4 ms·

>>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 mor

• 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
      There's a lot of islamic regions which were never a part of Caliphate. Their interpretation of what being Muslim means in practice might differ significantly.
      • acqq 10y ago
        I've supported my claims, I expect you to do the same in order to discuss validity of your claims. For example, looking at the "other regions", Indonesia was claimed to be "different" (as in, having their Islam less oppressive) from the rest of Islam countries, and the FGM "specific for Africa" until just a year or two ago as it turned out (by Indonesian government now admitting to the UN) that only in Indonesia there are 80 million of genitally mutilated women(!) And yes, it is, according to the fatwa of Islam leaders there, a part of the religion: http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/despite-ban-female-genital-mutilation-widespread-indonesia/ http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/despite-ban-female-g... "2008 Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) fatwa challenging a ban on FGM issued by Indonesia's Health Ministry in 2006" I stand to my claim, and I can support it with links: wherever Islam is a majority religion or "near to majority" the oppression exists. At least women, "unbelievers" (in Islam) or both. And Islam stands nowhere there for a "freedom of expression," quite the opposite. And the reason for that are both the basic religious texts and the practice through the history. Regarding your arguments from another thread: > Having training camps and wrapping women in opaque blankets is two distinct things. Bosnians mostly did former and not latter. Do you talk only about the last years, and about the pure historical accident? I've given you the overview of the related history, after the WWII Muslims didn't have any governing power, and after the most recent war they just remained non-Sharia. Not something that the religion prescribes. And the Muslims weren't a majority. > luckily I don't see much of them You don't know what you talk about. For those not believing in Islam, the "ruler" was every Muslim they had to deal width, and they had to deal with them, as only Muslims controlled the land, and the Christians were just the workers on the land and they "belonged" to the Muslim owner just like the land belonged to him. They weren't allowed to do anything else. And what can be considered as the equivalent of the modern "police" were Muslims and of the "court" typically Muslim clerics (as Islam traditionally doesn't separate the church and the state). So for you to imagine, imagine that whatever you do you do for such "rulers" (just for you to earn enough to eat) and that they control you whenever they please. Only they are allowed to carry weapons. And if your wife, daughter or sister doesn't cover her hair... maybe a recent example from the "moderate" Indonesia gives a hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Indonesian_beheadings_of_Christian_girls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Indonesian_beheadings_of_... You can also research what the punishments for Muslims oppressing the "unbelievers" were "traditionally" to understand how ugly it was. All together, not a "tradition" anybody should be proud about. When Muslims today brag about "the people of other religions living peacefully" in the regions they controlled that typically meant just "they were not exterminated" (at that times, a lot of people were needed to work on the land, just like slaves were needed on the cotton fields in the States). Until the convenient moment, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide