-ordinator who married a lady that was part of the society.

i dont misconstrue any of the above.

i respect adults actually acting as adults.


what i dont get is people who want control for the sake of control.


i have no idea who doggins is?
Reply

جوري
05-08-2013, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
with the utmost respect i can honestly tell you a story of our islamic society co-ordinator who married a lady that was part of the society.
and what does her story have to do with this?


format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i dont misconstrue any of the above.
You just invented and added -yes!
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i respect adults actually acting as adults.
OK!
some adults like to smoke, other adults don't- should the two sit together because a liberal said so?


format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
what i dont get is people who want control for the sake of control.
Again, no idea how this relates?
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i have no idea who doggins is?
Dawkins, he acts like an animal and expects others to so behave so why not call a spade a spade?

best,
Reply

جوري
05-08-2013, 10:45 PM
Seema Jilani put it best at white house correspondent dinner and I feel it applies.
''Let's stop this facade that we are a beacon of tolerance. I don't need you to "tolerate" me. I don't want you to merely put up with my presence. All I ask, all I have ever asked, is to be treated as a human being, that bigoted jingoism is not injected into every minute facet my life, that there remains at least the illusion of decency.''

Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!