CDZ Blinded by "not all Muslims are terrorists"?

[320 Years of History]

So it's an issue of their society? The society consisting of the individuals which debate caries on about migration to the US?

Red:
Yes.

How is it you are asking that question? Did you look up the meaning of the word "patriarchy/patriarchal" after another member told you that's what is the driver to the behavior patterns you noted in your OP? There's no wrong in not understanding the term, but it is intellectually irresponsible/inept to, after having had it identified to you, not incorporate it into your understanding of the phenomena and attitudes of which you wrote in your OP.

Even though religion is part of a culture/society, not all cultural attitudes and mores derive from the religions practiced within a given culture. Patriarchalism is an issue belonging to Islamically run cultures in much the same way that the treatment of slaves was the U.S.' issue and not, by that point in time, other major nations' issue. Similarly, the status of African Americans had little if anything to do with one's religion, so to does the treatment of women in some Islamically run nations have little if anything to do with religion. One can even make the case that the U.S. is somewhat patriarchal.

Blue:
Who's debating migration to the U.S? It's not as though the women in those patriarchal cultures are debating against the men in them. The provincial/patriarchal men in those societies aren't debating among themselves something having to do with immigrating to the U.S. As far as I know, the only material debate about immigration of anyone -- be they Muslim, Mexican, Mauritanian, Maori, Moldovan, or even Martian -- to the U.S. occurs in the U.S. between existing citizens of the U.S.

 

[the207life]

How is it you are asking that question? Did you look up the meaning of the word "patriarchy/patriarchal" after another member told you that's what is the driver to the behavior patterns you noted in your OP? There's no wrong in not understanding the term, but it is intellectually irresponsible/inept to, after having had it identified to you, not incorporate it into your understanding of the phenomena and attitudes of which you wrote in your OP.

Wait.. what? I was simply asking the question to see if that was your train of thought. Are you honestly thinking that the term patriarchy is complex? I'll give you a cookie for using it.. but when did I?

Even though religion is part of a culture/society, not all cultural attitudes and mores derive from the religions practiced within a given culture. Patriarchalism is an issue belonging to Islamically run cultures in much the same way that the treatment of slaves was the U.S.' issue and not, by that point in time, other major nations' issue. Similarly, the status of African Americans had little if anything to do with one's religion, so to does the treatment of women in some Islamically run nations have little if anything to do with religion. One can even make the case that the U.S. is somewhat patriarchal.

I don't think anyone is arguing against you on that.. at least I am not. You are something which has already been established in this thread.

Who's debating migration to the U.S? It's not as though the women in those patriarchal cultures are debating against the men in them. The provincial/patriarchal men in those societies aren't debating among themselves something having to do with immigrating to the U.S. As far as I know, the only material debate about immigration of anyone -- be they Muslim, Mexican, Mauritanian, Maori, Moldovan, or even Martian -- to the U.S. occurs in the U.S. between existing citizens of the U.S.

Which is 100% what this thread is about. It was discussing the debate about immigration to the US between citizens of the U.S. The majority of those on the left, IN THE US, are pro women's rights and immigration. The entire post was about the contradiction in the two talking points as those from Islamic nations, whether it be religiously or culturally driven, have a negative track record when it comes to women's rights. I felt as though those leaning towards the left tend to argue pro immigration as not all muslims are terrorists. My point was that while that is true.. they have a very bad track record when it comes to women's rights and I was just curious to others opinions on it.

I have no idea what angle you are approaching from but you have lost me.

 

[320 Years of History]

The majority of those on the left, IN THE US, are pro women's rights and immigration.

Yes, but they, "the left," aren't absolutists and they aren't advocating for the immigration of absolutists into the U.S. I'm not even sure that being pro-immigration is singularly a "left" thing. Leaders on left and right, at least the ones who've looked briefly at American history, are well aware that the U.S. wouldn't be anything that it ever has been or is were it not for immigration.

Can one attempt to conflate women's rights and immigration in an attempt to make a case about an incongruity of principle on the part of folks on the left or right? Sure, one can. Can such an argument be made, absent sophistry and speciousness lines of thought, cogent? Not at all. Why? Because the only way to make such an argument is to do so at such a high level that the particulars of any given rational individual or group's policy position are ignored. Such an argument must also overlook the fact that regardless of what practices an immigrant may have ascribed to in their home country, upon becoming a resident in the U.S., to the extent those practices violate U.S. law, they must dispense with them, the sole exception being their carrying them out as a form of civil disobedience. Of course, if the practices in question are inherently not civil, carrying them out will not be seen as civil "anything," and will be prosecuted to the extent the law allows.

The entire post was about the contradiction in the two talking points as those from Islamic nations, whether it be religiously or culturally driven, have a negative track record when it comes to women's rights.

I understand you are trying to describe or call attention to what you perceive as incoherence in the position of "the left" re: immigration and women's rights. You may even be attempting to extrapolate that perceived incoherence to something larger than just those two things. I'm just not seeing coherence in your argument to that effect.

I can't even think of anything constituting more than isolated instances of breaches in the rights/regard accorded to women in general or even Islamic women in the U.S. by Islamic men who've migrated to the U.S. from foreign countries. I'm well aware that happens in Islamically ruled countries, but if there's any evidence that it happens in the U.S. in greater proportion than woman-abuse is carried out by non-Muslim men, it's not come to my attention. Have you any credible information indicating it has? I'd be happy to look at it and, assuming it's cogent, rigorous, and credible, I'd be more than willing to alter my view(s) accordingly.

 

[Elvis Obama]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

It is simply a matter of the controlling culture. The controlling culture in the ME countries is primitive. The most advanced parts of those cultures tried to pull off a coup-de-etat during the Arab Spring and failed, everywhere (Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.). Until people who yearn for modernity win, then it's the cultures of the ME who conflate culture and religion, not the people of the West.

We still have many primitive people in our country, but the controlling culture is modern. The ME nations have many modern people living in them, but the controlling culture is primitive. The really sad truth is that liberals in the Western countries refuse to accept this simple reality, and by refusing to look at the situation pragmatically, they make matters worse. Until these nations become modern they need to be seen as dangerous and they need to be managed. Easier said than done, but we are under no obligation to respect the sovereignty of nations who fail to life up to the UN's doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect".

 

[Pogo]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

It is simply a matter of the controlling culture. The controlling culture in the ME countries is primitive. The most advanced parts of those cultures tried to pull off a coup-de-etat during the Arab Spring and failed, everywhere (Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.). Until people who yearn for modernity win, then it's the cultures of the ME who conflate culture and religion, not the people of the West.

We still have many primitive people in our country, but the controlling culture is modern. The ME nations have many modern people living in them, but the controlling culture is primitive. The really sad truth is that liberals in the Western countries refuse to accept this simple reality, and by refusing to look at the situation pragmatically, they make matters worse. Until these nations become modern they need to be seen as dangerous and they need to be managed. Easier said than done, but we are under no obligation to respect the sovereignty of nations who fail to life up to the UN's doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect".

Okay.... not sure where that's going or what it has to do with my point... ?

 

[Manonthestreet]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

It is simply a matter of the controlling culture. The controlling culture in the ME countries is primitive. The most advanced parts of those cultures tried to pull off a coup-de-etat during the Arab Spring and failed, everywhere (Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.). Until people who yearn for modernity win, then it's the cultures of the ME who conflate culture and religion, not the people of the West.

We still have many primitive people in our country, but the controlling culture is modern. The ME nations have many modern people living in them, but the controlling culture is primitive. The really sad truth is that liberals in the Western countries refuse to accept this simple reality, and by refusing to look at the situation pragmatically, they make matters worse. Until these nations become modern they need to be seen as dangerous and they need to be managed. Easier said than done, but we are under no obligation to respect the sovereignty of nations who fail to life up to the UN's doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect".

Muslim bortherhood is most advanced,,,,,,,,omg,,,,,,,

 

[Manonthestreet]

The damning police report, which is looking at why Sweden has the worst rates of physical and sexual violence committed against women and girls in Europe, has also excused refugees who it says “cannot handle the alcohol”.

Shockingly, the report revealed the majority of sex attack victims were under the age 15. It's not their fault, it's yours! Swedish GIRLS blamed for rise in migrant sex attacks

Some more so called hair on fire report from the front lines........another society throwing their children on the islamic rape altar just like UK did......like Germany did.......and so on.

 

[The Irish Ram]

So it's an issue of their society? The society consisting of the individuals which debate caries on about migration to the US?

Again, I was just noting that the only argument I consistently hear is that not all Muslims are terrorists when I feel as though there is a lot more on the plate. Hence, blinded by not all Muslims are terrorists. Maybe I chose the wrong wording and for that I apologize.

No biggie. Leave us just establish which course we're on .... "terrorism" or "patriarchy".

The commonly flung myth about 'migration to the US' is another deliberate 180 conflation, as the (Syrian) outflux is fleeing, not perpetuating, terrorism and more accurately, simple war. It becomes necessary to the mythologists to portray them as occupying the opposite position from where they actually are, in order to sell the myth. It's a kind of Doublethink.

That's an entirely separate question from patriarchal culture though.

sigh
They are not fleeing. They are invading. They have perpetuated terrorism in every country that was kind enough to take them in. Rapes, murder, terrorism is the norm now in France, Germany and other countries that used to think exactly like you do. They are doing the 180. They are shoving the Muslims right back out of their countries now. And if we allow Obama to bring them here, it will be the norm here. This is a Muslim diaspora created and paid for by the UN. It is going to end very badly.

I uh, think you're following a bit too much hair-on-fire media.

Following the French whose hair is on fire, and the German's whose hair is on fire, and the steps that those countries are taking to put their hair out. Unless you think the media is making up the terrorist attacks, the rapes, the invasions, you had better get your head out of your ass and look at the writing on the wall. The Germans held to your belief, so did France. They have seen the light, after the fact. America needs to learn from their example, and not make the same mistake.
These are Germans taking to the streets to insist the invasions stop:

Germany's anti-Islam PEGIDA movement staged rallies in several cities across Europe on Saturday to protest against the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants from the Middle East and Africa.

The movement, whose name stands for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West, originated in the eastern German city of Dresden in 2014, with supporters seizing on a surge in asylum seekers to warn that Germany risks being overrun by Muslims.

Your statement was, and I quote:

"rapes, murder, terrorism is the norm now"
​

Not only have you failed to make that case, you've confirmed what I noted about cherrypicked media, and have in no way addressed the actual topic.

The murder of the French, the rapes in Germany, are my case. My case is the evening news. You don't need to cherry pick a thing. The devastation is reported on daily.
The Germans just put the brakes on their invasion behind Merkel's back. Like Obama and the Clintons, Merkel is a UN representative which takes precedence over the welfare of their own countries.

 

[Elvis Obama]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

It is simply a matter of the controlling culture. The controlling culture in the ME countries is primitive. The most advanced parts of those cultures tried to pull off a coup-de-etat during the Arab Spring and failed, everywhere (Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.). Until people who yearn for modernity win, then it's the cultures of the ME who conflate culture and religion, not the people of the West.

We still have many primitive people in our country, but the controlling culture is modern. The ME nations have many modern people living in them, but the controlling culture is primitive. The really sad truth is that liberals in the Western countries refuse to accept this simple reality, and by refusing to look at the situation pragmatically, they make matters worse. Until these nations become modern they need to be seen as dangerous and they need to be managed. Easier said than done, but we are under no obligation to respect the sovereignty of nations who fail to life up to the UN's doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect".

Okay.... not sure where that's going or what it has to do with my point... ?

That there is no "association fallacy". Religious fanaticism controls ME culture. Period.

 

[Pogo]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

It is simply a matter of the controlling culture. The controlling culture in the ME countries is primitive. The most advanced parts of those cultures tried to pull off a coup-de-etat during the Arab Spring and failed, everywhere (Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.). Until people who yearn for modernity win, then it's the cultures of the ME who conflate culture and religion, not the people of the West.

We still have many primitive people in our country, but the controlling culture is modern. The ME nations have many modern people living in them, but the controlling culture is primitive. The really sad truth is that liberals in the Western countries refuse to accept this simple reality, and by refusing to look at the situation pragmatically, they make matters worse. Until these nations become modern they need to be seen as dangerous and they need to be managed. Easier said than done, but we are under no obligation to respect the sovereignty of nations who fail to life up to the UN's doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect".

Okay.... not sure where that's going or what it has to do with my point... ?

That there is no "association fallacy". Religious fanaticism controls ME culture. Period.

Welllllll no. Number one there is no one "ME culture" per se. Number two, the dynamics the OP brings up refer to ancient cultural patriarchy practices that were long in place before Islam, and before Christianism and Hinduism too. They're not even religious dynamics. They're related to ancient tribal history way before that, and they're beyond the control of those religions. Culture always trumps religion. It's deeper.

 

[Elvis Obama]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

It is simply a matter of the controlling culture. The controlling culture in the ME countries is primitive. The most advanced parts of those cultures tried to pull off a coup-de-etat during the Arab Spring and failed, everywhere (Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.). Until people who yearn for modernity win, then it's the cultures of the ME who conflate culture and religion, not the people of the West.

We still have many primitive people in our country, but the controlling culture is modern. The ME nations have many modern people living in them, but the controlling culture is primitive. The really sad truth is that liberals in the Western countries refuse to accept this simple reality, and by refusing to look at the situation pragmatically, they make matters worse. Until these nations become modern they need to be seen as dangerous and they need to be managed. Easier said than done, but we are under no obligation to respect the sovereignty of nations who fail to life up to the UN's doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect".

Okay.... not sure where that's going or what it has to do with my point... ?

That there is no "association fallacy". Religious fanaticism controls ME culture. Period.

Welllllll no. Number one there is no one "ME culture" per se. Number two, the dynamics the OP brings up refer to ancient cultural patriarchy practices that were long in place before Islam, and before Christianism and Hinduism too. They're not even religious dynamics. They're related to ancient tribal history way before that, and they're beyond the control of those religions. Culture always trumps religion. It's deeper.

OK, my misunderstanding. I thought you were making a point, and apparently you weren't. Do you think it's clever to say there are different cultures in the ME? Of course there are. Are any of these cultures modern? No. In this instance their similarities are much more germane than their differences. They are primitive cultures which have not yet achieved a state of development where the concept of a separation of church and state has any meaning. The OP's point is simple. First world liberals have an ass-backwards way of looking at the ME. You appear to be a textbook example of this strange perspective. These primitive principles are not the views of a tiny minority. It is the attitude of those who control the military, the government, the courts and the cultural institutions. All of them are religious fanatics or are under the thumb of religious fanatics. I don't know what percentage of these countries yearn for modernity. Anyone who claims they do is a fraud. I only know that the collective will of those people was recently tested and found wanting. Until they achieve that breakthrough they are no more deserving of respect as sovereign nations than are Aleuts or Amazonian rain forest tribes.

Western nations were decimated during the Dark Ages, but we recovered and continued our upward march. The Arabs never recovered and sunk into cultural stagnation. Quel dommage! It doesn't make them bad people. It just makes them a bunch of primitives. Not all of them, just too many of them. How is it you don't see that?

 

[the207life]

Welllllll no. Number one there is no one "ME culture" per se. Number two, the dynamics the OP brings up refer to ancient cultural patriarchy practices that were long in place before Islam, and before Christianism and Hinduism too. They're not even religious dynamics. They're related to ancient tribal history way before that, and they're beyond the control of those religions. Culture always trumps religion. It's deeper.

I completely understand your view and will agree with you that it is a culture issue. While we can both agree on this, I feel as the issue still stands and there is a reason to be concerned that there is a large majority of citizens who may be overlooking a potentially dangerous outcome at the sake of humanitarian efforts. Dangers which go against the beliefs of many of the same citizens.

 

[the207life]

Not all of them, just too many of them.

This is a key point. I don't think many people, whether left or right, understand HOW MANY.

Thought I would include some of this data from Pew

 

[320 Years of History]

Not all of them, just too many of them.

This is a key point. I don't think many people, whether left or right, understand HOW MANY.

Thought I would include some of this data from Pew

Those survey's are all well and good. Where's the survey that shows how American Muslims answer the same questions? Show that answer, and then we'll have something to talk about.

Frankly, I don't care what Muslims who are not U.S. citizens, and who are citizens of those counties listed in your survey results, think about how anybody should be treated unless those countries declare war on the U.S., in which case I still don't care, but I would move do win the war they declare.

If one of those folks from, say, Indonesia or Turkey come to the U.S. and become permanent residents or citizens, whatever they think about how women should be treated needs to stay in the country they left, at least insofar as those views are contrary to U.S. law. As for how they opt to apportion their estates among their male and female kids, well, that's on them. I have nothing to say about that.

About the countries noted:
I see that the country having the largest share of Muslims on the planet, Indonesia, is included in the survey. It's odd that the country having the second largest share of Muslim, India, is not listed.

About the first survey question asked:
If someone asked me that question, my answer would be, "A wife should, but I know from firsthand experience that my wife didn't always do so, and neither did my mother re: my father." The thing is that were one to ask my ex-wife or mother the same question about a husband, they'd answer the same way I just did. I can't imagine anyone honestly answering any differently.


Fair disclosure:
I have several close Indonesian and Turkish acquaintances from college with whom I remain in contact. They are owners of manufacturing and shipping businesses. I have in the past had material and mutually beneficial business deals with them.

 

[Sundance508]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

Nonsense....the religion of Islam is the basis for most of the culture....you cannot whitewash that. No other relilgion goes around the world killing people in the name of it's god.
The Islamic Religion is Often Mixed With Cultural Practices

About the List of Islamic Terror Attacks


Lest we forget...not all germans were Nazis but look what happend there.

 

[Pogo]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

It is simply a matter of the controlling culture. The controlling culture in the ME countries is primitive. The most advanced parts of those cultures tried to pull off a coup-de-etat during the Arab Spring and failed, everywhere (Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.). Until people who yearn for modernity win, then it's the cultures of the ME who conflate culture and religion, not the people of the West.

We still have many primitive people in our country, but the controlling culture is modern. The ME nations have many modern people living in them, but the controlling culture is primitive. The really sad truth is that liberals in the Western countries refuse to accept this simple reality, and by refusing to look at the situation pragmatically, they make matters worse. Until these nations become modern they need to be seen as dangerous and they need to be managed. Easier said than done, but we are under no obligation to respect the sovereignty of nations who fail to life up to the UN's doctrine of the "Responsibility to Protect".

Okay.... not sure where that's going or what it has to do with my point... ?

That there is no "association fallacy". Religious fanaticism controls ME culture. Period.

Welllllll no. Number one there is no one "ME culture" per se. Number two, the dynamics the OP brings up refer to ancient cultural patriarchy practices that were long in place before Islam, and before Christianism and Hinduism too. They're not even religious dynamics. They're related to ancient tribal history way before that, and they're beyond the control of those religions. Culture always trumps religion. It's deeper.

OK, my misunderstanding. I thought you were making a point, and apparently you weren't. Do you think it's clever to say there are different cultures in the ME? Of course there are. Are any of these cultures modern? No. In this instance their similarities are much more germane than their differences. They are primitive cultures which have not yet achieved a state of development where the concept of a separation of church and state has any meaning. The OP's point is simple. First world liberals have an ass-backwards way of looking at the ME. You appear to be a textbook example of this strange perspective. These primitive principles are not the views of a tiny minority. It is the attitude of those who control the military, the government, the courts and the cultural institutions. All of them are religious fanatics or are under the thumb of religious fanatics. I don't know what percentage of these countries yearn for modernity. Anyone who claims they do is a fraud. I only know that the collective will of those people was recently tested and found wanting. Until they achieve that breakthrough they are no more deserving of respect as sovereign nations than are Aleuts or Amazonian rain forest tribes.

Western nations were decimated during the Dark Ages, but we recovered and continued our upward march. The Arabs never recovered and sunk into cultural stagnation. Quel dommage! It doesn't make them bad people. It just makes them a bunch of primitives. Not all of them, just too many of them. How is it you don't see that?

My point was already made, that being the conflation of "religion" with "culture". Neither of which has to do with governmental politics -- or wherever you were trying to take this --- within the schizophrenic thrust of the topic, which can't seem to decide whether it's addressing terrorism or patriarchy -- neither of which is derived from religion.

Follow me?

 

[320 Years of History]

Please don't mention Tunisia. Tunisia is not Egypt. No one in the region cares about Tunisia and people elsewhere care even less.

??? Why would you dismiss Tunisia so? There are clearly differences between it and Egypt, but that alone hardly justifies summarily discrediting the Arab Spring success in Tunisia as irrelevant. To the contrary, the Tunisian discard of its longstanding autocratic leaders, by careful and thoughtful advisors, serves as a baseline model political transformers can vary as appropriate to their specific situation(s). Accordingly, in a discussion themed around the idea of one's or a society's having been blinded by a popular mantra, Tunisia's experience is well worth noting.

That said, invoking the Tunisian's accomplishments into such a discussion also calls for one to identify the nature and extent of similarities and differences between Tunisia and whatever other nation one cares to discuss, say Egypt, with regard to the role of movements like the Arab Spring. To accomplish that, one must identify and explain the key factors that distinguish the two nations. In the case of Tunisia and Egypt, there are several factors that would have to be accounted for; thus any effort to successfully "spring Arab"' in Egypt would need to tweak the Tunisian model to extant social, economic and political realities in Egypt. People and their fortunes and pride are inextricably tied to any such changes; therefore what makes one people and their country different from that of another must be incorporated into the transformative process. Political transformation was never and will never be a "one size fits all or most" sort of thing.

I glean in part from your remarks in the quote above that you understand as much; however, it strikes me as odd that in understanding as much that you'd in the same sentence dismiss Tunisia's significance by asserting that essentially nobody cares to any material degree about Tunisia. There is ample research into why the Arab Spring succeeded in Tunisia that shows exactly the opposite is so.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

On a cursory read, you're conflating religions with cultures here. It's an Association Fallacy.

"Honor" killing for a good example. We've done that to death here, no pun intended. It's a cultural practice far FAR older than Islam, Christianism and Hinduism combined. It's not a religious ritual at all. Never has been. Same with the various patriarchal attitudes toward women. The root is fundamentalist primitive patriarchy, not some religion that happens to cohabitate the same place.

And of course you fail to realize , or at least won't admit it it, that Islam is FAR more than a religion. FAR more. It is exactly as Christianity was around the time of the Crusades where religion and politics were not just co mingled, they are joined at the hip.

 

[Picaro]

A gender gap study by the World Economic Forum states that 17 out of the 18 worst performing nations in relation to woman’s rights are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

• Algeria
• Jordan
• Lebanon
• Nepal
• Turkey
• Oman
• Egypt
• Mali
• Morocco
• Ivory Coast
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria
• Chad
• Pakistan
• Yemen

The Population Reference Bureau stated in Women of Our World that 16% of Pakistani women are either employed or available to furnish labor. This statistic parallels the fact that Middle Eastern countries in addition to North Africa rank the lowest in terms of economic participation, employment opportunity and the the humanitarian rights and empowerment of women.

The ten countries with the lowest participation in the workforce by women are:

• Jordan
• Oman
• Morocco
• Iran
• Turkey
• Algeria
• Yemen
• Saudi Arabia
• Pakistan
• Syria

In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is illegal for women to drive, go anywhere without a chaperone, are required to limit the amount of time spent with men they are not related to, go for a swim, compete freely in sports, try on cloths when shopping, and entering a cemetery. This is not an all-inclusive list.

In many Islamic countries, jirga, vani, ba’ad, and “honor” killing are still actively practiced.

Jurists in these countries hold that certain types of testimony by women may not be accepted and that the testimony of two women equate to that of one man.

Verse 4:34 of the Quran allows and encourages domestic violence against women when a husband suspects disloyalty or ill conduct from their wife.

Those on the left (not all) are huge advocates for women’s rights in addition to being supporters of the migration of refugees from Islamic nations. One of the more popular arguments I hear for their stance on migration is that not all Islamic individuals are extremist and while this is without a doubt true.. not all Muslims are extremists yet the majority still hold these practices and ideologies. Is it fair to say that the left is more concerned with the mass medias portrayal of Muslims as terrorist while ignoring the fact that there is a larger issue at hand? Even if there was a way to vet the bad apples, there is still a more fundamental issue of disagreement between American society and Islamic beliefs. An issue which could turn dangerous to what we perceive as the American way of life.

These surveys got booted to the 'religion' forum for some reason, even though they're more about the political consensus throughout various countries among Muslims; they may add some perspective to your OP. 'Moderate' Muslims seem to have little or no influence on their own cultures:

Polls of Islamic Beliefs Made Over Several Years

They go up to 2013 or so; if anybody cares to add polls after that year please post them, so the board can have a fairly comprehensive reference. Thanks in advance.