Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam
- Thread starter سيف الله
- Start date
- Replies 603
- Views 225K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
Salaam
More 'moderate' Islam.
Malala Yousafzai: Champion of Human Rights…But Only When It Aligns with U.S. Interests
● Malala’s selective activism, notably her silence on issues conflicting with U.S. policy, questions her impartiality as a human rights advocate
● Critics argue Malala’s advocacy aligns with Western interests, making her a tool for U.S. narratives rather than a champion of universal rights.
Malala Yousafzai, commonly celebrated, in the media, as the symbol of resistance against oppressive regimes, now finds herself mired in controversy for her conspicuous silence on issues that challenge U.S. foreign policy. While she remains vocal on certain global issues, her selective activism—carefully aligned with Western interests—has raised serious questions about her impartiality and true motivations as a “global human rights advocate”.
Deafening Silence on Women’s Oppression in Pakistan
Pakistan has seen a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protestors and women political workers in the aftermath of a military-backed regime—installed with the tacit and somewhat active approval of the United States. Women who dared to demand basic democratic rights have faced arrests, violence, and public humiliation. Despite her roots in Pakistan, Malala chose to remain silent, failing to offer even a token condemnation.
This silence is particularly striking given her past willingness to criticize the Taliban for oppressing women. The selective nature of her advocacy—condemning abuses by entities opposed to Western powers while ignoring similar or worse actions by U.S.-backed regimes—reveals a troubling bias. Her reluctance to address these injustices raises the question: Is Malala unwilling to confront the powerful U.S.-Pakistani military nexus for fear of losing her global platform or is she a stooge?
Gaza: A Convenient Blind Spot
The destruction in Gaza is a glaring example of Malala’s selective empathy. The region’s schools and universities have been systematically destroyed, and women’s rights are obliterated under the crushing weight of occupational forces. Yet, Malala’s statements on Gaza have been few, vague, and devoid of the direct criticism she reserves for other regimes. Her failure to denounce the occupation and its devastating impact on education and women’s rights is particularly damning, given her self-proclaimed mission to champion these causes globally.
Her muted response aligns neatly with U.S. foreign policy, which has long supported Israel despite the genocide and gross violations of international law. By sidestepping Gaza’s plight, Malala appeared as an apologist for Western-backed oppression rather than a true advocate for universal human rights.
Misrepresenting Afghanistan: A Western Narrative
Malala’s recent infamous remark that the Taliban “do not see women as humans” exemplifies her lack of nuance and perpetuation of reductive Western narratives. While the Taliban’s policies on women’s rights might possibly deserve criticism to some extent, her sweeping generalizations ignore Afghanistan’s complex cultural and historical realities.
Many of the claims circulating about their policies have been exaggerated or outright fabricated, such as the widely debunked hilarious rumor that the Taliban supposedly banned women from speaking to each other.
Her focus on demonizing the Taliban conveniently overlooks the devastating brutality and impacts of decades of U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, which displaced millions and destabilized the region, one of the many brutal examples of the atrocities carried out by the U.S. military on Afghan women was when girls were dragged to a military base and then were brutally raped to such an extent that one of them died due to bleeding, which enough wasn’t highlighted or taken up by malala. By framing the Taliban as the sole villains, Malala absolves Western powers of their significant role in creating and perpetuating the very conditions she claims to oppose.
Daniel Haqiqatjou documented some of the examples of women rights and human rights decimation by the U.S govt in Afghanistan, on Youtube in his video titled as ‘20 Years in Afghanistan: The Untold
A Pattern of Compliance
What emerges from these examples is a pattern: Malala’s advocacy consistently avoids issues that challenge U.S. foreign policy. Whether it’s the plight of women under Pakistan’s military regime, the destruction of Gaza’s education system, or the nuanced realities of Afghanistan, her silence is conspicuous when such issues conflict with U.S. interests. Conversely, she is quick to condemn actors like the Taliban, whose demonization serves U.S. geopolitical agendas. This alignment raises questions about whether Malala is an independent voice or a carefully managed figurehead of Western soft power.
The Nobel Laureate as a Political Tool
Malala’s meteoric rise to fame was heavily facilitated by Western media and institutions, which hailed her as a hero while conveniently ignoring the voices of countless other women fighting for education and human rights without Western endorsement. Her global platform has often been used to reinforce narratives that justify U.S. interventionism under the guise of promoting democracy and women’s rights. Critics argue that this makes her less an advocate for universal justice and more a tool for legitimizing Western hegemony.
A Call for Genuine Accountability
If Malala Yousafzai truly aspires to be a global advocate for human rights, she must break free from the constraints of selective advocacy and confront oppression wherever it occurs—even when it implicates her Western benefactors. Her failure to speak out against U.S.-backed regimes and policies not only undermines her credibility but also risks reducing her legacy to that of a compliant spokesperson for Western interests.
After all, Malala only speaks against something or someone if it aligns neatly with U.S. government foreign policy. Perhaps it is time for her to be given an official position by the U.S. government as a spokesperson rather than continuing to play the role of a stooge. As long as Malala continues to align her activism with U.S. foreign policy, her Nobel Prize will remain a symbol not of universal courage, but of complicity in selective justice. It is time for her to choose: Will she be remembered as a champion for all, or as a convenient stooge of Western narratives?
https://s2jnews.com/malala-yousafza...s-but-only-when-it-aligns-with-u-s-interests/
More 'moderate' Islam.
Malala Yousafzai: Champion of Human Rights…But Only When It Aligns with U.S. Interests
● Malala’s selective activism, notably her silence on issues conflicting with U.S. policy, questions her impartiality as a human rights advocate
● Critics argue Malala’s advocacy aligns with Western interests, making her a tool for U.S. narratives rather than a champion of universal rights.
Malala Yousafzai, commonly celebrated, in the media, as the symbol of resistance against oppressive regimes, now finds herself mired in controversy for her conspicuous silence on issues that challenge U.S. foreign policy. While she remains vocal on certain global issues, her selective activism—carefully aligned with Western interests—has raised serious questions about her impartiality and true motivations as a “global human rights advocate”.
Deafening Silence on Women’s Oppression in Pakistan
Pakistan has seen a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protestors and women political workers in the aftermath of a military-backed regime—installed with the tacit and somewhat active approval of the United States. Women who dared to demand basic democratic rights have faced arrests, violence, and public humiliation. Despite her roots in Pakistan, Malala chose to remain silent, failing to offer even a token condemnation.
This silence is particularly striking given her past willingness to criticize the Taliban for oppressing women. The selective nature of her advocacy—condemning abuses by entities opposed to Western powers while ignoring similar or worse actions by U.S.-backed regimes—reveals a troubling bias. Her reluctance to address these injustices raises the question: Is Malala unwilling to confront the powerful U.S.-Pakistani military nexus for fear of losing her global platform or is she a stooge?
Gaza: A Convenient Blind Spot
The destruction in Gaza is a glaring example of Malala’s selective empathy. The region’s schools and universities have been systematically destroyed, and women’s rights are obliterated under the crushing weight of occupational forces. Yet, Malala’s statements on Gaza have been few, vague, and devoid of the direct criticism she reserves for other regimes. Her failure to denounce the occupation and its devastating impact on education and women’s rights is particularly damning, given her self-proclaimed mission to champion these causes globally.
Her muted response aligns neatly with U.S. foreign policy, which has long supported Israel despite the genocide and gross violations of international law. By sidestepping Gaza’s plight, Malala appeared as an apologist for Western-backed oppression rather than a true advocate for universal human rights.
Misrepresenting Afghanistan: A Western Narrative
Malala’s recent infamous remark that the Taliban “do not see women as humans” exemplifies her lack of nuance and perpetuation of reductive Western narratives. While the Taliban’s policies on women’s rights might possibly deserve criticism to some extent, her sweeping generalizations ignore Afghanistan’s complex cultural and historical realities.
Many of the claims circulating about their policies have been exaggerated or outright fabricated, such as the widely debunked hilarious rumor that the Taliban supposedly banned women from speaking to each other.
Her focus on demonizing the Taliban conveniently overlooks the devastating brutality and impacts of decades of U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, which displaced millions and destabilized the region, one of the many brutal examples of the atrocities carried out by the U.S. military on Afghan women was when girls were dragged to a military base and then were brutally raped to such an extent that one of them died due to bleeding, which enough wasn’t highlighted or taken up by malala. By framing the Taliban as the sole villains, Malala absolves Western powers of their significant role in creating and perpetuating the very conditions she claims to oppose.
Daniel Haqiqatjou documented some of the examples of women rights and human rights decimation by the U.S govt in Afghanistan, on Youtube in his video titled as ‘20 Years in Afghanistan: The Untold
A Pattern of Compliance
What emerges from these examples is a pattern: Malala’s advocacy consistently avoids issues that challenge U.S. foreign policy. Whether it’s the plight of women under Pakistan’s military regime, the destruction of Gaza’s education system, or the nuanced realities of Afghanistan, her silence is conspicuous when such issues conflict with U.S. interests. Conversely, she is quick to condemn actors like the Taliban, whose demonization serves U.S. geopolitical agendas. This alignment raises questions about whether Malala is an independent voice or a carefully managed figurehead of Western soft power.
The Nobel Laureate as a Political Tool
Malala’s meteoric rise to fame was heavily facilitated by Western media and institutions, which hailed her as a hero while conveniently ignoring the voices of countless other women fighting for education and human rights without Western endorsement. Her global platform has often been used to reinforce narratives that justify U.S. interventionism under the guise of promoting democracy and women’s rights. Critics argue that this makes her less an advocate for universal justice and more a tool for legitimizing Western hegemony.
A Call for Genuine Accountability
If Malala Yousafzai truly aspires to be a global advocate for human rights, she must break free from the constraints of selective advocacy and confront oppression wherever it occurs—even when it implicates her Western benefactors. Her failure to speak out against U.S.-backed regimes and policies not only undermines her credibility but also risks reducing her legacy to that of a compliant spokesperson for Western interests.
After all, Malala only speaks against something or someone if it aligns neatly with U.S. government foreign policy. Perhaps it is time for her to be given an official position by the U.S. government as a spokesperson rather than continuing to play the role of a stooge. As long as Malala continues to align her activism with U.S. foreign policy, her Nobel Prize will remain a symbol not of universal courage, but of complicity in selective justice. It is time for her to choose: Will she be remembered as a champion for all, or as a convenient stooge of Western narratives?
https://s2jnews.com/malala-yousafza...s-but-only-when-it-aligns-with-u-s-interests/
SalaamRelated to the above article.
Prohibition of Ikhtilāṭ: A Protective Islamic Civilisational Barrier
Introduction
Ikhtilāṭ, or intermingling of the sexes, has been a topic of much discussion in recent weeks.There are those who argue for preserving the Islamic tradition prohibiting ikhtilāṭ as a normative position. Others have attempted to undermine the ruling through a doubt-ridden deconstructionist process, rendering it completely impracticable or enforceable. Others still have proffered support to the second view by arguing that given modernity’s socio-political hegemony, which combines the sexes in public spaces, Muslims find themselves in abnormal circumstances unable to maintain the moral ideal. As such, the second view, accommodating this reality, is preferred.
For the sake of clarity, I do not uphold the second view and its supporting excuses.
It is not quite clear how social conditions born of Eurocentric modernity thrust upon Muslims result in a conclusion that there is a need to undermine and relax the prohibition of ikhtilāṭ.
Unless I am mistaken, human beings still possess sexual desires. The private parts of men and women continue to function. And proximity and frequency of interaction continue to factor in the psychology of attraction. If anything, modernity has hyper-accentuated facets pertaining to sexual desires through anti-God, anti-morality “revolutions” and the proliferation of preferences in the pursuit of capitalist goals.
The question that we should be asking is: Should Muslims grant flexibility to a destructive organisation of society that has birthed insurmountable problems? Briefly, these problems include, but are certainly not limited to:
- High divorce rates, with declining rates of marriages.[1]
- Epidemic levels of sexual harassment in the UK predominantly against women.[2]
- An average of 31 violent crimes against women and girls on public transport are reported according to the latest official figures.[3]
- Dramatic increases in sexual offences, including rape, across the UK.[4] There are an average of 24 reports of rape a day in London.[5] At least 1 in every 12 women will be a victim per year, with the exact number expected to be much higher.[6]
- Convictions of police officers perpetrating sexual crimes.[7]
- Epidemic levels of sexual misconduct and violence on NHS premises. Other domains include CBI, fire services, armed forces, and universities.[8]
- According to research by the UK charity Tomorrow’s Women, 93% of women do not feel safe being out alone at night, with 82% not feeling safe in bars or clubs.[9]
- Continually increasing levels of STIs.[10]
Whilst the merging of the sexes has unleashed a torrent of problems, the underlying philosophical currents have failed to produce any convincing guidance on how to constrain them. The #metoo movement demonstrated that liberalism is unable to provide an adequate solution to manage gender relations, fluctuating between non-contact and single-sex spaces[11] to complete intermingling of the sexes, with all mechanisms to manage relations falling apart with a bit of liquor and music on Friday and Saturday nights.
Against a backdrop of philosophical, political, and cultural hedonism as well as feminist indoctrination, sadly Muslims too are reaping these bitter fruits of modernity. The consumption of pornography is no longer an aberration. Those familiar with educational settings at all levels will tell you that pre-martial intimacy and obscenities are rife amongst young Muslims. Social media has accentuated all these immoralities. There is a “surge” in divorce rates among Muslims in the UK.[12] And high-profile cases of Imams engaging in sexual misconduct with their female students suggest that Islamic institutions are not immune from degeneracy.
It is well-established that a strong, stable society where modesty and marriage are sanctified and protected is a key pillar enabling broader transformative Islamic efforts. To compromise on the mechanisms that help mitigate moral catastrophes visiting the Ummah is damaging and a case of self-harming.
Like a flood that stresses the banks designed to contain it, the forces of modernity – embodied in its irrational notion of freedom, the unveiling of women, and the mixing of the sexes – bear upon the barriers protecting Muslims. Under such mounting pressure, to weaken these defences by eroding the prohibition of ikhtilāṭ would be a grave folly. Surely, the wiser course is to fortify these barriers, reinforcing them against the unseen tide of future threats.
Rest here.
Prohibition of Ikhtilāṭ: A Protective Islamic Civilisational Barrier
Introduction Ikhtilāṭ, or intermingling of the sexes, has been a topic of much discussion in recent weeks. There are those who argue for preserving the Islamic tradition prohibiting ikhtilāṭ as a n…
coolnessofhindblog.wordpress.com
Salaam
Like to share
Blurb
The UAE has curated a string of anti-revolutionary non-state actors across the Middle East to serve the state’s deeply secular interests. Abu Dhabi has waged a war against Islamic civil society and non-state actors under the pretext of fighting “terrorism” and today acts as the primary means by which the small but effective federation of seven emirates prevents the rise of independent states in the Middle East. Behind every foiled attempt to wrestle power from Arab dictators is the UAE, which has used its petrodollars and economic prowess to curtail civil society activism.
Its deep alliance with Israel and its Zionist project have given the UAE an unprecedented means to act as a spoiler in the region. Today, we explore the tentacles of this project and its impact upon the hopes of much of ordinary Arab Muslim society. Our guest today is Dr Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at the Defence Studies Department of King's College London and a strategic risk consultant working for clients in the Middle East and beyond. He recently penned a piece which forms the backdrop of our conversation on the assertive statecraft of the UAE.
Like to share
Blurb
The UAE has curated a string of anti-revolutionary non-state actors across the Middle East to serve the state’s deeply secular interests. Abu Dhabi has waged a war against Islamic civil society and non-state actors under the pretext of fighting “terrorism” and today acts as the primary means by which the small but effective federation of seven emirates prevents the rise of independent states in the Middle East. Behind every foiled attempt to wrestle power from Arab dictators is the UAE, which has used its petrodollars and economic prowess to curtail civil society activism.
Its deep alliance with Israel and its Zionist project have given the UAE an unprecedented means to act as a spoiler in the region. Today, we explore the tentacles of this project and its impact upon the hopes of much of ordinary Arab Muslim society. Our guest today is Dr Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at the Defence Studies Department of King's College London and a strategic risk consultant working for clients in the Middle East and beyond. He recently penned a piece which forms the backdrop of our conversation on the assertive statecraft of the UAE.