Excellent article: The Sexual Rage Behind Islam

[§outh§tar]

Although Christianty is against homos the Christian countires are still filled with gay Christians. California even lets them get married. No islamic coiuntry, city etc. does or even allows them to be gay.

It is the vicars who are resorting to homsexulaity not the Imams may i add . this is because in Islam sex is not forbidden after marrage but Vicars are never allowed to have sex except for reproduction so theyhave become very desperate.

In order for your post, to be pointless and fully void, tell me: how does California letting "them get married" correspond with Christianity? Is California a Christian?

Your statement about Vicars having "become very desperate" is also very shocking and disturbing. Please show me what evidence you have to show that Vicars have "become very desperate". I encourage you to reply soon. Thanks.

 

[shame of islam]

I believe the Topic is: A Sexual Rage Behind Islam. Forgive me for submitting my input if it has offended you. I suppose you would prefer that I succumb to the path you would like this topic to follow.

Title and topic are not always inclusive. The article is about the sexual abuse of young boys among muslims and how this is an accepted practice [admittedly because of Islam's revulsion towards homosexuality]. It highlights the powerful abuse of the adult male over a child, and the effect of that on the child as adult. You want to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity/Islam etc.

My invitation to start another thread was of course sarcasm.

 

[otheadp]

shame of islam: are you Vienna?

 

[shame of islam]

shame of islam: are you Vienna?

? No, I'm new on the board.

 

[§outh§tar]

Title and topic are not always inclusive. The article is about the sexual abuse of young boys among muslims and how this is an accepted practice [admittedly because of Islam's revulsion towards homosexuality]. It highlights the powerful abuse of the adult male over a child, and the effect of that on the child as adult. You want to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality in Christianity/Islam etc.

My invitation to start another thread was of course sarcasm.

Thank you for the timely elucidation. You have been all too kind.

 

[Q25]

America - the mother of all repressed sexuality.

which part of America do you live to make a silly statement like that?
sex is everywhere you look for crying out loud!

as far as Arabs men fucking young boys,its definitely true,I know many people from ME and no one denies it goes on,heck even their Heaven afterlife beliefs include having young boys there for mens sexual pleasure!

 

[okinrus]

You lead a sheltered and naive life.

I know the cause of evil.

Female circumcision is practiced in [Arab] Egypt. You miss the point on Islam, homosexuality, its punishment, and the abuse of boys. It was covered in the article. Re-read it and it will explain it to you.

Egypt is in Africa, and female circumcision is tribal issue, non-relevant to Islam. Considering the west kills millions of babies with abortion, I don't think we can say "no" to those who circumsise females.

 

[Paula]

"Christianty is not as practical however,
not only are Christians not allowed to have pre-marital sex but they cant even have normal sex even when married unless for reproductions. kissing, fondiling etc is discouraged aswell. masturbating is also strictly forbidden no matter the circumastances (in Islam if a man cannot control himself he can mastrabate or get married so he can have a free normal sex life."

Preacher X,

That may be old-style Christianity but is certainly not the case anymore. In fact many Christian clerics encourage married couples to display affection (OK not in church and not making out in the streets) and just last week our church's sermon focused on marriage partners showing love, affection and respect for one another to ensure a happy marriage.

I read several online Middle East newspapers and I have read advice columns where Islamic experts have told people writing in for advice that public displays of affection and masturbation are strictly prohibited in Islam. One advisor told a reader to get a second wife to avoid masturbating. This is something no Christian would ever condone and is considered a great deal more disrespectful than masturbation.

I do not claim that this represents the whole of Islam but it certainly indicates there are holes in your theory

People need to understand Christianity in its modern, moderate form before they start passing judgments on it.

 

[Tiassa]

One of the more ignorant statements of our time . . . .

. . . . Please tell me how Christians "see sex as dirty". I beg of you.

The only problem I'm having with this post of yours, §outh§tar, is that I cannot reconcile those two aspects of it.

The first seems innocuous enough; perhaps you have some insight by which you might enlighten others.

Yet the latter suggests that you don't actually know any Christians, or at least are unaware of the last century's worth of gender-based standoffs.

In the United States, at least, the foulness of human sexuality has been a morbid fascination of Christians' for the duration.

Read into the history of something like "glove hysteria" as documented by Freud and his contemporaries.

• "Why do we write special legislation for 'clothing-optional' zones? How is the state in which God delivers you to the world unacceptable?"

Ever hear of "Puritans"?

Some links:

• Google: christianity sexuality
• Google: sex ed fundamentalist
• Emma Goldman, "The Hypocrisy of Puritanism"

It's just that I don't know where the hell to start.

So let's try with this, from Q25:

which part of America do you live to make a silly statement like that?
sex is everywhere you look for crying out loud!

When I was a kid, the nation threw a minor hissy-fit over the phrase, "Like a virgin." Madonna would go on to explain to them what they couldn't figure out. And they fought and fit and scratched and bit and screamed and kicked every step of the way. Tipper Gore, wife of the president-elect of the United States of America, once went on a bender over sexy lyrics. Shocked by Prince's mention of masturbation, Tipper helped set in motion a series of events that would result in US Senate hearings in which politicians mocked musicians from the comfort of their protections against slander, and would eventually cause those little black and white warning stickers on albums that triple the sales of crappy music. All because of "Darling Nikki" and parental apathy--Tipper went and bought the Purple Rain soundtrack for her third-grade daughter without knowing anything about it.

Literally, that's what the whole PMRC was about. A nine year-old girl singing, "I met her in a hotel lobby masturbating with a magazine."

I lived in Oregon for several years. The entire time I was there, Christians aimed to strip the civil rights of individuals based on the gender of their sexual partner!

In the 1990s, Reverend Wildmon called for a boycott of Disney not just for offering benefits to gay partners, but also to unmarried heterosexual partners.

Larry Flynt was shot, apparently, because his magazine depicted sexual contact between people with different skin pigments.

Now ... let's take a look at the so-called "Christian right" in American politics; which is worse--

• Getting a blowjob, or
• Lying to the people, the UN, and the world in order to reject our obligations under standing treaties and invade another nation?

At some point, reality will kick in and the costs of war will become undeniable, but for heaven's sake ... Hugh Grant was ridiculed for spending $60 on a blowjob; Congress spent forty-million.

Why do Americans of my generation tend to freak out if they come across the merest suggestion of their parents engaged in coitus?

The irrational litany against sexuality in this country comes entirely from Christianity.

I'm just stunned that this sort of thing is news to you. Sure, at one point the age of consent was only ten years old in this country, but sexuality in America has not, as a general trend, been a positive experience. What partners make out of it is their own reward, but come on!

Anyone remember L.A. Law, the highly-successful and vapid 1980s television series with a theme song catchier than Dallas and a young, sexy (?!) Corbin Bernsen? Two women kissing with open mouths caused a national debate. Talk shows, news commentaries, protests . . . .

How to make a coherent argument out of the ineffability of "everything"?

Or course, not everybody's an American, either.

There's apparently a nifty brouhaha festering over at Out magazine as Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry has been "exposed" by his gay, adopted son.

Take a look around. That sex is "everywhere" is part of the human condition. But look at how much fretting and denouncing and arguing goes on about it.

Although, as an analogous parallel, the amount that people steal from one another indicates that we might choose to revisit the notion that "property is robbery."

I'm all for demonstrative democracy except for the fact that human beings haven't shown themselves smart enough to pull it off for much longer than a week.

 

[Quantum Quack]

AS much as I will be criticised for saying this, I happen to agree to the best part with what the object of the threads starter post has to say.

There is no doubt that sexual abuse and repression leads to increased suffering tension and stress for the victims ( and the abuser). History has proven time and time again that sexual abuse and repression leads to statements of frustration and rage. I don't think there is any doubt that this is the case.

I think that if statistics were available the world would be horrified by the state of sexual relationships in in the M.E. when compared with elsewhere.

Unfortunately such statistics are not readilly available so one can only form a very subjective opinion.

But such is the nature of sexual abuse....secrecy, national secrecy, confirmed by the impossiblity to conduct necessary surveys etc.

Denial is also a major outcome.......due to the intensity of the shame they, the abuser feels about his acts and the shame the victim feels....

All leading to a tinder box of rage just waiting to explode in acts of violence and extreme beliefs.

In the west we see this in pockets, the police spending most of their time dealing with outcomes and society attempting to find remedies. But in the M.E. it is a national situation not in isolated pockets but more generic. Abuse being more a culturally accepted state.

Any conversation I have had here in Australia with Arab men has always ending with this appraisel.

Any woman who uses the internet chat rooms is aware of the incredible nature of Arab male behaviour and contempt of women.

The use of large explicit fonts, explicit hitting on western women, supreme arrogance and misogyny to the max.

Is this caused be a religious aspect or is the religious aspect another outcome of sexual repression and denial.......?

The chicken and the egg .....

 

[§outh§tar]

The only problem I'm having with this post of yours, §outh§tar, is that I cannot reconcile those two aspects of it.

The first seems innocuous enough; perhaps you have some insight by which you might enlighten others.

Yet the latter suggests that you don't actually know any Christians, or at least are unaware of the last century's worth of gender-based standoffs.

In the United States, at least, the foulness of human sexuality has been a morbid fascination of Christians' for the duration.

Read into the history of something like "glove hysteria" as documented by Freud and his contemporaries.

• "Why do we write special legislation for 'clothing-optional' zones? How is the state in which God delivers you to the world unacceptable?"

Ever hear of "Puritans"?


How convenient that you would suddenly behave as if you were referring to Puritans all along. I believe Paula has already begun an intelligent work, and you are ignorant to say Christians, especially now that you *CLAIM* to have been speaking about Puritans.

At least, do not in the near future make such uneducated generalizations. That is like saying all Christians believe the same things. I hope you understand my point. Thank you.

 

[otheadp]

from the New York Times, June 25, 2000
a very interesting article about the Taliban from before 9/11

the writer is a male

Meeting [male] students out of class had already made for a number of interesting moments: I had, for example, been asked for sex, as had Laurent Van Der Stockt, the photographer with me. Sometimes the propositions were intimated; sometimes they were unusually blunt, especially given the Taliban's official position on homosexuals, which is that they should be killed. Those few students who knew a bit of English seemed most interested in talking about sex. Many of them were convinced that all Americans are bisexual, and that Westerners engage in sex with anything, anywhere, all the time. I was asked to describe the dominant masturbation style of Americans, and whether American men were allowed by law to keep boyfriends and girlfriends at the same time.

these young boys who
* have never seen any females in their lives except their mothers and sisters
* have studied nothing but the Koran (no math, art, etc.) while they're enlisted in school
* have never seen a movie
* have never heard music
have now a disfunctional sexual tendency and a very perverse view of the world.

What Westerners would think of as high-school-age and college-age students are enrolled in an eight-year course of study that focuses on interpretation of the Koran and of the Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. These students also study Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic history. The oldest of those attending Haqqania -- the postgraduates, if you will -- are enrolled in the "mufti course."
...
Very few of the students at the Haqqania madrasa study anything but Islamic subjects. There are no world history courses, or math courses, or computer rooms or science labs at the madrasa.
...
In a typical class, the teachers sit on the floor with the boys, reading to them in Arabic, and the boys repeat what the teachers say. This can go on between four and eight hours each day.

Islam is in not the cause of this... rather primitive stupid culture is

 

[Bells]

Shame

Unlike the small number of Catholic priests who committed abuse, in Islam the perpetrators are not brought to criminal justice. In one it is isolated cases of criminal misconduct, in the other widespread accepted practice. You missed that point.

I find it interesting that you would say this as the majority of the Arab countries have accepted and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child with no reservations on Articles 34 and 35, which cover the right of children not to be exploited for sexual purposes. Something that US is yet to do.

The majority of Arab nations have also adopted Convention 182 which deals with eliminating the exploitation of children in prostitution and pornography, and trafficking of children into hazardous labour. They have also adopted the 1996 Stockholm Declaration and Agenda for Action, which calls for national plans of action against commercial sexual exploitation of children. Again, the majority of Arab nations have revised their legal codes so that they fall in line with the various conventions in the area of the rights of the children, including the laws dealing with sexual abuse. For example, Egypt has revised its legal code so that it falls in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). So please tell me again, how is it that child sex abuse is something that is not seen as a criminal act in these countries?

While it may be something that is widely practiced (I say may because I've yet to see proof of this), the Governments of the region are altering their legal codes to deal with this disgusting phenomenon. Sexual abuse is a plight faced by just about every single country on this planet. It exists in churches, homes, schools. However, I still fail to see how the writer of this article has been able to make the connection with this:

But it is no surprise that many of these males find their only avenue for gratification in the act of humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs – as theirs once was.

Since the article has claimed that sexual abuse is a common practice in Arab culture, and that the only way for the victims of the abuse to deal with their humiliation and degradation as a child is to attack 'the foreign enemy', wouldn't it also apply to... say boys who went to a private boarding school and were continually sexually abused by their teachers or house masters for the 6 to 12 years that they were there? After all, in such situations, reporting said abuse was literally unheard of and it was something that the ministries and staff would either disbelieve or worse still, blame the child, thereby humiliating and degrading the child further. Now by the premise of Glazo's article, shouldn't these boys be flying planes into buildings? After all, they were brought up in an environment that taught them that sex was bad and sexuality was evil, and in the meantime they were abused at night by people who were supposed to care for them. Can you understand where I'm going with this?

If you bother to read the article’s first line, I don’t make the claim, the writer does. I’ve lived in the Middle East [Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi and Bahrain] and find his theory plausible. After years in the Mid-East it’s obvious that sexual abuse is incredibly rampant; to an extent unheard of in the West. You don’t have to believe it, but it doesn’t change the issue that it’s a fact.

If it's fact, then shouldn't there be proof of this fact? What you fail to consider is that the article blames a disgusting practice for terrorist attacks, itself a disgusting issue. So please tell us, aside from this article of dubious origin, where is the proof that the perpetrators of terror attacks were sexually abused as children? The world has seen proof that it is fundamentalism which motivates these idiots to blow people up and to fly planes into buildings.

Your mention of other terror groups has you out on a tangent. The article explains the psychological aspects of terror regarding only one subject: Arab Islamic male culture. The other terrorist groups may have their own pathology, or may not.

Your article on Arab Islamic male culture still does not explain the connection sufficiently. It has given no true facts, merely the ramblings of one individual who assumes that a connection exists between terrorist groups and sexual abuse. Lets look at the first line of the article again:

ALL SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children. The kind of people who hijack a plane with innocent people and drive it into a building with thousands of other innocent people are related to this phenomenon.

That's a big claim. Not all serial killers were victims of sexual abuse. The 'almost without exception' deals with this fact in a very round-about-way. It's a shame that the author makes such a statement, as even though a lot of serial killers were victims of sexual abuse, many were not. Many were victims of other forms of abuse as children. And many were not victims of any sort of abuse. Jeffrey Dahmer is a prime example.

The author makes a fantastic claim and while it would be wonderful to be able to blame attacks such as 9/11 on sexual abuse, as it would give the world something to point the finger at, terrorists are usually the way they are because of the fundamentalistic attitudes that they have adopted. Being a victim of continuous sexual abuse could be a factor for some terrorists, however it may not be for all. Islam deplores homosexuality and homosexual acts. Any individual caught in such an act would be severely punished by their community. The author's claim touches on this briefly, however it does not give a proper explanation. Frankly, if I were to believe this author, I'd expecting to see a lot more terrorist attacks from men who were abused throughout their childhoods in private schools. Private schools where sexual abuse was/is a norm and where boys who speak out are punished and further degraded.

Terrorists are weak minded fools who fall prey to fundamentalist trying to sell a political agenda.

 

[Tiassa]

How convenient that you would suddenly behave as if you were referring to Puritans all along. I believe Paula has already begun an intelligent work, and you are ignorant to say Christians, especially now that you *CLAIM* to have been speaking about Puritans.

At least, do not in the near future make such uneducated generalizations. That is like saying all Christians believe the same things. I hope you understand my point. Thank you.

How convenient that you make your judgments based on only part of the post.

In the future, I would hope you could at least be decent enough to address the whole point.

I'll be in the gazebo, since you're already up on the cross.

It's just that I don't know where the hell to start.

So let's try with this, from Q25:

I have no idea why you stopped reading where your quotation of my post ends and your response begins.

I shall soon be introducing a new visual format for my posts. Every section of my post that should be read entirely separate from any other will be marked with a

Big Neon Sign​

and each of those footnoted with detailed instructions as to how the reader should perceive each section.

Look, I mean ... seriously ... is this post-Kennedy cynicism brought to a new level? I understand people's problems with "magic bullet" explanations, but that issue shouldn't preclude the communicative option of addressing multiple points at once.

Do me a favor, §outh§tar, and go back and read through our posts and make it into a bit of a dialogue. For instance, you called PreacherX's statement ignorant and asked how Christians "see sex as dirty".

I wrote:

• "Yet the latter suggests that you don't actually know any Christians, or at least are unaware of the last century's worth of gender-based standoffs . . . . In the United States, at least, the foulness of human sexuality has been a morbid fascination of Christians' for the duration."

And went on to mention "glove hysteria" (19th century), "clothing-optional zones" (contemporary), and Puritans (17th century). Now, if you stop to think about it, while there's plenty to say about the 18th century, I'm sure, if we're so bored as to look, we might pause to reflect that the three points cover interesting aspects and a fair period:

• Puritans - foundation of "American mores"
• "glove hysteria" - psychosomatic condition in predominantly-Christian communities resulting from sexual trauma - i.e., masturbation
• "clothing-optional zones" - A contemporary reflection of the presumptions of the law in the United States. You are accountable for other people's sexuality.

None of these are positive reflections of sexuality in Western society. I think your choice to focus solely on the Puritans and to respond to me as you did might be a bit misguided.

Additionally, while I do apologize with the confusing transition based on Q25's post, is there something about the string of 20th-century issues which lead me do declare, firmly, "The irrational litany against sexuality in this country comes entirely from Christianity," that would suggest I'm somehow focusing on Puritans exclusively?

What does LA Law or Out magazine have to do with Increase Mather?

And, honestly, I'll confess at something that puzzles me in general, and here again I will address Q25's post, but sure, §outh§tar, please do keep reading if you're still with me here.

• "America - the mother of all repressed sexuality."

This is the statement Q25 objected to in my response to the topic post.

• "Even if Dunne's thesis is sound, for instance, 'the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination' is the sublimated leitmotif of American sexuality."

Yet this hasn't drawn the flick of an eye.

And I think the repression is self-evident. Were we not having communal issues regarding sexuality, the US wouldn't be in an uproar all the time.

I don't know ... it just makes me grin and shake my head.

My favorite recommendation is to find a Mark Huestis film called Sex Is and get really high before watching the opening scene in which Jesse Helms, on the Senate floor, tries repeatedly and unsuccessfully to say the word, "sadomasochism." (Funny story ... my girlfriend took me to that film. How high was I? :m: )

Seriously, where does one start explaining how Christians see sex as dirty?

It starts from birth; one of my sublimated misogynies that has actually pissed off a couple of women is the idea that I don't believe in one-nighters insofar as I'm apparently making the implicit statement that a woman is not emotionally-stable enough blah-blah-blah.

This is not a positive regard for sexuality, when people feel the necessity of such discussions.

It's a prevailing theme; all I can say is that by Lutheran standards, I was a bit pesky with my mouth as a 13 year-old. Catholics thought I was the goddamn devil when I was 17. But I tells ya ... by the time I dropped out of college at 21, I can't tell you how painfully and broadly I had to open my mind just to keep up.

Where did my partner learn to be ashamed of her body? Of all the things we've fought about, her appearance hasn't been on the docket. It's culturally-acquired behavior; in her case, Seventh-Day Adventism. (In my own life, I've encountered the strangest string of former SDA's ... people my age who refer to themselves, melodramatically, as "escapees." Now ... they all have certain distinct problems. And they all have certain sex issues. And while I admit that most, if not all people, have odd issues about their sexuality ... um ... wow ... er ... whoa. I just can't quite describe it.)

And it just piles on from there.

I was raised to a very liberal Lutheran standard, and I almost can't remember what it feels like to think that way. But yes--sex equals bad equals sinful equals dirty equals ... all that crap. And you know what? That's fine with me. It's still fun that way. Whatever. But your request of PreacherX and Q25's response to me--I'm seriously amazed that this idea seems somehow unusual to you.

I mean, Emma Goldman, for instance ... she went to prison at least three times that I can think of. Once for advocating against the draft, once for trying to kill a mining executive, and once for advocating birth control.

Literally, it's a running theme in American history. Poke around in discussions of the Inquisition and you'll eventually come across the oddest theory, that the victims were carrying out some morbid psychosexual neurosis.

Anecdotal, public-rhetorical, statistical, electorally . . . it shows. It's permeating.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I know the cause of evil.

Egypt is in Africa, and female circumcision is tribal issue, non-relevant to Islam. Considering the west kills millions of babies with abortion, I don't think we can say "no" to those who circumsise females.
*************
M*W: The West is not the only region that uses abortion. Abortion is widely used in Europe, Scandanavia, China, etc. There is a big difference between abortion and female circumcision. The abortus never had a consciousness. These young girls between the ages of 5 and 16 years are brutally butchered for the sole purpose of not being able to be sexually stimulated. It's supposed to keep them faithful to their husbands. Yeah, right. I'm totally disappointed with you, okinrus, that you would condone this practice with your misogynistic viewpoint.

 

[shame of islam]

I find it interesting that you would say this as the majority of the Arab countries have accepted and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child with no reservations on Articles 34 and 35, which cover the right of children not to be exploited for sexual purposes. Something that US is yet to do.

You are quite naive to think because a government "signs" a piece of paper it will enforce it. Pity they don't teach history as rigorously as they should nowadays. The Munich and the Helsinki Accords come most dramatically to mind.

While it may be something that is widely practiced (I say may because I've yet to see proof of this), the Governments of the region are altering their legal codes to deal with this disgusting phenomenon. Sexual abuse is a plight faced by just about every single country on this planet. It exists in churches, homes, schools. However, I still fail to see how the writer of this article has been able to make the connection with this:

No. Arab countries signed it because it was an easy thing to do. Some may enforce it, but most don't. I've lived in the ME, you I assume haven't or you wouldn't be arguing this line of reasoning. If you seek "proof" try researching it. There are volumes of Arabic poetry about it. Sharia is pretty clear about it. And so on. If you don't believe it, you just don't want to be convinced.

And again you missed the point. Abuse exists in the West in schools, churches etc and is a pariah in our cultures. It's not condoned and it's criminalized [and enforced- a key point]. What it isn't- another key point- is culturally accepted by a large portion of the population as it is in the ME.

And let's make this clear- homosexuality is looked down on in Islam, BUT it is defined in many of the branches as between two men NOT between a boy and a man. Hence the acceptance of the abuse.

Since the article has claimed that sexual abuse is a common practice in Arab culture, and that the only way for the victims of the abuse to deal with their humiliation and degradation as a child is to attack 'the foreign enemy', wouldn't it also apply to... say boys who went to a private boarding school and were continually sexually abused by their teachers or house masters for the 6 to 12 years that they were there? After all, in such situations, reporting said abuse was literally unheard of and it was something that the ministries and staff would either disbelieve or worse still, blame the child, thereby humiliating and degrading the child further. Now by the premise of Glazo's article, shouldn't these boys be flying planes into buildings? After all, they were brought up in an environment that taught them that sex was bad and sexuality was evil, and in the meantime they were abused at night by people who were supposed to care for them. Can you understand where I'm going with this?

I do understand. But, and here is the difference, the numbers aren't equal. It is FAR more prevailent in the ME than in the West. You're talking hundreds, maybe a few thousand in the West and hundreds of thousands in the ME. It's a matter of quantatative difference.

That's a big claim. Not all serial killers were victims of sexual abuse. The 'almost without exception' deals with this fact in a very round-about-way. It's a shame that the author makes such a statement, as even though a lot of serial killers were victims of sexual abuse, many were not. Many were victims of other forms of abuse as children. And many were not victims of any sort of abuse. Jeffrey Dahmer is a prime example.

Many forensic psychologists disagree with you.

The author makes a fantastic claim and while it would be wonderful to be able to blame attacks such as 9/11 on sexual abuse, as it would give the world something to point the finger at, terrorists are usually the way they are because of the fundamentalistic attitudes that they have adopted. Being a victim of continuous sexual abuse could be a factor for some terrorists, however it may not be for all. Islam deplores homosexuality and homosexual acts. Any individual caught in such an act would be severely punished by their community. The author's claim touches on this briefly, however it does not give a proper explanation. Frankly, if I were to believe this author, I'd expecting to see a lot more terrorist attacks from men who were abused throughout their childhoods in private schools. Private schools where sexual abuse was/is a norm and where boys who speak out are punished and further degraded.

Again you make emotional argument over "Private schools" all the while leaving out the quantatative difference and I might add, completely unaware of cultural differences that lessen the importance of blood revenge. Try spending some time in the ME and you'll see the vivid difference. In everything that is an insult to honor violence is an accepted response.

Terrorists are weak minded fools who fall prey to fundamentalist trying to sell a political agenda.

Now that's an easy one for us to agree on.

 

[shame of islam]

I know the cause of evil.

Drama queen

Egypt is in Africa, and female circumcision is tribal issue, non-relevant to Islam. Considering the west kills millions of babies with abortion, I don't think we can say "no" to those who circumsise females.

What does "Egypt is in Africa" have to do with anything? Egypt is an Arab country- a country which is 90% muslim. Half the Arab countries are in Africa, try looking at a map of the world sometime. YOUR statement was that female circumcision was not practiced in arab countries. And, in addition, all Arab countries, from Morocco to Iraq, are "tribal" to some extent. Spend some time there or simply consult a decent encyclopedia and you'd know that.

Your lack of knowledge about geography or Arab culture makes your comment about female circumcision's non-relevance to Islam less than persuasive.

HTH!

 

[okinrus]

Drama queen

I'm not a women. I'm also not naive, and I'm quite serious. You can talk all you want about the sexual abuse that occurred within the Catholic church and other places, but what happens to those who are abused is they commit suicide, face drug addiction, or perpetrate similar crimes. As with Hitler's gas experience, the abuse inflicted on these people is similar to the abuse they received, and terrorism is in no way similar to sexual abuse.

M*W: The West is not the only region that uses abortion. Abortion is widely used in Europe, Scandanavia, China, etc. There is a big difference between abortion and female circumcision. The abortus never had a consciousness. These young girls between the ages of 5 and 16 years are brutally butchered for the sole purpose of not being able to be sexually stimulated. It's supposed to keep them faithful to their husbands. Yeah, right. I'm totally disappointed with you, okinrus, that you would condone this practice with your misogynistic viewpoint.

It's interesting how you can say fetuses don't have a conscience without explaining what a conscience is and why we suppose you would have one.

When did I condone female circumcision?

What does "Egypt is in Africa" have to do with anything? Egypt is an Arab country- a country which is 90% muslim. Half the Arab countries are in Africa, try looking at a map of the world sometime.

Arabs are a race of men not a religion.

YOUR statement was that female circumcision was not practiced in arab countries. And, in addition, all Arab countries, from Morocco to Iraq, are "tribal" to some extent. Spend some time there or simply consult a decent encyclopedia and you'd know that.

My point was that female circumcision was a tribal custom practiced by those in Africa. My experience speaking with people from Iran and Pakistan is that they abhor the practice as much as any westerner. And why should Islam be any different? Female circumcision is not mentioned in either the Quran or Hadith, nor is it mentioned in the Torah. What makes Islam different from Jews? The culture of some Islamic countries have adopted native customs such as female circumcision.

 

[shame of islam]

I'm not a women. I'm also not naive, and I'm quite serious. You can talk all you want about the sexual abuse that occurred within the Catholic church and other places, but what happens to those who are abused is they commit suicide, face drug addiction, or perpetrate similar crimes. As with Hitler's gas experience, the abuse inflicted on these people is similar to the abuse they received, and terrorism is in no way similar to sexual abuse.

You may not think yourself naive, but you can't seem to follow a chain of logic all that well. If you reflect on it, a flash of insight might show you that your comments lend creedence to the original post's theory.

It's interesting how you can say fetuses don't have a conscience without explaining what a conscience is and why we suppose you would have one.

When did I condone female circumcision?

I'm not sure who you're speaking to. You are attributing someone else's post to me.

Arabs are a race of men not a religion.

YOU made the comment about Arab countries. Again you have things wrong; Arabs are not a race they are a culture.

My point was that female circumcision was a tribal custom practiced by those in Africa. My experience speaking with people from Iran and Pakistan is that they abhor the practice as much as any westerner. And why should Islam be any different? Female circumcision is not mentioned in either the Quran or Hadith, nor is it mentioned in the Torah. What makes Islam different from Jews? The culture of some Islamic countries have adopted native customs such as female circumcision.

You are the one who stated that female circumcision was not practised in "Arab" countries. You were wrong, now you claim you meant Africa. You seemed unaware that Egyptians were Arabs or that Arabs were in Africa. I should probably include that Iranians and Pakistanis are not Arabs in case you weren't aware of this. Now you claim some Islamic countries "adopted" native customs which included female circumcision. An odd statement since Islam originated among Arabs who then, using your own logic, adopted their own customs.

With all due respect, you may be a serious person, but you don't seem well educated. You also have serious difficulty communicating with any sense of cohension or clarity via the written word.

 

[okinrus]

You may not think yourself naive, but you can't seem to follow a chain of logic all that well. If you reflect on it, a flash of insight might show you that your comments lend creedence to the original post's theory.

You claimed that sexual abuse leads to terrorism. While I agree that sin is disease, even leprosy, terrorism and sexual abuse are unrelated.

I'm not sure who you're speaking to. You are attributing someone else's post to me.

I'm responding to you both at the same time.

YOU made the comment about Arab countries. Again you have things wrong; Arabs are not a race they are a culture.

As defined by Islam Arabs are a race decended from Abraham through Ishmael.

I don't consider Egyptians Arabs and neither does courses I've taken in African culture. While the word "Arab" can refer to a culture, I use it to define a race unless otherwise noted. Sometimes in modern writings Egypt is refered to as an Arab country, but this is because of common political and religious idioms.