5 ms·

That's to be expected that difference between "actual historic Islam" and "whatever fundamendalists now push as the only true thing" will be akin to this: http

That's to be expected that difference between "actual historic Islam" and "whatever fundamendalists now push as the only true thing" will be akin to this: https://pp.vk.me/c635106/v635106753/217e/XWciycs1P1c.jpg https://pp.vk.me/c635106/v635106753/217e/XWciycs1P1c.jpg Also, fundamentalists just invented most of things they sell as eternal.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
Regarding Khomeini - dictators end up where they didn't expect. Tell Stalin of 1923 that he'll end up shooting all his buddies while calling them Japanese spies with plain face. Tell young Khomeini that his main achivement will be aforemendioned redressing. Tell Putin of 2001 that he'll turn out a longer-lived mummy than Brezhnev. They'd have a healthy laugh back then.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  Even Khamenei used to wear jeans and listen to rock music.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    In my eyes there's not many sins greater than inconsistency: Enjoying something while trying to prevent others from enjoying it. Which he did. Searching for reasons to back it up makes it worse. On related note, I've heard there's sentiment coming from smartphone-clutching young parents where they say they'll somehow restrict their children from visiting internet. WTF are they thinking? First they'll fail, then how do they think they'll look in the eyes of their children? Too bad that many people are content both with arbitrary restrictions and with the people who force restrictions on them.
acqq 10y ago
The images you link to aren't accurate. At least for any country with Bedouin women and Muslim control, these women wore this even hundreds a years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b_in_Egypt#/media/File:Ladies_attired_for_Riding_or_Walking._(1836)_-_TIMEA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b_in_Egypt#/media/Fil... Some other peoples in the same countries of course wore less "fundamental" clothing. Still your picture with a woman without the head covering and with the skin showing in Bosnia is 100% anachronistic (recent, somebody shot a waitress dressed as a tourist attraction in just some part of the old clothes, according to the Wikipedia page) and surely not "traditional." This is how it looked like traditionally: http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/8913992104084b29887dc4ab7fa2fd0b/bosnian-women-in-traditional-costume-drc82g.jpg http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/8913992104084b29887dc4ab7fa2fd0b/b... They still look much nicer than the "modern ninjas."
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  As far as I know, Bosnia was pretty secular and laid back for a long time (and is now). What's "tradition" here? How widely were it practiced? Because I totally see this practice of digging in the past for some more obscurantist behaviors, and calling it "tradition" as if it is a good thing.
  - acqq 10y ago
    Define "for a long time." It was under the control of the Muslim Ottoman Empire until the late 19th century. It was under Austrian control until the First World War. Then it was a part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia had a secular (socialist) government since the end of the WWII and until the breakup. During the breakup wars, even Osama bin Laden (or his closest co-workers) received the passport from the new Muslim government (1). al-Qaeda was active there then, and the foreign "freedom" (Muslim) fighters came there just like they recently came to Syria. The current government tries to limit the influence of these, but Bosnia still has some "Mujahideen training camps" according to the recent reports. BTW, Gaddafi was also secular compared to what followed: http://africanleadership.co.uk/blog/?p=8161 http://africanleadership.co.uk/blog/?p=8161 That's what complex is: one word like "secular" isn't enough to understand what's going on, especially over any non-trivial time period or the area involving different nations. > What's "tradition" here? Under the Muslim control, which lasted for centuries, sadly, no woman was able not to wear a headscarf in the presence of the rulers. Non-believing men weren't able to do anything lucrative or have any real governing function. Once the Muslims have lost the control, the "tradition" was able to change. But there are the real forces pressing backwards even as we speak. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_activity_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_activity_of_Osama_bin...
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Having training camps and wrapping women in opaque blankets is two distinct things. Bosnians mostly did former and not latter. > was able not to wear a headscarf in the presence of the rulers There's a lot of things even I won't do "in the presence of the rules", but luckily I don't see much of them, so I'm free to do whatever I please. Wasn't same true for them?
tmptmp 10y ago
>>https://pp.vk.me/c635106/v635106753/217e/XWciycs1P1c.jpg https://pp.vk.me/c635106/v635106753/217e/XWciycs1P1c.jpg About the traditional dress: It will be more appropriate to say that those were the traditional dresses before the nations came under the rule of Islam. Once Islam takes over as a ruling entity and ideology, things become more and more fundamentalist and women will be the ones to suffer the most under such a rule. >>Also, fundamentalists just invented most of things they sell as eternal. The fundamentalists have not invented most of the things they claim and the acts they carry out as Islamic. They do have a support for their views/actions/claims in the very fundamental scriptures of Islam, namely Quran and Hadiths. These views by Bill Maher and Sam Harris may help understand this point in a better way. [1], [2], [3] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E1u9lQeAsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E1u9lQeAsY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8rZTuGfZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8rZTuGfZo [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46nh8_BK7ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46nh8_BK7ok
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  I have this idea that Abrahamic religions were the single worst thing that ever happened to humankind. However, most of those countries are long islamic. They figured ways to have both islam and freedom of expression. Only in the later years did they become violently fundamentalistic to displayed extent. Some didn't yet. Tatars are muslim for quite a few centuries but they don't dress their women like that.
  - acqq 10y ago
    > They figured ways to have both islam and freedom of expression. Only in 20th century, only after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate after the WWI. Before, only if they managed to set themselves free from the Muslim rulers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate Marvel the maximal extent of it: http://asianhistory.about.com/od/turkeyhistoryculture/ss/OttomanEmpireMapFacts.htm http://asianhistory.about.com/od/turkeyhistoryculture/ss/Ott... In Islam there's no concept of freedom, especially not "of expression:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam "Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means "submission" or "surrender"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim ""Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits (to God)" Just wishing something to be true doesn't make it true. And anachronisms are only that.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

Regarding Khomeini - dictators end up where they didn't expect. Tell Stalin of 1923 that he'll end up shooting all his buddies while calling them Japanese spies with plain face. Tell young Khomeini that his main achivement will be aforemendioned redressing. Tell Putin of 2001 that he'll turn out a longer-lived mummy than Brezhnev. They'd have a healthy laugh back then.

selimthegrim 10y ago
Even Khamenei used to wear jeans and listen to rock music.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  In my eyes there's not many sins greater than inconsistency: Enjoying something while trying to prevent others from enjoying it. Which he did. Searching for reasons to back it up makes it worse. On related note, I've heard there's sentiment coming from smartphone-clutching young parents where they say they'll somehow restrict their children from visiting internet. WTF are they thinking? First they'll fail, then how do they think they'll look in the eyes of their children? Too bad that many people are content both with arbitrary restrictions and with the people who force restrictions on them.

acqq 10y ago

The images you link to aren't accurate. At least for any country with Bedouin women and Muslim control, these women wore this even hundreds a years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b_in_Egypt#/media/File:Ladies_attired_for_Riding_or_Walking._(1836)_-_TIMEA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b_in_Egypt#/media/Fil... Some other peoples in the same countries of course wore less "fundamental" clothing. Still your picture with a woman without the head covering and with the skin showing in Bosnia is 100% anachronistic (recent, somebody shot a waitress dressed as a tourist attraction in just some part of the old clothes, according to the Wikipedia page) and surely not "traditional." This is how it looked like traditionally: http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/8913992104084b29887dc4ab7fa2fd0b/bosnian-women-in-traditional-costume-drc82g.jpg http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/8913992104084b29887dc4ab7fa2fd0b/b... They still look much nicer than the "modern ninjas."

guard-of-terra 10y ago
As far as I know, Bosnia was pretty secular and laid back for a long time (and is now). What's "tradition" here? How widely were it practiced? Because I totally see this practice of digging in the past for some more obscurantist behaviors, and calling it "tradition" as if it is a good thing.
- acqq 10y ago
  Define "for a long time." It was under the control of the Muslim Ottoman Empire until the late 19th century. It was under Austrian control until the First World War. Then it was a part of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia had a secular (socialist) government since the end of the WWII and until the breakup. During the breakup wars, even Osama bin Laden (or his closest co-workers) received the passport from the new Muslim government (1). al-Qaeda was active there then, and the foreign "freedom" (Muslim) fighters came there just like they recently came to Syria. The current government tries to limit the influence of these, but Bosnia still has some "Mujahideen training camps" according to the recent reports. BTW, Gaddafi was also secular compared to what followed: http://africanleadership.co.uk/blog/?p=8161 http://africanleadership.co.uk/blog/?p=8161 That's what complex is: one word like "secular" isn't enough to understand what's going on, especially over any non-trivial time period or the area involving different nations. > What's "tradition" here? Under the Muslim control, which lasted for centuries, sadly, no woman was able not to wear a headscarf in the presence of the rulers. Non-believing men weren't able to do anything lucrative or have any real governing function. Once the Muslims have lost the control, the "tradition" was able to change. But there are the real forces pressing backwards even as we speak. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_activity_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_activity_of_Osama_bin...
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Having training camps and wrapping women in opaque blankets is two distinct things. Bosnians mostly did former and not latter. > was able not to wear a headscarf in the presence of the rulers There's a lot of things even I won't do "in the presence of the rules", but luckily I don't see much of them, so I'm free to do whatever I please. Wasn't same true for them?

tmptmp 10y ago

>>https://pp.vk.me/c635106/v635106753/217e/XWciycs1P1c.jpg https://pp.vk.me/c635106/v635106753/217e/XWciycs1P1c.jpg About the traditional dress: It will be more appropriate to say that those were the traditional dresses before the nations came under the rule of Islam. Once Islam takes over as a ruling entity and ideology, things become more and more fundamentalist and women will be the ones to suffer the most under such a rule. >>Also, fundamentalists just invented most of things they sell as eternal. The fundamentalists have not invented most of the things they claim and the acts they carry out as Islamic. They do have a support for their views/actions/claims in the very fundamental scriptures of Islam, namely Quran and Hadiths. These views by Bill Maher and Sam Harris may help understand this point in a better way. [1], [2], [3] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E1u9lQeAsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E1u9lQeAsY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8rZTuGfZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8rZTuGfZo [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46nh8_BK7ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46nh8_BK7ok

guard-of-terra 10y ago
I have this idea that Abrahamic religions were the single worst thing that ever happened to humankind. However, most of those countries are long islamic. They figured ways to have both islam and freedom of expression. Only in the later years did they become violently fundamentalistic to displayed extent. Some didn't yet. Tatars are muslim for quite a few centuries but they don't dress their women like that.
- acqq 10y ago
  > They figured ways to have both islam and freedom of expression. Only in 20th century, only after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate after the WWI. Before, only if they managed to set themselves free from the Muslim rulers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Caliphate Marvel the maximal extent of it: http://asianhistory.about.com/od/turkeyhistoryculture/ss/OttomanEmpireMapFacts.htm http://asianhistory.about.com/od/turkeyhistoryculture/ss/Ott... In Islam there's no concept of freedom, especially not "of expression:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam "Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means "submission" or "surrender"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim ""Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "one who submits (to God)" Just wishing something to be true doesn't make it true. And anachronisms are only that.