Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

baradar_jackson

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    9,730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Blog Comments posted by baradar_jackson


  1. On 4/26/2017 at 9:19 PM, Qa'im said:

    There's no doubt that this ideology is on the rise globally, including the Muslim world. Many self-proclaimed feminists in Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, UAE, Egypt, etc., and even those that aren't feminists are still influenced by Western pop culture and education, where feminism is pervasive.

    You are correct. 

    But being subject to influence of feminism is different from being a card-carrying feminist.


  2. On 4/26/2017 at 7:10 PM, Qa'im said:

    You're joking right? How about you take a poll of the Muslim women in your area with the simple question, "do you identify with feminism?" and see if it really is 1 out of 1000. As someone who has studied the liberal arts and attended three universities in the West, I can tell you that many university-aged Western Muslim women, perhaps even the majority, identify with feminism. Heck, the MSA president at one university was an open feminist. Websites and blogs like AltMuslimah are immensely popular.

    I think bro @E.L King is referring to Muslimaat as a whole rather than Muslimaat attending university in the West.


  3. Re: climate

    It's a shame that some Iranians are somehow ashamed of our climate? So I think they try to push the idea of Iran having a sort of European climate, which it does not. And then other people begin to get this impression, which is probably why you had the perception you did.

    But it is true what you said: Iran does have sand deserts but most of the desert is rocky and mountanous. Two thirds of Iran is desert, but two thirds is also mountanous, which obviously means there is some overlap. And although much of the country has four seasons, precipitation in Iran is only about a third of the global average, and even then a lot of that is accounted for by the very rainy climate in the north.

    I personally love the mountain-deserts and think they are nothing to be ashamed of. Besides: if there are a very successive days of rain those barren mountains will begin to look lush and green. That's the beauty of a climate which changes. 

    Aside from the major ziyarah sites I would recommend you go to Lorestan. Beautiful nature and cultural peculiarities / lifestyle which are astounding.


  4. Just wanna clarify something regarding Hamza Yusuf's comments.

     

    Although overall I agree with br Qaim and HH, I don't think it's entirely true to suggest that none of the killings are racially motivated. Although it is true that cops are killing more whites than blacks, they kill more blacks proportionate to the population. 

     

    It is a matter of unchecked power. The American public is far too trusting of authority, and this skews the judgement of jurors. A jury will never convict a cop, period. If the guy on the other side of the trigger is black, this only serves to embolden the jury's trust in the cop.

     

    BLM are led by a pair of dykes, are funded by Soros, and are in general a bunch of nuts. Every time I see someone defend them it makes me want to jump into a flame oven. But that does not mean all of what Mr. Yusuf said is correct, even if much of it was.


  5. 2 hours ago, beardedbaker said:

    Good summary akhi @baradar_jackson

    Social justice has no religion. Social justice IS religion. 

    Fidel and his companieros' purpose in life was/is to establish social justice at home, and export it abroad, helping fellow revolutionaries. 

    They are more religious than 99% of Muslims. 

     

    And Fidel wasn't a godless atheist either. Everyone should read the book "Fidel and Religion" which is a series of interviews with him solely on the subject of religion.


  6. I haven't read the comments but I have an inkling as to what was expressed.

     

    Just for everyone's knowledge:

     

    Right now is 2016. Cuba's revolution happened in 1959. It was a very different world.

     

    There were many movements at that point in time (particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) which were neither atheistic nor anti-religious whatsoever, which because of the magnetic forces of the time (in other words: because of the political necessity of relying on the USSR for military and economic support), ended up falling under the greater umbrella of what we call "communist" or socialist movements.

     

    If we want to see what happens in those cases where such a movement does not lean on the USSR, just look at what happened in Chile with Allende.

     

    Moreover, although we obviously have our own ideology, at the same time we must recognize that other people who are in completely different situations, are not even in the position to know about our ideology, let alone make the choice to follow it or not. Do we really expect someone like Fidel to fight his revolution in the name of giving the power to the just, pious faqih? This just doesn't make sense. And if we are going to dismiss people so easily, then why did our Prophet not do the same with the ruler of Abyssinia?

     

    We have to think about these things and reflect on them deeply.

     

    Cuba before 1959 was, literally and figuratively, a giant brothel. It was prostituting itself both literally and figuratively. It was the place where American corporations acted with impunity and a place where American soldiers could "have a little fun." It was a place where the well-to-do could live a life of luxury unimaginable to most people, while the poor were treated like dogs. Fidel not only uprooted this cancerous foreign influence but also made his country much more just and equitable. These things have value. We respect these things.

     

    So to summarize:

     

    Was Fidel nominally a communist? Yes. Does that mean he is completely dismissible? No.

     

    And when assessing a leader who comes from a totally different context than us, we cannot just measure his beliefs against ours and dismiss him outright. That kind of mentality is what leads to Shias rejecting Bashar al-Assad simply because of his madhab.

     

    We know from the example of our Prophets and Imams that it is very important to find common ground with others. There is a lot to like about Fidel. He was brave, just, and did a lot of good for his people. Ideologically, obviously we have differences but at the same time we have to understand that in his time and in his country, there was no other path to take. And quite admirably, he pursued it in his own style. He didn't do everything like the Soviets would do. Who knows, maybe if he were in a later era, he would be praying for the return of Imam Mahdi while sitting next to an uncomfortable Mahmoud Abbas. It's a possibility.


  7. On 10/18/2016 at 7:34 AM, reisiger said:

    The only point I would have to add is that like Jon Stewart on the Daily show, John Oliver never claims to be objective or a proper news outlet. Anyone taking him seriously or as a valid news source is not getting the full story at all.  It's like when I used to watch Keith Obermann excoriate the neo-con-artists on Countdown during the Bush years; I thoroughly enjoyed watching Bill O'Reilly get the trifecta for worst person in the world, but I never took it as anything more than entertainment.

     I don't think he's a Clinton shill so much as anti Drumpf.  I have to say that the subject of this thread is brilliant and made me almost spit coffee out laughing. 

    Well played, sir!

    First of all, welcome back bro.

    Secondly: he is completely a shill. The reason why he isn't overtly pimping Hillary is because this way people will think he has some degree of impartiality. Let's face it: in the case of both Stewart and Oliver, many of the more wannabe-left, wannabe-radical variety of liberal-minded folks take their shows more seriously than the standard news shows. (see: Jon Stewart's takedowns of CNN which were thoroughly enjoyable even though I can't stand Stewart). Nobody respects the news media anymore; more and more people get their news from sources which are overtly opinionated.

    The idea behind Oliver's election coverage is to subvert a potentially large pool of third party voters. The whole raisin bit (which bro DU posted) is a perfect example of that. Hillary's entire existence is a raisin but Oliver is brushing it off like it's almost negligible.


  8. On 10/3/2016 at 1:35 AM, Qa'im said:

    There is no a priori link between feminist ideology and capitalism, because intersectional feminism often runs against capitalism and co-opts Marxist ideas of labour and class. But there is a strong a posteriori link between feminism and capitalism, because the free market feeds off of female participation. It's an unintended unholy alliance - just as feminism encourages emancipation through economic independence, the free market will always want more consumers, more workers, more students paying tuition, longer hours of operation, more bank accounts (= more revenue from interest), and more people relying on outside food. I'm pretty sure most feminists today realize that there will not be a proletarian utopia, at least not any time soon, and so co-opting the current system is good enough for now. Many policies are being proposed and implemented to give women an edge in the business world. Today, women have a 2-1 advantage getting a STEM job at an American college (Cornell 2015 study). A lot of this is because of the oft-repeated statistic that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. The problem with this statistic however is that it does not take into account career choices, degrees, hours in the work place, men being more likely to ask for raises, and female CEOs less likely to give themselves a higher salary. When you account for these factors, the gender pay gap is only about 4 cents, and there is no way to verify if those 4 cents are because of gender discrimination or other reasons. Wages vs. earnings.

    Word.

    Employers are laughing all their way to the bank. Hiring two people for the price of one, and having people think this is the greatest freedom/rights imaginable.


  9. Whenever I hear the term "male privilege," I think of all the Afghans back home, or the Mexicans in this country... spending all day out in the sun and heat (or in the cold), doing back-breaking labor -- often treated like garbage -- for the sake of sending back some tiny piece of money to their families.

    What a privilege.

    Do you know who is privileged? Feminists. They talk about women in the workforce because they've never done a day's work in their lives; meanwhile, the common woman has always worked. They talk about male privilege because they don't even think about all the common men destroying themselves just to gain a livelihood for their family. And you can see from the nonsense they talk about: female lawyers don't get paid as much as male lawyers, guys!!! Yeah well to hell with them both, they eat their bread and then some so here's the world's smallest violin playing a sad song for all for lawyers and their "struggle."

    They also tend to be reductionist, in that they will reduce everything to their nonsense ideology even if it makes no bleeding sense.

    I remember overhearing one of these feminists give her analysis on the word "baby mama." If you're not familiar with the term, it basically refers to someone who is the mother of so-and-so's baby but she and so-and-so are not an item. (This is not really a situation we have in our communities, thanks God). Anyway, her analysis was: the term devalues women because it implies that the woman is nothing and is only described in terms of her relation to the man and his child.

    I wanted to break up that whole conversation and say: "OK, now give me your analysis on the term 'baby daddy.'" (Baby Daddy is an analogous term referring to the father; I am not sure if she was aware that such a term existed)

    But it's pointless. Some people will only see what they want to see. The idea of male privilege in the general sense that it applies to every man... is kind of like Donald Rumsfeld's "evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence" thing. They use this term to vilify men, and then if men respond to this, they will somehow use this as evidence of the male privilege itself.

    Sorry @Qa'im bro now everyone is gonna think you're a he-man woman-hater like me because I keep responding to your topic.


  10. Now I'm no fancy big city lawyer, and maybe I do not know what is the proper decorum for treating a "guest" but I'm throwing my chips in here just for the heck of it and I am sorry if the rest of yous is embarrassed of me.

    Firstly, @LeftCoastMom if you don't want to hear about Islam and feminism, good job. Maybe we don't want to hear about how y'all are oh-so-more-civilized than we? It's a two way street, innit. You can have a bit more tact is all I'm saying.

    Secondly, and this is in relation to the oh-so-more-civilized bit: since you are teaching us the ways of you people, how about I teach you one of our words? The word "hujjah" is usually translated into English as proof. But it is more encompassing than the English word. For example, if I say: such-and-such prophet's word is hujjah upon you this means that what he says is binding upon you. Or for example, if a Shia Muslim wants to debate a Sunni Muslim, naturally he will try to use Sunni sources. Why? Because the Sunni sources are a hujjah upon that Sunni. It would make no sense for a Shia to argue with a Sunni using only Shia sources, and vice versa.

    Now... what makes you think the ways of your ancestors are a hujjah upon us? That's the question.

    As someone who used to have a sort of wannabe fascist tendencies but thanks God I have grown out of, I am not even convinced that the ways of your ancestors should be a hujjah upon you, either.

    I'm not saying tradition is garbage, I'm saying: tradition needs to be assessed by a higher gauge, and not taken as a hujjah unto itself. Everybody has traditions; if everyone takes their traditions as hujjah, then it essentially creates a moral relativism.

    By the way, before Islam, the kings of my nation used to practice incest and use religious justifications for it; that the relationship of incest was heavenly or whatever. Thankfully, people do not take that as hujjah upon them. Because that would be stupid. (FYI this is a five thousand year civilization I'm talking about here; what if people ignorantly used that fact to defend such a practice? It's not all that farfetched; it happens all the time)

    Re: division of labor

    As brother @Qa'im mentioned (thankfully he is much more clever than I), every society has had some sort of division of labor based on gender. This is something which is very difficult to argue against, given the biological aspect of it, both the gap in physical strength and the reality of pregnancy (aside from the metaphysical debates as to what is the "true" character of man or woman; debates which is unfortunately dismissed by people who think that doubtfulness is a substitute for intellect).

    Of course, women always worked. The notion that women started working in the 1960s or during WWII or that crap... that's born out of the concept of the modern bored housewife. But if you go to any village and turn the clock back one generation, you know that there is no such thing as an idle housewife for most of history. What was considered womanly work a couple hundred years ago would be considered hard labor today. My mother has an aunt whose back is at a 90 degree angle. That's from a whole life time of non-stop work.

    Women working is not unique to your special unique snowflake of a people; that's a universal thing. However, there has always been a division of labor based on gender. In every society, almost without exception. Why? Because it makes a lot of damn sense, that's why.

    Now, I don't know what all those letters you posted signify. I am assuming they are some kind of test?

    If they are a test, then I should let you know: I went through five years of university education and maybe studied for a collective... 30 minutes. for my entire time in school. I graduated with no issues; I didn't make the honor roll or whatever it's called but I definitely graduated. Meanwhile, female classmates always killed themselves before tests in order to achieve the desired result. If you ask any professor, they will tell you that grades are reflective of effort rather than natural aptitude. They will openly admit that they will give higher grades to someone who is constantly asking stupid questions and coming to them after class with more stupid questions, rather than someone who stays quiet but proves through their work that they understand the subject matter perfectly.

    So yeah, I know that girls on average get better grades than us... but I can't really bring myself to respect anyone who considers grades as being valuable enough to judge a person's intelligence or abilities based upon them. FYI I'm not saying girls are stoopid, but this "grades" issue was brought up in the past on shiachat, and some poor soul was using it to justify the fact that certain jobs are dominated by women even though they ain't any better at them than men. It's kind of ridiculous, really. University, in most cases, is a complete waste of time and money. Most of us go into them with no goal in mind; it's just a social convention. This is why attendance rates are so much higher than graduation rates. The whole system is a joke; using our insecurities about "future" and "career" to squeeze money out of us; anyone who uses this as a way to assess people's abilities is faaaaar too confident in the legitimacy of the system.

    Sorry if I left some of your post unanswered; I didn't read it all. It just seemed like an ethnic studies class threw up all over my screen. I already took that class once I didn't want to pay tuition again so I stopped reading.


  11. 20 minutes ago, repenter said:

    Bro this is bulking phase..............a new blog will come up for the cutting part :D

    God damnet...people are totally missing the point with this............whats wrong with you people........

     

    Oh I see. So it's a slash and burn. I thought you just wanted to reach 100kg and then rest on your laurels.

×
×
  • Create New...